/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210709.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 9, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 131 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Attanasio Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Silva Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products 88-18 TROPICAL: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Pay Stubs ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Refuses to Remand Sanchez Class Suit AFTERMATH SERVICES: Misclassifies Workers, Morey et al. Claim AIR CANADA: Class Action Over Canceled Flights Denied ALKA MIST: Faces Clewett Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls AMERICAN FIRE: Court Dismisses Park 101's First Amended Complaint ATHIRA PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline ATHIRA PHARMA: Faces Jawandha Suit Over Drop in Share Price ATHIRA PHARMA: Faces Three Class Actions Over SEC Violation BAKER TILLY: Kamal Sues Over Noteholders' Krieger Loan Losses BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Abarr Suit Over Stolen Money From EDD Cards BANK OF AMERICA: Lubin FSCA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL: Reply to Renewed Class Cert. Bid Extended BEDFORD PITZA: Ignacio Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Workers BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Baby Food Contains Heavy Metals, Mezile Claims BLUE RIDGE BANK: Powers Sues Over Bank Overdraft Fees BMO NESBITT: Judge Approves $100M Class Action Settlement BONKERS SALOON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gerardo Suit Alleges BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Bid in Faerber BELO Suit Granted BRIAR TEAM: Gronik Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CALIFORNIA: Denial of Class Status for Thomas Suit Recommended CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cochran Suit Says CAMELOT BANQUET: Gerardo Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks CAPITAL ONE: McClenney Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA CAPITOL COMPLIANCE: Faces Long Employment Suit in Cal. State Court CHARTER FOODS: Seeks July 26 Extension on Class Cert. Opposition CHRONISTER OIL: Insurers Refuse to Cover BIPA Class Action Lawsuit CLAIMS QUESTIONS: Williams Hits Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay CLEVELAND WATER: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Billing Practices CONTAINER STORE: Fails to Provide Product Refunds, Graham Suit Says CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 16 Deadline CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 16 Deadline CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 16 Deadline CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Scott+Scott Reminds of July 26 Deadline CRONOS GROUP: Ontario Court Tosses Securities Class Action CSC SERVICEWORKS: Faces Hochman Suit Over Unauthorized Admin Fees DAN ELLZEY: Eunice Files Suit in D. South Carolina DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Scott+Scott Reminds of July 13 Deadline DESIGNED METAL: Lara Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages Under Labor Code DETROIT, MI: Faces Class Action Over I-94 Freeway Flood Damage DT EMPLOYER: Rosales Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California EQUIFAX INFO: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Matatov Alleges EXCLUSIVE HOSPITALITY: Improperly Pays Housekeepers, Kaur Claims FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Rudy Suit Over Smoked Almonds' Deceptive Label FIVE GUYS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Demaria Suit Claims FLASH MARKET: Underpays Maintenance Technicians, Brister Suit Says FORESTERS LIFE: Court Enters Show Cause Order in Siino Class Suit FORTY LEE, FL: Civil Rights Class Action Defendants Down to One FUTURE LOOK: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Nisbett Alleges GAP INC: Court Stays Hennessey Pending Barba Settlement Approval GOLDMAN SACHS: Perkins Coie Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling GOLDMAN SACHS: Ulmer & Berne Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling GOOGLE LLC: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling GRAND CARIBBEAN: Barney Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads GRANT & WEBER: Stokes FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois HARBOR FREIGHT: Faces Sbarra Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages HOME POINT: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 20 Deadline HOVG LLC: Faces Goldstein FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York INTELSAT CORP: California Court Hears Shareholder Class Action JAMES FRANCO: Settles Sexual Misconduct Class Action for $2.2MM JOHNSON CONTROLS: Scott Consumer Suit Goes to N.D. California KAISER PERMANENTE: Magistrate Judge Wants Class Claims Trimmed KELLOGG SALES: Tarts Strawberry Label, "Deceptive," Chiappetta Says KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Class Action Over Sleep Apnea Machines L.A.R.E PARTNERS: Umbrino Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action LAWPRACTICECLE LLC: Faces Goren