/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210701.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, July 1, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 125
Headlines
458 MYRTLE AVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mejia Suit Says
ACACIA NETWORK: Williams Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE: Underpays Sales Agents, Foster et al. Claim
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
ACIMA CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to February 7, 2022
AEROTEK INC: Workers Sue to Recover Unpaid Wages
AIR METHODS: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Armato Suit
AIR METHODS: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Cowen Suit
AIR METHODS: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Dequasie Suit
ALINCO IT: Threde Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Extends Case Schedule in Olberg Suit
AMARIN PHARMA: IUOE Local 137 Sues Over Vascepa Drug Monopoly
AMAZON RETAIL: Schneider Suit Removed to N.D. California
AMAZON.COM: Hoyt Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Reply in Support of Class Cert. Bid Extended
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Holman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN ECONOMY: Glasner Files Suit in D. Delaware
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Appeals Tuition Refund Suit Dismissal
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Pinedo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ATHIRA PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AUTOMATIC FOOD: Stapler Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Alabama
BALTIMORE, MD: Faces ADA Lawsuit From Wheelchair Users
BANK OF MONTREAL: University of Windsor Receives $250K Settlement
BAREFOOT DREAMS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEHAVE FOODS: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEYOND MEAT: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BGIS GLOBAL: Diaz et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
BIMBO BAKERIES: Elder Hits Deceptive Cake Product Labels
BRIDGEMAN FOODS: Wollbrinck Files ADA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
BT GROUP: Landline-Only Users Awaits Class Action Suit Approval
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Inspectors' OT Wages, Applegate Says
BYZLOAN CORP: Faces Halawani Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
CANADA: Court OK's Sexual Abuse Suit Against City of Longueuil
CANADA: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in CPRI Abuse Lawsuit
CANADA: Solitary Confinement Class Action Ruling Affirmed
CAPITAL ONE: Court Vacates 90-Day Class Cert. Bid Deadline in Carr
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES: Reid Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
CENTURY MEDICAL: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CESCAPHE LIMITED: Randall Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHEMTOOL INC: Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Rockton Chemical Fire
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Klein Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Rosen Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CLEARVIEW AI: Vestrand Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
COINBASE GLOBAL: Suski Sues Over Deceptive Digital Ad Campaign
COLLINS ASSET: Settles Investors' Class Action for $15.75MM
COLONIAL PIPELINE: Faces Class Action Following Ransomware Attack
COMMUNITY FUNDING: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of July 16 Deadline
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Parlins Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Souffrant Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Wills Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
DAISY MAE RHODES: Underpays Domestic Service Staff, Rilloraza Says
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DEVON ENERGY: Cook Children's Sues Over Improper Royalty Fees
DIAGEO-GUINNESS: O'Hara Settlement Class Wins Initial Certification
DIVERSITY AT WORK: Rule 23 Class Status Bid Due Jan. 17, 2022
DOT TRANSPORTATION: Watson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ED ORGERON: Named Defendant in Amended Title IX Lawsuit
EXPERIAN INFO: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Alhadeff Suit
EXPERT AUTO INSURANCE: Vaccaro Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
FACEBOOK INC: Summary Judgment Hearing Continued to Sept. 2
FCA US: Diaz Files Suit in District of Delaware
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Dirnfeld Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
FORD MOTOR: Rathmann Files Suit in W.D. Texas
FREQUENCY THERA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Reminds of August 2 Deadline
GARDNER TRUCKING: Leuzinger Files FLSA Suit in N.D. California
GATE GOURMET: Rahman Seeks Transfer of Suit to US Judicial Panel
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Crawford Appeals Refund Case Dismissal
GERBER PRODUCTS: Robbins Consumer Suit Moved to S.D. New York
GERBER PRODUCTS: Robbins Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
GOLD STANDARD: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Sanchez Suit Claims
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dorsey & Whitney Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
GOOGLE LLC: Brown Suit Transferred to N.D. California
GRANITE STATE: Grenier Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
GSK CONSUMER: November 18 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
H B & H LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fares Suit Claims
HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Hair Studio Appeals Case Dismissal
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Averts Class Action Over Tuition Fee Refunds
HOME POINT: Windemuth Slams Share Drop from Missed Revenue Target
HOMEADVISOR INC: Nardo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
INSURANCE TECH: Heath Sues Over Data Breach
INVISION HUMAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lampert et al. Allege
ISITE ENTERPRISES: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JAMAICA: Citizens File Class Action Lawsuit Against Government
JB HUNT: Issaian Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit
JBBC INC: Gaeta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JM THORBURN: Meggs Sues Over ADA Violation
JMJ ENTERPRISES: Wade Sues Over Unpaid Wages
JOARDER ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arnold Suit Claims
JOHNNY D'S: Rizzolo Seeks Unpaid Servers & Bartenders' Wages
JUICIFY INC: Shanahan Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court Enters Class Cert. Scheduling Order
KNOLL INC: Coffman Sues Over Herman Miller Merger Deal
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Becker Sues Over Labor Code Violations
LAKES AREA: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, Collins Claims
LARKIN STREET: King Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LAW OFFICES OF BURR: Eytina Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
LOS ANGELES, CA: Jaimes Sues Over Disability Discrimination
MARATHON REFINING: Hearing on Wood Class Cert. Bid Set for Nov. 16
MCCREA CAPITAL: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Blount County Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Peach County Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Walker County Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MFK LLC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Alvarez et al. Claim
MICHAEL MILLER: Naiman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
MICROSOFT CORP: Pena Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Winter Storm Fees
N3 LLC: Austin Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
NATIONAL RUGBY: Former Players Impacted by Concussion File Suit
NATIONAL UNION FIRE: Delaware Superior Court Holds Opt-Out Case
NATURE REPUBLIC: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
NCAA: Beard Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NCAA: Mac Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NCAA: Morowitz Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NCAA: Penson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Wolff Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Moore Sues Over Data Breach
NN INC: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Erie County ERS Suit
NOVITEX ENTERPRISE: Miller Shah Discloses Proposed Class Settlement
OCEAN CITY DEVELOPMENT: Alves Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
OCUGEN INC: Nicanor Hits Share Drop Over Denied Vaccine Approval
ODA PRIMARY HEALTH: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PARSLEY HEALTH: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PEACE FOOD: Ramales Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
PORTOFLIO RECOVERY: Amaro Files Suit in Texas District Court
PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Seidemann Files Certiorari Bid to Supreme Ct.
PSG CONSTRUCTION: Naiman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
PURECYCLE TECH: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
QUANTA COMPUTER: Failed to Pay All Wages Owed, Usinger Suit Says
QUICKEN LOANS: Viscuso Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
RUGO LLC: Faces Argudo Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum, OT Wages
SAMSARA LUGGAGE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Faces 4 Lawsuits Over Ransomware Data Breach
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Patient Slams Negligent Storage of Medical Records
SELECT GROUP: Misclassifies Recruiters, Trout Suit Claims
SIMPLY GUM: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIMPLY ORANGE: Accused of False and Misleading Marketing Practices
SKILLZ INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of April 19 Deadline
SKILLZ INC: Schultz Hits Share Drop from Failed Business Prospects
SNYDER'S-LANCE: McFaddin Sues Over Artificial Trans-Fat Addition
SOLNSOFT LLC: Salstorm Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
SONY MUSIC: Ex-Employees Mull Class Action Over Workplace Culture
SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Henderson Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal
STATE AUTO PROPERTY: Kemco LLC Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
STRADA SERVICES: Grant Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
STX LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNDAYS FOR DOGS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SUNWEST ELECTRIC: Cruz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TALLEY INC: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TARENA INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 23 Deadline
THINX INC: Blenis Slams Toxic Substances in Underwear
TOOLOTS INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOPS MARKETS: Adams Files Suit Over Coffee Product's False Ad
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Flowers Suit Over Vehicle Battery Defects
TOYOTA MOTOR: Tavares Sues Over Defective Vehicle Fuel Systems
TRANSUNION LLC: Members to Prove an Injury to Recover Damages
TRANSUNION LLC: U.S. Supreme Court Curbs "Terrorist List" Lawsuit
UBIQUITI INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline
UNITED GROUP: Longhini Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Doe FERSA Suit to 3rd Circuit
UNITED STATES: Salos Appeal Case Dismissal to Fed. Cir.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Breast Reconstruction Coverage
US ASSET MANAGEMENT: Ahmed Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
VALENTINO USA: Benitez Conditional Class Certification Bid Junked
VISA INC: Camp Grounds Sues Over Improper Credit Card Fees
VOLKSWAGEN AG: 9th Circuit Reverses Loss in Investor Class Action
WAKEFIELD AND ASSOCIATES: Getchel Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Tenn.
WALMART INC: Varela Appeals Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal
WASHINGTON: DOC Appeals Preliminary Injunction Ruling in Doe Suit
WELLS FARGO: Couple Defends Class Action Over Home Equity Loans
WILDLANDS SERVICES: Fire Claims Certified as a Class Action Lawsuit
WIZARDRY INC: Aguiniga Sues Over Failure to Compensate Hours Worked
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Wyngaard Seeks Certification of Collective Action
ZYARA RESTAURANT: Alvarado Seeks Proper Wages, Missing Paystubs
[*] Canada Launches Public Consultation on Class Action Reform
[*] Class-Action Suit Over Digital Tokens Against Rapper Dismissed
*********
458 MYRTLE AVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mejia Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MARITZA FIGUEROA MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 458 MYRTLE AVE. CORP.; MARIA
MOLINA; WILSON EUCEDA; KENIA EUCEDA; LA BOTTEGA OF OCEANSIDE; LA
BOTTEGA OF RVC; LA BOTTEGA, INC.; and ABC Corp. d/b/a LA BOTTEGA,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03429 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2021)
is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.
Plaintiff Mejia was employed by the Defendants as staff.
458 MYRTLE AVE. CORP. owns and operates a franchise of restaurants
called LA BOTTEGA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
Hempstead, NY 11550
Telephone: (516) 280-4600
Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com
ACACIA NETWORK: Williams Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Justice Williams filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JUSTICE WILLIAMS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACACIA
NETWORK HOUSING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 155960/2018, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.
Mr. Williams seeks a review of the Court's May 14, 2021 Decision
and Order, denying his motion for class certification in this
matter involving wage and hour claims.
The appellate case is captioned as JUSTICE WILLIAMS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACACIA NETWORK
HOUSING, INC., Case No. 2021-02107, in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department,
filed on June 11, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JUSTICE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jack Newhouse, Esq.
Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com
Defendant-Appellee ACACIA NETWORK HOUSING, INC. is represented by:
Kevin J. Harrington, Esq.
Erin C. Durba, Esq.
HARRINGTON, OCKO & MONK, LLP
81 Main Street Suite 215
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 686-4800
E-mail: kharrington@homlegal.com
ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE: Underpays Sales Agents, Foster et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA FOSTER and TIANA JONES, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE
AGENCY OF TENNESSEE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01242 (N.D.
Ohio, June 23, 2021) bring this collective action complaint against
the Defendant for its alleged unlawful practices and policies that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as non-exempt
employees. Foster was hired between March 2019 and September 2020
as Sales Agent in Euclid, Ohio, while Jones was between June 2019
and February 2020 as Sales Agent in Akron, Ohio.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant failed to compensate them
and other similarly situated Sales Agents for all hours they worked
because the Defendant did not count the time spent performing
pre-shift and post-shift duties as part of their total hours worked
when in fact this unpaid work was integral and indispensable part
of their principal activities. As a result, despite regularly
working over 40 per workweek, the Plaintiffs and other Sales Agents
did not receive their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law. In addition,
the Defendants failed to make, keep and preserve records of the
unpaid work performed by their Sales Agents, the Plaintiffs
assert.
Acceptance Insurance Agency of Tennessee, Inc. provides personal
automobile insurance and other related products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ACRX) between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 9, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased AcelRx 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 AcelRx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2106.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 August 9, 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) AcelRx had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA
(the Company's lead product candidate, a 30 mcg sufentanil
sublingual tablet for the treatment of moderate-to severe acute
pain); (2) 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; (3) the foregoing conduct
subjected AcelRx to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement;
and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the AcelRx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2106.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. [GN]
ACIMA CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to February 7, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIEARA FARR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACIMA CREDIT,
LLC, a Utah limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 4:20-cv-08619-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers entered an order resetting the briefing schedule
and hearing for Plaintiff's motion for class certification as
follows:
-- February 7, 2022: Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion
for class certification;
-- April 14, 2022: Deadline for Defendant to file an
opposition;
-- May 12, 2022: Deadline for Plaintiff to file a
reply;
and
-- June 7, 2022: Hearing on Plaintiff's motion for
class
certification.
Acima is located in Sandy, Utah, and is part of the Consumer
Lending Industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qyyWd0 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by
Ames T. Hannink, Esq.
Zach P. Dostart, Esq.
DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP
4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
La Jolla, CA 92037-1474
Telephone: (858) 623-4200
Facsimile: (858) 623-4299
E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com
zdostart@sdlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tomio B. Narita, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq.
Leanne C. Yu, Esq.
SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP
Montgomery Street, Suite 3010
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 283-1000
Facsimile: (415) 352-2625
E-mail: tnarita@snllp.com
jtopor@snllp.com
lyu@snllp.com
AEROTEK INC: Workers Sue to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------
Leetisha Roundtree and Onieko Dolphy, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Aerotek, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00561 (W.D. Okla., June 2, 2021), seeks
to recover applicable minimum wage and spread of hours pay for
working shifts of over ten hours and redress for failure to
properly pay wages within seven calendar days after the end of the
week in which these wages were earned pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor laws.
Aerotek is a global staffing agency. Roundtree and Dolphy were
employed as manual workers for Aerotek's clients and staffed at
warehouses in New York. Despite being non-exempt employees, Aerotek
has failed to properly pay them overtime compensation at 1.5 times
their regular rate of pay when they work over 40 hours per
workweek, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
AIR METHODS: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Armato Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Air Methods Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Armato v. Air Methods
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-02723RBJ, in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 20, 2021, Judge R.
Brooke Jackson of the District of Colorado granted the Plaintiffs'
motions for summary judgment.
The matter came before the Court on remand from the Tenth Circuit,
which asked Judge Jackson to address a single issue: Whether an
express or implied-in-fact contract exists between the parties. The
Defendants argue that there is, while the Plaintiffs argue that
there is not.
The case is a putative class action brought on behalf of patients,
their legal custodians, or the estates of deceased patients, who
allege that they were charged exorbitant fees by Defendants Air
Methods and Rocky Mountain for medical transport by helicopter. The
Defendants provide helicopter transport to individuals that are
suffering from emergency medical conditions. Both entities are
incorporated in Delaware. Rocky Mountain owns Air Methods, and the
Defendants jointly collect all service fees.
The Defendants are seeking a review of the May 20 order entered by
Judge Jackson.
The appellate case is captioned as Armato v. Air Methods
Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-1218, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 11, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement, transcript order form, and entry of
appearance was due on June 25, 2021 for Air Methods Corporation and
Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC; and
-- Notice of appearance was due on June 25, 2021 for Jonathan
Armato.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants AIR METHODS CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HOLDINGS LLC are represented by:
Christopher Michael Jackson, Esq.
Jessica Smith, Esq.
Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART
555 17th Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
Business: 303-295-8000
E-mail: cmjackson@hollandhart.com
jjsmith@hollandhart.com
mjsmith@hollandhart.com
Plaintiff-Appellee JONATHAN ARMATO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Richard J. Burke, Esq.
QUANTUM LEGAL
2801 Lakeside Drive
Bannockburn, IL 60015-1211
Telephone: (312) 220-0000
- and -
Michael D. Plachy, Esq.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE
1200 17th Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 623-9000
E-mail: mplachy@lewisroca.com
AIR METHODS: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Cowen Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Air Methods Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Cowen, et al. v. Air
Methods Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-02723-RBJ, in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado -
Denver.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 20, 2021, Judge R.
Brooke Jackson granted the Plaintiffs' motions for summary
judgment.
The matter is before the Court on remand from the Tenth Circuit,
which asked Judge Jackson to address a single issue: Whether an
express or implied-in-fact contract exists between the parties. The
Defendants argue that there is, while the Plaintiffs argue that
there is not.
The case is a putative class action brought on behalf of patients,
their legal custodians, or the estates of deceased patients, who
allege that they were charged exorbitant fees by Defendants Air
Methods and Rocky Mountain for medical transport by helicopter. The
Defendants provide helicopter transport to individuals that are
suffering from emergency medical conditions. Both entities are
incorporated in Delaware. Rocky Mountain owns Air Methods, and the
Defendants jointly collect all service fees.
The Defendants are seeking a review of the May 20 order entered by
Judge Jackson.
The appellate case is captioned as Cowen, et al. v. Air Methods
Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-1216, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 11, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement, transcript order form, and entry of
appearance was due on June 25, 2021 for Air Methods Corporation and
Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC; and
-- Notice of appearance was due on June 25, 2021 for Randal
Cowen, Griff Hughes, Lana Hughes, Keith Kranhold, and Yolanda
O'Neale.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants AIR METHODS CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HOLDINGS LLC are represented by:
Christopher Michael Jackson, Esq.
Jessica Smith, Esq.
Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART
555 17th Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
Business: 303-295-8000
E-mail: cmjackson@hollandhart.com
jjsmith@hollandhart.com
mjsmith@hollandhart.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees RANDAL COWEN; KEITH KRANHOLD, Executor of the
Estate of Kenneth Kranhold; GRIFF HUGHES; LANA HUGHES; and YOLANDA
O'NEALE, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
are represented by:
Richard J. Burke, Esq.
QUANTUM LEGAL
2801 Lakeside Drive
Bannockburn, IL 60015-1211
Telephone: (312) 220-0000
- and -
Abby Caroline Harder, Esq.
Michael D. Plachy, Esq.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE
1200 17th Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 623-9000
E-mail: aharder@lewisroca.com
mplachy@lewisroca.com
AIR METHODS: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Dequasie Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Air Methods Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Dequasie, et al. v. Air
Methods Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-02723-RBJ, in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado -
Denver.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 20, 2021, Judge R.
Brooke Jackson granted the Plaintiffs' motions for summary
judgment.
The matter is before the Court on remand from the Tenth Circuit,
which asked Judge Jackson to address a single issue: Whether an
express or implied-in-fact contract exists between the parties. The
Defendants argue that there is, while the Plaintiffs argue that
there is not.
The case is a putative class action brought on behalf of patients,
their legal custodians, or the estates of deceased patients, who
allege that they were charged exorbitant fees by Defendants Air
Methods and Rocky Mountain for medical transport by helicopter. The
Defendants provide helicopter transport to individuals that are
suffering from emergency medical conditions. Both entities are
incorporated in Delaware. Rocky Mountain owns Air Methods, and the
Defendants jointly collect all service fees.
The Defendants are seeking a review of the May 20 order entered by
Judge Jackson.
The appellate case is captioned as Dequasie, et al. v. Air Methods
Corporation, et al, et al., Case No. 21-1215, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 11, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement, transcript order form, and entry of
appearance was due on June 25, 2021 for Air Methods Corporation and
Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC; and
-- Notice of appearance was due on June 25, 2021 for Air Methods
Corporation, Richard Dequasie, Dwain Pattillo, Kathleen Pence, Kara
Ridley, Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC, Sandra Saenz and Miranda
Taylor.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants AIR METHODS CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HOLDINGS LLC are represented by:
Jessica Smith, Esq.
Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART
555 17th Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
Business: 303-295-8000
E-mail: jjsmith@hollandhart.com
mjsmith@hollandhart.com
Plaintiff-Appellee RICHARD DEQUASIE, DWAIN PATTILLO, KATHLEEN
PENCE, SANDRA SAENZ, MIRANDA TAYLOR, and KARA RIDLEY, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:
Abby Caroline Harder, Esq.
Michael D. Plachy, Esq.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE
1200 17th Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 623-9000
E-mail: aharder@lewisroca.com
mplachy@lewisroca.com
- and -
Edward Leslie White, Esq.
EDWARD L. WHITE, P.C.
829 East 33rd Street
Edmond, OK 73013
Telephone: (405) 810-8188
- and -
Mario Pacella, Esq.
STROM LAW FIRM
2110 North Beltline Boulevard
Columbia, SC 29204-3905
ALINCO IT: Threde Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alinco IT, Inc. The
case is styled as Jonathan Scott Threde, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Alinco IT, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-04889 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Alinco IT, Inc. -- https://www.alinco.net/ -- is an authorized
reseller for most major hardware and software manufacturers, and
can help customers obtain new technology equipment at competitive,
cost-effective prices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Michael 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
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Extends Case Schedule in Olberg Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF OLBERG, et al., v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:18-cv-00573-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C.
Coughenour entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion to extend the case schedule and Defendant CCC Information
Services Inc.'s motion to amend a party's name as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their class
certification
motion and their responses to Defendants' motion for summary
judgment are to be filed by July 20, 2021;
2. The Defendants' replies in support of their motions for
summary judgment are to be filed by August 16, 2021;
3. The Clerk is directed to renote Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification to July 20, 2021 and Defendants' motion for
summary judgment to August 16, 2021; and
4. The Clerk is further directed to amend Defendant CCC
Information Services Inc.'s name to CCC Intelligent Solutions
Inc.
The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company,
headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook
since 1967. Founded in 1931 as part of Sears, Roebuck and Co., it
was spun off in 1993. The company also has personal lines insurance
operations in Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qCqrxv at no extra charge.[CC]
AMARIN PHARMA: IUOE Local 137 Sues Over Vascepa Drug Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
WELFARE PLAN OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCALS 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of itself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMARIN PHARMA, INC., AMARIN
PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED, AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-12416 (D.N.J., June 11, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
alleged illegal scheme and conspiracy in the generic drug market
throughout the United States.
According to the complaint, faced with inevitable competition for
its sole product, Vascepa, and having lost in litigation and
exhausted every regulatory means to prevent and delay the launch of
generic competitors, Amarin adopted an unlawful strategy to
artificially extend its monopoly. By locking up every viable
supplier of the key ingredient needed to manufacture generic
Vascepa, Amarin boxed generic manufacturers out of the market. This
scheme left Amarin free to continue charging supracompetitive
prices and eke the most profit it could out of Vascepa, at the
expense of the Plaintiff and other purchasers of the drug, says the
suit.
As a result of Amarin's alleged conduct, would-be competitors were
unable to obtain the icosapent ethyl they needed for their generic
Vascepa products, delaying their fulsome entry into the market by
years. But for Amarin's anticompetitive conduct, robust generic
competition would have begun in mid-2020. Instead, Amarin has been
able to maintain its monopoly and continue charging
supracompetitive prices, harming the Plaintiff and other purchasers
of Vascepa, added the suit.
Plaintiff Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operating
Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R is a labor union based
in New York which provides health benefit, including prescription
drug benefits, to its members, plus their spouses and dependents.
The Defendants are American multinational pharmaceutical
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
Seth M. Pavsner, Esq.
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 213-8311
- and -
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
Abbye R. Klamann Ognibene, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
lauren@hbsslaw.com
abbyeo@hbsslaw.com
- and -
James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
David S. Scalia, Esq.
TerriAnne Benedetto, Esq.
THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
One Canal Place, Suite 1000
365 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 648-0180
Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
tbenedetto@dugan-lawfirm.com
AMAZON RETAIL: Schneider Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Holly Schneider, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Amazon Retail LLC, DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. 21STCV17066, was removed from the Los Angeles County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on June 25, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05174 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Amazon Retail -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- offers online shopping
from a great selection at Amazing Online Retail LLC Store.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: (213) 229-7000
Fax: (213) 229-7520
Email: lblas@gibsondunn.com
AMAZON.COM: Hoyt Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Hoyt, Lorlie Tesoriero, Pamela Zager, Maureen Urbach and
James Urbach, Caron Watkins, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00809-RSM (W.D. Wash., June 14,
2021), arises from Amazon's practice of using smart-speaker
technology ("Alexa") to surreptitiously save permanent recordings
of millions of Americans' voices, all without their knowledge or
consent. Such an invasion of privacy blatantly violates the laws of
Washington, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, all of which prohibit the
recording of oral communications without the consent of all parties
to the communication.
According to the complaint, Alexa devices are designed to record
and respond to communications immediately after an individual says
a word known as a "wake" word, which usually consists of an
individual saying the words "Alexa" or "Echo." Once the Alexa
device recognizes the "wake" word, the Alexa device then records
the ensuing communication --including anything an individual in the
vicinity of the device may say -- and then transmits that recording
to Amazon's servers for interpretation and processing before
receiving the relevant data back in response. Amazon then
indefinitely and permanently stores a copy of that recording on its
own servers for later use and commercial benefit, warehousing
billions of private conversations in the process.
This practice becomes all the more sinister when one recognizes the
magnitude of how much Alexa can capture. For one, Amazon does not
distinguish between a registered Alexa user or non-registered
users; anyone in the vicinity of an Alexa device who
speaks—whether directly to Alexa or to another person in the
room, or even to themselves—will have their voice recorded
through this process. Shockingly, Alexa may also capture a person's
voice and record their conversations even without the intentional
use of a wake word. It has been found that words as varied as
"exclamation," "congresswoman," "Kevin's car," "pickle," or "a
ghost" have caused an Alexa device to activate if the programmed
wake words were "Alexa" or "Echo." Notably, a user may set their
own wake word, which brings with it another wide range of false
positives that activate Alexa's ears--and Amazon's insidious course
of conduct in the process.
Alexa's eavesdropping range thus captures a host of private
conversations that many individuals would find extremely personal,
including conversations about one's family, medical conditions,
religious beliefs, political affiliations, and other personal or
private matters. Such conversations are located and stored in a
cold server owned by Amazon—and left in Amazon's hands to use as
they see fit, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs own and operate an Alexa Device.
Amazon is one of the largest companies in the world, with net sales
of over $386 billion in 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley S. Keller, Esq.
BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP
1000 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 622-2000
Facsimile: (206) 622-2522
Email: bkeller@byrneskeller.com
- and -
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
Email: mcanty@labaton.com
cvillegas@labaton.com
- and -
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
1 Lincoln Street
Boston, MS 02111
Phone: (617) 720-1333
Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
Email: gbuell@tenlaw.com
- and -
Mark Goldman, Esq.
Paul Scarlato, Esq.
Brian Penny, Esq.
GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
8 Tower Bridge
161 Washington Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (484) 342-0700
Facsimile: (484) 580-8747
Email: goldman@lawgsp.com
scarlato@lawgsp.com
penny@lawgsp.com
- and -
Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
23250 Chagrin Blvd.
Beachwood, OH 44122
Phone: (888) 998-0530
Facsimile: (484) 580-8747
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Reply in Support of Class Cert. Bid Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM CLEARY, ET AL., v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00184-O (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
request for a one-week extension to file a reply in support of
Class Certification filed June 28, 2021.
American Airlines offers airline services. The Company provides
scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2U6w7nr at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Holman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed American Coradius
International LLC. The case is styled as Shanie Holman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Coradius International LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03578
(E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
American Coradius International LLC --
http://www.americancoradiusinternational.com/-- is a full service
financial service agency representing banks and finance companies
on a national level.[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
AMERICAN ECONOMY: Glasner Files Suit in D. Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Economy
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Jeffrey Glasner,
individually and on behlaf of all others similarly situated v.
American Economy Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-11047-RWZ (D.
Del., June 24, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability.
American Economy Insurance Company --
https://www.safeco.com/underwriting-companies -- operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers auto, home, renters, condo,
boat, car, motorcycle, recreational vehicle, and landlord
protection insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-4601
Email: rpaul@bm.net
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Appeals Tuition Refund Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Maaz Qureshi, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Maaz Qureshi, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01141-CRC, in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought to seek refunds as a result of the Defendant's decision to
close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all
classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel
Coronavirus Disease.
While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendants to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class from recognizing the
benefits of in-person instruction, housing, meals, access to campus
facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in
exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition,
according to the complaint.
The Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendants
are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate and/or
arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the
Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, adds the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Memorandum and
Opinion dated May 7, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Maaz Qureshi, et al. v. American
University, Case No. 21-7064, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on June 15, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Maaz Qureshi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; Danish Arif, 20cv1555 JDB -
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
Matthew Rabinowitz, 20cv1454 RC - on behalf of himself and other
individuals similarly situated; are represented by:
Curtis A. Boykin, Esq.
DOUGLAS & BOYKIN PLLC
1850 M Street, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20036-5839
Telephone: (202) 842-1800
E-mail: caboykin@douglasboykin.com
- and -
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street, NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
Defendant-Appellee American University is represented by:
Alan Evan Schoenfeld, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 230-8800
E-mail: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Pinedo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company. The case is styled as Cristobal
Pinedo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the genreal public v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company,
Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00302432-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., June 14, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
The Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, commonly known as ADM --
https://www.adm.com/ -- is an American multinational food
processing and commodities trading corporation founded in 1902 and
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mara, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino Del Rio N., Ste. 205
San Diego, CA 92108-1631
Phone: 619-234-2833
Fax: 619-234-4048
Email: dmara@maralawfirm.com
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 13, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Array Technologies, Inc. ("Array" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ARRY): (a) securities between October 14, 2020
and May 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with (1) the October 2020 initial
public offering (the "IPO"); or (2) the December 2020 secondary
public offering (the "December 2020 SPO"); or (3) the March 2021
secondary public offering (the "March 2021 SPO," and together with
the IPO and the December 2020 SPO, the "Offerings").
If you suffered a loss on your Array investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/array-technologies-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
In October 2020, Array completed its initial public offering,
selling 7 million shares at $22 per share.
On May 11, 2021, after the close of trading, Array announced first
quarter 2021 results, reporting lower revenues year-over-year and
lower margins as a result of increased steel and shipping costs.
The Company also announced that Peter Jonna had resigned from the
Board of Directors effective May 10, 2021.
On this news, Array's stock price fell $11.49 per share, or 46%, to
close at $13.46 per share on May 12, 2021, significantly below the
IPO price.
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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Array common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offerings and/or securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 13, 2021 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action 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 this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm on June 23 disclosed that it has filed a
securities class action lawsuit along with Labaton Sucharow LLP, on
behalf of investors of Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARRY). The
case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who
purchased ARRY stock or other securities between October 14, 2020
and May 11, 2021 or investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Array common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's October
2020 initial public offering, the Company's December 2020 secondary
public offering, or the Company's March 2021 secondary public
offering may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection
team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Array for more information.
Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Array
The case alleges that Array and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that
dating back to the first quarter of 2020, prices of certain
commodities, such as steel, were in the process of more than
doubling, and that Array was facing increasing freight costs. It is
also alleged that the Offering Materials contained false and
misleading statements because they omitted and otherwise failed to
disclose that, prior to the Offerings, increases in commodity and
freight costs had been negatively impacting Array's business and
operations.
Interested Array investors have until July 13, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class
members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a
lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose
to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Array
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111 [GN]
ATHIRA PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington captioned Jawandha v. Athira Pharma,
Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-862) on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Athira Pharma, Inc.
("Athira" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATHA) common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's September 2020 initial public offering ("IPO" or
the "Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Athira investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/athira-pharma-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
Athira is a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company that is
focused on developing small molecules to restore neuronal health
and stop neurodegeneration.
On June 17, 2021, after the market closed, Athira announced that it
had placed its president and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Leen
Kawas ("Kawas"), on leave pending a review of actions stemming from
doctoral research she conducted while at Washington State
University ("WSU").
The same day, STAT published an article stating that WSU was
investigating claims that Dr. Kawas "published several papers
containing altered images while she was a graduate student." These
papers "are foundational to Athira's efforts to treat Alzheimer's"
because they "established that a particular molecule affects the
activity of HGF." Though Athira is developing a different molecule
than the one Kawas examined in the papers at issue, her "doctoral
work laid the biological groundwork that Athira continues to use in
their approach to treating Alzheimer's."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.09, or
approximately 39%, to close at $11.15 per share on June 18, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $10.34 per share, a nearly 40% decline from the $17 per
share IPO price.
The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state: (1) that Kawas had published research papers
containing improperly altered images while she was a graduate
student; (2) that this purported research was foundational to
Athira's efforts to develop treatments for Alzheimer's because it
laid the biological groundwork that Athira was using in its
approach to treating Alzheimer's; (3) that, as a result, Athira's
intellectual property and product development for the treatment of
Alzheimer's were based on invalid research; 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Athira common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN]
AUTOMATIC FOOD: Stapler Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Automatic Food
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Amelia Stapler, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Automatic Food
Services, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00437-ECM-SRW (M.D. Ala., June 25,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Automatic Food Services Inc. -- https://afsvend.com/ --
manufactures food product machinery. The Company specializes in
vending machines offering snacks, food, soda, and other
beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Elizabeth Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
650 S Shackelford-Ste 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
BALTIMORE, MD: Faces ADA Lawsuit From Wheelchair Users
------------------------------------------------------
baltimorebrew.com reports that talking about herself and her
beliefs in an online bio, Keyonna Mayo denounced stereotypes about
people who use wheelchairs ("we are people, too") and said she
powers through whatever obstacle she faces every day.
"There is a way to do anything you want in life if you put your
mind to it," the Sandtown-Winchester resident said.
But the lack of proper curb ramps on Baltimore's streets - and
public sidewalks that are uneven, cracked, crumbling and cluttered
with obstructions - prevent her from easily and safely getting
where she needs to go.
That is why Mayo and two other Baltimore people who use wheelchairs
are suing the city for "widespread and ongoing" violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal laws.
"My biggest issue is a lot of the time you don't know if the
sidewalks have curb cuts, so sometimes you end up having to ride
literally in the street," Mayo said, speaking with The Brew about
the class action suit filed earlier this month in U.S. District
Court.
To get around town for her marketing business and other activities,
like shopping or going to the post office, Mayo generally has to
maneuver her wheelchair into the roadway and risk being hit by a
car.
"That is dangerous with some of the narrow streets we have," the
37-year-old, who has lived much of her life in the West Baltimore
neighborhood, pointed out.
The issue the litigation highlights is important to many city
residents, safe streets advocates say.
"Baltimore has an extremely high population of people with
ambulatory disabilities, a lot of folks that need safe and
accessible infrastructure," said Jed Weeks, interim executive
director of Bikemore.
"But because of the way these sidewalks are set up, they have no
access to jobs or anything they need to do, and it's sad." [GN]
BANK OF MONTREAL: University of Windsor Receives $250K Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Caton at windsorstar.com reports that the University of
Windsor's class action law clinic will expand its services and
reach thanks to a recent court ruling in a historic case against
the Bank of Montreal.
In a decision made public, an Ontario Superior Court Justice
awarded the clinic $250,000 as part of a $100 million settlement
with BMO.
A legal battle against the bank over undisclosed fees on registered
accounts goes back to 2006. James MacDonald, a former investment
advisor for BMO Nesbitt Burns, discovered the hidden fees and
launched a class action suit on behalf of an estimated 200,000
account holders.
As part of the settlement, the two sides agreed that only payments
of $25 or more would be distributed since the cost of distribution
for less than that would be greater than the payment itself.
So payments less than $25 are considered "cy-pres" funds, a French
term that means "as close as possible to."
MacDonald asked that the first $250,000 of these funds go to
UWindsor's class action clinic and the next $250,000 go to the
United Way of Canada for financial literacy programs.
"James MacDonald is the one who deserves all the praise," said
UWindsor law professor and clinic director Jasminka Kalajdzic.
"He's the one who discovered the issue and persevered with the case
at great personal cost."
MacDonald apparently heard about the clinic through a friend who is
a UWindsor law alumnus.
"He learned of the clinic in its early days and saw the need for
having a place to go for information," Kalajdzic said. "He
recommended that the leftover money go to the clinic."
Windsor's class action clinic opened in October 2019. It filled a
need not just in the local community but across Canada.
"We have clients from across the country," Kalajdzic said. "And we
are so busy."
The "cy-pres" money will be used to "fund our continuing services
and scale up our operations," she said.
Plans include bringing the part-time staff lawyer on full time and
offset the cost of four full-time summer law students including two
from UWindsor and one each from McGill and University of Ottawa.
Part of the funds will go to developing and maintaining a website
for notices of class action suits.
"It will serve as a central repository because unfortunately some
people don't know they're part of a class action so the money will
go unclaimed," Kalajdzic said.
Finally, the new money will allow for more research and advocacy
around consumer protection to increase public awareness.
And if the "cy-pres" funds grow beyond the initial allocation, the
clinic will be in line for even more.
"We don't know exactly how much the clinic is going to get but it
will be at least $250,000," Kalajdzic said. [GN]
BAREFOOT DREAMS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barefoot Dreams, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-03288 (E.D.N.Y., June 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barefoot Dreams -- https://www.barefootdreams.com/ -- offers
softest coziest hand knitted baby blankets, children's apparel,
chic lounge wear for adults and accessories for the home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
BEHAVE FOODS: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Behave Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Behave Foods, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-05561 (E.D.N.Y., June 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Behave Foods doing business as Behave Candy --
https://www.eatbehave.com/ -- makes low sugar, all-natural
ingredients, guilt-free candy.[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
BEYOND MEAT: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beyond Meat, Inc. The
case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Beyond Meat, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05547 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beyond Meat -- https://www.beyondmeat.com/ -- is a Los
Angeles-based producer of plant-based meat substitutes founded in
2009 by Ethan Brown.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
BGIS GLOBAL: Diaz et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER DIAZ and GEORGE MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED
SOLUTIONS US, LLC, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 21CV383425 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 22, 2021) bring this
complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the
California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiffs assert these claims:
-- The Defendant failed to pay them and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees minimum wages and overtime wages at
the proper rates;
-- The Defendant failed to provide them meal and rest periods
or compensation in lieu thereof;
-- The Defendant failed to maintain accurate and complete
records of their hours worked daily;
-- The Defendant failed to them provide accurate itemized wage
statements;
-- The Defendant failed to reimburse all business expenses
that its employees incurred in direct consequence of the discharge
of their duties; and
-- The Defendant failed to pay them all wages due upon
separation of employment.
On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated aggrieved
employees, the Plaintiffs seek monetary relief to recover unpaid
wages and benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses
and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
BGIS Global Integrated Solutions US, LLC provides commercial
services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com
BIMBO BAKERIES: Elder Hits Deceptive Cake Product Labels
--------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Elder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-00637 (S.D. Ill., June 20, 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 Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. manufactures, markets, labels and sells
"All Butter Loaf Cake." Elder disputes the label "All Butter"
claiming that said product contains non-butter vegetable oil
ingredients, specifically soybean oil. [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
BRIDGEMAN FOODS: Wollbrinck Files ADA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridgeman Foods II
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chance Wollbrinck, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bridgeman Foods
II Inc., Manna Inc., Does 1 through 25, Case No. 2:21-cv-00724-WED
(E.D. Wis., June 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bridgeman Foods II, Inc. doing business as Wendy's Old Fashioned
Restaurants -- https://www.wendys.com/ -- is an American
international fast food restaurant chain founded by Dave Thomas on
November 15, 1969, in Columbus, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI LLP
3620 E Layton Ave
Cudahy, WI 53110
Phone: (414) 482-8000
Fax: (414) 482-8001
Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com
BT GROUP: Landline-Only Users Awaits Class Action Suit Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
theguardian.com reports that BT's landline-only customers are
awaiting the results of a tribunal hearing to see if a class action
can go ahead over what campaigners claim is a £600m penalty paid
for loyalty.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal heard an application from Justin Le
Patourel and the consumer group Collective Action On Landlines
(Call) to take a case on behalf of 2 million BT landline users.
The group claims that the customers, typically from older and
low-income households, are owed compensation for payments before
2018 when BT reduced line rental charges by £7 a month.
The price cut followed a scathing review by the regulator, Ofcom,
which highlighted the "poor value" for money landline-only
subscribers got compared with those who bought bundles including TV
and broadband.
The case was filed by Call in January and the hearing will decide
if Le Patourel can represent customers in a class action case
against the company.
Speaking before the hearing, Le Patoruel said: "The speed of this
hearing suggests the Competition Appeal Tribunal is aware of the
significance of this important class action. I am hopeful that I
will be allowed to take the case forward, and to represent the
millions of people I believe were ripped off by BT."
Call claimed customers could receive compensation of up to £500
each if it wins a case. The case is being brought on an opt-out
basis, which means that customers would be included in any action
unless they choose to opt out, via the group's website.
BT said it would "defend itself vigorously" against the claim and
added that Ofcom's final statement had "made no finding of
excessive pricing or breach of competition law more generally".
A BT spokesperson said: "We strongly disagree with the claim being
brought against us.
"We take our responsibilities to customers very seriously and will
defend ourselves against any claim that suggests otherwise."
The spokesperson added that for many years the company has offered
a discounted social tariff, and that it had this month extended it
to help a potential 4 million households on low incomes save on
bills.
"We assure our customers that we will not let this claim disrupt
the relationship BT has with them. We will continue to support our
customers through the pandemic and beyond."
Rocio Concha, the director of policy and advocacy at the consumer
group Which?, said: "Effective collective redress is something
Which? has long campaigned for, and while no claim under the regime
has reached a full trial yet, it is encouraging to see this case
against BT progress, and hopefully be allowed to proceed to a full
trial.
"If successful, this opt-out action would be good news for many BT
customers who were found to have been historically overcharged for
years but saw no refund as a result." [GN]
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Inspectors' OT Wages, Applegate Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE APPLEGATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUCKEYE PARTNERS, L.P., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00791-MRH (W.D. Pa., June 16, 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 Applegate was employed by the Defendant as inspector.
BUCKEYE PARTNERS, L.P. is an independent pipeline common carrier of
refined petroleum products. The Company receives petroleum products
from refineries, connecting pipelines, and marine terminals and
transports those products to other locations.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
-and-
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
-and-
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
BYZLOAN CORP: Faces Halawani Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHLOMY HALAWANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BYZLOAN CORP., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-012275 (Fl. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., June 22, 2021) brings this
class action complaint alleging the Defendant of violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant sent text messages to his
cellular telephone number on or about May 26, 2021 and June 18,
2021 in an attempt to promote and advertise its products and
services. The Plaintiff also contends that the Defendant did not
obtain his prior express consent to contact him with advertisements
on his cellular telephone number that has consistently been
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2018.
Moreover, the Defendant allegedly caused similar text messages to
be sent to individuals residing within the judicial district.
Because the Defendant's unsolicited text messages have violated the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons' substantive
privacy rights under the TCPA, the Plaintiff seeks relief and
damages on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Class.
Byzloan Corp. offers financial services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIRBAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
CANADA: Court OK's Sexual Abuse Suit Against City of Longueuil
--------------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that Quebec's Superior Court has
authorized a class action suit against the city of Longueuil and
the estate of François Lamarre, the former minor league hockey
coach who died last year before he could be tried on charges
alleging he sexually abused 16 boys.
Attorneys for the Montreal law firm Kugler Kandestin said in a
statement on June 22: "This class action seeks pecuniary
compensation for the victims of sexual abuse committed by François
Lamarre while he was a coach in the Greenfield Park municipal
hockey program, including punitive damages."
Greenfield Park is now a borough of the city of Longueuil.
The release was authorized by the same Quebec Superior Court judge
who authorized the class action lawsuit.
"The court has (also) authorized the use of pseudonyms for the
identification of class members in the proceedings, exhibits and
all other documents filed into the court record, in order to
protect their identities."
After being arrested in December 2019, Lamarre, a former Montreal
police officer, pleaded not guilty to nine charges -- spanning from
1972 to 1997 -- that included sexual assault, gross indecency,
molestation and sexually touching a minor.
Those charges involved allegations made by four men who told police
they were between 9 and 16 years old when Lamarre abused them.
When Lamarre died of natural causes last year, Quebec's Crown
prosecutor's office had also authorized charges tied to 12 more
alleged victims. None of the allegations were tested in court.
More information about the class action lawsuit can be found at
kklex.com. Lawyers for the plaintiffs can be reached at
514-878-2861, Local 1261, or toll free at: 1-844-999-2861, Local
1261. [GN]
CANADA: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in CPRI Abuse Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Butler, writing for CBC News, reports that victims and their
family members recalled traumatic details of the kinds of abuse
that went on at the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute
(CPRI) in London, Ont., in an emotional virtual approval hearing
for a proposed $10-million class-action lawsuit against the
provincial government on June 23.
The hearing is to decide whether the proposed settlement agreement
in the case, which would give victims anywhere from $3,500 to
$45,000 in compensation depending on their level of maltreatment as
children who were in-patients at the institution.
The Ontario government denies the allegations, but agreed to settle
out of court with the plaintiff at a last-minute mediation in
March, just before a 12-week trial was set to begin.
Built on the grounds of the former Beck Memorial Sanitorium in
London, Ont., CPRI operated as a residential institution for
children with mental health problems and developmental disabilities
until 2011, when it was de-listed by the province from performing
in-patient services.
The children were often placed at CPRI voluntarily by their
caregivers or were wards of the Crown who were legally remanded to
the institution's care, according to a factum in the case.
The institution is still operational in London but the name CPRI
changed to the Child and Parent Resource Institute in 1992.
The lawsuit applies only to CPRI's residential centre, not the
modern-day CPRI which operates many mental health programs from its
location in west London.
CPRI permitted a culture of 'violence against children'
On June 23, Justice Edward Belobaba told the court he wanted to
hear from claimants who objected to the settlement, reminding them
that while their recollections are valuable in understanding the
pain that was caused, they can't necessarily be used to prove
wrongdoing.
"A courtroom is not a place for truth, it's a place for proof, so
at the end of the day, you have to appreciate your stories may be
true and difficult with life-lasting trauma, but in a court you
only win on actual evidence," he said.
It's alleged the institution "permitted a culture, contagion and
normalization of violence against children" by having in-patient
residents regularly see and be victimized by peer-on-peer violence
and sexual assaults. Patients also regularly saw "their peers being
violently restrained by staff," court documents said.
For many of the victims, The June 23 hearing was the first time
their suffering behind the institution's closed doors has been made
public, as they recounted to the court the painful stories of child
abuse at the hands of other patients and the institution's staff.
CBC News is withholding the victim's names as they were children at
the time of their abuse.
A victim, who was sent to the institution when he was only five,
told the court that the settlement amount wasn't enough for the
pain and suffering many of the victims received at CPRI.
"I was exposed to mental and physical, experimental and sexual
abuse," he said, a secret he kept from his parents because it was
they who sent him there.
"It would have killed them."
The victim told the court he gets daily triggers that cause him to
recall the trauma he experienced at the institution as a small boy,
saying the $3,500 to $45,000 victims are entitled to isn't nearly
enough.
"The abuse I suffered at five years old. It has significantly made
my life hell," he said. "I don't think that's a fair amount in
honesty. It's not about the money, it's about the ownership by the
Crown."
CPRI met all 'appropriate' standards at the time
Lawyers for the province dispute the allegations made in the claim,
arguing the institution met all appropriate standards for the time
and that there are discrepancies between the experiences of
patients and official records in their case files.
After reviewing sworn affidavits of former patients, one expert for
the defence said there were "confused facts and other errors in the
class members' recollections of their experiences at CPRI."
The defence also argued that based on internal documents at CPRI
and its relationship with the London-Middlesex Children's Aid
Society, the institution was "compliant with its duty to report"
instances of violence under its care.
Except many of the victims who objected to the settlement told the
court on June 23 that CPRI staff committed horrifying acts of
violence and emotional abuse on children with impunity.
"The only reason why they did was because they could," said another
victim, who was sent to the institution when he just six for an
auditory processing disorder that doctors mistook for an
intellectual disability.
"I've seen a lot of horrifying things at the age of six years old
that I will take to my grave," he said, recalling a boy in a
wheelchair who could only communicate with sounds because he was
unable to speak.
"They called him 'Donkey Boy,'" he said, recalling an instance the
boy threw powdered milk onto the floor to avoid having to be
force-fed the liquid by staff.
Through tears, the victim said staff responded by removing the boy
from his wheelchair, stripping him naked and throwing him into a
windowless room. Staff then forced children to take turns climbing
onto a step ladder to laugh at the boy.
The victim said, as long as he lives, he would always remember what
he saw.
"I'll never forget it because I saw this kid on his knees just
crying his heart out. That has haunted me my whole life. These kids
were manhandled and thrown in wheelchairs and treated like
animals."
"There were a lot of staff members who did horrifying things to
these kids," he said. "Those kids who can't speak for themselves,
they're not here today.
That theme continued through many of the stories that the 21
claimants who objected to the settlement told the court, many of
them recounting chilling details of sexual abuse by staff and other
patients at the institution, where they were assaulted in bathrooms
or sometimes while they were sleeping in their beds.
Many of the victims blamed the institution and the abuse they
suffered there for life-long physical injuries, as well as
emotional ones, including some of the victims' dependance on
alcohol and drugs or their attempted suicides.
Justice Belobaba said the purpose of the June 23 hearing was to
hear from all the objectors and that the court would reconvene at a
later date to determine whether the settlement is fair to all
parties, something he called "the most difficult" task for a
class-action judge.
"It was obviously very emotional for you to tell your stories and
for this judge to listen. Believe me you had an impact," he said,
telling the victims that all them spoke with courage.
"I commend you for that." [GN]
CANADA: Solitary Confinement Class Action Ruling Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Thoburn, Esq., of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, reported that
that the Ontario Court of Appeal in Francis v. Ontario has recently
affirmed a summary judgment ruling in a class action arising out of
the solitary confinement of class members in Ontario's correctional
facilities between April 20, 2015 and September 18, 2018, which
awarded class members $30 million in aggregate damages for breaches
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Background
The representative plaintiff, Conrey Francis (Francis), filed a
class action against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
(Ontario) following his two plus years of incarceration at the
Toronto South Detention Centre. During his time in custody,
Francis, who was experiencing mental health issues, was placed in
administrative segregation on two occasions. The class action
sought declarations that class members' Charter rights were
infringed by Ontario's system of administrative segregation and
that Ontario was liable in negligence.
The class action was certified on a consent basis, and the class
consists of two groups: those inmates who are seriously mentally
ill (SMI Inmates), which included the plaintiff, and those inmates
who were left in segregation for 15 or more consecutive days,
regardless of mental health status (Prolonged Inmates).
Superior Court Decision
In the Superior Court of Justice, the motion judge granted summary
judgment in favour of the class. In doing so, the motion judge
found that the system of administrative segregation breached class
members' s.7 and s.12 Charter rights, which protect "life, liberty
and security of the person", and "the right not to be subjected to
cruel and unusual treatment or punishment", respectively. The
motion judge found further that Ontario owed a duty of care to the
class members in the circumstances, and they fell below the
standard of care. On the latter point, much turned on the
differentiation between policy and operational decisions, the
former attracting Crown immunity through statute.
Court of Appeal
While Ontario appealed the motion judge's decision on numerous
grounds, this alert will focus on the challenge to the finding of
systemic negligence. Ontario argued that its decisions at issue
relating to administrative segregation were policy decisions, for
which no liability could be found. In doing so, Ontario relied on
the Court of Appeal's previous decision in Brazeau v. Canada
(Attorney General) (Brazeau), a similar class action brought by
mentally ill inmates in federal jails.
In Brazeau, the Court found that the claim in systemic negligence
could not succeed because the primary negligence claim was
"negligence at the policy-making level". In differentiating the
present case from Brazeau, the Court of Appeal focused on the
pleadings in the action. Specifically, the judge focused on the
fact that the present class did not include all individuals who had
been subjected to administrative segregation in Ontario. Further,
the Amended Statement of Claim focused on the implementation of
administrative segregation in Ontario institutions, and explicitly
pled instances of Ontario's responsibility for the "operation" of
its correctional facilities.
In the result, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's
finding that the present claim was founded in operational decisions
that the Superintendent of a correctional institutions must make on
a day-to-day basis. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal in
its entirety.
Takeaways
This case certainly adds to the jurisprudence that addresses the
distinction between policy and operational decision-making and the
distinction's effects on the viability of claims, particularly as
against the Crown. Further, this case reinforces that a claim may
be won or lost at the pleadings stage, and care should be taken
when drafting a claim. The direct language in the pleadings in this
case framed this claim as operational in nature, which assisted the
Court of Appeal in coming to its conclusion. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Court Vacates 90-Day Class Cert. Bid Deadline in Carr
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carr v. Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-02300 (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge John
K. Larkins, III entered an order that the 90-day class
certification motion deadline is vacated and will be reset in the
Court's scheduling order.
The suit alleges violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
involving consumer credit.
Capital One operates as a bank. The Bank offers checking accounts,
credit and debit cards, loans, insurance, payment protection, phone
banking, bill pay, lending, and online banking services. Capital
One Bank (USA) serves consumers, small businesses, and commercial
clients worldwide.[CC]
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES: Reid Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CarMax Auto
Superstores, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alexandra Reid,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., Carmax Auto
Superstores West Coast, Inc., Does 1-100, Inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-04815-MCS-MAR (C.D. Cal., June 14, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. -- https://www.carmax.com/ -- retails
new and used automobiles. The Company offers passenger automobiles,
trucks, trailers, buses, and other motor vehicles, as well as
provides vehicle parts and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
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: mgeorge@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
CENTURY MEDICAL: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century Medical And
Dental Center, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Roman, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Century Medical
And Dental Center, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05548 (S.D.N.Y., June 24,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Century Medical And Dental Center --
https://www.centurymedicaldental.com/ -- is a health, wellness and
fitness company based out of Brooklyn, New York.[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
CESCAPHE LIMITED: Randall Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cescaphe Limited,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Molly Randall formerly known as: Molly
Moskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cescaphe Limited, L.L.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-02806-TJS
(E.D. Pa., June 24, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Cescaphe Limited, L.L.C. doing business as: Cescaphe Evetn Group --
https://www.cescaphe.com/ -- offers trend-setting experts
coordinating extraordinary weddings and events at six distinctively
unique, gorgeously appointed venues throughout Philadelphia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Kenneth Chotiner, Esq.
THE CHOTINER FIRM
50 E. Wynnewood Rd., SUITE 22-378
Wynnewood, PA 19096-0378
Phone: (215) 564-6544
Fax: (215) 383-0370
Email: lkc@thechotinerfirm.com
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
ChemoCentryx Inc. ("ChemoCentryx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CCXI).
The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased
ChemoCentryx between November 26, 2019, and May 6, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later
than July 6, 2021.
The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) the study design of the Phase III ADVOCATE
trial presented issues about the interpretability of the trial data
to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role
in the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis; (2) the data from
the Phase III ADVOCATE trial raised serious safety concerns for
avacopan; (3) these issues presented a substantial concern
regarding the viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA for avacopan for the
treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the ChemoCentryx class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the ChemoCentryx class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.
If you are a ChemoCentryx shareholder and have losses greater than
$100,000 and are interested in learning more about being a lead
plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
Additionally, you can [Click
https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/ChemoCentryxInc2 to join
this action]. There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]
CHEMTOOL INC: Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Rockton Chemical Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Channick, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
homeowners forced to evacuate their property near the massive
Rockton chemical fire that burned for days have filed a lawsuit
seeking class-action status against the owners of the industrial
lubricant plant.
The June 14 fire at the Chemtool plant near Rockford spewed black
smoke over an area so large it was visible on weather radar,
prompting orders that residents and businesses within a mile vacate
their properties during a protracted battle to bring the chemical
fire under control.
The lawsuit was filed on June 18 in Winnebago County Circuit Court
on behalf of Stephanie Mackey and Nick Migliore, who were displaced
from their Rockton home of four years, along with residents from at
least 150 other homes, the lawsuit alleges.
"As a result of the explosion and fire, Rockton residents and
others have experienced nuisance-level discomforts (respiratory
difficulty, malodorous smell), their properties were covered with
debris, and they generally have been impeded from using and
enjoying their property, including their outdoor spaces," the
lawsuit alleges.
The Chemtool plant makes lubricating greases and is a major
employer in Rockton, a town of about 7,500 between Rockford and
Beloit near the Wisconsin state line. Founded in 1963, Chemtool is
based in Rockton, with additional production facilities in
California and Brazil. Chemtool was acquired by Lubrizol, a
Berkshire Hathaway company, in 2013.
The lawsuit names both Chemtool and Lubrizol as defendants.
"We are devastated by this event and deeply regret the disruption
and inconvenience that it has caused area residents," Lubrizol
spokeswoman Alicia Gauer said in an email.
Gauer said the company is working on a site remediation plan, but
expects "a total loss" of the Chemtool plant. The company has
arranged for removal of fire-related debris, posted reimbursement
claim forms on its website for fire damages, and while testing has
so far shown "no impact to water systems," is offering bottled
water for residents with private wells in the evacuation area, she
said.
Lubrizol issued a statement on its website downplaying any health
risks caused by the nearly weeklong burn-off at the chemical plant,
which was destroyed.
"We are confident that the materials burned in the fire pose no
health risk in the short or long-term, other than the short-term
irritation one would normally experience in the presence of smoke,"
the company said in its post.
The fire June 14 was called a "catastrophic day" by Rockton Fire
Chief Kirk Wilson. Dozens of fire departments from northern
Illinois and southern Wisconsin responded to the call. More than 50
employees were evacuated from the building, and about 1,000 nearby
residents were ordered to leave their homes and businesses.
Black smoke from the fire was visible for miles, as debris fell to
the ground across a broad swath of land. Winnebago County public
health officials asked residents within 3 miles of the fire to wear
face masks and use gloves to handle any waste that fell on their
property.
Edward Manzke, a Naperville attorney representing Mackey and
Migliore in the lawsuit, said they were allowed to return to their
home, which is less than a mile from the site, on June 18. The
couple stayed with relatives outside of Rockton for the week,
Manzke said.
When they returned, they found huge chunks of burned debris, oil
spots, and a filmy buildup on their vehicles and lawn, Manzke said.
"It's like something out of a disaster movie," he said.
The lawsuit alleges Chemtool and Lubrizol were negligent in failing
to prevent the fire, caused a nuisance and trespassed on nearby
properties by contaminating them with debris.
The lawsuit is seeking monetary damages for the "lost use and
enjoyment" of the homeowners' properties, and an injunction
requiring Chemtool and Lubrizol to "remediate" the damage.
Manzke said the aim of the lawsuit goes beyond monetary
compensation.
"These folks deserve some answers and some information," Manzke
said. "They need to understand the full nature, extent and duration
of the threats that they have been exposed to, and whether or not
they're continuing to be exposed to those threats. Ultimately, when
we get those answers, these folks need to be compensated for what
they've been living through."
A separate lawsuit filed on June 21 in Winnebago County Circuit
Court against Chemtool and Lubrizol on behalf of Jolene Smith and
Thomas Henry, who were among those displaced from their Rockton
house by the fire, also seeks monetary damages for alleged
negligence by the plant.
In addition to fallout from the smoke and debris, the lawsuit
raises concerns about foam containing toxic compounds that was
allegedly used to suppress the fire.
"Nothing has been done to test the ground on any of these homes,"
said Peter Flowers, a St. Charles attorney representing Smith and
Henry. "These people have a 2-year-old child who plays outside
every day. It's not necessarily the things that you see that are
damaging. It's the things you don't see that could damage you."
Gauer said the company is aware of the lawsuits but does not
comment on legal matters. [GN]
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Klein Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Churchill Capital Corp IV. There
is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE:CCIV)
Class Period: January 11, 2021 - February 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Churchill
Capital Corp IV made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lucid was not prepared to
deliver vehicles by spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a
production of 557 vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles
touted in the run-up to the merger with Churchill; and (3) 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. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Learn about your recoverable losses in CCIV:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/churchill-capital-corp-iv-loss-submission-form?id=17192&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Rosen Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE:
CCIV) between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important July 6, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Churchill Capital 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 Churchill Capital class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2083.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 6, 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: (1) Atieva, Inc. d/b/a Lucid Motors'
("Lucid") inability to produce cars in the first half of 2021; (2)
Lucid's actual timeframe to produce cars; and (3) that as a result,
defendants' public statements and statements to journalists were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Churchill Capital class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2083.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. [GN]
CLEARVIEW AI: Vestrand Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrea Vestrand, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Clearview AI, Inc., Hoan Ton-That,
Richard Schwartz, Rocky Mountain Data Analytics LLC, Thomas
Mulcaire, Macys, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04360, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
June 24, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03372 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Clearview AI -- https://clearview.ai/ -- is an American facial
recognition company, providing software to companies, law
enforcement, universities, and individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan Pierce, Esq.
LOEVY AND LOEVY
311 North Aberdeen Street 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone: (312) 243-5900
Email: megan@loevy.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Suski Sues Over Deceptive Digital Ad Campaign
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SUSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. and MARDEN-KANE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04539 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2021) is a
nationwide class action seeking financial and equitable relief from
the Defendants' wrongful conduct, on behalf of Plaintiff and
millions of other damaged Class members, for violation of the
California False Advertising Law and the California Unfair
Competition Law.
Mr. Suski brings this class action individually and on behalf of
all other persons who opted into Coinbase's $1.2 million Dogecoin
(DOGE) Sweepstakes, and who purchased or sold Dogecoins on a
Coinbase exchange for $100 or more between June 3, 2021 and June
10, 2021, inclusive of both of those dates.
According to the complaint, while Coinbase is informally known as a
cryptocurrency "exchange," it is not actually an exchange in the
mold of stock exchanges or other, traditional securities and
commodities exchanges. Rather than facilitating cryptocurrency
purchases and sales between users, Coinbase itself buys and sells
its "cryptos" to and from its users as a counterparty.
The Defendants' intentionally false and misleading digital ad
campaigns caused Plaintiff and the Class to pay Coinbase many
millions of dollars in purchases and commissions, which they would
not otherwise have spent absent Defendants' deceptive digital ad
campaign, says the suit.
Coinbase Global, Inc. is a newly public company and one of the
largest online cryptocurrency exchanges in the world.
Marden-Kane, Inc. specializes in designing, creating, executing,
and analyzing various advertising and promotional campaigns for
corporate clients, and specifically, digital sweepstakes offers and
operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
David J. Harris, Jr.
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
550 West C Street, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1333
Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
djh@classactionlaw.com
COLLINS ASSET: Settles Investors' Class Action for $15.75MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Collins Asset Group LLC has agreed to pay
$15.75 million to settle claims from investors that it orchestrated
a scheme bilking investors out of $24 million in retirement
savings, in a deal approved on June 21 by a Georgia federal judge.
[GN]
COLONIAL PIPELINE: Faces Class Action Following Ransomware Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Manfredi, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that a
class-action lawsuit is seeking damages for costs and lost profits
incurred by more than 11,000 gas stations along the East Coast
after the ransomware attack against the Colonial Pipeline led to
panic-buying and fuel shortages. The suit is also seeking a court
order requiring Colonial Pipeline Co. to implement security
protocols consistent with legal and industry standards.
The complaint, filed in Georgia federal court on June 21 on behalf
of Wilmington, North Carolina-based gas station and convenience
store EZ Mart 1, alleges that Colonial Pipeline Company failed to
adequately safeguard their pipeline's computer systems, leading to
a breach on April 29 and the subsequent successful ransomware
attack on May 7. It also claims EZ Mart 1 and other gas stations
supplied by the Colonial Pipeline suffered monetary losses in
excess of $5 million during and in the days following the
pipeline's five-day shutdown.
"Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
the Pipeline's critical infrastructure was safeguarded," the
lawsuit states. "As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members were
subjected to a sudden and dramatic fuel shortage and increase in
the price of gasoline and suffered damages. In addition, Plaintiff
and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that
Defendant safeguards the Pipeline's critical infrastructure, and
they are therefore entitled to injunctive and other equitable
relief."
A spokesperson for Colonial Pipeline told FOX Business that it is
"aware" of the lawsuit.
"While we cannot comment on pending litigation, Colonial Pipeline
worked around the clock to safely restart our pipeline system
following the cyberattack against our company," the spokesperson
added.
The Colonial Pipeline spans roughly 5,500 miles from the Gulf Coast
to the New York metro area, transporting more than 100 million
gallons of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and heating oil per day, or
roughly 45% of fuel consumed across the East Coast. Mandiant senior
vice president Charles Carmakal confirmed to FOX Business earlier
this month that hackers were able to access the Colonial Pipeline's
system through a breached virtual private network account that did
not require multifactor authentication.
In order to restart the pipeline, Colonial paid a $4.4 million
ransom fee to Russian-based hacker group DarkSide. The Department
of Justice confirmed earlier this month that about 63.7 bitcoins,
worth an estimated value of about $2.3 million, has been recovered
out of the total 75 bitcoins paid in ransom.
Other victims of cyberattacks this year include the world's largest
meat producer, JBS, New York City's Metropolitan Transportation
Authority and Law Department, the Massachusetts Steamship
Authority, truck maker Navistar, McDonald's, Electronic Arts,
Department of Energy subcontractor Sol Oriens, and
St.Joseph's/Candler, one of the largest hospital systems in
Savannah, Georgia. [GN]
COMMUNITY FUNDING: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Funding
Inc., et al. The case is styled as William Loftus, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Funding
Inc., Ezra Rishty, Banco Capital Corp., Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-05247 (C.D. Cal.,
June 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Community Funds Inc. -- http://www.cmfloan.com/-- provides
services and support for persons in need. The Company, as a
not-for-profit corporation, offers grants to community services
organizations providing food, shelter, counseling, and medical
services throughout the New York City area.[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
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of July 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on June 22
disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
ContextLogic Inc. ("ContextLogic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:WISH)
between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), including investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
ContextLogic common stock in connection with ContextLogic's
December 16, 2020 initial public offering ("IPO").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired ContextLogic common stock
during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than July 16, 2021. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
ContextLogic investors who wish to learn more about the litigation
and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon
M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the ContextLogic Securities Class Litigation
ContextLogic, headquartered in San Francisco, California, is a
global mobile e-commerce company that operates the Wish platform
that connects its value-conscious user base to merchants. Wish
generates revenue by charging merchants a commission on sales made
in its marketplace. On December 16, 2020, ContextLogic completed
its IPO by issuing and selling more than 46 million shares of its
Class A common stock at $24 per share, raising more than $1.1
billion in proceeds.
The action alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions about
the strength of ContextLogic's business operations and financial
prospects by overstating its then-present monthly active users
("MAUs") and MAU growth trends. For example, in its IPO
registration statement, declared effective on December 15, 2020,
ContextLogic reported it had 108 million MAUs as of September 30,
2020, and emphasized sustained MAU growth from just 21 million MAUs
since 2015. ContextLogic also underscored the importance of this
performance metric by claiming that "[w]e view the number of MAUs
as key driver of revenue growth as well as a key indicator of user
engagement and awareness of our brand."
On March 8, 2021, ContextLogic reported disappointing results for
the fourth quarter and full year 2020 and revealing that its MAUs
had "declined 10% YoY during Q4 to 104 million." On this news,
ContextLogic's stock price fell $1.83 per share, or more than 10%,
from its closing price of $17.77 on March 5, 2021, to close at
$15.94 on March 8, 2021, on unusually high trading volume. That
same day, the Company issued Q1 sales guidance of $735-750 million
(representing year-over-year growth of 67-70%), based on continued
strong demand for its Wish platform.
On May 12, 2021, ContextLogic revealed that that its MAUs had
declined another 7% to 101 million during Q1. In addition, the
Company issued disappointing revenue guidance for the second
quarter 2021. On this news, ContextLogic's stock price fell $3.36
per share, or approximately 29%, from its closing price of $11.47
on May 12, 2021, to close at $8.11 per share on May 13, 2021, on
unusually high trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of ContextLogic Inc. (NASDAQ: WISH)
investors that acquired shares between December 16, 2020 and
May 12, 2021. Investors have until July 19, 2021 to seek an active
role in this litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
The investigation focuses on whether ContextLogic issued misleading
and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. On May 12, 2021, ContextLogic reported a
first-quarter loss of $128 million, based on $772 million of sales.
ContextLogic suffered from a loss in the quarter that was almost
double on a year-over-year basis. The prior year's first-quarter
loss of $66 million came on $440 million in sales. Based on this
news, shares of ContextLogic dropped in after-hours trading and
traded down more than 25% in intraday trading on May 13, 2021.
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 19,
2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing arising from
corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered
over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Parlins Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing Inc., et al. The case is styled as Wanda Parlins,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 4:21-cv-02068
(S.D. Tex., June 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. --
https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Souffrant Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lucinda Souffrant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:21-cv-00631-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., June 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. --
https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Wills Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tanya Wills,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing Inc., John Does 1-25, 1:21-cv-02613-TWT-JSA
(N.D. Ga., June 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. --
https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
THE OAKS FIRM
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Phone: (404) 500-7861
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com
DAISY MAE RHODES: Underpays Domestic Service Staff, Rilloraza Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLA RILLORAZA, Plaintiff v. DAISY MAE RHODES, and REYNALDO
OCAMPO Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03305 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2021)
is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself as well as other
employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, arising from the Defendants' various willful, malicious, and
unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices.
The Plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wage compensation and
unpaid overtime wages, (2) unlawful deductions and kickback from
Plaintiffs' wages, and/or breach-of-contract out-of-pocket expenses
(3) liquidated damages, (4) prejudgment and post-judgement
interest; and or (5) attorney's fees and cost.
Ms. Rilloraza was employed by the Defendants to work as a domestic
service worker at 82-23 Eliot Avenue, Middle Village in New York
from August 17, 2020 to February 14, 2021.
The Defendants are Plaintiff's employers who reside at 82-23 Eliot
Avenue, Middle Village in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of July 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Danimer
Scientific Inc. ("Danimer" or the "Company") (NYSE:DNMR) between
October 5, 2020 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Danimer securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than July 13, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Danimer investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Danimer Securities Class Litigation
Danimer, headquartered in Bainbridge, Georgia, is a manufacturer of
plastics known as polyhydroxyalkanoates ("PHAs") that are derived
from living organisms instead of fossil fuels. Danimer's principal
product is Nodax, a plastic that Danimer claimed was 100%
biodegradable, sustainable and renewable. On October 5, 2020,
Danimer, then called Meredian Holdings Group, Inc. (doing business
as Danimer Scientific, or "Legacy Danimer"), announced a business
combination with Live Oak Acquisition Corp. ("Live Oak"), a
publicly traded special purpose acquisition company. On December
29, 2020, Legacy Danimer completed the combination with Live Oak,
and Live Oak changed its name to "Danimer Scientific, Inc." The
Company's common stock began to trade on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol "DNMR."
The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Danimer had deficient internal controls; (2) as a result,
the Company misrepresented, inter alia, its operations' size and
regulatory compliance; (3) defendants overstated the
biodegradability of Nodax; and (4) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On March 20, 2021, The Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") reported that,
according to several experts on biodegradable plastics, "many
claims about Nodax are exaggerated and misleading." The WSJ article
noted that at least one expert commented that Danimer's broad
claims about Nodax's biodegradability "is not accurate" and is
"greenwashing." Following this news, Danimer's stock price fell
$6.43 per share, or 12.87%, from its closing price of $49.98 on
March 19, 2021, to close at $43.55 per share on March 22, 2021.
On April 22, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point")
issued a report on Danimer noting, among other red flags, various
inconsistencies with Legacy Danimer's, and Danimer's, historical
and present claims regarding their business and operations. The
report found "multiple conflicting sources of Danimer's facility
sizes and production capacity" and "inconsistencies between
reported figures and city filings for Kentucky facility capital
costs." That same day, Danimer's stock price fell $2.01 per share,
or 8.04%, from its closing price of $25.00 on April 21, 2021, to
close at $22.99 per share on April 22, 2021.
On May 4, 2021, Spruce Point published a follow-up report on
Danimer, alleging that the Company had "wildly overstated"
production figures, pricing, and financial projections based on
documents Spruce Point obtained through a Freedom of Information
Act request. According to the report, the documents showed that
Danimer's internal controls related to its production figures were
deficient. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.48, or
20%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $17.66 per
share on May 6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.[GN]
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Danimer
Scientific, Inc. ('Danimer' or 'the Company') (NYSE:DNMR) for
violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 5,
2020 and May 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 13, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com , or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Danimer failed to maintain effective
internal controls. The Company mischaracterized the size of its
operations and its regulatory compliance. The Company overstated
the biodegradability of its Nodax product in both landfills and the
ocean. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about Danimer, investors suffered
damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 23 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who
purchased Danimer Scientific, Inc. ("Danimer Scientific") (NYSE:
DNMR) between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17100&wire=5
Allegations against DNMR include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Danimer had deficient internal controls; (ii) as a result, the
Company had misrepresented, inter alia, its operations' size and
regulatory compliance; (iii) Defendants had overstated Nodax's
biodegradability, particularly in oceans and landfills; and (iv) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
If you suffered a loss in Danimer Scientific you have until July
13, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
DEVON ENERGY: Cook Children's Sues Over Improper Royalty Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
COOK CHILDREN'S HEALTH FOUNDATION a/k/a W.I. COOK FOUNDATION, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION; and DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION
COMPANY, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00454-ALM (E.D. Tex.,
June 16, 2021) is an action alleging the Defendant's systematic
breach of express duties under the leases to pay royalties to the
Plaintiff and members of the Class for natural gas "used off the
lease."
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is the successor in
interest Lessor, and the Defendant is the successor in interest
Lessee. The Defendant is the operator of the following wells on the
Lease: L. Pirkle-Massey 1H; Pirkle, Lorene GU 1 through 12, 13D,
and 14H through 20H.
The gas royalty clause requires royalty to be paid on gas,
including all gases, liquid hydrocarbons, and casinghead gas, used
off the premises ("Off Lease Use of Gas" or "OLUG").
Although the Lease and the members of the Class's leases expressly
provide for the payment of royalty on OLUG, the Defendant does not
do so. The Defendant concealed the systematic underpayment of
royalty from the Plaintiff and the members of the Class by falsely
representing on the check stubs provided monthly to the Plaintiff
and the members of the Class that the Defendant was paying royalty
on the full volume and value of production from their wells, when
in fact, it was not, the suit alleges.
DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION provides oil and natural gas exploration
and production services. The Company offers services such as
purchasing and developing oil and natural gas properties, exploring
oil and natural gas reserves, and optimizing production operations
to control costs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Drez III, Esq.
Jacob T. Fain, Esq.
WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN LLP
100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 1500
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 332-7788
Facsimile: (817) 332-7789
E-mail: david.drez@wickphillips.com
jacob.fain@wickphillips.com
-and-
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 West 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
rhudson@midwest-law.com
sgoodger@midwest-law.com
gwright@midwest-law.com
DIAGEO-GUINNESS: O'Hara Settlement Class Wins Initial Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIERAN O'HARA, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, v.
DIAGEO-GUINNESS, USA, INC. and DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
1:15-cv-14139-MLW (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge D.J. Wolf entered an
order that:
1. By July 9, 2021, plaintiff's counsel shall file its
contingency fee agreement with Kieran O'Hara. If it files the
agreement under seal, it shall also file a proposed redacted
a version for the public record and a memorandum in support
of the on proposed redactions.
2. The parties' First Revised Settlement Agreement and Be
Release is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
3. The Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for the
purpose of settlement. It is defined as:
"All individuals who purchased a six-pack or twelve-pack
Guinness Extra Stout in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
between December 15, 2011 and September 3, 2015."
The Settlement Class excludes any individuals who purchased
Guinness Extra Stout for resale, including distributors and
retailers. The following are also excluded from the
Settlement Class: (i) Defendants, (11) any Entity in which
Defendants have a controlling A interest, (iii) Defendants'
officers, directors, legal representatives, Successors,
Subsidiaries, and assigns; and (iv) any individual who timely
and validly opts-out of the Settlement Class.
4. Kieran O'Hara is appointed as the Settlement Class
Representative.
5. The law firm of Forrest, Mazow, McCullough, Yasi & Yasi, P.C.
is appointed as Class Counsel.
6. Kroll Settlement Administration is appointed as Settlement
Administrator.
7. The court approves the form of notice as modified. The
parties shall not make a further modifications to the form of
notice without approval of the court.
8. The parties and Settlement Administrator shall proceed
with notifying the class and administering the settlement
process pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
except that (1) the deadline to opt out of or object to the
settlement is September 20, 2021; and (2) objecting
Settlement Class Members are not required to disclose whether
they have objected to other settlements in the past five
years.
9. The documents relevant to this settlement shall he posted on
a Settlement Website established by the Settlement
Administrator.
10. Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, and for
a service award to the Settlement Class Representative, with
a supporting memorandum and affidavit, shall be filed by
August 30, 2021.
11. Any Class Member who wishes to opt out of the settlement or
file an objection to the settlement shall do so by September
20, 2021.
12. Class Members shall submit all claims by October 26, 2021.
13. Class Counsel shall file a motion for final approval of
the proposed settlement, a supporting memorandum, and an
affidavit by September 27, 2021.
The Plaintiff Kieran O'Hara brought this putative class action
against the Defendants, alleging unfair and deceptive trade
practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws. O'Hara filed
an assented-to motion for preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement on June 1, 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y82eli at no extra charge.[CC]
DIVERSITY AT WORK: Rule 23 Class Status Bid Due Jan. 17, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sutton v. Diversity at
Work Group, Inc. d/b/a United Courier, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00682 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black entered
an order that:
-- The deadline for discovery relevant to Rule 23 class
certification and FLSA decertification is now November 17, 2021.
-- The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class
certification and Defendants' motion to decertify the FLSA
collective is now January 17, 2022.
-- The Court will set summary judgment deadlines after deciding the
above-referenced motions.
The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
DOT TRANSPORTATION: Watson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DOT Transportation,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joshua Watson, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. DOT Transportation, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, DOT Foods, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Does 1-50,
Case No. 34-2021-00302568-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., June 15, 2021).
The case type is stated as Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Dot Transportation, Inc. -- https://drivefordot.com/ -- provides
trucking transportation services. The Company transports food.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Kramer, Esq.
JENNIFER KRAMER LEGAL, APC
5015 Eagle Rock Blvd., Ste. 202
Los Angeles, CA 90041-2087
Phone: 213-955-0200
Fax: 213-226-4358
Email: jennifer@laborlex.com
ED ORGERON: Named Defendant in Amended Title IX Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Heather Dinich at espn.com reports that an amended Title IX lawsuit
against LSU adds football coach Ed Orgeron as a defendant for
failing to properly report an allegation of rape, according to a
copy of the updated lawsuit obtained by ESPN.
Ashlyn Robertson is one of three additional women to have joined
the lawsuit, which states that in the fall of 2016, Robertson told
her new boyfriend, who had been recruited to play for LSU, that
then-Tigers running back Derrius Guice raped her.
According to the lawsuit, Robertson's boyfriend disclosed the rape
to Orgeron, who allegedly responded by telling Robertson's
boyfriend not to be upset because "everybody's girlfriend sleeps
with other people." At the time, Orgeron issued a statement denying
he said that, and "credibly denied" being told about the incident,
according to the Husch Blackwell investigation into LSU's handling
of sexual misconduct cases. The law firm wasn't able to interview
the former player who allegedly had the conversation with Orgeron.
The amended lawsuit states Orgeron never reported the rape to the
Title IX office or any other office at LSU. The incident and the
allegation against Orgeron were previously reported in an August
2020 USA Today article, but the class action complaint against LSU
was amended on to include LSU's head coach as a defendant.
LSU school spokesman Ernie Ballard provided the following statement
to ESPN: "We are reviewing this update to a previously filed
lawsuit, but as stated before, we are focused on taking actions to
ensure that we create a campus that is safe, just and worthy of the
trust that has been placed in us."
Orgeron and an LSU athletic department spokesperson were not
immediately available for comment. [GN]
EXPERIAN INFO: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Alhadeff Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT ALHADEFF v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
8:21-cv-00395-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney
entered an scheduling order:
1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
completed by May 19, 2022. Discovery motions must be filed
and heard prior to this date.
2. The parties shall have until July 18, 2022 to file and have
heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend
the pleadings.
3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, September 19,
2022 at 03:00 PM.
4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, September 27, 2022
at 08:30 AM.
5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 − Private
Mediation. The parties shall have until June 2, 2022 to
conduct settlement proceedings. The parties shall file with
the Court a Joint Status Report no later than five days 4
after the ADR proceeding is completed advising the Court of
their settlement efforts and status.
6. The Plaintiff shall have until December 20, 2021 to file and
have heard any class certification motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h59okH at no extra charge.[CC]
EXPERT AUTO INSURANCE: Vaccaro Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Expert Auto Insurance
Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dave Vaccaro,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Expert Auto Insurance Services Inc, Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:21-cv-05133 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Expert Auto Insurance -- http://expertautoinsurance.com/-- is a
leading provider of Auto Insurance in Torrance.[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
FACEBOOK INC: Summary Judgment Hearing Continued to Sept. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01880 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato
entered an order that the motion for summary judgment hearing is
continued to September 2, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
The briefing dates for class certification are vacated, and the
Court will discuss briefing dates at the September 2 hearing, says
Judge Donato.
Facebook is an American multinational conglomerate based in Menlo
Park, California.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.[CC]
FCA US: Diaz Files Suit in District of Delaware
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is styled as Gustavo Diaz, Christian A. Gibson, Gerald Sinclair,
Domenick Scorziello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00906-UNA (D.
Del., June 24, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
FCA US LLC -- https://www.fcagroup.com/ -- designs, engineers,
manufactures, and sells vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-4601
Email: rpaul@bm.net
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Dirnfeld Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chana Dirnfeld,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Cavalry SPV I, LLC, John Does
1-25, Case No. 7:21-cv-05282-VB (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc. -- https://www.fin-rec.com/ --
provides debt collection services. The Company offers comprehensive
coverage, auditing, monitoring, electronic file transfer, legal
collections, skiptracing, bilingual capability, and comprehensive
data security services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu R. Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
FORD MOTOR: Rathmann Files Suit in W.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case is styled as David M. Rathmann, individually, and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Ford Motor
Company, Case No. 6:21-cv-00610-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., June 14,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.
Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford -- https://www.ford.com/
-- is an American multinational automaker that has its main
headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas A. Daniels, Esq.
John Francis Luman, III, 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: doug.daniels@dtlawyers.com
luman@dtlawyers.com
- and -
Robert Winn Cutler, Esq.
Ross E. Leonoudakis, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
3600 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Ste. B350
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 328-5333
Fax: (512) 328-5335
Email: winncutler@nixlaw.com
rossl@nixlawfirm.com
- and -
William N. Haacker, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GENE S. HAGOOD
1520 E. Highway 6
Alvin, TX 77511
Phone: (281) 331-5757
Fax: (281) 331-1105
Email: will@h-nlaw.com
- and -
Tej R. Paranjpe, Esq.
PARANJPE MAHADASS RUEMKE LLP
3701 Kirby Dr., Ste. 530
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: (832) 667-7700
Fax: (832) 202-2018
Email: tparanjpe@pandmllp.com
FREQUENCY THERA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. ("Frequency
Therapeutics") (NASDAQ: FREQ) between November 16, 2020 and March
22, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17194&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. NEWS - FREQ NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: the Company's Phase
2a trial results failed to live up to the Company's expectations as
the results revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and
the placebo. In spite of the disappointing results, the Company
continued to conduct the Phase 2a study while releasing positive
statements in earnings calls, press releases, SEC filings, and
pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's potential. These
statements materially misled the market and artificially inflated
the value of Frequency's common stock.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Frequency Therapeutics, you have until August 2, 2021 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share
in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Frequency Therapeutics securities
between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021, you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or
fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17194&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
[GN]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Frequency
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Frequency" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FREQ)
between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
f you purchased or otherwise acquired Frequency common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than August 2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Frequency investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Frequency Securities Class Litigation
Frequency, headquartered in Woburn, Massachusetts, is
pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing a
treatment for severe sensorineural hearing loss ("SNHL") named
"FX-322." Frequency has conducted multiple clinical trials
assessing the safety and efficacy of FX-322, the most significant
of which was a Phase 2a trial, which began in October 2019.
The actions allege that shortly after launching the Phase 2a trial,
Frequency and its Chief Executive Officer, David L. Lucchino,
learned that the Phase 2a trial results revealed no discernible
difference between FX-322 and the placebo. As the Company continued
to release positive statements regarding FX-322's prospects,
Lucchino sold a significant amount of his shares of Frequency
Therapeutics stock for over $10.5 million in total proceeds.
On March 23, 2021, Frequency announced disappointing interim Phase
2a results for FX-322, revealing that subjects with mild to
moderate SNHL did not demonstrate improvements in hearing measures
versus the placebo. On this news, the price of Frequency common
stock fell $28.30 per share, or 78%, from a closing price of $36.29
on March 22, 2021 to $7.99 per share on March 23, 2021, on
extremely heavy trading volume. [GN]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Reminds of August 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FREQ) between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 2, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Frequency 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 Frequency class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2105.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 August 2, 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) Frequency's development and
commercialization of a hearing loss treatment titled "FX-322" was
not producing the results Frequency desired; (2) FX-322's ongoing
clinical study was not as positive as Frequency portrayed; and (3)
as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
Frequency'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 Frequency class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2105.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. [GN]
GARDNER TRUCKING: Leuzinger Files FLSA Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gardner Trucking,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kasper Leuzinger, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Gardner Trucking,
Inc., a California corporation; CRST Expedited, Inc., an Iowa
Corporation; Case No. 3:21-cv-04952-TSH (N.D. Cal., June 28,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Gardner Trucking, Inc. -- http://www.gardnertrucking.com/-- is an
all-encompassing premium trucking company and logistics service
provider offering services including Truckload, LTL, Dedicated,
Refrigerated & Port Drayage transportation along with Warehousing &
Storage services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
David Keledjian, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP, PLLC
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 888-7771
Fax: (310) 888-0109
Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
david@setarehlaw.com
GATE GOURMET: Rahman Seeks Transfer of Suit to US Judicial Panel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Rahman, putative class action representative and lawfully
designated representative of the case California Workplace
Development Agency v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., now pending before the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, the Hon. William H. Orrick presiding, Case No.
3:20-cv-03047-WHO, moves for an order transferring an overlapping
class action in the Northern District of California for
consolidated pretrial proceedings, to the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 15, 2021, and assigned
Case MDL No. 3012.
Transfer is sought on the basis that the proceedings involve a
near-complete overlap of common questions of fact, such that
transfer would provide for the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, and transfer would promote the just and efficient
conduct of the actions. This Motion is based upon this Notice, the
accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying
Schedule of Actions, the accompanying Declaration of Brent A.
Robinson attaching the operative complaints and docket sheets for
all actions at issue, the accompanying Proof of Service providing a
complete service list for all parties to the actions at issue, the
accompanying Notice of Appearance by undersigned counsel, any oral
argument, any evidence presented at the hearing on this matter, any
evidence of which the Panel may or must take judicial notice, and
any other evidence or legislative facts that the Panel may wish to
consider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
Carey A. James, Esq.
Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150
Oakland, CA 94621
Phone: 510.817.2711
Fax: 510.562.6830
Email: ras@asmlawyers.com
rwlm@asmlawyers.com
hvr@asmlawyers.com
caj@asmlawyers.com
bar@asmlawyers.com
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Crawford Appeals Refund Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Daria Crawford, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DARIA CRAWFORD and AHMED
ABDELHAMID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PRESIDENTS AND DIRECTORS OF GEORGETOWN
COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01539-CRC, in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 19, 2021, Judge
Christopher R. Cooper of the District of Columbia granted the
motion to dismiss filed by Georgetown University.
As the COVID-19 pandemic upended daily life in spring 2020,
countless institutions of higher education suspended in-person
classes and activities and temporarily moved them online including
the Georgetown University.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiff seeks a partial refund
of tuition and fees they paid for the spring 2020 semester. The
Plaintiff does not dispute that it was reasonable under the
circumstances to pause on-campus education, but she claims that the
University owes her and other students compensation for failing to
deliver a full semester of the traditional college experience that
they reasonably expected when they enrolled.
Ms. Crawford filed her putative class action against Georgetown in
June 2020, seeking partial refund of tuition and fees on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated students.
Ms. Crawford now seeks a review of the case dismissal order entered
by Judge Cooper.
The appellate case is captioned as Daria Crawford, et al v.
Presidents and Directors of Georgetown College, Case No. 21-7063,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, filed on June 11, 2021.[BN]
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- APPELLANT docketing statement is due on July 12, 2021;
-- APPELLANT certificate as to parties is due on July 12, 2021;
-- APPELLANT statement of issues is due on July 12, 2021;
-- APPELLANT underlying decision is due on July 12, 2021;
-- APPELLANT deferred appendix statement is due on July 12,
2021;
-- APPELLANT entry of appearance is due on July 12, 2021;
-- APPELLANT transcript status report is due on July 12, 2021;
-- APPELLANT procedural motions are due on July 12, 2021;
-- APPELLANT dispositive motions are due on July 26, 2021;
-- APPELLEE certificate as to parties is due on July 12, 2021;
-- APPELLEE entry of appearance is due on July 12, 2021;
-- APPELLEE procedural motions are due on July 12, 2021; and
-- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on July 26, 2021.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Daria Crawford, on behalf of herself and
other individuals similarly situated; and Ahmed Abdelhamid,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7142
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
Defendant-Appellee Presidents and Directors of Georgetown College
is represented by:
Alan Evan Schoenfeld, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 230-8800
GERBER PRODUCTS: Robbins Consumer Suit Moved to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CHARLES ROBBINS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER
PRODUCTS COMPANY D/B/A NESTLE NUTRITION, NESTLE INFANT NUTRITION,
OR NESTLE NUTRITION NORTH AMERICA; and NURTURE, INC. D/B/A HAPPY
FAMILY BRANDS and HAPPY FAMILY ORGANICS, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01457, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the Southern District of New
York on June 17, 2021. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Mary Kay
Vyskocil.
Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and
baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Shoop, Esq.
Thomas S. Alch, Esq.
SHOOP | A PROFESSIONAL
LAW CORPORATION
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 620-9533
E-mail: David.shoop@shooplaw.com
Thomas.alch@shooplaw.com
-and-
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 969-7810
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
-and-
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Robbins Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CHARLES ROBBINS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER
PRODUCTS COMPANY D/B/A NESTLE NUTRITION, NESTLE INFANT NUTRITION,
OR NESTLE NUTRITION NORTH AMERICA; and NURTURE, INC. D/B/A HAPPY
FAMILY BRANDS and HAPPY FAMILY ORGANICS, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01457, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on June 16, 2021. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-12666-CCC-MF to the proceeding. The Case
is assigned to the Hon. Claire C Cecchi and referred to Magistrate
Mark Falk.
Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and
baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Shoop, Esq.
Thomas S. Alch, Esq.
SHOOP | A PROFESSIONAL
LAW CORPORATION
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 620-9533
E-mail: David.shoop@shooplaw.com
Thomas.alch@shooplaw.com
-and-
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 969-7810
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
-and-
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
GOLD STANDARD: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Sanchez Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLD STANDARD ENTERPRISES, INC.
d/b/a Binny's Beverage Depot, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03349
(N.D. Ill., June 22, 2021) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated hourly-paid employees an additional
premium rate of pay to incentivize them to work during the Covid-19
pandemic. However, the Defendant did not include this additional
Covid Pay in its employees' base rate of pay for the purpose of
calculating their overtime wages. As a result, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated hourly-paid employees were not accurately
paid for their overtime hours worked at one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover unpaid
compensation, an additional liquidated damages, pre-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as
the Court deems appropriate and just.
Gold Standard Enterprises, Inc. is a retailer of wine, spirits,
beer and cigars. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
Seth Matus, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Tel: (630) 355-7590
Fax: (630) 778-0400
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dorsey & Whitney Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Droske, Esq., and Steven Wells, Esq., of Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, No. 20-222: In this
securities-fraud class action, plaintiff pension funds brought suit
against the Goldman Sachs Group, alleging that Goldman had
maintained an artificially high stock price by making false or
misleading generic statements about its conflict management
abilities. According to the plaintiffs, the result was that when
several undisclosed conflicts of interest came to light, Goldman's
stock price fell and its shareholders suffered losses. The
plaintiffs' class certification theory relied upon the presumption
established by the Court in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224
(1988), which rests on the theory that investors rely on the market
price of a company's security, which incorporates all of the
company's public misrepresentations. Goldman attempted to rebut the
Basic presumption with evidence that its purported
misrepresentations had no actual impact on its stock price, but the
District Court certified the class after finding Goldman had failed
to carry its burden, and the Second Circuit affirmed. On June 22,
the Court vacated and remanded, holding that the generic nature of
a misrepresentation often is important evidence of price impact
that courts should consider at class certification, something which
the Second Circuit may not have properly considered. The Court
further held that with respect to the burden of persuasion, the
Second Circuit had properly determined that at class certification,
the defendants bear the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of
price impact by a preponderance of the evidence. Justice Barrett
issued the Court's opinion, joined in full by Chief Justice
Roberts, as well as Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice
Sotomayor concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with
the Court's holdings as to the legal standards, but concluding that
affirmance was appropriate because the Second Circuit had properly
considered the generic nature of Goldman's alleged
misrepresentations. Justice Gorsuch, in an opinion joined by
Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, also concurred in part and
dissented in part, joining the Court's opinion except for the
holding that the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, bears the
burden of persuasion on price impact.
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston, No. 20-512: Current
and former student-athletes in certain NCAA Division I sports filed
a class action against the NCAA for violating §1 of the Sherman
Act's prohibition on contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in
restraint of trade or commerce. The District Court conducted a
"rule of reason" analysis - a fact-specific assessment of market
power and market structure to assess a particular restraint's
actual effect on competition. Based on that analysis, the District
Court upheld the NCAA's rules limiting undergraduate athletic
scholarships and other compensation related to athletic
performance, but enjoined the NCAA's rules limiting the
education-related benefits schools may offer student athletes. Both
sides appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in full. Only the
NCAA petitioned the Court. The Court today affirmed, holding that
the District Court properly subjected the NCAA's compensation
restrictions to a rule of reason analysis, and rejecting the NCAA's
challenges to the District Court's application of its rule of
reason analysis. Justice Gorsuch issued the Court's unanimous
opinion. Justice Kavanaugh also issued a concurring opinion to
underscore that the NCAA's remaining compensation rules not at
issue in this suit also raise serious questions under the antitrust
laws.
View the Court's decision.
United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434: The Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act of 2011 established the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board ("PTAB"), an executive adjudicatory body within the Patent
and Trademark Office ("PTO"), that conducts inter partes review of
previously issued patents. Any person can petition the PTO Director
(who is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate) to institute inter partes review. If the Director
determines certain statutory requirements are met, the Director can
designate three members of the PTAB (generally Administrative
Patent Judges ("APJs") appointed by the Secretary of Commerce) to
conduct an inter partes proceeding. That PTAB panel's decision is
not subject to further Executive Branch review, but is subject to
judicial review in the Federal Circuit. Here, after a PTAB panel
consisting of three APJs held Arthrex's patent was invalid, Arthrex
appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the APJs' authority
under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, which requires
that principal officers must be appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate. Inferior officers, in contrast,
are those who are directed and supervised at some level by others
who were appointed by Presidential nomination and the Senate's
advice and consent. The Federal Circuit found that the statutory
scheme rendered APJs principal officers because neither the
Secretary nor Director had authority to review the APJs' decisions
or remove them at will, and fixed the constitutional issue by
instead making APJs removable at will be the Secretary. Today, the
Court held that the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs during
inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the
Secretary to an inferior office. That part of the Chief Justice's
opinion was joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and
Barrett. As to the remedy, the Court vacated and remanded,
concluding that the constitutional violation can be cured by not
enforcing the section of the statute preventing the Director from
reviewing final decisions rendered by APJs. Justice Gorsuch
dissented from that part of the Chief Justice's opinion, but
Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, while disagreeing that a
constitutional violation had occurred, agreed with the Court's
remedy. Those three justices also joined Justice Thomas's dissent,
which concluded that APJs are both formally and functionally
inferior officers to the Director and Secretary. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Brown Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Google, LLC, Google Payment Corp.,
Case No. 8:20-cv-01311, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 25, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-04892-EJD to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Other
Contract.
Google LLC -- https://www.google.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company that specializes in
Internet-related services and products, which include online
advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud computing,
software, and hardware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard F. Lesser, Esq.
SIMON LESSER P.C.
355 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 599-5455
Fax: (212) 599-5459
Email: llesser@simonlesser.com
- and -
Dargan Maner Ware, Esq.
DAVIS AND NORRIS, LLP
2154 Highland Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 930-9900
Email: dware@davisnorris.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Catherine Yunie Stillman, Esq.
Christina Cerutti, Esq.
BAKER McKENZIE LLP
452 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 626-4218
Email: catherine.stillman@bakermckenzie.com
christina.cerutti@bakermckenzie.com
GRANITE STATE: Grenier Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
RITA GRENIER; and EDWIN GRENIER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GRANITE STATE CREDIT
UNION; and DOES 1 THROUGH 5, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00534
(D.N.H., June 17, 2021) alleges that the Defendants violated and
continues to violate Federal Reserve Regulation E which requires
financial institutions to provide complete, accurate, clear, and
easily understandable disclosures of their overdraft services and
obtain affirmative customer consent before the financial
institution can lawfully charge overdraft fees on non-recurring
debit transactions and ATM withdrawals.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
intentionally provides its members with an opt-in disclosure which
purports to inform what they "Need to Know about Overdraft and
Overdraft Fees," but that document provides ambiguous and
inaccurate language to describe under what circumstances a customer
is subject to an overdraft fee. Accordingly, as the Defendant has
adopted a noncompliant opt-in disclosure agreement to obtain
consent under Regulation E, it may not assess overdraft fees to its
customers on Regulation E transactions. Despite this, the Defendant
routinely assesses overdraft fees on non-recurring debit
transactions and ATM withdrawals, the Plaintiff asserts.
Granite State Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative. The
Union provides financial solutions such as loans, investment,
deposit accounts, insurance, security, credit and debit cards,
online banking, and other related services. Granite State Credit
Union serves communities in the State of New Hampshire. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christine M. Craig, Esq.
SHAHEEN & GORDON, P.A.
P.O. Box 977
Dover, NH 03821-0977
Telephone: (603) 749-5000
E-mail: ccraig@shaheengordon.com
-and-
Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
Sherief Morsy, Esq.
McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com
sm@mccunewright.com
-and-
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1275
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
GSK CONSUMER: November 18 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration on June 22 disclosed that a proposed class
action settlement has been reached in the cases captioned Swetz v.
GSK Consumer Health, Inc., No. 20-cv-04731 (S.D.N.Y.), and White v.
GSK Consumer Health, Inc., No. 20-cv-04048 (N.D. Cal). This notice
provides a summary of your rights and options.
What is this about? Plaintiffs Susan Swetz and Phillip White claim
that Defendants GSK Consumer Health, Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline
Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC ("GSK") deceptively marketed,
advertised, labeled, and sold Benefiber Original Prebiotic Powder
Fiber Supplement, Benefiber Sugar-Free Powder Fiber Supplement,
Benefiber Prebiotic Powder Fiber Supplement On-The-Go Stick Packs
(Flavored or Unflavored), and Benefiber Prebiotic Fiber Supplement
Chewables (collectively "Benefiber Original"), and/or Benefiber
Healthy Shape Prebiotic Powder Fiber Supplement ("Benefiber Healthy
Shape") (collectively, the "Covered Products") as "100% Natural" or
"natural" and also that Benefiber Healthy Shape was mislabeled as
"clinically proven to cure cravings" even though it allegedly is
the same product as Benefiber Original. GSK vigorously denies all
allegations made in the lawsuit and has asserted numerous defenses,
including that the sole ingredient, wheat dextrin, is derived from
natural wheat and that satiety statements regarding Benefiber
Healthy Shape are substantiated by clinical studies. Both sides
have agreed to a settlement to avoid the risk, cost, and time of
further litigation.
Who is affected? You are a Settlement Class Member if you purchased
Benefiber Original and/or Benefiber Healthy Shape for personal use,
and not for resale, in the United States between June 19, 2014 and
June 8, 2021.
What does the settlement provide? The settlement provides both
monetary and injunctive relief.
Monetary Relief: GSK has agreed to pay $6.5 million to a Settlement
Fund, which will be used to pay: (1) monetary benefits to eligible
Settlement Class Members as described below, (2) reasonable
settlement administration expenses, not to exceed $675,000; (3)
attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount approved by the Court,
but not to exceed one-third (1/3) of the Gross Settlement Fund
($2,166,666); and (4) a class representative service award of
$3,000 per representative.
Injunctive Relief: GSK has also agreed to (1) cease manufacturing
the Covered Products with labels stating "100% Natural" and will
exclude that statement from any future marketing or advertisements
created by GSK or at GSK's direction that describes the Covered
Products, and (2) cease manufacturing Benefiber Healthy Shape with
labels stating "clinically proven to cure cravings" and will
exclude that statement from any future marketing or advertisements
created by GSK or at GSK's direction that describes Benefiber
Healthy Shape.
What can I get? Settlement Class Members who submit a timely and
valid Claim Form may be eligible to receive:
* An estimated $10.00* per qualifying purchase of Benefiber
Original, up to a maximum of five (5) units without proof of
purchase. Qualifying Proof of Purchase for each unit is required
for all Claims for more than five (5) units of Benefiber Original.
* An estimated $12.00* per qualifying purchase of Benefiber
Healthy Shape, up to a maximum of five (5) units without proof of
purchase. Qualifying Proof of Purchase for each unit is required
for all Claims for more than five (5) units of Benefiber Healthy
Shape.
* Payments are subject to a possible pro rata adjustment
(upwards or downwards) depending on the number of timely and valid
Claims submitted. Only one Claim can be filed per household. For
more information, go to www.NationalBenefiberSettlement.com.
How do I file a Claim? To receive a cash payment, go to
www.NationalBenefiberSettlement.com to file or download a Claim
Form. You can also write: National Benefiber Settlement, c/o JND
Legal Administration, PO Box 91412, Seattle, WA 98111 or email:
info@NationalBenefiberSettlement.com. All Claim Forms must be
submitted online by October 6, 2021 or by mail and postmarked by
October 6, 2021.
What are my other options? You can do nothing, exclude yourself, or
object to the settlement.
Do Nothing: If you do nothing, you will not get a payment and you
will give up your right to sue or continue to sue GSK for the
claims released by the settlement.
Exclude Yourself: If you exclude yourself or remove yourself from
the Settlement Class, you will not receive a payment. You will keep
your right to sue or continue to sue GSK for the claims released by
the settlement. Exclusion requests must be postmarked by September
7, 2021.
Object. If you do not exclude yourself from the settlement, you may
object to it and tell the Court what you don't like about the
settlement. Objections must be postmarked by September 7, 2021 and
sent to the Court and the Settlement Administrator.
For details about your rights and options and how to exclude
yourself or object, go to www.NationalBenefiberSettlement.com.
What happens next? The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on
November 18, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, to consider whether
to approve the settlement, Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and
expenses, and class representative service awards. The Final
Approval Hearing will be held before the Honorable Nelson S.
Román, via teleconference. Be sure to check the Settlement Website
for teleconference details and for updates. The Court has appointed
Jason P. Sultzer of The Sultzer Law Group; Melissa S. Weiner of
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP; Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Gary E. Mason of Mason Lietz &
Klinger LLP; Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman; Ryan J.
Clarkson and Katherine A. Bruce of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.; and
Christopher D. Moon of Moon Law APC as Co-Lead Class Counsel. Class
Counsel will answer any questions that the Court may have. You may
appear at the hearing, either yourself or through an attorney hired
by you, but you don't have to.
How do I get more information? For more information and to view the
full notice, go to www.NationalBenefiberSettlement.com National
Benefiber Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box 91412,
Seattle, WA 98111 or email: info@NationalBenefiberSettlement.com,
or call 1-833-636-2116.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE [GN]
H B & H LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fares Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
NOER FARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. H, B & H, LLC dba ON THE BORDER GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB; GERALD HAY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00753 (E.D. Wis., June 17, 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.
Plaintiff Fares was employed by the Defendants as exotic dancer.
H, B & H, LLC dba ON THE BORDER GENTLEMEN'S CLUB owns and operates
a strip club located at Franklin, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
-and-
Jay Urban, Esq.
URBAN & TAYLOR S.C.
Urban Taylor Law Building
4701 N. Port Washington Rd.
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Telephone: 414-906-1700
E-mail: jurban@wisconsininjury.com
HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Hair Studio Appeals Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Hair Studio 1208 LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled HAIR STUDIO 1208, LLC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case No.
2-20-cv-02171, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 31, 2021, U.S.
District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg dismissed Quakertown,
Pennsylvania-based Hair Studio 1208 LLC's proposed class action
against Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. on the grounds that
closing to prevent the pandemic's spread did not cause physical
loss of or damage to the salon, and thus wasn't covered.
"When the structure continues to function, there is no physical
loss that would be eligible for coverage," Judge Goldberg wrote.
"Plaintiff does not assert the presence of COVID-19 on its
property. Indeed, the amended complaint does not allege any facts
regarding the physical integrity or use of the covered property.
Rather, plaintiff contends that it closed its business due to
Governor [Tom] Wolf's closure orders . . . There was no physical
source or threatened presence of a physical source that caused
plaintiff's inability to use its property for its intended
purpose."
Judge Goldberg granted Hartford's motion to dismiss the salon's
suit, joining a number of other federal courts that have denied
that coverage exists when there was no physical alteration of the
insured business's property.
Hair Studio 1208 had contended that its "all-risk" policy from
Hartford assumed that all potential losses not specifically
excluded from the policy would be covered, but Judge Goldberg said
that argument improperly flipped the burden of proof for a
plaintiff to show that a loss was covered.
The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the said dismissal order
entered by Judge Goldberg.
The appellate case is captioned as Hair Studio 1208 LLC v. Hartford
Underwriters Insurance Co., Case No. 21-2113, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 15,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant HAIR STUDIO 1208 LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
Gabriel Verdugo, Esq.
Amy C. Williams-Derry, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alison E. Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 200-0583
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
Defendant-Appellee HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO. is
represented by:
Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 577-1265
E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com
- and -
Ryan M. Chabot, Esq.
Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 295-6513
- and -
Richard D. Gable, Jr., Esq.
BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG
1818 Market Street, Suite 2740
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 405-9191
- and -
Sarah D. Gordon, Esq.
Caitlin R. Tharp, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 429-8005
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Averts Class Action Over Tuition Fee Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bea Castaneda, writing for The College Post, reports that a federal
judge has ruled in favor of Harvard University in a long-standing
class action lawsuit filed by students who demanded partial tuition
refunds after the school transitioned to online learning during the
pandemic.
The three plaintiffs leading the suit were unable to prove that
Harvard had legally promised them in-person classes and access to
campus facilities for the spring semester last year, according to
US District Judge Indira Talwani.
Abraham Barkhordar, Ella Wechsler-Matthaei, and Sarah Zelasky filed
the lawsuit a year ago, claiming that it was unfair for them to pay
full tuition while studying online because the latter is "subpar in
every aspect: lack of facilities, lack of materials, lack of
efficient classroom participation, and lack of access to faculty."
But Talwani ruled that such expectations were unreasonable, since
last year ushered in a global pandemic that brought about
unprecedented challenges. The federal judge also rejected
Barkhordar's request for a partial refund as he agreed to pay full
tuition for online instruction.
The Harvard law student explained that the Ivy League school had
coerced him into making the choice, since he felt that the only two
options were to agree to online classes or delay his education.
Paying for Quality
Several institutions also faced similar complaints from students
and their parents regarding the cost of online classes, as many
believe that remote learning is an inferior alternative.
The University of Georgia and the Georgia Institute of Technology
were sued by students expressing their dissatisfaction with the
quality of education they received despite having paid full
tuition.
University of Delaware students have also demanded refunds. Their
suit states that they paid for in-person classes and the use of
campus facilities, but the pandemic prevented them from receiving
either. [GN]
HOME POINT: Windemuth Slams Share Drop from Missed Revenue Target
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Windemuth and Roberta Windemuth, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Home Point Capital
Inc. and its board members William A. Newman, Mark E. Elbaum, Agha
S. Khan, Stephen A. Levey and Eric L. Rosenzweig, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-11457 (E.D. Mich., June 21, 2021), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities
laws.
Home Point, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
residential mortgage originator and service provider. On February
1, 2021, Home Point filed a prospectus with the SEC in connection
with its initial public offering. Plaintiffs allege that the IPO
documents failed to disclose that Home Point's aggressive expansion
of its broker partners would dramatically increase the company's
expenses; that the mortgage industry was anticipating industry-wide
decreased gain-on-sale margins as a result of rising interest rates
in 2021 and Home Point would be subject to the same competitive
pressures; and that the Company had overstated its business and
financial prospects.
On May 6, 2021, Home Point issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the first quarter of 2021, reporting revenues
of $324.2 million, missing consensus estimates by $41.72 million.
On this news, Home Point's stock price fell $1.66 per share, or
17.7%, to close at $7.72 per share on May 6, 2021.
Plaintiffs claim to have acquired Home Point common stock at
artificially inflated prices, and lost when share price went down.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
HOMEADVISOR INC: Nardo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND NARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMEADVISOR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01709 (D. Colo., June 22, 2021) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant harassed him with text
message solicitations on his cellular telephone number ending in
9996 between on or about February 2021 and April 2021 in an attempt
to promote its business, goods and services. Despite the
Plaintiff's repeated requests to the Defendant for the messages to
stop, the Defendant continued sending the Plaintiff text messages.
At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide the Defendant with
his prior express consent to be contacted with text messages to his
cellular telephone number that has been registered with the
National Do Not Call Registry since February 20, 2007.
The complaint further asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages have caused the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons harm in the form of invasion of privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, as
well as inconvenience and disruption to their daily life.
HomeAdvisor, Inc. provides home improvement, maintenance and
remodeling services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (786) 496-4469
E-mail: IJhiraldo@IJhlaw.com
INSURANCE TECH: Heath Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------
Jay Heath and Edward Shapiro, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Insurance Technologies
Corp. (ITC) and Zywave, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00692
(N.D. Tex., June 18, 2021), seeks an award of compensatory,
statutory, nominal and punitive damages, equitable relief requiring
restitution and disgorgement of the revenues wrongfully retained,
an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and litigation
expenses, as allowable by law and such other and further relief
resulting from negligence and for violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Maryland's
Consumer Protection Act Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices,
Maryland's Personal Information Privacy Act.
Zywave and its wholly owned subsidiary, ITC, are information
technology services companies. They supply a cloud-based agency
management system to insurance companies called AgencyMatrix that
brokers use to manage their business. On May 10, 2021, ITC began
notifying customers and state Attorneys General about a data breach
that occurred on February 27, 2021 where hackers obtained
information from ITC including personally identifiable information
of thousands of its clients' customers, potential customers and
other individuals, including, but not limited to, their names,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth
and username/password information. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste. 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Alex Sauerwein, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
asauerwein@justice4you.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: gklinger@masonllp.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
Email: dlietz@masonllp.com
gmason@masonllp.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan Maxey, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
Email: jyanchuins@forthepeople.com
rmaxey@forthepeople.com
INVISION HUMAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lampert et al. Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GEORGE LAMPERT, JAMES CARSON, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. InVISION HUMAN SERVICES, a non-profit
company, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00810-CB (W.D. Penn., June 22,
2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as Direct
Support Professionals, allege that the Defendant deprived them of
their lawfully earned overtime compensation for all the hours they
performed work in excess of 40 hours per week. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs performed duties in the homes of mentally challenged
persons and include work shifts of 24 hours referred to as
"Awake-Overnight" shifts, in which they were permitted to sleep but
were considered to be on-call the entire 24-hour period. However,
they were not paid for "sleep time," says the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring this complaint against the Defendant to
recover unpaid wages found to be due and owing to them, as well as
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney's fees,
litigation costs, and other relief as the Court may deem proper and
just.
InVision Human Services is a non-profit company that provides
services to people with significant life challenges. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ernest B. Orsatti, Esq.
ROTHMAN GORDON, P.C.
310 Grant St. – 3rd Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel: (412) 338-1145
Fax: (412) 246-1745
E-mail: eborsatti@rothmangordon.com
ISITE ENTERPRISES: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Isite Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Isite Enterprises, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-05545 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Isite Enterprises operating under the name Motor Bookstore --
https://www.themotorbookstore.com/ -- sells DIY repair manuals for
cars, trucks, motorcycles, tractors & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
JAMAICA: Citizens File Class Action Lawsuit Against Government
--------------------------------------------------------------
jamaica-gleaner.com reports that the the Gleaner hosted an Editors'
Forum on 'The Building Issues' which illustrated the problem of
erratic development all across Jamaica. There was a vivid contrast
between the passionate views of concerned citizens and the
complacent opinions of the representatives of government agencies.
The moderator, Damion Mitchell, introduced the topic in this way:
"It's the issue that keeps building: construction in the Corporate
Area and city planning. Are the authorities making any progress?
And have the concerns of residents waned? Then comes the problem of
the rapid build-out of high-rise buildings in older, low-density
communities."
The first speaker was Dr Patricia Green, a senior lecturer in
architecture and historic preservation at the University of
Technology. She highlighted the secretive way in which development
is taking place. Even though the law requires consultation with
citizens who will be affected by new construction, building plans
are not readily available for review. Next was Anthony Davis,
retired director of sport at the University of Technology and
president of the Charlemont Drive Citizens' Association. He raised
the contentious issue of haphazard speculative development that
pays no attention to environmental protection and proper planning.
He argued that regulatory agencies are missing in action.
Consultant Enith Williams followed. She's a former international
financial adviser/private banker at Merrill Lynch in New York and a
past president of the Golden Triangle Neighbourhood Association
(GTNA). She made it absolutely clear that her association is not
against increased density in the city. The issue is how it's done.
She noted that in functioning cities the higher the buildings the
more attention is paid to pedestrian traffic.
Shut Down By Government Agencies
The representatives of the Kingston & St Andrew Municipal
Corporation (KSAMC) were quite upbeat in response to criticism of
the corporation. Sean Martin, deputy head of planning at KSAMC,
said he was "aware of the cries of our citizens" and wanted to "see
how best to manage the process of change that is presently taking
place within the city, while ensuring equity for all".
Unfortunately, actually listening to the citizens' cries does not
seem to be part of the management plan.
Similarly, Jeremy Lawrence, deputy building surveyor at the KSAMC,
said he was "aware of the concerns of the citizens" and
acknowledged the KSAMC's "responsibility to all citizens, including
developers". The moderator asked him a simple question: "Are you
seeing an increase in the number of building breaches in the
Corporate Area?" He gave a roundabout answer that did not focus on
breaches:
"Ah, no, not necessarily. It is pretty much constant. Ahm, but what
you will notice happening now is that you have a lot more
construction happening within the major Corporate Area, you talking
Kingston 6, Kingston 8, Kingston 10 and these are now large
developments which mean the impact they have in the area is felt
more." Yes, but what about breaches?
In his opening remarks, Christopher Whyms-Stone, deputy chairman of
Natural Resources Conservation Authority, resorted to a defensive
cliché: "Change doesn't come easy." Later, in response to Enith
Williams' concerns about the failure of government agencies to
listen to community stakeholders, Whyms-Stone arrogantly spoke the
truth: "And no, not all, not all of a community's suggestions are
going to be taken on board. It just does not work like that. Ahm,
change is difficult. Not all will. But we have heard." The
moderator did not allow Ms Williams to respond. All she managed to
get in was, "That's not, that's, no, that's ...". And, yes, that's
precisely the problem. Concerned citizens are constantly shut down
by government agencies.
HOLD DOWN AN TEK WEH
Many citizens' associations have been writing to NEPA and the KSAMC
about developers who break the law in a variety of ways. They buy
houses in single-family neighbourhoods, knock them down and build
high-density apartments without approval. Some of these developers
often take legal action to change restrictive covenants long after
they start construction. Many of them exceed the number of rooms
for which they have gotten building permits. One-bedroom units
magically turn into three. There are usually no regular checks made
by the KSAMC to ensure that developers are following approved
plans. So anything goes.
Ignoring negative press seems to be the preferred strategy of
malfunctioning government agencies to cope with their
institutionalised incompetence. Complaints by citizens are not
acknowledged. Letters simply go unanswered. Appeals all the way up
to the Office of the Prime Minister produce no results. It appears
as if government agencies are not held accountable for their
inaction. It's just business as usual.
Citizens' associations across the country need to join forces,
parish by parish, to claim power and fight for our communities. The
target of this collective action should not only be developers. The
primary offenders are the slack government agencies that do not
control the developers. Instead of each association paying
expensive legal fees to deal with a single local problem, the
united associations could together file class action suits against
the Government. We must fearlessly confront delinquent agencies
that are failing to protect long-established residential
communities from the unwelcome advances of rapacious developers.
It is rape. Hold down an tek weh. A huge apartment building is put
up next to your house. It robs you of light and air and, perhaps,
even a desirable view. And privacy! Friends of mine who faced this
problem in Millsborough were forced to raise the height of the
fence separating them from an invasive development. They planted
vines that prevented prying eyes from looking into their bedroom.
They were lucky. It could have been a high-rise apartment
building.
Across Jamaica, citizens are sick and tired of the failure of
government agencies to do their job. It looks as if the only thing
NEPA plans to do is to obey the orders of politicians. The same
thing seems to go for the KSAMC. And the single authority the NRCA
appears to respect is the ruling party. My visionary headline will
soon become reality. It's just a matter of time.
The Editors' Forum can be viewed on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ0ec9VLl5I [GN]
JB HUNT: Issaian Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Girik Issaian filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Girik Issaian, individually and on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public
v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., an Arkansas corporation,
J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00732-SVW-MAA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Jan. 24, 2020.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated California law
by: (1) failing to indemnify expenses; (2) improperly deducting
amounts from wages due; (3) failing to provide meal periods; (4)
failing to provide rest periods; (5) failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; (6) failing to pay all wages at time of
separation; (7) owing waiting time penalties under Cal. Lab. Code;
and (8) engaging in unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.
The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the Court's Order dated May
14, 2021, granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as Girik Issaian v. J.B. Hunt
Transport Services, et al., Case No. 21-55613, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 14, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Girik Issaian Mediation Questionnaire was due on
June 21, 2021;
-- Appellant Girik Issaian opening brief is due on August 10,
2021;
-- Appellees J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. and J.B. Hunt
Transport, Inc. answering brief is due on September 9, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant GIRIK ISSAIAN, individually and on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, is
represented by:
Joshua Mohrsaz, Esq.
Edwin Pairavi, Esq.
PAIRAVI LAW, PC.
1875 Century Park, E, Suite 480
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (916) 521-0923
E-mail: joshua@pairavilaw.com
edwin@pairavilaw.com
Defendants-Appellees J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., an
Arkansas corporation; and J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., a Georgia
corporation, are represented by:
James Anthony Eckhart, Esq.
James Harold Hanson, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 West Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637-1777
E-mail: jeckhart@scopelitis.com
jhanson@scopelitis.com
- and -
Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
JBBC INC: Gaeta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JBBC, Inc. The case
is styled as Sandra Gaeta, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JBBC, Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
BCV-21-101392 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 16, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
JBBC Inc. is located in Fort Kent, Maine and is part of the
Business Services Sector Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Launa N. Adolph, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Fax: (310) 531-1901
Phone: (855) 913-1134
Web: www.maternlawgroup.com
JM THORBURN: Meggs Sues Over ADA Violation
------------------------------------------
John Meggs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. JM THORBURN LLC and
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01607-NRN (D. Colo.,
June 14, 2021), is brought for injunctive relief, a declaration of
rights, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
According to the complaint, although over 28 years have passed
since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, the Defendants
have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with
disabilities. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public
and is located in Commerce City, Adams County, Colorado. The
individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property regularly,
including a visit to the property on or about May 20, 2021 and
encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected
his ability to use and enjoy the property. The Plaintiff found the
Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities and is, among
other things, a paraplegic and is therefore substantially limited
in major life activities due to his impairment, including, but not
limited to, not being able to walk or stand.
JM THORBURN LLC, owns, operates and oversees the Commercial
Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the
business therein, and it owns, operates and oversees said
Commercial Property located in Commerce City, Adams County,
Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
Beverly Virues, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
1600 Broadway, Suite 1600
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (720) 996-3500
Facsimile: (720) 381-0515
Primary Email: ajperez@lawgmp.com
Secondary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com
bvirues@lawgmp.com
JMJ ENTERPRISES: Wade Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------
Tiffany Wade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JMJ Enterprises, LLC and Traci Johnson
Martin, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00506 (W.D. N.C., June 21,
2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages for all
hours worked exceeding forty in a workweek, statutory penalties,
including liquidated damages, costs and fees and penalties for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Carolina labor
laws.
JMJ Enterprises control, own and/or operate a Special Needs Group
Home called Fresh Start that serves adolescents and adults with
mental health disorders. Wade worked at JMJ Enterprise as a
Residential Counselor. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
GESSNERLAW, PLLC
602 East Morehead Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Tel: (704) 234-7442
Fax: (980) 206-0286
Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
JOARDER ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arnold Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROB ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOARDER ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a DOMINO'S
PIZZA; and MOHAMMED JOARDER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-12671
(D.N.J., June 16, 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.
Plaintiff Arnold was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.
JOARDER ASSOCIATES own and operate Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
JOHNNY D'S: Rizzolo Seeks Unpaid Servers & Bartenders' Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SAMANTHA RIZZOLO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNNY D'S BEACH BAR & GRILL, LLC
and JOHN DAVIS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00628-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., June 23, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay federal minimum and overtime
wages for all their Servers and Bartenders in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked as a Bartender for the Defendants from
approximately 2016 until May 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate her
and other similarly situated Servers and Bartenders at the proper
federal minimum wage for all of the hours they have worked in one
or more workweeks. The Defendants allegedly required them to use a
portion of their tips and wages earned on their shift to cover cash
register shortages and walk-outs which conferred a benefit to the
Defendants. Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep accurate time
and pay records of their Servers and Bartenders to designate how
hours were worked each workweek, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, all reasonable attorney's
fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems just
and reasonable under the circumstances.
Johnny D's Beach Bar & Grill, LLC offers beach front dining and
drinking experiences to patrons in Flagler Beach, Florida. John
Davis is the owner and operator of Johnny D's. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
JUICIFY INC: Shanahan Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juicify, Inc. The
case is styled as Terrence Shanahan, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Juicify, Inc. doing business as:
Juicify, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 8:21-cv-00243-BCB-CRZ
(D. Neb., June 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Juicify's -- https://juicify.com.my/ -- ultimate mission is to
greatly influence as many people as possible to live a balanced &
healthier lifestyle by offering quality and affordable cold pressed
juices and nutritious snacks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
480 South Ellsworth Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Phone: (650) 781-8000
Fax: (650) 648-0705
Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court Enters Class Cert. Scheduling Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN ROTHFELD v.
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-01484-M (N.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered an order facilitating early
consideration of settlement and entry of a scheduling order under
Rule 16(b):
1. The requirement of Local Rule 23.2 that a motion for class
certification be filed within 90 days of filing of a class
action complaint is suspended in this case pending further
order of the Court.
2. The parties are directed to confer within 14 days of the date
of this Order regarding the following matters, and report to
the Court within 14 days after the conference the parties'
position.
3. The parties are directed to hold the conference required by
Rule 26(f) within 14 days of the date of this Order and
report to the Court as required by that Rule.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation is an American multinational personal
care corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer
products. The company manufactures sanitary paper products and
surgical & medical instruments.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AmjgOP at no extra charge.[CC]
KNOLL INC: Coffman Sues Over Herman Miller Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Coffman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Knoll, Inc. and the members of
Knoll's Board of Directors, Roberto Ardagna, Andrew B. Cogan,
Daniel W. Dienst, Stephen F. Fisher, Jeffrey A. Harris, Jeffrey
Alan Henderson, Ronald R. Kass, Christopher G. Kennedy, John F.
Maypole, Sarah E. Nash and Stephanie Stahl, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-00873 (D. Del., June 18, 2021), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of Knoll by Herman Miller
through its subsidiary Heat Merger Sub, Inc. The lawsuit further
seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
The merger agreement provides that Knoll shareholders will receive
0.32 shares of Herman Miller common stock and $11.00 in cash for
each share of Knoll common stock that they own. Upon completion,
Herman Miller shareholders will own approximately 78% of the
combined company and Knoll shareholders will own approximately
22%.
Coffman, a stockholder of Knoll, alleges that the proxy statement
fails to provide company stockholders with Knoll's and Herman
Miller's financial projections and the financial analyses,
including adjusted EBITDA, adjusted diluted earnings per share and
unlevered free cash flow to support the fairness opinion provided
by the Board's financial advisor, BofA Securities, Inc. The report
also fails to provide information regarding the company insiders'
potential conflicts of interest and the background of the proposed
transaction. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 729-9100
Email: BDLong@longlawde.com
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Becker Sues Over Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Becker, an individual on her own behalf, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
HOLDINGS, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 30-2021-01206025-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.,
June 14, 2021), seeks to obtain all applicable relief for the
Defendant's violations under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 (the "PAGA") and solely for relief as permitted
by PAGA that is penalties and any other relief the Court deems
proper pursuant to the PAGA.
Throughout the term of Plaintiff's employment, she and the
Aggrieved Employees worked time while off the clock that was never
recorded nor compensated. At the beginning of each eight hour
shift, Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked for
approximately 15 minutes prior to be able to clock in at the
beginning of each shift without pay. Moreover, during the statutory
period, Plaintiff further alleges that due to chronic
understaffing, she and the Aggrieved Employees were actively
impeded and prohibited by Defendant from taking their proper rest
and meal break periods. Because they were routinely understaffed,
Defendant demanded that Plaintiff and the Aggrieved remain on call
and thus during their breaks, supervisors would either call or text
them to either come back from their breaks early or to answer
work-related questions. Thus, rest and meal breaks were often cut
short and were never duty free and uninterrupted. Seldom was the
occasion when Plaintiff received an actual full 30-minute meal
break, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
phlebotomist from August 5, 2019 to August of 2020.
Defendant is and was a Delaware company, duly registered with the
California Secretary of State and conducting regular business
throughout California, providing clinical laboratory and drug
development services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
Meghan N. Higday, Esq.
WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 930
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 674-4922
Email: reception@jnwpc.com
mhigday@jnwpc.com
LAKES AREA: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, Collins Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT COLLINS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. LAKES AREA PIZZA, INC. and COREY L. JOHNSON,
Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-01457-ECT-BRT (D. Minn., June 22,
2021) alleges the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
June 2018 to November 2019 as a delivery driver at one of the
Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores located in Ramsey, Minnesota.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have implemented a flawed
automobile reimbursement policy which reimburses drivers on a
per-mile basis that equates to rates substantially below the IRS
business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a
reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses.
Because the delivery drivers' expenses, which they have incurred
while delivering pizza and other food items for the primary benefit
of the Defendants, were not adequately reimbursed, their net wages
are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements and
that also constitutes a "kickback" to the Defendants.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated against the Defendant to recover unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and
attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Lakes Area Pizza, Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores. Corey L. Johnson is an owner of substantial interests in
Lakes Area Pizza, Inc., served as an officer of the entity, and
held managerial responsibilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart L. Goldenberg, Esq.
Ethan Adams, Esq.
GOLDENBERGLAW, PLLC
800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 333-4662
Fax: (612) 367-8107
E-mail: slgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com
eadams@goldenberglaw.com
LARKIN STREET: King Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Larkin Street Youth
Services, et al. The case is styled as Dejeiner King, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act v. Larkin Street Youth
Services, a California corporation, Case No. CGC21592514 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 24, 2021).
The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."
Larkin Street Youth Services -- https://larkinstreetyouth.org/ --
is a nonprofit empowering young people to move beyond
homelessness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
LAW OFFICES OF BURR: Eytina Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Offices of Burr &
Reid, LLP. The case is styled as Zindoro Eytina, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Law Offices of Burr &
Reid, LLP, Case No. 3:21-cv-00698-FJS-ML (N.D.N.Y., June 14,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The Law Offices of Burr & Reid, LLP -- https://www.burr-reid.org/
-- concentrates in debt collection, creditor's rights, claims,
litigation and the enforcement of money judgments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Jaimes Sues Over Disability Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christian Jaimes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; DOES 1-100, Case No.
21STCV22268 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, Cty., June 15, 2021), is
brought against the Defendants for disability discrimination in
Violation of Cal. Gov. Code.
The complaint alleges that during the Plaintiff's employment
through the termination of their employment, the Plaintiff suffered
from various ailments and limited the Plaintiff's ability to
participate in major life activities including their ability to
work. The Plaintiff received medical treatment for the
Disabilities, and he may have required medical leave from work. The
Plaintiff's Disabilities persisted up to, and including, the time
the Defendants terminated the Plaintiff's employment. The
Defendants, via its managers, employees and agents, knew of the
Plaintiff's Disabilities, and their need for medical treatment,
therapy and leave, contemporaneously from the time he suffered the
Disabilities up to, and including, the time the Defendants
terminated the Plaintiff's employment. Despite its knowledge of the
Plaintiff's Disabilities, the Defendants, it failed to engage in
the interactive process with the Plaintiff and it failed to provide
the Plaintiff with reasonable accommodation(s) for their
Disabilities. The Defendants, through its managing agents,
wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff's employment due to their
Disabilities, their need, and requests, for accommodation of
Disabilities.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Gardener in the
County of Los Angeles and the State of California.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES is a public entity in the County of Los Angeles
and the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Roven (SBN 284614)
Britanie A. Martinez, Esq.
JONNY LAW
P.O. Box 3989
Valley Village, CA 91617-3989
Phone: (818) 639-3997
Fax: (818) 471-4164
Email: on@calljonnylaw.com
MARATHON REFINING: Hearing on Wood Class Cert. Bid Set for Nov. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE WOOD, WARREN
KOSTENUK, ANTHONY ALFARO, and AARON DIETRICH on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. MARATHON REFINING
LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 25, Case
No. 4:19-cv-04287-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered an orde regarding class certification and expert
discovery deadlines as follows:
1. The September 28, 2021 hearing on and associated briefing
schedule for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
vacated.
2. A hearing date for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
is set for November 16, 2021.
3. The parties shall adhere to the following class certification
briefing schedule: opening brief due by August 6, 2021;
responsive brief due by October 6, 2021; and reply brief due
on October 27, 2021.
4. The deadline for disclosure of expert reports shall be August
6, 2021 and for rebuttal expert reports to September 6,
2021.
5. The expert discovery cutoff date shall be November 5, 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yld9IL at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by
Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
Jannah V. Manansala, Esq.
Roberta D. Perkins, Esq.
Alexander S. Nazarov, Esq.
Maximillian D. Casillas, Esq.
Kara L. Gordon, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
A Professional Corporation
1375 55th Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (510) 337-1001
Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
E-Mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net
khillman@unioncounsel.net
manansala@unioncounsel.net
rperkins@unioncounsel.net
anazarov@unioncounsel.net
mcasillas@unioncounsel.net
kgordon@unioncounsel.net
- and -
Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
David Pogrel, Esq.
Leonard Carder, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-0169
Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants, are:
William J. Dritsas, Esq.
Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
Mary D. Manesis, Esq.
Amanda I. Fry, Esq.
Michael w. Kopp, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-Mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com
trusche@seyfarth.com
mmanesis@seyfarth.com
afry@seyfarth.com
mkopp@seyfarth.com
MCCREA CAPITAL: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCrea Capital
Advisors Inc. The case is styled as Juan Roman, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. McCrea Capital
Advisors Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05550 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
McCrea Capital Advisors Inc. doing business as McCrea's Candies --
http://www.mccreascandies.com/-- offers delightfully flavored
individually wrapped caramels.[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
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Blount County Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Blount County, Tennessee; City of Maryville,
Tennessee; Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons
Similarly Situated v. McKinsey & Company Inc., McKinsey & Company
Inc. United States, Case No. 3:21-cv-00105, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
June 28, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-04969-CRB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.
McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American
worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University
of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic
management to corporations, governments, and other
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Friedman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Email: jeff@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Matthew D Conn, Esq.
Joseph L Kerr, Jr., Esq.
FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO AND ZULANAS, P.C.
3800 Corporate Woods Drive
Birmingham, AL 35242
Phone: (205) 278-7028
Email: mconn@friedman-lawyers.com
jkerr@friedman-lawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alan D Leeth, Esq.
Samuel Aitken Morris, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN
Southtrust Tower, Suite 3400
420 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 251-3000
Fax: (205) 244-5670
Email: aleeth@burr.com
smorris@burr.com
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Peach County Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Peach County, Georgia; City of Woodbury,
Georgia; Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly
Situated v. McKinsey & Company Inc., McKinsey & Company Inc. United
States, McKinsey & Company Inc. Washington DC, Case No.
3:21-cv-00043, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 28, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-04963-CRB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.
McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American
worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University
of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic
management to corporations, governments, and other
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Joseph Conn, Esq.
HARRIS LOWRY MANTON LLP
1418 Dresden Drive NE, Unit 250
Brookhaven, GA 30319
Phone: (404) 961-7650
Fax: (404) 961-7651
Email: aconn@hlmlawfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey E Friedman, Esq.
Matthew D Conn, Esq.
FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO AND ZULANAS, P.C.
3800 Corporate Woods Drive
Birmingham, AL 35242
Phone: (205) 278-7028
Email: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
mconn@friedman-lawyers.com
- and -
Stephen Glenn Lowry, Esq.
HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP
400 Colony Square
1201 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 900
Atlanta, GA 30361
Phone: (404) 961-7650
Fax: (404) 961-7651
Email: steve@hpllegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alan D Leeth, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN
Southtrust Tower, Suite 3400
420 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 251-3000
Fax: (205) 244-5670
Email: aleeth@burr.com
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Walker County Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Walker County, Alabama; The City of Jasper,
Alabama; Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly
Situated v. McKinsey & Company Inc., McKinsey & Company Inc. United
States, McKinsey & Company Inc. Washington DC, Case No.
6:21-cv-00425, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 28, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-04960-CRB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.
McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American
worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University
of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic
management to corporations, governments, and other
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq.
Matthew David Conn, Esq.
Rodney Dillard, Esq.
FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO AND ZULANAS, P.C.
3800 Corporate Woods Drive
Birmingham, AL 35242
Phone: (205) 278-7028
Email: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
mconn@friedman-lawyers.com
rdillard@friedman-lawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alan D. Leeth, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN
Southtrust Tower, Suite 3400
420 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 251-3000
Fax: (205) 244-5670
Email: aleeth@burr.com
MFK LLC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Alvarez et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
PENNY ALVAREZ, MICHAEL COLLAZO and DEVIN HARRIS, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MFK, LLC
d.b.a. MOBILELINK, MOBILELINK, LLC, MOBILE LINK VIRGINIA, LLC,
MOBILELINK TENNESSEE, LLC and MOBILELINK WEST VIRGINIA, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-02058 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged illegal pay scheme that intentionally and willfully
violated of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who have worked for the Defendants as Retail Store
Managers, assert that the Defendants failed to properly pay them
and other similarly situated Sales Personnel for all hours they
performed work for the Defendants. Despite regularly and routinely
working more than 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid proper
overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week because
the Defendants failed to include all commissions earned during the
workweek in calculating their overtime pay.
The Corporate Defendants are Cricket Wireless cellular devices
retailers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James R. Bullman, Esq.
Brian F. Blackwell, Esq.
BLACKWELL & BULLMAN, LLC
8322 One Calais Ave.,
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Tel: (225) 769-2462
Fax: (225) 769-2463
E-mail: james@blackwell-bullman.com
Brian@blackwell-bullman.com
- and –
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY
8712 Jefferson Hwy., Ste. B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Tel: (225) 925-5297
Fax: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: scott@bohrerbrady.com
phil@bohrerbrady.com
MICHAEL MILLER: Naiman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Miller
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Sidney Naiman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Michael Miller Insurance Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-04883 (N.D.
Cal., June 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Michael Miller Insurance -- https://www.michaelmillerinsurance.com/
-- is a full service multiple lines agency/brokerage offering
customized insurance solutions.[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
MICROSOFT CORP: Pena Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mario A. Pena, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation, Case No. 2021-CH-02338 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 16,
2021, and assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03229.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a claim for alleged violations of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
Colin P. Buscarini, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
aheldut@mcgpc.com
cbuscarini@mcgpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David Rhinesmith, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-1706
Phone: +1 202 339 8400
Facsimile: +1 202 339 8500
Email: drhinesmith@orrick.com
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Winter Storm Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that a North Texas plastics company has filed a
proposed class action lawsuit against Des Moines-based MidAmerican
Energy Services, alleging the electricity supplier passed through
unauthorized fees to commercial customers with contracts marketed
as fixed-rate plans. MidAmerican is an affiliate of Berkshire
Hathaway Energy and supplies electricity to approximately 60,000
customers nationwide, including about 15,000 in Texas.
According to the filing in federal district court in Marshall, lead
plaintiff J&M Plastics, located in Royse City northeast of Dallas,
received a statement from MidAmerican in April that included eight
line-item charges for "Supplemental Ancillary Services." Those
charges, assessed during the week of the February 2021 winter
storm, totaled almost $54,000, more than three times the amount of
the company's typical monthly bill.
The MidAmerican contract states that the fixed-price plan includes
"costs associated with line loss…all charges assessed by
ERCOT…and other costs required to facilitate delivery of
electricity to Customer's Delivery Points."
But according to the lawsuit, MidAmerican ignored the terms of its
fixed-price agreement and informed customers that "MidAmerican
Energy Services will not increase the energy component of your
bill, however, non-energy costs such as ancillary charges billed by
ERCOT and your local utility, are not fixed and are passed through
on your bill."
J&M management kept the 55,000 square foot facility heated during
the storm to keep pipes from freezing but did not operate. The
company employs more than 40 full-time workers and manufactures a
variety of consumer products from recycled plastic.
"MidAmerican has already acknowledged that it can't pass through
these same costs to their residential and small business customers,
because of the Public Utility Commission's consumer protection
regulations," says Derek Potts of the Potts Law Firm in Houston.
"But the company's still trying to unlawfully use a statewide
disaster to take advantage of and price-gouge thousands of larger
commercial customers."
"They can't justify passing through these costs when J&M and other
customers agreed to a fixed-price electricity plan, which
specifically includes any ancillary and ERCOT-assessed charges,"
says Potts.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, among other claims for breach of contract,
negligence and misrepresentation.
The lawsuit is J&M Plastics, Inc. v. MidAmerican Energy Services,
Case No.2:21-cv-00206, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in Marshall. [GN]
N3 LLC: Austin Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENDON AUSTIN,
Individually, and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. N3
LLC d/b/a N3 RESULTS; and
ACCENTURE LLP, Case No. 1:21-cv-01354-TWT (N.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this case to
proceed as an Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section 216b
collective action;
2. requiring the Defendants to produce
the names, US mail
addresses, email addresses, last
four numbers of their Social
Security Numbers, and telephone
numbers of each putative
class member; and
3. authorizing the Plaintiff Austin
and his counsel to send
Notice of this action and
the consent to join form to
all
persons currently or formerly
employed as Inside Sales
Representatives (ISR) working from
or reporting to the
Corporate office located in
Atlanta Georgia,and who were
employed by the Defendants anytime
within the preceding three
years to the present.
The Plaintiff Austin has brought this
FLSA collective action against the
Defendants, alleging that the Defendants violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) by willfully failing to
pay the ISR working under the job
titles of Business Development
Representatives (BDR), Inside Opportunity
Manager (IOM) and all variations of
these titles or positions,
overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 in each and
every workweek.
N3, LLC operates as a sales and marketing execution firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y2Kdou
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorney for the Plaintiff and the
Class, are:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave., No.
101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
mail@feldmanlegal.us
NATIONAL RUGBY: Former Players Impacted by Concussion File Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Carmine at zerotackle.com reports that following the NRL's
crackdown on head-high contact this season, the league themselves
could be facing sanctions if Sydney businessman Barry Tilley has
his way.
According the a report filed by Paul Kent from The Daily Telegraph,
Tilley is on the search for former players impacted by concussion
during their careers in a bid to fight 'city hall'.
Tilley's prospective class action has been devised as a way for
those crippled by concussion to collectively sue the NRL.
Although the wheels are reportedly in motion, the prominent
property developer that will be speaking for Mitry lawyers claims
that for the lawsuit to have any lasting effect, more players will
need to join the cause.
"We need 50 people," Tilley told Kent.
Despite the aforementioned crackdown on tackles and shots above the
shoulders, Tilley was adamant that the moves must be seen as too
little, too late from the game's governing body.
"They haven't had any decent rules to protect the people that play
it," he said.
Kent retorted this point in his piece by saying that head-high hits
had been illegal for the entire history of the code and that
players had always been aware of the risks when taking the field.
The scribe also reported that an anonymous former player claimed
that many players that still feel the ills of concussion long after
they hung up their studded boots couldn't bring themselves to join
Tilley's crusade.
"Some just can't bring it in themselves to do it," the source
said.
"They love their club."
Irrespective of this snub from a fleet of former first-graders,
Mitry lawyers spokesperson and partner Rick Mitry explained that
many others were keen to become a part of the suit.
"There has been about 15 people talk to me about it and I told them
the position and I have been straight upfront with them," he said.
While Kent cited a potentially outdated pride as the reason why
many had turned their back on the class action, Mitry expounded
that it was quite often their loved ones that contacted him
instead.
"A lot are worried about the media," the lawyer said.
"I'm not going to leave them high and dry."
Kent also stated that although the NRL were unaware of the 'nuts
and bolts' of the class action, they had reportedly been preparing
themselves for case of this magnitude for some time.
The NRL 360 host raised the fact that the National Football League
in America had recently had to pay a $1 billion USD sum to it's
former players due to similar circumstances, so whether the league
likes it or not, there is legal precedent.
However, Kent also pointed to the differences in protocol and legal
tact employed by lawyers representing the collective of former
Gridiron players.
The veteran journalist also cited the fact that due to a myriad of
differing factors that can lead to dimentia - such as alcohol
intake and genetic disposition - Mitry and Tilley's case could be a
tough one to prove on a collective level.
Due to this, Kent stated that it is the NRL's wish for players to
plead their case on an individual basis so as to determine each
instance on its own merits. [GN]
NATIONAL UNION FIRE: Delaware Superior Court Holds Opt-Out Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that in a win for Wiley Rein's client, the
Delaware Superior Court has held that an opt-out securities case
related back to the original securities class action because the
cases were "based on the same subject, have a causal connection,
and primarily rely on the same facts or occurrences." First Solar,
Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., C.A. No. N20C-10-156 MMJ CCLD
(Del. Super. Ct. June 23, 2021). The court thus denied the
insured's motion for summary judgment and granted the insurers'
motion to dismiss the coverage action because the opt-out case was
"fundamentally identical" to the securities class action and
therefore deemed a Claim first made prior to the inception of the
insurance policies at issue.
The underlying securities class action alleged that a solar-power
company and individual defendants violated federal securities laws
by engaging in a fraudulent scheme to convince investors and the
public that they had a winning formula for making solar power
competitive with fossil fuels. A number of shareholders opted out
from the securities class action and filed a securities lawsuit in
the same court. The opt-out case similarly alleged that the company
and the same current and former officers and directors engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to oversell the company's ability to make solar
power competitive with fossil fuels - otherwise known as grid
parity.
The company agreed to settle the opt-out case for $19 million, and
the opt-out plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the lawsuit. The company's
primary and first excess D&O carriers denied coverage for the
settlement on the grounds that the opt-out case relates back to and
is deemed first made at the time of the securities class action,
which was prior to the inception of the policies.
In the ensuing coverage litigation, the company argued that the
opt-out case did not relate back to the securities class action
because the two cases were not "fundamentally identical," which the
company argued is the applicable standard under Pfizer Inc. v. Arch
Insurance Company. The company pointed to alleged differences
between the actions, including the (i) different plaintiffs; (ii)
differed class periods; (iii) different alleged wrongful conduct;
(iv) different allegations regarding grid parity; (v) different
dates of alleged corrective disclosures; (vi) different legal
bases; and (vii) different relief sought.
The court determined that it need not accept the company's
"unilateral characterizations of the claims." The court concluded
that the opt-out case and the securities class action had
"substantial similarities," including (i) some of the same
plaintiffs; (ii) the same defendants; (iii) overlapping class
periods; (iv) overlapping allegations regarding violations of SEC
Rules 10b-5 and 20; and (v) overlapping disclosures. The court
further emphasized that the cases "involve the same fraudulent
scheme" regarding the company's alleged misrepresentations about
grid parity. The court noted that the most striking difference
between the underlying cases was the type of damages sought by the
opt-out plaintiffs, and that difference was not enough to separate
the cases. The court thus held that the similarities between the
opt-out case and the securities class action "outweigh any
differences and go beyond mere 'thematic similarities'" because
"[b]oth actions are based on the same subject, have a causal
connection, and primarily rely on the same facts or occurrences."
The court therefore held that the opt-out case and the securities
class action were "fundamentally identical," and the opt-out case
was a claim first made at the time of the securities class action,
prior to the inception of the policies. The court granted the
insurers' motion to dismiss without addressing their secondary
arguments regarding the special matter exclusion, notice
provisions, or consent-to-settle provisions. [GN]
NATURE REPUBLIC: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nature Republic
International, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Portia Mason,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Nature Republic International, LLC, a California limited liability
company; Does 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No. 2:21-cv-05217-MWF-GJS
(C.D. Cal., June 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nature Republic -- https://www.naturerepublicusa.com/ -- is an
award-winning Korean Beauty skincare and makeup brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
NCAA: Beard Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Coyle Beard,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01906-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 28, 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.
NCAA: Mac Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Thaddeus
Mac, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01905-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 28, 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.
NCAA: Morowitz Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Freddie
Morowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01907-RLY-MG (S.D. Ind., June 28, 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.
NCAA: Penson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kevin Penson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01695, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 25,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03408 to the
proceeding.
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 Lewis 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.
NCAA: Wolff Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jerod Wolff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01696, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 25,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03409 to the
proceeding.
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 Lewis 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.
NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Moore Sues Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
Sherman Moore, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Netgain Technology, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-01421 (D. Minn., June 17, 2021), seek injunctive and other
equitable relief, damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
on all amounts awarded, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses and such other relief resulting from negligence and for
violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Netgain is an external IT vendor that provides cloud-computing
services for businesses. Between approximately September 2020 to
December 2020, hackers breached Netgain's data environment and
servers, accessed the highly sensitive data and stole copies of
data out of Netgain's servers. The Data Breach impacted many of
Netgain's clients, especially those in the healthcare industry.
Moore's data was also included in the batch of information stolen
during the Data Breach and received a notice from one of his
medical providers notifying him that his data had been stolen.
Around the same time, Plaintiff suffered from fraudulent
transactions on one of his financial accounts and has also noticed
an increase in spam directed towards him. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
NN INC: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Erie County ERS Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants NN, Inc., et al., took an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled ERIE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. NN, INC., RICHARD D. HOLDER, THOMAS C.
BURWELL, JR., ROBERT E. BRUNNER, WILLIAM DRIES, DAVID K. FLOYD,
DAVID L. PUGH, STEVEN T. WARSHAW, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC.,
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., LAKE STREET CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
STEPHENS INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., CJS SECURITIES,
INC., and REGIONS SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 656462/2019,
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on November 1,
2019, Erie County Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of a
purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against the
Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors, and each of the underwriters involved in the Company's
public offering and sale of 14.4 million shares of its common stock
pursuant to a preliminary prospectus supplement, dated September
10, 2018, a final prospectus supplement, dated September 13, 2018,
and a base prospectus, dated April 19, 2017, relating to the
Company's effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (File
No. 333-216737) (the "Offering"), which complaint was amended on
January 24, 2020.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Offering. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock in the Offering.
The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Order dated May 14,
2021, denying their motion to dismiss the case.
The appellate case is captioned as ERIE COUNTY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. NN, INC., RICHARD D. HOLDER, THOMAS C.
BURWELL, JR., ROBERT E. BRUNNER, WILLIAM DRIES, DAVID K. FLOYD,
DAVID L. PUGH, STEVEN T. WARSHAW, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC.,
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., LAKE STREET CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
STEPHENS INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., CJS SECURITIES,
INC., and REGIONS SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 2021-02102, in the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
First Judicial Department, filed on June 9, 2021.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants NN, INC., RICHARD D. HOLDER, THOMAS C.
BURWELL, JR., ROBERT E. BRUNNER, WILLIAM DRIES, DAVID K. FLOYD,
DAVID L. PUGH, STEVEN T. WARSHAW, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC.,
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., LAKE STREET CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
STEPHENS INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., CJS SECURITIES,
INC., and REGIONS SECURITIES LLC are represented by:
Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
Craig S. Waldman, Esq.
Jacob Lundqvist, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 455-2000
Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
E-mail: jyoungwood@stblaw.com
cwaldman@stblaw.com
jacob.lundqvist@stblaw.com
- and -
Karen Porter, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
900 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 636-5500
Facsimile: (202) 636-5502
E-mail: karen.porter@stblaw.com
- and -
Sharon L. Nelles, Esq.
Andrew J. Finn, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
E-mail: nelless@sullcrom.com
finna@sullcrom.com
NOVITEX ENTERPRISE: Miller Shah Discloses Proposed Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Shah LLP announces that the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut has approved the following announcement
of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit former
participants in the Novitex Enterprise Solutions Retirement Savings
Plan:
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND
SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING
TO: ALL FORMER PARTICIPANTS IN THE NOVITEX ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, (THE "NOVITEX PLAN") WHO WERE PARTICIPANTS
IN THE PLAN BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2014 AND DECEMBER 31, 2018 (THE
"SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD").
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE.
THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION.
YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED.
A settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in
a class action lawsuit by Plaintiff, Rigoberto Sandoval
("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Settlement
Class against Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. ("Exela") and the
Novitex Enterprise Solutions Employee Benefits Committee
("Committee"), alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). This
Settlement will provide for a payment of $750,000, less any
Court-approved fees and expenses, and administrative costs, to the
Exela 401(k) Plan ("Exela Plan"), the successor-in-interest to the
Novitex Enterprise Solutions Retirement Savings Plan (the "Novitex
Plan"), which money will then be allocated to the accounts of
former participants of the Novitex Plan who had accounts in the
Novitex Plan during the Settlement Class Period. All capitalized
terms not otherwise defined in this Summary Notice of Class Action
Settlement have the meaning provided in the Settlement Agreement
(the "Agreement") available on the Settlement website (provided
below). If you currently have an active account in the Exela Plan,
you will receive an allocation without taking any further action.
You do not need to send in a claim or take any other action to
participate in the Settlement. If you do not have an active account
with the Exela Plan, you need to file a Claim Form to obtain a
payment. YOU SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. IF YOU DO NOTHING, YOU WILL
BE BOUND BY THE JUDGMENT AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, INCLUDING
THE RELEASE CONTAINED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. The United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut authorized
this Notice.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
If you were a participant in the Novitex Plan at any time during
the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018, inclusive, or
you were a beneficiary or alternate payee of any such participant,
then you are a member of the Settlement Class (a "Settlement Class
Member").
WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?
Plaintiff claims that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA. Plaintiff's allegations are described in more detail
in the Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint") available on the
Settlement website. All Defendants deny any wrongdoing, and do not,
by agreeing to the Settlement, admit any fault or liability arising
from the allegations and claims set forth in the Complaint. Both
sides agreed to the Settlement to avoid the cost and risk of
further litigation.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Defendants have agreed to create a Settlement Fund totaling
$750,000 to be divided among eligible Settlement Class Members
after payment of attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel, a
Case Contribution Award to Class Representative Rigoberto Sandoval,
and payment of other costs and expenses of the Settlement,
including notice and claims administration, as the Court may allow.
The Agreement, other related documentation, and a list of
Frequently Asked Questions, available at the Settlement website
identified below, describes the details of the proposed Settlement.
Your share (if any) of the Settlement Fund will depend upon the
amount and value of your Novitex Plan account(s) during the
Settlement Class Period. This Settlement releases certain claims
against Defendants relating to the investment of the Novitex Plan's
assets and the expenses of the Novitex Plan during the Settlement
Class Period and releases all claims that were or could have been
brought in the lawsuit based upon the allegations in the
Complaint.
HOW DO I RECEIVE A PAYMENT?
If you are a Settlement Class Member, are a current participant in
the Exela Plan, or you are a beneficiary or alternate payee of a
Novitex Plan participant who has an active account in the Exela
Plan, and you are entitled to a share of the Settlement Fund
according to the Agreement, you are not required to do anything to
receive a payment. The payment will be made directly to your Exela
Plan account(s). If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do
not have an active account in the Exela Plan, or you are a
beneficiary or alternate payee of a Novitex Plan participant who
does not have an active account in the Exela Plan, you will need to
file a Former Participant Claim Form in order to receive a payment
from the Settlement Fund. If your address has changed since you
closed your Plan account(s), please contact the Settlement
Administrator toll-free at 866-274-4004 or by email to
info@strategicclaims.net to advise of the change of address.
CAN I OBJECT TO OR OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT?
You do not have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement
in this case, but you do have the right to object by writing to the
Court, including objecting to the amount of attorneys' fees and
expenses requested by Class Counsel and the amount of the Case
Contribution Award requested for the Class Representative. You will
be bound by any judgments or orders that are entered in this
Action, and if the Settlement is approved, you will be deemed to
have released all of the Defendants from all claims that were or
could have been asserted in this case, including all Claims as
defined under the Agreement, other than your right to obtain the
relief provided to you, if any, by the Settlement.
The Court will hold a hearing in this case on September 14, 2021 at
10:00 a.m., in the courtroom of the Honorable Michael P. Shea, in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
Abraham Ribicoff Federal Building, United States Courthouse, 450
Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103, to consider whether to
approve the Settlement and a request by the lawyers representing
all Settlement Class Members, Class Counsel, for attorneys' fees
and expenses, for a Case Contribution Award to the Class
Representative, and for other case-related expenses. If approved,
these amounts will be paid from the Settlement Fund. You may ask to
speak at the hearing by filing a Notice of Intention to Appear by
August 15, 2021, but you are not required to do so.
Although you cannot opt out of the Settlement, you may object to
all or any part of the Settlement and/or the Motion for Attorneys'
Fees filed by Class Counsel and request for award of a Case
Contribution Award in accordance with the instructions included in
the long-form Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and
Settlement Fairness Hearing available at the Settlement website
below. Objections must be postmarked, or if not sent by United
States Postal Service received by the Court, by August 15, 2021.
Please note that the time, place and date of the hearing may change
without a further mailing. Class Counsel will update the Settlement
website below if the hearing time or location is changed. The
Settlement Fairness Hearing also may be held by video or
teleconference. Please check the website or contact Class Counsel
if you wish to confirm that the hearing time has not been changed
and to determine if it is occurring in person or by video or
teleconference.
HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?
If you are a Settlement Class Member and would like to receive
additional information or to receive a copy of the long-form Notice
of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Fairness
Hearing, you can obtain such information by (a) sending a letter to
Sandoval 401k Settlement Administrator, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, 600 N Jackson St #205, Media, PA 19063; (b) sending an
e-mail to info@strategicclaims.net; (c) visiting the Settlement
website at www.strategicclaims.net/sandoval401k; or (d) calling
toll-free at 866-274-4004. [GN]
OCEAN CITY DEVELOPMENT: Alves Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocean City
Development LLC. The case is styled as Terri Alves, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ocean City
Development LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-05165 (C.D. Cal., June 25,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Ocean City Development -- https://www.ocbuyshouses.com/ -- is a
real estate solutions and investment firm that specializes in
helping homeowners sell their homes with limited hassle.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
OCUGEN INC: Nicanor Hits Share Drop Over Denied Vaccine Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Nicanor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ocugen, Inc., Shankar Musunuri and Sanjay
Subramanian, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02725 (E.D. Pa., June 17,
2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
federal securities laws.
Ocugen is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing gene
therapies to cure blindness and developing a vaccine for COVID-19.
Its main developments are a modifier gene therapy platform based on
nuclear hormone receptors to generate therapies for patient with
inherited retinal diseases and dry age-related macular
degeneration.
Ocugen failed to disclose that the information submitted to the FDA
for its COVID-19 vaccine was insufficient to support an emergency
use authorization. On the release of the news, Ocugen's share price
declined from $9.31 per share of Ocugen stock on June 9, 2021, to
close at $6.69 per share on June 10, 2021, a drop of approximately
-28.14 percent. Nicanor purchased Ocugen securities and was damaged
thereby. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent A. Coppola
PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC
513 Court Place
Pittsburg, PA 15219
Tel: (412) 281-8844
Fax: (412) 281-4740
Email: vcoppola@pribanic.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: ek@zlk.com
ODA PRIMARY HEALTH: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ODA Primary Health
Care Network, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Roman, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ODA Primary
Health Care Network, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05549 (S.D.N.Y., June
24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ODA Primary Health Care Network -- https://odahealth.org/ --
provides comprehensive primary care as well as a full range of
specialty services to a multi-ethnic community.[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
PARSLEY HEALTH: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alkaline 88, LLC. The
case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Alkaline 88, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05546 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alkaline88 -- https://thealkalinewaterco.com/ -- is perfectly
pH-balanced alkaline water, enhanced with minerals and
electrolytes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
PEACE FOOD: Ramales Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS RAMALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEACE FOOD CAFE, INC., (d/b/a PEACE FOOD
CAFE), PETER LU and ERIC LU, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05223
(S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2021) arises from the Defendants' failure to
pay minimum, overtime and spread of hours wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Mr. Ramales is a former employee of Defendants, who was employed as
a food preparer from approximately 2012 until March 2020.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a diner located in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
PORTOFLIO RECOVERY: Amaro Files Suit in Texas District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Guillermo Amaro,
individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers
v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 2021DCV2245 (Tex.
Dist. Ct., El Paso Cty., June 28, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Contract - Consumer/Commercial/Debt."
PRA Group, Inc. or PRA -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- is
a company acquiring and collecting nonperforming loans based in
Norfolk, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J Zimprich, Esq.
Phone: 915-201-4944
PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Seidemann Files Certiorari Bid to Supreme Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs David Seidemann, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled David Seidemann, et al., Petitioners v. Professional Staff
Congress Local 2334, et al., Respondents, Case No. 20-1725.
Response is due on July 14, 2021.
Mr. Seidemann, et al., petition for a writ of certiorari to review
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in the case titled DAVID SEIDEMANN and BRUCE MARTIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF CONGRESS LOCAL 2334; FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF
SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE; UNITED UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONS,
FARMINGDALE STATE COLLEGE CHAPTER; NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
OF THE UNITED STATES; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS; AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS;
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
CONGRESS; and NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS, Case No. 20-460. The
Second Circuit issued its summary order on January 11, 2021,
concluding that Respondent unions were not required to return the
illegal fair-share fees they had taken from Petitioners' paychecks
because of the unions' good faith.
The questions presented are: 1) Whether the proper remedy for the
collection of an illegal fee is refund or restitution, regardless
of the purported good faith of the fee collector? 2) Whether this
Court's application of a rule of federal law to the parties before
it requires every court to give retroactive effect to that
decision? 3) Whether 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides a good-faith defense
for private entities who violate private rights if the private
entities acted under color of a law before it was held
unconstitutional?
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge
Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the
Plaintiffs were required to pay agency shop fees to the unions that
represented their respective places of employment, in compliance
with New York Civil Service Law section 208 and as authorized by
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The Plaintiffs allege that
they are entitled to the return of all agency shop fees previously
paid, raising constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
and common-law claims for conversion and unjust enrichment.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment stating
that both compulsory agency shop fees and New York State laws that
authorize them are unconstitutional, as well as an injunction
against the collection of those fees.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners DAVID SEIDEMANN AND BRUCE MARTIN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, are
represented by:
John J. Bursch, Esq.
BURSCH LAW PLLC
9339 Cherry Valley Ave. SE, No. 78
Caledonia, MI 49316
Telephone: (616) 450-4235
E-mail: jbursch@burschlaw.com
- and -
Gregory N. Longworth, Esq.
CLARK HILL PLC
200 Ottawa Ave. NW Suite 500
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 608-1100
E-mail: glongworth@clarkhill.com
PSG CONSTRUCTION: Naiman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PSG Construction LLC.
The case is styled as Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PSG Construction LLC doing
business as: Llumetec, Case No. 3:21-cv-04942 (N.D. Cal., June 28,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
PSG Construction LLC doing business as Llumetec --
https://llumetec.com/ -- is a specialty contractor focused on
building Accessory Dwelling Units ADU's also known as in law unit
or granny unit.[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
PURECYCLE TECH: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of PureCycle
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT).
Shareholders who purchased shares of PCT during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/purecycle-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17077&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: November 16, 2020 to May 5, 2021
ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the technology PureCycle
licensed from Procter & Gamble is not proven and presents serious
issues even at lab scale; (ii) the challenges posed by the
availability and competition for the raw materials necessary to
commercialize the licensed technology are significant; (iii)
PureCycle's financial projections are baseless; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
QUANTA COMPUTER: Failed to Pay All Wages Owed, Usinger Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Usinger, an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. QUANTA COMPUTER USA INC., and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. RG21102154 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June
16, 2021), is brought pursuant to the California Code of Civil
Procedure against the Defendants for failing to properly pay all
wages owed.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to properly pay its employees by willfully
misclassifying employees as exempt, failing to pay minimum wages
for all hours worked, failing to properly pay overtime wages,
failing to provide compliant rest periods, failing to provide
compliant meal periods, failing to pay missed meal and rest period
premiums, failing to issue accurate/complete wage statements, and
failing to pay all wages due upon separation from employment.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an exempt employee in
the position of warehouse manager.
QUANTA COMPUTER USA INC. is a California corporation doing with its
principal place of business located in Fremont, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Feder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 391-9476
Facsimile: (415) 391-9432
Email: daniel@dfederlaw.com
QUICKEN LOANS: Viscuso Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Suzanne Viscuso, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Quicken Loans Inc., inclusive, Case
No. 2921-CP-40-01216, was removed from the Richland County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 25,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01924-JMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Quicken Loans LLC -- https://www.quickenloans.com/ -- is a mortgage
lending company headquartered in the One Campus Martius building in
the heart of the financial district of Downtown Detroit,
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC
PO Box 11865
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 509-6800
Fax: (855) 299-1656
Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
PO Box 11070
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 799-2000
Fax: (803) 256-7500
Email: rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Thomas Tyler Hydrick
NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP (Cola)
Meridian Building
1320 Main Street, 17th Floor
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803) 255-9724
Email: thomas.hydrick@nelsonmullins.com
RUGO LLC: Faces Argudo Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENIGNO ARGUDO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. RUGO, LLC d/b/a
PORTOFINO RESTAURANT and MARIO RUGOVA, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05511 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021) brings this
complaint to seek for damages and equitable relief against the
Defendants as a result of their alleged violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-managerial
cook from November 14, 2017 to on or around February 28, 2019.
The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he was not paid the wages lawfully due to him under the
FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants routinely required him to work and
did work more than 40 hours in a workweek, but the Defendants did
not compensate him at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants paid him
below the federally mandated minimum wage rate for all hours
worked, and failed to pay him "spread of hours" pay for hours
worked that exceeded ten hours. Moreover, the Defendants failed to
provide him an accurate wage statement on each payday and wage
notice upon hire, the Plaintiff alleges.
Rugo, LLC d/b/a Portofino Restaurant operates a Bronx-based
restaurant owned by Mario Rugova. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Danielle Petretta, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Ave., Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 248-5550
Fax: (516) 248-6027
SAMSARA LUGGAGE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsara Luggage Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Samsara Luggage Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03630-DG-RER (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Samsara Luggage -- https://www.samsaraluggage.com/ -- is a global
smart luggage and smart travel brand with a deep belief in creating
a world where travel isn't a hassle, but rather an effortless
experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Faces 4 Lawsuits Over Ransomware Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
beckershospitalreview.com reports that four class-action lawsuits
have been filed against San Diego-based Scripps Health after an
April 29 malware attack that exposed more than 147,000 patients'
health information, according to a June 22 San Diego Union-Tribune
report.
Scripps began notifying more than 147,000 individuals in early June
that their protected health information was exposed during the
malware attack. For certain patients, exposed information included
names, addresses, birthdates, health insurance data, medical record
numbers, patient account numbers and treatment details. Less than
2.5 percent of individuals' Social Security numbers and/or driver's
license numbers were involved, according to the health system.
Seven notes:
1. Two of the lawsuits were filed in federal court June 21 and two
had already been filed in California state court earlier this
month.
2. All four class actions were filed on behalf of different Scripps
patients, but all reference the same set of events that Scripps
began sending notification letters to more than 147,000 individuals
on June 1 to alert them that their personal information was exposed
during the malware attack.
3. San Diego County residents Michael Rubenstein and Richard
Machado filed one of the federal suits, while local resident Kate
Rasmuzzen filed the other federal suit. San Diego Superior Court
records listed Scripps patients Kenneth Garcia and Johnny Corning
as the filers of the June 1 and June 7 cases in state court.
4. It's not uncommon for multiple cases to come up in federal and
state courts following an incident such as the Scripps breach that
affects thousands of people, Jocelyn Larkin, executive director of
the Impact Fund, a UC Berkeley legal foundation, told the
publication.
5. The four cases on file have varying levels of specificity where
harm is concerned; Mr. Rubenstein's suit is in reference to how his
specific health status suffered when he was unable to access his
patient portal while Scripps' system was offline during the attack.
He claimed he "was forced to visit a Scripps Health hematology
clinic and beg a nurse to provide for him his lab orders" and that
he "was unable to confirm whether the timing of particular doses
was correct."
6. Mr. Machado claimed in the Rubenstein suit that he was concerned
his medical record contained records of a "very personal surgery"
he underwent that identified his status as a Type 2 diabetes
patient.
7. Rather than focusing on the healthcare consequences resulting
from the breach, the Rasmuzzen, Corning and Garcia cases
highlighted the costs associated with personal data protection and
the potential damage that may be done if cybercriminals got hold of
and used their information.
Scripps denied to comment on the lawsuits since they are pending.
[GN]
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Patient Slams Negligent Storage of Medical Records
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rubenstein and Richard Machado, individually and on behalf
of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Scripps Health
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01135
(S.D. Cal., June 21, 2021), seeks injunctive relief for unlawful
violations of Business and Professions Code and the Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act.
Scripps Health is a health care provider in San Diego, California.
Rubenstein has been diagnosed with primary polycythemia and
currently manages his healthcare through Scripps Health's patient
portal and Epic EMR. Machado was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes
while a patient of Scripps Health several years ago. Scripps Health
held their individual identifiable medical information in
electronic form including but not limited to his medical history,
mental or physical condition, or treatment, including diagnosis and
treatment dates.
On May 1, 2021, Defendant negligently created, maintained,
preserved and stored patients' confidential, individual
identifiable medical information in a non-encrypted form, thus
making it susceptible to hackers. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
Email: scole@scalaw.com
lvannote@scalaw.com
SELECT GROUP: Misclassifies Recruiters, Trout Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
SYDNEY TROUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SELECT GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01684 (D. Dis. Col., June 23, 2021) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Washington
D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act, and the Washington D.C. Wage
Payment and Wage Collection Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Recruiter from
approximately October 2018 through January 2019 in Washington, DC
and McLean, VA.
According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated Recruiters as exempt from
overtime and they were only paid a salary without overtime pay.
Despite regularly working more than 40 hours each week, the
Defendant allegedly denied them of overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
The Select Group LLC is a technical services firm offering managed
solutions and project-based resources to its clients across North
America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St., NE Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: (202) 470-3520
Fax: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
- and –
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: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
SIMPLY GUM: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simply Gum, Inc. The
case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Simply Gum, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05543-LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Simply Gum -- https://www.simplygum.com/ -- features all-natural
chewing gum made from 6 simple ingredients, with no artificial
sweeteners, flavors, colors, or other synthetics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SIMPLY ORANGE: Accused of False and Misleading Marketing Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quintessa Louis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Simply Orange Juice Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-04596-VC
(N.D. Cal., June 15, 2021), seeks damages and an injunction to stop
the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with
regards to its almond milk with representations including "Vanilla
Almondmilk," "Simply Made," "All Natural," and "Vanilla," with
pictures of three almonds, a cured vanilla bean and a vanilla
flower under the "Simply" brand.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's Vanilla Almondmilk is
part of a product line that includes Original and Unsweetened
Almondmilk. Though reasonable consumers will expect the Product to
be "all natural" and have a non-negligible amount of vanilla, it is
not all natural and contains a trace, if any, of extracts from
vanilla beans. Consumers who view the representations of a cured
vanilla bean and vanilla flower, "Vanilla," "All Natural," "Simply"
and "Vanilla Almondmilk," will expect (1) the predominant or
exclusive source of the vanilla taste will be from extracts from
vanilla beans, (2) the Product contains an appreciable amount of
extracts from vanilla beans and (3) the flavor is only from natural
sources.
The Plaintiff saw and relied on the label, which misleadingly
states, "All Natural," "Simply," "Vanilla," "Vanilla Almondmilk,"
and has pictures of vanilla. The Plaintiff sought to purchase a
product with a materially greater amount of natural vanilla flavor
from vanilla beans than was present. The Plaintiff sought to
purchase a product with only flavors from natural, non-synthetic
sources. The Plaintiff sought to purchase a product with without
synthetic and artificial flavor ingredients. The Plaintiff expected
that most or all the vanilla taste would be from natural vanilla.
Plaintiff did not expect the vanilla taste to be provided mostly,
or all, by artificial flavoring from artificial sources.
The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product if she knew the
representations were false and misleading. The Product costs more
than similar products without misleading representations and but
for the misleading representations, would have cost less. The
Plaintiff paid more for the Product than she otherwise would have,
and would only have been willing to pay less, or unwilling to
purchase it at all, absent the misleading representations. As a
result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at
a premium price, approximately no less than $3.99 per 46 OZ,
excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than the price of the Product if it
were represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint.
Simply Orange Juice Company manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells almond milk with representations including
"Vanilla Almondmilk," "Simply Made," "All Natural," and "Vanilla,"
with pictures of three almonds, a cured vanilla bean and a vanilla
flower under the "Simply" brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Hwy E Fl 2
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 772-7200
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
SKILLZ INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of April 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Skillz
Inc. ("Skillz" or the "Company") (NYSE: SKLZ). The class action is
on behalf of shareholders who purchased Skillz between December 16,
2020 and April 19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than July 7, 2021.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. The three games that comprised the
majority of Skillz's revenue had suffered from a significant
decline. The Company's financial condition was misrepresented by
its revenue recognition policy. The Company's growth projections,
especially in the Android market, were unrealistic. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Skillz, investors suffered damages.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Skillz class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Skillz class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.
If you are a Skillz shareholder and have losses greater than
$75,000 and are interested in learning more about being a lead
plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
Additionally, you can [Click
https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/SkillzInc to join this
action]. There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]
SKILLZ INC: Schultz Hits Share Drop from Failed Business Prospects
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Schultz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Skillz Inc., Andrew Paradise, Casey
Chafkin, Miriam Aguirre, Scott Henry and Harry Sloan, Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-04662 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2021), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities
laws.
Skillz is an internet tech company that provides a proprietary
gaming platform for mobile gaming users and developers.
Schultz claims that Skillz did not fully disclose its business
operations, performance metrics and ultimate valuation, including,
among others, its ability to attract new end-users, future
profitability, the shrinking popularity of its hosted games that
accounted for 88% of its revenue, and the company's valuation.
Skillz's alleged bullish market pronouncement misled investors into
believing that the company was well-positioned for rapid long-term
growth.
However, new information about Skillz's failed business prospects
and overhyped valuation was confirmed on May 5, 2020, when Skillz
issued its first quarter earnings statement which reflected a $53
million loss, despite the fact that its earnings had increased, as
compared to the same time in 2020. As a result of these corrective
disclosures, shares of Skillz plummeted by 6.61% to close at $14.11
on April 19, 2021. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
SNYDER'S-LANCE: McFaddin Sues Over Artificial Trans-Fat Addition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marjel McFaddin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SNYDER'S-LANCE, INC., Case No. RG21102113 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty., June 15, 2021), is brought to remedy the
Defendant's unfair and unlawful conduct with regards to adding
artificial trans-fat in their popcorn products.
The Defendant manufactures, distributes, and sells a variety of
popcorn products under Pop Secret brand name (collectively "Pop
Secret"). Artificial trans-fat is a toxin and carcinogen for which
there are many safe and commercially viable substitutes. During the
class period, the Defendant added artificial trans-fat to Pop
Secret in the form of partially hydrogenated oil ("PHO") On
November 8, 2013, the FDA determined that PHO is unsafe for use in
food. Tentative Determination Regarding Partially Hydrogenated
Oils, 78 Fed. Reg. 67169 (November 8, 2013). Yet Defendant
continued to incorporate this illegal, dangerous additive into Pop
Secret. Even before the FDA's Determination, however, PHO was an
unlawful food additive under both California and federal law.
Although safe, low-cost, and commercially acceptable alternatives
to PHO existed throughout the class period, Snyder's-Lance unfairly
elected not to use these safe alternatives in Pop Secret in order
to increase profit at the expense of the health of consumers, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Pop Secret from California grocery stores
during the Class Period for her personal and household
consumption.
Snyder's-Lance owns, manufactures, distributes, and sells Pop
Secret.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
THE WESTON FIRM
1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: (619) 798-2006
Facsimile: (619) 343-2789
Email: greg@westonfirm.com
SOLNSOFT LLC: Salstorm Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Salstorm, an individual and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees
v. SOLNSOFT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, AMRIT
RAJ, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV22264 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, Cty., June 15, 2021), is
brought pursuant to Labor Code section 2698 for the recovery of
civil penalties based on wage and hour violations.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees
was not compensated the minimum wage for all hours worked and was
forced to work hours off the clock; was not provided with accurate
itemized wage and hour statements pursuant to applicable Labor Code
requirements, was not compensated all wages earned and owed in a
timely manner as required by the Labor Code; worked more than 8
hours in any given day and/or more than 40 hours in any given week,
but was not paid overtime compensation pursuant to applicable Labor
Code requirements; was retaliated against in violation of Labor
Code Section 1102.5; and was not paid all wages earned and owed at
the time of his or her termination or within 72 hours of his or her
resignation.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendants on September 9, 2019 as
a Managed Services Technician.
SOLNSOFT, LLC, was and is a California limited liability company
doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
Lisa Noveck, Esq.
EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
65 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 260
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone: (310) 853-3461
Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
lisan@pierrelacour.com
SONY MUSIC: Ex-Employees Mull Class Action Over Workplace Culture
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathanael Cooper, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a dozen former employees of Sony Music Australia have
approached a law firm to investigate launching a class action
lawsuit against the global music empire.
Criminal lawyer Lauren MacDougall, from MacDougall and Hydes
Lawyers in Sydney, confirmed staff members had contacted her
following Sony Music's investigation into workplace culture at the
company's Australian offices.
"I have been approached by a number of women who were seeking legal
advice in relation to claims of bullying and harassment during
their time at Sony Music Australia," Ms MacDougall said.
"I would encourage any other women or men to come forward.
Depending on how many people come forward and what they have to say
there is the potential of a class action."
Ms MacDougall is yet to speak to all of those who contacted the law
firm so could not specify the form the class action would take, but
this masthead has previously reported allegations of harassment,
bullying and discrimination at the music company.
This masthead revealed that Sony Music's global head of human
resources had started making secret inquiries about the culture
within the organisation's Australian offices. It was revealed on
June 20 that the investigation had intensified and external counsel
had been appointed.
The company sacked chief executive Denis Handlin and stood down
senior executives Pat Handlin, Denis Handlin's son and the vice
president of A&R, and Mark Stebenicki, the senior vice president of
strategy, corporate affairs and human resources.
The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age do not suggest Denis Handlin,
Pat Handlin or Mr Stebnicki have been accused of any wrongdoing as
part of the ongoing investigation.
At least one of the women who contacted Ms MacDougall has also
appointed the law firm to act on their behalf in Sony's
investigation.
One, who asked to remain nameless due to the possible legal action,
said she did not feel comfortable dealing with Sony on her own.
"Sony Music has let us down time and time again, many of us don't
feel safe speaking with the organisation or its local counsel," she
said.
"It's comforting to know there is finally someone out there
representing our rights that can support us in navigating the
complexities of this process."
A spokeswoman for Sony Music declined to comment. [GN]
SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Henderson Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tyrone Henderson, Sr., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TYRONE HENDERSON, SR.,
et al., Plaintiffs v. THE SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00294-HEH, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 1, 2021, Judge
Henry E. Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, Richmond Division, grants the Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c).
The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on Oct. 30,
2020, alleging that The Source for Public Data, L.P., Shadowsoft,
Inc., Harlington-Straker Studio, Inc., and Dale Bruce Stringfellow,
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by including
inaccurate criminal information on background check reports
Defendants produced.
The Defendants operate a website, publicdata.com, that allows
customers to search through various databases available via the
site. They can pull this information into a report. Plaintiffs
Tyrone Henderson, George O. Harrison, Jr., and Robert McBride
assert that the Defendants purchase, collect, and assemble public
record information into reports, which employers then buy from
Defendants via their website.
Generally, the Defendants obtain their public records from vendors,
state agencies, and courthouses. The Defendants purportedly "strip
out or suppress all identifying information relating to any
criminal charges." After these alterations, the Defendants then use
"their own internally created summaries of the charges." As the
Defendants' customers "ask a general question" such as if "there
are any criminal convictions anywhere that match this applicant,"
the Plaintiffs aver that the "Defendants affirmatively sort,
manipulate and infer information to adapt data results to the
requests received." In sum, the Plaintiffs maintain that the
"Defendants rewrite the court records into their own original
entries into the report."
Each Plaintiff alleges various inaccuracies on the Defendants'
reports as well as other FCRA violations. They bring a class action
lawsuit, alleging that the Defendants provided numerous reports for
individuals in Virginia that contained false or inaccurate
information. The Plaintiffs state three claims jointly, alleging
violations of Sections 1681g; 1681k(a); 1681b(b)(1). McBride brings
one claim individually for a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1681e(b).
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated May 19, 2021, granting Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, filed on November 11, 2020, and
dismissing the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Tyrone Henderson, Sr. v. The
Source for Public Data, L.P., Case No. 21-1678, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 15,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TYRONE HENDERSON, SR., on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated; GEORGE O. HARRISON, JR., on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated; and ROBERT MCBRIDE, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Amy Leigh Austin, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
626 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 905-9900
- and -
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
- and -
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7576
E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
- and -
Dale Wood Pittman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C.
112-A West Tabb Street
Petersburg, VA 23803-3212
Telephone: (804) 861-6000
E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com
Defendants-Appellees THE SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA, L.P., d/b/a
Publicdata.com; SHADOWSOFT, INC.; HARLINGTON-STRAKER STUDIO, INC.;
and DALE BRUCE STRINGFELLOW are represented by:
David Neal Anthony, Esq.
Harrison Scott Kelly, Esq.
Timothy James St. George, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
P. O. Box 1122
Richmond, VA 23218-1122
Telephone: (804) 697-5410
E-mail: david.anthony@troutman.com
tim.stgeorge@troutman.com
- and -
Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Esq.
TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
5 Park Plaza
Irvine, CA 92614-2545
Telephone: (937) 227-3733
E-mail: ronald.raether@troutmansanders.com
STATE AUTO PROPERTY: Kemco LLC Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kemco LLC dba Cleveland Heath, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2021L000583 was removed from
the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on June 15, 2021, and assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-00592-DWD.
The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks declaratory relief and monetary
damages against State Auto Property for breach of contract and
pursuant to 215 ILCS 5/155 arising out of Plaintiff's claim for
insurance coverage with respect to losses allegedly related to
COVID-19. By its Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of similarly situated persons and entities operating
restaurants and/or bars in Illinois who allegedly have similar
claims for insurance coverage in connection the COVID-19.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin P. Green, Esq.
Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Kevin P. Green, Esq.
Zachary T. Shelton
GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C.
2227 South State Route 157
Edwardsville, Illinois 62025
Phone: (618) 656-5150
Email: mark@ghalaw.com
tom@ghalaw.com
kevin@ghalaw.com
zachary@ghalaw.com
- and -
Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Phone: (314) 241-5799
Email: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com
- and -
Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq.
Ryan L. Bruning, Esq.
THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC
555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Phone: (314) 735-8100
Email: tony@bruninglegal.com
aj@bruninglegal.com
ryan@bruninglegal.com
- and -
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Mike Arias, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90045
Phone: (310) 844-9696
Email: alfredo@aswtlawyers.com
mike@aswtlawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam H. Fleischer, Esq.
Michael Passman, Esq.
Elisabeth Ross, Esq.
BATESCAREY LLP
191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 762-3100
Email: afleischer@batescarey.com
mpassman@BatesCarey.com
eross@BatesCarey.com
- and -
Patrick J. Kenny, Esq.
Donald M. Flack, Esq.
Nicholas A. Cammarata, Esq.
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 621-5070
Email: pkenny@atllp.com
dflack@atllp.com
ncammarata@atllp.com
STRADA SERVICES: Grant Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Grant, individually and On behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Strada Services Inc. and Joseph
Strada, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00859 (N.D. Fla., June 17,
2021), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to pay overtime
compensation and a premium for all hours worked over forty each
week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Strada Services operates as Strada Electric and Security. Grant
worked for Strada from July 2020 through the end of November 2020
from Strada's Pensacola, Florida office as an installer. Grant
accuses Strada of shaving overtime hours from his time records and
paid him on an hourly, non-exempt basis irrespective of the number
of hours worked in any day or any work week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave., #101
Tampa, FL 33625
Tel: (813) 639-9366
Fax: (813) 639-9376
Email: feldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
STX LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against STX, LLC. The case is
styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. STX, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05587 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
STX -- https://www.stx.com/ -- is a global sporting goods leader,
innovating since 1970 in the categories of lacrosse, field hockey,
and ice hockey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SUNDAYS FOR DOGS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sundays For Dogs,
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Sundays For Dogs,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03633 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sundays for Dogs -- https://sundaysfordogs.com/ -- engages in the
online retail of dog foods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
SUNWEST ELECTRIC: Cruz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cruz, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. SUNWEST ELECTRIC, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2021 01206152-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., June 16,
2021), is brought against the Defendants for failing to pay
overtime wages to Plaintiff and the other class members for all
overtime hours worked.
The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a
day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment wihe th the
Defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants
engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California.
This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them
for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal
periods and rest breaks in violation of California law. The
Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and the
other class members were entitled to receive certain wages for
overtime compensation and that they were not receiving accurate
overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee, from March 2019 to January 2020.
SUNWEST ELECTRIC, INC. is a California corporation and employer
whose employees are engaged throughout the State of California,
including the County of Orange..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
TALLEY INC: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Talley, Inc. The case
is styled as Michael Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Talley,
Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00302541-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 14, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Talley -- https://www.talleycom.com/ -- is a leading distributor of
wireless communications infrastructure and mobile products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
5743 Corsa Ave., Ste. 123
Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310
Phone: 818-293-5623
Fax: 888-850-1310
Email: roman@olfla.com
TARENA INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 22
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Tarena International, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TEDU) between August 16, 2016 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tarena
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Tarena class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2094.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain employees were interfering with external audits
of Tarena's financial statements for certain periods; (2) Tarena
suffered from revenue and expense inaccuracies; (3) Tarena engaged
in business transactions with organizations owned, invested in or
controlled by Tarena employees or their family members, which in
some instances were not properly disclosed by Tarena; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Tarena's financial statements from 2014
through the end of Class Period were not accurate; and (5) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 23,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2094.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
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]
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Tarena
International, Inc. ("Tarena" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: TEDU) for
violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 16,
2016 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 23, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Tarena employees actively interfered with
audits of the Company's financial statements for certain periods.
The Company failed to maintain the accuracy of the revenue and
expenses it reported. The Company engaged in transactions with
related parties that were in some cases not properly disclosed.
Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false
and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the
market learned the truth about Tarena, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
THINX INC: Blenis Slams Toxic Substances in Underwear
-----------------------------------------------------
Jillian Blenis and Lili Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Thinx Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-11019, (D. Mass., June 3, 2021), seeks damages and
equitable remedies resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and
for breach of express warranty.
Thinx designs, formulates, manufactures, markets, advertises,
distributes, and sells the "Thinx" brand underwear. Plaintiffs
allege that Thinx Underwear contains harmful chemicals, including
multiple polyfluoroalkyl substances and silver nanoparticles, which
are a safety hazard to the female body. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Seaport East, Two Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
Email: ehaber@shulaw.com
astewart@shulaw.com
TOOLOTS INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toolots, Inc. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Toolots, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05590
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Toolots, Inc. -- https://www.toolots.com/ -- is a B2B online
marketplace and distribution channel for high-quality, affordable,
international factory-direct industrial tools, equipment, machinery
& supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
TOPS MARKETS: Adams Files Suit Over Coffee Product's False Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah-Lee Adams, a citizen of Vermont, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tops Markets, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00753, (W.D. N.Y., June 19, 2021), seeks
an award of equitable relief, actual damages, an award of
attorney's fees and costs and any other relief and prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded resulting from
breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability
and for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and the Vermont
Consumer Fraud Act.
Tops Markets manufactures, markets, labels and sells "100% Pure
Coffee," French Roast, Ground Coffee, Dark Roast, under its TOPS
private label brand, in cans of 11.5 oz. (326 g), which claims to
make 90 cups of coffee. Adams, however, disputes this claim, saying
that independent laboratory analysis determined that said product
can only make seventy-two cups of coffee.
Tops Markets, LLC is a New York limited liability company with a
principal place of business in Williamsville, Erie County, New
York. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel Oster, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
22052 W. 66th St., #192
Shawnee, KS 66226
Telephone: (913) 206-7575
Fax: (561) 688-0630
Email: joel@joelosterlaw.com
- and -
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
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Flowers Suit Over Vehicle Battery Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
RANAY FLOWERS; and PENNI LAVOOT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION;
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00460
(E.D. Tex., June 17, 2021) seeks damages against the Defendants for
breach of the manufacturer's warranty and for unfair or deceptive
acts or practices pertaining to its design and manufacture of
2013-2018 Toyota RAV4 vehicles (the "Class Vehicles").
According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles contain a
significant design and/or manufacturing defect in the 12-volt
battery B+ terminal, which shorts to the battery hold down frame
(the "Battery Defect"). When this short occurs, it can cause a
catastrophic failure of the battery, leading the automobile to lose
electrical power, vehicle stalling, and potentially a fire
originating in the engine compartment. The Plaintiffs are informed
and believe, and thereon alleges, that Toyota defectively designed
and manufactured these defective battery and charging systems and
incorporated them into the Class Vehicles designed and manufactured
by Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon
allege, that the Battery Defect directly affects Plaintiffs' use,
enjoyment, safety, and value of the Class Vehicles.
The Battery Defect poses an obvious and material safety risk to the
operator and passengers of all Class Vehicles. The dangers of a
battery that can short out, causing the loss of electrical power,
stalling, or fire—even while the automobile is in operation—are
manifest, including increased risk of injury or death. As discussed
further herein, numerous owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles
have experienced the Battery Defect, the suit alleges.
Toyota Motor Corporation manufactures, sells, leases, and repairs
passenger cars, trucks, buses, and their related parts worldwide.
The Company also operates financing services through their
subsidiaries. Toyota Motor builds homes, produces pleasure boats,
and develops intelligent transportation systems including radar
cruise control and electronic toll collection systems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas B. Bennett, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: tbennett@baileyglasser.com
-and-
Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-8000
Facsimile: (510) 463-0291
E-mail: twalburg@baileyglasser.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Tavares Sues Over Defective Vehicle Fuel Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL TAVARES, PAULO TAVARES, and CHARLES DEFFENDALL individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California
corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California
corporation, and TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04534 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2021)
alleges that the Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed,
and sold Toyota Highlander equipped with a hybrid powertrain
without disclosing that such Class vehicles' fuel systems are
defective.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles are defective in
design, manufacture, materials and/or workmanship in that the fuel
tank cannot be filled to its advertised capacity, compromising the
promised driving range of the vehicles, increasing emissions and
increasing the risk of overflow during fueling.
Plaintiffs Cheryl and Paulo Tavares purchased a new 2020 Toyota
Highlander Hybrid from Dublin Toyota, an authorized Toyota dealer
in Dublin, California in June 2020. Mr. Deffendall purchased a new
2020 Highlander Hybrid Limited from Universal Toyota, an authorized
Toyota dealership in San Antonio, Texas in May 2020.
Based in Plano, Texas, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. markets
motor vehicles, parts, and other products for sale in California,
in the United States, and throughout the world.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
Natalie Lesser, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
apark@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
nlesser@bm.net
TRANSUNION LLC: Members to Prove an Injury to Recover Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, No. 20-297
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that every member of a class
certified under Rule 23 must establish Article III standing in
order to be awarded individual damages.
Background:
In February 2011, Sergio Ramirez was unable to purchase a car after
a TransUnion credit report incorrectly flagged him as a "Specially
Designated National" ("SDN") who is prohibited from transacting
business in the United States for national security reasons. When
Ramirez requested a copy of his credit report, TransUnion mailed
him a report that redacted the SDN alert and a separate letter
notifying him of the alert but not how to correct inaccurate
information.
Ramirez filed a putative class action against TransUnion alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Report Act ("FCRA") for failing to
ensure the accuracy of the SDN alerts, to disclose the entire
credit report to class members, and to include a summary of rights
in the mailed letters. A jury found in favor of the class on all
three claims and awarded $8 million in statutory damages and $52
million in punitive damages.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's certification of
the class. Although most of the absent class members did not suffer
injury from having their credit reports disclosed to third parties,
the court concluded that all class members had the requisite
Article III standing to recover damages because of the risk of harm
to their privacy, reputational, and informational interests
protected by the FCRA. The court affirmed the jury's award of
statutory damages but vacated the punitive damages award.
Issue:
Whether all class members must have Article III standing to recover
individual damages in federal court.
Court's Holding:
Yes. Every member of a class action must satisfy Article III
standing requirements in order to recover individual damages, and
proof of a statutory violation without a showing of concrete harm
is insufficient to satisfy Article III.
"Every class member must have Article III standing in order to
recover individual damages. 'Article III does not give federal
courts the power to order relief to any uninjured plaintiff, class
action or not.'"
Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the Court
What It Means:
The Supreme Court held that all class members must demonstrate
standing at each stage of litigation "for each claim that they
press and for each form of relief that they seek." The Court
explained that "an injury in law is not an injury in fact," and
"[o]nly those plaintiffs who have been concretely harmed by a
defendant's statutory violation" have standing. Although all the
class members suffered a statutory violation, most did not
experience a "physical, monetary, or cognizable intangible harm"
necessary to establish a concrete injury under Article III.
The Court's decision clarifies an issue left ambiguous in Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016): whether the violation of a
federal statute alone is sufficient to confer Article III standing.
The Court held that a violation of a federal statute is not,
without more, sufficient for Article III standing. The ruling could
have ramifications for other types of class actions asserting
violations of federal statutes.
The Court's decision also resolves a circuit split as to whether
the mere risk of inaccurate consumer data being disseminated is
sufficient to confer standing. As the Court explained, class
members whose internal credit files were not disseminated to third
parties did not have Article III standing because "there is 'no
historical or common-law analog where the mere existence of
inaccurate information, absent dissemination, amounts to concrete
injury.'"
In dissent, Justice Thomas—joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor,
and Kagan—decried the Court's decision as "remarkable in both its
novelty and effects" because the Court has "[n]ever before . . .
declared that legal injury is inherently insufficient to support
standing."
The decision left undecided whether Ramirez's claims were "typical"
of the other class members' claims. Instead, the Court remanded the
case so the Ninth Circuit could determine whether class
certification continues to be appropriate in light of the
decision.
Gibson Dunn's lawyers are available to assist in addressing any
questions you may have regarding developments at the Supreme Court.
[GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: U.S. Supreme Court Curbs "Terrorist List" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley at Reuters reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on
narrowed the scope of a class action lawsuit against TransUnion in
which thousands of people sought damages after the credit reporting
company flagged their names as matching some on a government list
of suspected terrorists and drug traffickers.[GN]
UBIQUITI INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Ubiquiti Inc..
Shareholders who purchased shares of UI during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ubiquiti-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17109&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: January 11, 2021 to March 20, 2021
ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had downplayed the
data breach in January 2021; (2) 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) as
a result, intruders already had credentials needed to remotely
access Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4) 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.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
UNITED GROUP: Longhini Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Group Realty
Corp. Inc., et al. The case is styled as Doug Longhini,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
United Group Realty Corp. Inc., Dema Food Stores, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-22192-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The United Group of Companies -- https://www.ugoc.com/ -- has
specialized in all phases of real estate: development, financing,
construction, and management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Anthony Joseph Perez, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GARCIA-MENOCAL & PREZ, P.L.
4937 SW 74th Court, No. 3
Miami, FL
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Fax: (305) 553-3031
Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Email: ajperezlaw@gmail.com
UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Doe FERSA Suit to 3rd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN
DOE 3, and JANE DOE 1, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 2-20-cv-01947, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 4, 2021, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a
Memorandum:
-- denying the Government's Motion to Dismiss; and
-- ruling that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Anonymously
is granted without prejudice to the right of the parties to
seek modification of the accompanying order at a later
stage of the proceedings.
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2,
John Doe 3 and Jane Doe 1, claim, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, that their employer, the United
States, violated the Federal Employees' Retirement Systems Act of
1986 ("FERSA"), 5 U.S.C. Sections 8351 and 8401, et seq., by
failing to adequately compensate them for lost earnings during the
federal government shutdown from December 22, 2018, to January 25,
2019. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that when they received
backpay on January 31, 2019, they were not compensated for the
Government's failure to make timely contributions to the Thrift
Savings Plan ("TSP") -- a defined contribution plan created by
FERSA, which appreciated in value during the Shutdown.
Congress passed FERSA in an effort to offer federal employees a
savings and tax benefit similar to what many private sector
employers offered their employees under 401(k) plans. Specifically,
FERSA created the Thrift Savings Plan ('TSP'), a defined
contribution plan for federal employees. Since its creation over
thirty years ago, the TSP has become the largest retirement plan in
the country, managing more than $500 billion in retirement assets.
The assets of the TSP are held in trust in individual employee
accounts within the Thrift Savings Fund.
Eligible federal employees are automatically entitled to receive a
contribution to their TSP accounts by their employing federal
agency equal to 1% of their salary. Federal employees may also make
elective contributions to their TSP accounts which are deducted
from their paychecks. For all elective deductions up to 5% of the
employee's salary, the United States "matches" 50% to 100% of the
contribution ("matching contributions"). Under the FERSA, Congress
required that employing agencies (i.e., the United States) make all
TSP contributions for the benefit of its employees no later than 12
days after the end of each pay period. "Pay period" refers to the
bi-weekly compensation schedule for federal employees.
The Plaintiffs are Investigative Specialists for the Federal Bureau
of Investigations ("FBI") who worked without paychecks or TSP
contributions during the Shutdown from December 22, 2018, to
January 25, 2019. During the 34-day Shutdown the value of TSP
investment funds increased considerably, across the board. In
particular, the most popular TSP investment funds increased over
10% in the short period of time. Upon funding of the federal
agencies, the Plaintiffs and all TSP participants were entitled to
receive their backpay and be made whole.
The Plaintiffs allege that this backpay should have included their
salary plus lost TSP earnings as a result of not receiving their
contributions in accordance with Section 8432(c) of FERSA. However,
when they received their backpay on January 31, 2019, the
Plaintiffs and other Class members were not compensated for the
United States' failure to make timely TSP contributions. They
estimate that the Class suffered millions in lost earnings as a
result of the United States' untimely TSP contributions in
violation of Section 8432(c) of the FERSA.
The Defendant now seeks a review of the Mar. 4 Memorandum entered
by the District Court.
The appellate case is captioned as John Doe 1, et al. v. USA, Case
No. 21-2140, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, filed on June 15, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by:
Eric D. Gill, Esq.
Mark J. Sherer, Esq.
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 861-8250
- and -
Bradley Hinshelwood, Esq.
Mark B. Stern, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-7823
E-mail: bradley.a.hinshelwood@usdoj.gov
Plaintiffs-Respondents JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, and JANE
DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Douglas J. Bench, Jr., Esq.
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES
860 First Avenue
Metropolitan Business Center, Suite 5B
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone: (610) 337-2087
- and -
Brandon M. Bohlman, Esq.
John B. Goplerud, Esq.
Brian O. Marty, Esq.
SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE
5015 Grand Ridge Avenue, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT
150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
- and -
Jonathan David Lindenfeld, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT
140 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 208-1489
E-mail: jonathan@feganscott.com
UNITED STATES: Salos Appeal Case Dismissal to Fed. Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs MATTHEW SALO and GABRIELA SALO filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MATTHEW and GABRIELA
SALO, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
persons and entities, PLAINTIFFS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
through UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEFENDANTS, Case No.
1:17-cv-01194-LAS, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Plaintiffs Matthew and Gabriella Salo, on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated persons and entities, bring this suit
against the United States through the Army Corps of Engineers
seeking just compensation from the United States' use of their
property during and after Hurricane Harvey.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Salo v. United States, Case No.
21-2044, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
filed on June 11, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Entry of Appearance was due on June 25, 2021;
-- Certificate of Interest was due on June 25, 2021;
-- Docketing Statement is due on July 12, 2021; and
-- Appellants' brief is due August 10, 2021. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MATTHEW SALO and GABRIELA SALO, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons and entities,
are represented by:
Nancie Gail Marzulla, Esq.
MARZULLA LAW, LLC
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-6760
Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:
William B. Lazarus, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PO Box 7415, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-4168
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Breast Reconstruction Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Moran, writing for Becker's, reports that UnitedHealthcare is
the target of a class-action lawsuit over its policies, which
members claim make it difficult for them to receive deep inferior
epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction surgery.
Filed June 21 in a New Jersey District Court, the lawsuit alleges
UnitedHealthcare is in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by not uniformly covering the post-mastectomy surgery.
The lawsuit claims ERISA plans must cover the surgery, as the act
ensures coverage for a range of breast reconstruction procedures.
However,UnitedHealthcare's policies make it "unreasonably
difficult" for patients to be insured for receiving the flap breast
reconstruction surgery, especially when performed by an assistant
or co-surgeons, the claim alleges.
UnitedHealthcare's blanket policy on breast reconstruction
surgeries states that post-mastectomy procedures performed by more
than one surgeon is more than "medically necessary," raising issues
with assistant and co-surgeons performing the flap breast
reconstruction surgery, according to the lawsuit.
At the time of publication, UnitedHealthcare was unable to provide
a comment on the lawsuit. [GN]
US ASSET MANAGEMENT: Ahmed Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Asset Management,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alhamdy Ahmed, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US Asset Management,
Inc., EOS CCA, Case No. 1:21-cv-00731-JLS (W.D.N.Y., June 14,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
U.S. Asset Management, Inc. -- https://www.usassetmgt.com/ -- is a
RMA certified receivables management solutions provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
VALENTINO USA: Benitez Conditional Class Certification Bid Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benitez, et al., v.
Valentino U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-11463 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order terminating motion for
conditional class certification pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section
216(b).
The motion is filed by the Plaintiffs Josefina Benitez, Zion
Brereton, James Choi, Andreya Crawford, Alicia Learmont, and
Damiana Rosario.
The suit alleges violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Valentino U.S.A., Inc. is located in New York, New York, and is
part of the clothing stores industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
VISA INC: Camp Grounds Sues Over Improper Credit Card Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
CAMP GROUNDS COFFEE, LLC; 803 KAVA LLC; MAUREEN ROXBERRY; and SHEN
SHU ACUPUNCTURE, PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VISA, INC.; and MASTERCARD, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03401 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2021)
alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the class are
businesses that obtain credit-card acceptance service via nonparty
Square, Inc. ("Square") and that are located in the following
states: Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia,
Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin (the "Covered
States").
Plaintiffs and the class are Sellers who use the Square service to
accept credit and debit card transactions on the Visa and
MasterCard networks. In these transactions, it is Square that
serves as the direct purchaser of Visa and MasterCard network
services. But while Square is the direct payer of Interchange Fees,
it passes along 100% of those costs to the Plaintiffs and the
class. It is the Plaintiffs and the class who ultimately incur the
overcharge that is the subject of the antitrust suit, says the
complaint.
VISA INC. operates a retail electronic payments network and manages
global financial services. The Company also offers global commerce
through the transfer of value and information among financial
institutions, merchants, consumers, businesses, and government
entities. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com
burt@whafh.com
-and-
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Benjamin E. Shiftan, Esq.
PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Blvd. #400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
bshiftan@pswlaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN AG: 9th Circuit Reverses Loss in Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino at courthousenews.com reports that major investors
must meet a higher evidentiary standard to hold Volkswagen liable
for securities fraud claims related to an emissions cheating
scandal that cost the automaker billions in losses, a divided Ninth
Circuit panel ruled.
A retirement fund for Puerto Rico's government employees serves as
lead plaintiff in a class action claiming Volkswagen misled
institutional investors when they purchased $8.3 billion in bonds
between May 2014 and May 2015.
In a May 2014 offering memo, Volksagen touted its commitment to
developing emissions-reducing technology and its need to comply
with environmental laws, but it failed to mention that it had
installed emissions test cheating devices in 11 million diesel
vehicles worldwide.
The emissions cheating software enabled cars to trick regulators by
spewing less pollution during compliance tests than while on the
road. About 600,000 of the tainted vehicles were sold in the United
States.
When the scandal went public in September 2015, the German
automaker's bond prices plummeted and institutional investors like
the retirement fund for Puerto Rico government employees lost
money. Then they sued Volkswagen for securities fraud.
Volkswagen moved for summary judgment in the case, arguing the
bondholders failed to prove they relied on alleged
misrepresentations in a May 2014 offering memo when they purchased
bonds. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer denied that motion in
September 2019. He found that because the bondholders primarily
alleged omissions rather than misrepresentations, they qualified
for a presumption that they would have relied on the the missing
information.
The majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel disagreed and
reversed Breyer's decision. The majority held that prior Ninth
Circuit rulings establish that presumed reliance is only available
in "pure omissions" cases and not "mixed" cases that allege both
misrepresentations and omissions.
The standard comes from a 1972 Supreme Court case, Affiliated Ute
Citizens of Utah, which held that because it is impossible to prove
one would have relied on undisclosed information, reliance should
be presumed in such cases.
The majority cited numerous statements from Volkswagen's May 2014
offering memo cited in the bondholders' complaint, including that
Volkswagen was focused on offering "environmentally friendly"
vehicles. The complaint also stated that the investors relied on
those statements when they purchased bonds.
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Smith Jr., a
George W. Bush appointee, held that a defendant's concealment of
the truth does not automatically transform their false statements
into implied omissions.
"The Affiliate Ute presumption of reliance does not apply because
plaintiff can prove reliance through ordinary means by
demonstrating a connection between the alleged misstatements and
its injury," Smith wrote. "Otherwise, the exception would swallow
the rule."
U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani, a Ronald
Reagan appointee sitting on the panel by designation, joined Smith
in the majority.
In a dissenting opinion, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge J. Clifford
Wallace, a Richard Nixon appointee, argued that the majority
misinterpreted prior court decisions to conclude that presumed
reliance can never be applied in a case alleging omissions and
misrepresentations.
"As I see it, the plaintiff has alleged primarily an omissions case
predicated on Volkswagen's material omission because the omission
rendered those affirmative misstatements misleading," Wallace
wrote.
The majority vacated Breyer's denial of Volkswagen's motion for
summary judgment and ordered him to reconsider the motion in light
of its holding that presumed reliance does not apply.
In an emailed statement, Volkswagen attorney Robert Giuffra Jr. of
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP called the Ninth Circuit ruling an
important decision that clarifies the scope of presumed reliance in
an appeals court circuit that is home to many of the nation's
leading tech companies.
"Plaintiffs were trying to turn Affiliated Ute into an open-ended
presumption that would apply in every case, since every
misrepresentation case can be categorized as involving omissions,"
Giuffra said.
Bondholders' attorney Mitchell Twersky of Abraham, Fruchter &
Twersky LLP said he believes his clients have adequate grounds to
challenge the panel's split decision.
"The majority opinion appears to have overlooked a material point
of fact regarding the District Court's previous order narrowing the
scope of the case to only alleged omissions, and the majority
opinion seems to contradict previous Ninth Circuit decisions,"
Twersky said.
When asked if the bondholders will seek an en banc rehearing,
Twerskey's co-counsel Ian Berg said the team is "considering all of
our options."
In 2018, Volkswagen agreed to pay $48 million to settle a separate
securities class action brought by purchasers of American
Depositary Receipts, or ADRs - certificates of shares in a foreign
company - for Volkswagen.
The German automaker pleaded guilty in March 2017 to conspiracy and
obstruction of justice and agreed to pay $4.3 billion in criminal
and civil penalties. Volkswagen also struck settlements with U.S.
car owners, regulators and dealerships totaling more than $17
billion to resolve claims related to the emissions cheating
scandal. [GN]
WAKEFIELD AND ASSOCIATES: Getchel Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield and
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Leah Getchel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wakefield and
Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02436-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn., June
28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- has
established itself as a leading provider of accounts receivable
management and delinquent account recovery in the healthcare
arena.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
WALMART INC: Varela Appeals Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rochelle Varela filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Rochelle Varela v. Walmart, Inc.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04448-GW-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The lawsuit is a putative consumer class action on whether labeling
a vitamin E skin oil product as "vitamin E skin oil" is misleading
because it contains a mixture of other oils (e.g., soybean,
coconut, and lemon peel oil) in addition to vitamin E oil.
Defendant Walmart, Inc. sells the allegedly infringing product in
bottles. Consumers, including the Plaintiff purchase skin products
containing vitamin E oil because of vitamin E oil's ability to
"help rejuvenate human skin." However, the Plaintiff alleges that
the Product "is not what it claims to be" because vitamin E oil
makes up only slightly less than a quarter of the product.
Ms. Varela now seeks a review of the Court's order dated October
22, 2020, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss but with leave to
amend.
The appellate case is captioned as Rochelle Varela v. Walmart Inc.,
Case No. 21-55610, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on June 11, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Rochelle Varela Mediation Questionnaire was due on
June 18, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by July 12, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on August 9, 2021;
-- Appellant Rochelle Varela opening brief is due on September
20, 2021;
-- Appellee Walmart Inc. answering brief is due on October 18,
2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROCHELLE VARELA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ryan Clarkson, Esq.
Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
Defendant-Appellee WALMART INC. is represented by:
Drew Robert Hansen, Esq.
THEODORA ORINGHER P.C.
535 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 549-6112
WASHINGTON: DOC Appeals Preliminary Injunction Ruling in Doe Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, and all
persons similarly situated, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, and STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Secretary of the Department of
Corrections, in his official capacity, Case No. 4:21-cv-05059-TOR,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington,
Richland.
The lawsuit concerns three records requests that Defendants
received pursuant to Washington's Public Records Act (PRA) seeking
information related to incarcerated transgender individuals. The
requests were received following an interview with Pierce County
Sherriff Ed Troyer on March 10, 2021, conducted by Dori Monson on
KIRO 97.3 FM, to follow up on an anonymous email purportedly sent
by a DOC employee alleging men were "claiming to be women" in order
to transfer to women's prisons. The Plaintiffs allege disclosure of
the requested information threatens their health, safety, and
privacy because the records contain highly confidential information
that directly or indirectly pertains to Plaintiffs' status as
transgender.
The Defendants are now seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
May 17, 2021, granting Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction.
The appellate case is captioned as John Doe, et al. v. Washington
State DOC, et al., Case No. 21-35453, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 14, 2021.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
and STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Secretary of the Department of Corrections,
in his official capacity, are represented by:
Candie M. Dibble, Esq.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
1116 West Riverside
Spokane, WA 99022
Telephone: (509) 458-3538
Plaintiffs-Appellees JOHN DOE, 1; JOHN DOE, 2; JANE DOE, 1; JANE
DOE, 2; JANE DOE, 3; and all persons similarly situated, are
represented by:
David R. Carlson, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON
315 Fifth Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 324-1521
- and -
Antoinette M. Davis, Esq.
Lisa Nowlin, Esq.
Nancy Lynn Talner, Esq.
ACLU OF WASHINGTON
P.O. Box 2728
Seattle, WA 98119
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
- and -
Katherine M. Forster, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 683-9538
- and -
Joseph R. Shaeffer, Esq.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
705 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-1604
WELLS FARGO: Couple Defends Class Action Over Home Equity Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Florida couple said on June 21 that a federal
magistrate erred on several points when he recently recommended
dismissal of their proposed class action accusing Wells Fargo of
fraudulently changing maturity dates on mortgages securing home
equity loans and clouding title to their property. [GN]
WILDLANDS SERVICES: Fire Claims Certified as a Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Montanaro at wctv.tv reports that a judge signed an order on
the third anniversary of the devastating Eastpoint fire, certifying
dozens of negligence claims as a class action lawsuit.
The Franklin County Clerk's time stamp shows Circuit Judge Jonathan
Sjostrom signed the order.
Attorney Doug Lyons represents dozens of families who lost
everything in the fire and says class action status should make a
big difference.
"It makes it more manageable. We feel it should speed things up,"
Lyons said.
Lawsuits filed in both Leon County and Franklin County claim
Wildlands Services - a state contractor - was negligent in allowing
a controlled burn to re-ignite and spark a fast-moving wildfire.
The fire destroyed three dozen homes in Eastpoint on June 24,
2018.
Jim Joyner's was one of them.
"It was the most intense fire you ever seen in your life," Joyner
told WCTV. "Just imagine every house as far you can go along the
road, everything beside you was on fire."
An attorney for Wildlands told us that his firm as a "long standing
policy of not commenting on pending lawsuits."
The next hearing in the newly certified class action lawsuit is set
for July 20. [GN]
WIZARDRY INC: Aguiniga Sues Over Failure to Compensate Hours Worked
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Aguiniga, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees
v. WIZARDRY, INC.; GARY STONE; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case
No. 21STCV22168 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 14, 2021),
is brought against the Defendant for failing to compensate the
Plaintiff for all hours worked including minimum and overtime wages
in violation of the Labor Code Sections.
The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they
were entitled for work performed and as such did not compensate the
Plaintiff and others for all hours worked at the minimum wage rate
pursuant to California Labor Code. Due to not having a formal
clock-in/clock-out system, the Plaintiff and others would often
perform work "off the clock" in that the Plaintiff and others would
often work from home in writing daily emails or following up with
clients or working on drawings from home, and other similar
work-related tasks. The Defendant was unequivocally aware that the
Plaintiff and others would perform work from home, but it was not
company policy to pay for these "off the clock hours". Due to the
"off the clock" work and as a matter of company policy, the
Defendant violated Labor Code because it failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees ANY
overtime, even though they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12
hours per day and/or 40 hours per week throughout their employment,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff started working for Wizardry on or around November
2014.
Wizardry, Inc. is a California corporation, doing business in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
Email: hm@messrelianlaw.com
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Wyngaard Seeks Certification of Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE WYNGAARD on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WOODMAN'S FOOD
MARKET, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00493-PP-NJ (E.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) for certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) collective action against the Defendant, of the following
collectives:
-- Meal Period Collective
"All hourly-paid, non-exempt Store Employees employed by
Defendant, Woodman's Food Market, Inc., at any of its
Wisconsin Store locations from April 5, 2016 until April 5,
2019, and who have both (a) filed their Consent to Join Forms
with the Court; and (b) who utilized Dayforce to record a
meal period lasting less than 30 consecutive, duty free
minutes in duration;"
-- In-Shift Rounding Collective
"All hourly-paid, non-exempt Store Employees employed by
Defendant, Woodman's Food Market, Inc., at any of its Store
locations from April 5, 2016 until April 5, 2019, and who
have both (a) filed their Consent to Join Forms with the
Court; and (b) who utilized Dayforce to record a meal period
lasting more than thirty (30) consecutive, duty free minutes
in duration;"
-- Non-Discretionary Compensation Collective:
"All hourly-paid, non-exempt Store Employees employed by
Defendant, Woodman's Food Market, Inc., at any of its Store
locations from April 5, 2016 until April 5, 2019, and who
have both (a) filed their Consent to Join Forms with the
Court; and (b) received an Attendance Bonus, Employee
Appreciation Holiday Bonus, or New Hire Bonus."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AgBkti
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
ZYARA RESTAURANT: Alvarado Seeks Proper Wages, Missing Paystubs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madame Lux Alvarado, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Zyara Restaurant Corp. and Feras Alzughier,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03432 (E.D. N.Y., June 17, 2021), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours
pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control a Middle Eastern restaurant in
Astoria, New York under the name "Zyara restaurant" where Alvarado
was employed as a dishwasher. He claims to have generally worked in
excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium
for workdays exceeding 10 hours. He also claims to have never
received wage statements and appropriate minimum wage. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
[*] Canada Launches Public Consultation on Class Action Reform
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Harding, Esq., Frederic Plamondon, Esq., Celine Legendre,
Esq., and Eric Prefontaine, Esq., of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP,
in an article for Lexology, report that in light of recent steps
taken to modernize the Quebec justice system and increase its
efficiency, the Universite de Montreal's Class Action Laboratory
prepared a report (the Report) commissioned by Quebec's Ministry of
Justice. The Minister of Justice announced on June 1, 2021 that it
was launching a public consultation campaign on reform perspectives
concerning class action proceedings, particularly with regard to
delays, authorization (certification) of class actions, and
approval of plaintiff's legal fees.
In its consultation paper, the government states three objectives
for its class action reforms and proposes different solutions to
attain these objectives, based on the Report's recommendations.
Objective 1: Protect the resources of the province's judicial
system
The Report found that reform is much needed in terms of the
management of judicial resources. For example, it found that the
average time period leading to a final authorization judgment was
approximately 2.5 years, and an additional duration of almost 4.5
years to reach a final judgment approving a settlement. As such,
the first objective of the reform is to reduce delays by
encouraging tighter case management.
Concretely, some of the proposed solutions to reduce delays include
putting in place strategies aimed at encouraging tribunals and
parties to actively manage their cases. These strategies include
the adoption of practices like the establishment of tighter
deadlines in case protocols to reach the authorization hearing
within one year. The parties' collaboration to precisely identify
the issues in dispute, and their consideration of the possibility
of settlement also constitute proposed strategies.
Objective 2: Simplify and accelerate the authorization stage
Another important goal stated in the Report is to simplify and
accelerate the authorization stage while upholding its primary
objective of protecting class members, defendants, and the justice
system as a whole. Currently, in Quebec, class actions must first
pass an authorization stage, by meeting the four criteria
identified in article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.):
1. The claims of the members of the class must raise identical,
similar or related issues;
2. The facts alleged must appear to justify the conclusions
sought;
3. The composition of the class must make it difficult or
impracticable to apply the rules for mandates to take part in
judicial proceedings on behalf of others or for consolidation of
proceedings; and
4. The class member appointed as representative plaintiff must be
in a position to properly represent the class members.
To improve the pace of class proceedings, there are two proposed
avenues. First, the report suggests either the codification of a
proportionality rule that would be applicable to all stages of a
class action in addition to the principle set out in article 18 of
the C.C.P., or the inclusion of a proportionality or preferability
criterion to the existing authorization criteria. Both options aim
to better filter cases to ensure a more appropriate use of judicial
resources for the benefit of cases that require them.
The second avenue proposed by the Report is the integration of the
authorization stage directly into the main proceeding, as well as
the removal of the second criterion of article 575 of the C.C.P. As
such, the proposed proceedings would follow these steps :
1. Filing of the application to institute class action
proceedings;
2. Respondent's answer to the summons and disclosure of preliminary
applications;
3. Judgment on authorization and judgment on preliminary
applications;
4. Judgment on the merits of the class action.
Following the initial filing of the application to institute
proceedings, the matter would be stayed awaiting an authorization
judgment. Authorization would be granted based on criteria one,
three and four of article 575 of the C.C.P. identified above, and
the defendant would be able to raise inadmissibility arguments
based on the lack of a prima facie claim. The application to
institute proceedings would thus contain allegations not only
concerning the authorization criteria, but also the merits of the
dispute.
Objective 3: Take a more critical look at legal fees
The third objective of the reform is to take a more critical look
at the plaintiff's legal fees while considering the proceeding as a
whole, its importance, and the efforts undertaken. Currently, when
a settlement is reached after the authorization stage, on average
one third of the settlement amount is used to pay for the
plaintiff's legal fees. This reduces substantially the amount
received by class members, which is why the present situation faces
serious criticism. As a result, the Report suggests a series of
elements that ought to be taken into consideration by courts when
approving legal fees, such as the judicial stage at which the case
is settled.
In evaluating the reasonableness of the fees, the Report notes
that, currently, courts give too much weight to the risk factor and
not enough to the hours actually worked. To determine a reasonable
amount for the fees, one formula proposed by the Report is the
multiplication of the number of hours worked by the lawyers' hourly
rate, and by a factor that accounts for risk.
The last avenue under consideration is the inclusion into the
C.C.P. of the possibility of having a "friend of the court", a
third party that would assist the court in the approval of
settlements, and in the determination of the legal fees.
Any interested person is invited to submit comments and suggestions
to the Quebec's Ministry of Justice regarding the proposed avenues
for reform at sma.smaj@justice.gouv.qc.ca by July 31, 2021. [GN]
[*] Class-Action Suit Over Digital Tokens Against Rapper Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Sblendorio at New York Daily News reports that that's a wrap
on a class-action lawsuit against rap- per T.I.
A judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing the "Live Your Life" artist
and an associate of promoting and selling cryptographic tokens that
weren't officially registered, according to documents published by
the website CoinDesk.
The lawsuit was dropped because a statue of limitations had
passed.
T.I., whose real name is Clifford Joseph Harris Jr., is accused of
teaming up in 2017 with Ryan Felton, the founder of FLiKIO -- which
was billed as an online viewing platform -- and offering "FLiK
Tokens" for purchase.
"FLiK explained that it would use the funds from the sale of FLiK
Tokens to license content, fund film projects, market and pro- mote
the FLiK platform, and integrate FLiK with additional viewing plat-
forms," court filing reads.
The digital tokens started at about 6 cents each, with the
Atlanta-born T.I. promoting the venture on social media.
"FLiK represented that investors could redeem the tokens on its
platform after it launched," the paperwork published by CoinDesk
continued.
"FLiK never registered FLiK Tokens as securities with the
Securities and Ex- change Commission."
The FLiK platform did not launch, the documents state, but the U.S.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals dropped the lawsuit, deeming it
untimely.
The class-action suit was filed by Kenneth Fedance, who spent
$3,000 on the tokens, according to Coin Desk.
The new development follows a settlement last year that cost the
40-year-old T.I. $75,000 in response to issues that involved the
platform and the Securities and Ex- change Commission. [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 ***