ADA Suit in M.D. Florida LE CABARET: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks LIBERTY HOMECARE: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class w/o Prejudice LSP PRODUCTS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Harris Product Liability Suit MAPCO EXPRESS: Pay Disparity Class Action Can Proceed MARYLAND: Class Action Seeks Extension of Unemployment Benefits MCCLATHY COMPANY: Kelly et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads MERRILL LYNCH: Gilmore Sues Over Bias Against African American FAs METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Metrocity Group Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT: IPRS Seeks to Certify Class Action MICHAEL KORS: Vasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California MTA NEW YORK: Underpays Transit Management Analysts, Johnson Says MV PUBLIC: Smith Sues Over Wrongful Discharge, Age Discrimination NAVER CORPORATION: Apps Illegally Collect User Data, Ji Suit Says NAVY FEDERAL: Ramos Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NEW STANDARD: Walker Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages NEWFOUNDLAND: Class Action Over Travel Restrictions Tossed NORTH AMERICAN: Lagrisola Labor Suit Goes to S.D. California NORTH SHORE: Bodiford Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid Overtime ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 29 PALOMAR HEALTH: Faces Dessamero Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Cal. PANDA RESTAURANT: Scott Sues Over Deceptive Flat $2.95 Delivery Fee PARAMOUNT HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zinko Suit Claims PLANT HEALTH: Counsel Files a Motion to Dismiss Toporek Suit PURDUE PHARMA: Howard County, Kokomo Opt Out of Opioid Lawsuit RCI HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Turner Suit Alleges REAL BUILDERS: Workers Seek Overtime Pay, Slam Illegal Deductions REKOR SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in Maryland REKOR SYSTEMS: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 28 Deadline RIV PIZZA: Napier Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Delivery Drivers RLX TECHNOLOGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 9 Deadline ROCKET COMPANIES: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Aug. 28 Deadline SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA: McLaughlin Sues Over Unlawful Detention SCRIPPS HEALTH: Matthews Sues Over Alleged Medical Data Breach SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA: Heard Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California SOLER BROTHERS: Underpays Deli Employees, Cuello Suit Alleges SPIRIT AIRLINES: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Garcia Suit Says STERIGENICS US: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Vallejo Complaint Granted STEVENS TANKER: Hargrove Suit Asserts WARN Act Breach TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Holdings Sues Over Amitiza Monopoly TAR TIGER: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, Lyles Claims TARGET CORPORATION: Oil-Free Products Harmful, Sorkin Suit Alleges TONY'S PIZZERIA: Improperly Pays Pizzeria Staff, Lopez Suit Claims TOYOTA MOTOR: Fails to Pay for Auto Repairs, Foust Suit Alleges TOYOTA MOTOR: RAV4 Owners Sue Over Defective Car Battery TRADER JOE'S: Gierwatowski Suit Moved From Illinois to California TRAINCROFT INC: Concepcion Alleges Unpaid OT for Aircraft Mechanics TRANSUNION LLC: Baker Donelson Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling TRANSUNION LLC: Ballard Spahr Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling TRANSUNION LLC: Fisher Phillips Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling TRANSUNION LLC: Husch Blackwell Attorney Discusses Court Ruling TRANSUNION LLC: Saul Ewing Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling TURO INC: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website TWO RIVERS: Dismissed from Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit UNILEVER PLC: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Dove Products' Lawsuit UNITED STATES: $12.6M Class Deal in Gallimore v. Census Bureau OK'd UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Epperson v. Foreign Ministry Endorsed VB3 LLC: Fails to Provide Kitchen Staff's OT Pay, Tello Suit Says VIRGIN GALACTIC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 27 Deadline WAL-MART INC: Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Filing Set for Dec. 3 WATERMARK CONTRACTORS: Maloney Sues Over Carpenters' Unpaid Wages WELBILT INC: Misleads Stockholders to Approve a Proposed Merger WERNER ENTERPRISES: Must Face Driver Trainees' Class Action XPO LOGISTICS: Pruitt MHRA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri YH RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Jin Suit Claims [*] BNPL Company Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed NSF Fees [*] DLA Attorney Discusses Class Action Challenges, Opportunities Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces 1,021 PI Suits as of April 30 ********* 3M COMPANY: Attanasio Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH PATRICK ATTANASIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01968-RMG (D.S.C., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney and prostate cancer. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Silva Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH ANN SILVA, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of EDWARD M. SILVA, deceased, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01966-RMG (D.S.C., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Decedent as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Decedent, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Decedent was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the suit says. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 88-18 TROPICAL: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Pay Stubs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Alonzo Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 88-18 Tropical Restaurant Corp., Roosevelt Tropical Corp., Tropical Greenpoint Corp. and Jaime Illescas, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03573 (E.D. N.Y., June 24, 2021), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendants operate a chain of restaurants named "Tropical" where Rodriguez was employed as a dishwasher, delivery person and cook at the Tropical Restaurant in Queens. He claims that he did not receive the statutory minimum wage, overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per week or spread-of-hours pay. Additionally, he did not receive wage notices, or wage statements at the end of each pay period, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Morales, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 583-9500 Fax: (212) 308-8582 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com morales@pechmanlaw.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Refuses to Remand Sanchez Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GRACIELA SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01436-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and denies as moot the Defendant's Motion to File a Supplemental Opposition. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff and other individuals as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within California. On May 4, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action in Solano County Superior Court and asserted the following claims: (1) failure to pay overtime wages, Cal. Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198; (2) meal period violations, id. Sections 226.7, 512(a); (3) rest break violations, id. Section 226.7; (4) failure to pay minimum wages, id. Sections 1194, 1197; (5) failure to timely pay wages upon termination, id. Sections 201, 202; (6) wage statement penalties, id. Section 226(a); (7) failure to reimburse business-related expenses, id. Sections 2800, 2802; and (8) unfair business practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. On July 16, 2020, the Defendant removed the case to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff moved to remand on Aug. 17, 2020. The Defendant submitted an opposition, and the Plaintiff filed a reply. Also before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to File a Supplemental Opposition. The Plaintiff filed an opposition. Analysis The Plaintiff argues the Defendant has failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. In opposition, the Defendant argues the amount in controversy easily exceeds $5 million based on the Plaintiff's own allegations and the declaration of Natalie Armstrong, the Defendant's Human Resources Manager. Judge Nunley first addresses whether Armstrong's declaration -- paired with the allegations in the Complaint -- is sufficient to support removal. He then addresses whether the amount in controversy is satisfied. A. Armstrong's Declaration The Plaintiff argues Armstrong's declaration alone is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy because it lacks foundation and corroborating documents such as payroll records. Judge Nunley disagrees. He holds that a declaration from a knowledgeable person, such as Armstrong, that uses averages of the putative class, can be sufficient to establish amount in controversy depending on the nature of the allegations in the complaint. B. Amount in Controversy i. Meal Period Violation The Defendant uses a 60% violation rate (three of five meal periods per workweek being improper) to calculate the amount in controversy for the missed meal period claim. It bases its violation rate assumption on the Plaintiff's allegations of a "pattern and practice" of violations and Armstrong's declaration. The Plaintiff argues that a 60% violation rate is unreasonable given the wording of her claim that the Defendant failed to compensate some "class members (but not all)" for missed meal periods. Judge Nunley finds that the Plaintiff alleges a "pattern and practice" of meal period violations. Thus, a 60% violation rate is reasonable. However, even if the Court applied a violation rate of 40% -- a median between 20% and 60% -- the amount in controversy would still be sufficient to surpass the $5 million threshold under CAFA with the Plaintiff's other claims. Therefore, based on the allegations in the Complaint, Armstrong's declaration, and lack of any contrary evidence from the Plaintiff, the maximum amount the Plaintiffs could reasonably recover for their meal period claim using a 40% violation rate, excluding putative class workers, is as follows: 36,106 (workweeks) × $21.87 (average wage per hour) × 2 (number of assumed meal period violations per week) = $1,579,276.44. ii. Rest Period Violations The Defendant uses a 30% violation rate (three of ten rest periods per week being improper) to calculate the amount in controversy for the missed rest period claim. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant engaged in a "pattern and practice" of denying the Plaintiffs' rest periods. Based on the Plaintiff's "pattern and practice" allegations, Armstrong's declaration, and lack of any evidence to the contrary, Judge Nunley finds a violation rate of 20% -- a median between 10% and 30% -- to be reasonable. Therefore, the maximum amount the Plaintiffs could reasonably recover for their rest period claim using a 20% violation rate, excluding putative class workers, is as follows: 36,106 (workweeks) x $21.87 (average wage per hour) x 2 (number of assumed rest period violations per week) = $1,579,276.44. iii. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages The Defendant uses a 20% violation rate (one improperly paid overtime hour per workweek) to calculate the amount in controversy for the failure to pay overtime claim. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in a "pattern and practice" of failing to pay overtime wages to the "Plaintiff and other class members (but not all)" and seeks "general unpaid wages at overtime compensation." Based on the allegations in the Complaint, Armstrong's declaration, and lack of any contrary evidence, the maximum amount the Plaintiffs could reasonably recover for this claim assuming one hour of overtime was not paid per workweek (20% violation rate), excluding putative class workers, is as follows: 36,106 (workweeks) × $21.87 (average wage per hour) x 1.5 (overtime wage multiplier) x 1 (number of assumed overtime hours per workweek) = $1,184,457.33.4 iv. Wage Statement Penalties The Plaintiff further alleges the Defendant failed to provide employees with accurate wage statements. Using a 100% violation rate under California law, the Defendant calculated inaccurate wage statement penalties of at least $693,850 for putative class employees. Inaccurate wage statement penalties are derivative of meal and rest period violations. Judge Nunley finds the assumed violation rates to be reasonable for the Plaintiff's meal period, rest period, and overtime claims. Thus, he finds a 100% violation rate for inaccurate wage statement penalties is also reasonable. Therefore, the amount the Plaintiffs could reasonably recover for inaccurate wage statement penalties, excluding putative class workers, is as follows: 161 (putative class employees who each received 41 or more wage statements) x $4,000 (statutory cap) + [25 (putative class employees who each received less than 41 wage statements) x $50 (penalty for initial violation)] + [486 (total subsequent violations for the 25 putative class employees who each received less than 41 wage statements) × $100 (penalty for subsequent violations)] = $693,850. Conclusion and Order In sum, the Defendant's estimates, which are supported by the language in the Complaint and Armstrong's declaration, reasonably yield an amount in controversy of $5,036,860.21 for the meal period, rest period, failure to pay overtime, and inaccurate wage statement claims for the putative class. Judge Nunley applied violation rates less than what other courts in the Ninth Circuit have held to be reasonable. Moreover, the stated amount in controversy does not account for putative class "workers," waiting time penalties, or attorney's fees -- amounts that, if included, would bring the amount in controversy in greater excess of $5 million. Therefore, the Judge finds the Defendant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in the case exceeds $5 million as required by CAFA. For these reasons, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is denied and the Defendant's Motion to File a Supplemental Opposition is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/jxpuwmz9 from Leagle.com. AFTERMATH SERVICES: Misclassifies Workers, Morey et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- MAYA GRACE MOREY, CHRISTOPHER NOONER, LISA HENDRICKSON, EMILY HORTON, KYLIE THORNLEY, VICTORIA FERRANTE, MICHELLE DARDAR, HEATHER BARNES, MANUEL TORRES, and JORDAN WRIGHT, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AFTERMATH SERVICES LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00885 (W.D. Wash., June 30, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as non-exempt hourly workers to perform the remediation work and to perform related administrative work. They were also required to travel extensively to complete the remediation work at customers' homes throughout the country. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant misclassified them and other similarly situated workers as "exempt" employees. Despite frequently working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not compensate them for all work they performed and did not pay them overtime wages at the federally mandated overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 per workweek, the Plaintiffs contend. Aftermath Services LLC is a private equity owned business that remedies crime scenes and biohazard sites. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. EMERY REDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 442-9106 Fax: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com AIR CANADA: Class Action Over Canceled Flights Denied ----------------------------------------------------- Logan Leo, writing for Queens Citizen, reports that Sunwing will be the only airline operating in Canada to provide travel credits in lieu of reimbursement for all flights canceled due to COVID, a court judge ruled. Air Canada, Transat and WestJet are not part of the action taken by Alain Lachine on behalf of all customers in the same situation, although he did request. His lawyer thinks sending to businesses is a very bad message. "We say to companies: ‘Do not pay the dues immediately, wait until a lawsuit is filed against you, and before the trial, declare that you are going to repay, and the assistance will be reduced," Eric Perrier was surprised. No reason Om hearingE Periyar appeared before a judge on March 29 and 30 to persuade him to authorize class action against the four aircraft carriers. Air Canada announced on April 13 that it would reimburse its customers after signing a $ 5.9 billion aid plan with Ottawa, while the magistrate was taking the case to court. A few days later, Transat was doing the same thing. WestJet, meanwhile, announced in October that it would refund its customers without Ottawa assistance. "Transat and Air Canada have been waiting a year since they said they were going to pay it back. In the case of WestJet, it's been seven months," Eric Perrier said. Basically, the court said in its decision that there was no reason in the case of Transat, Air Canada and WestJet, mainly because they decided to pay back. Elise Talbot, a lawyer for Gasco Goodwill Saint-Germain, is representing Sunwing in the case. She declined to comment on the decision. Sunwing did not respond to our interview requests. [GN] ALKA MIST: Faces Clewett Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHERYLL CLEWETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALKA MIST PREMIER INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-02137 (S.D. Tex., June 30, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful practice that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making autodialed, prerecorded telemarketing calls without prior express written consent. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed prerecorded telephone call on his residential telephone number ending in 6431 on May 31, 2021 at 11:51 a.m. in an attempt to promote its water purification services and products. The Plaintiff also asserts that he never provided the Defendant with her prior express written consent to receive such telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or prerecorded voice. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons, who also received the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls, have suffered concrete harm in the form of nuisance and invasion of their privacy. Alka Mist Premier Inc. offers water purification services and products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFIE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Tel: (817) 416-5060 Fax: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com - and – Max S. Morgan, Esq. Eric H. Weitz, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1528 Walnut St., 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com AMERICAN FIRE: Court Dismisses Park 101's First Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PARK 101 LLC and LOUISIANA PURCHASE LLC dba LOUISIANA PURCHASE SD, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN FIRE and CASUALTY COMPANY and OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00972-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. The action concerns claims of insurance coverage brought forth by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs' suit came in the wake of the COVID-19 public health crisis, and government emergency orders relating thereto. It is not the first of its kind. The pandemic has severely affected, and continues to affect, small businesses across the United States. COVID-19 insurance cases have been and continue to be litigated across the nation. The Plaintiffs bring forth the action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of more than 100 class members consisting of all persons and entities in California insured under a comprehensive business insurance policy by the Defendants. According to the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"), Park 101 entered into an insurance contract with American Fire for a policy period of May 21, 2019 through May 21, 2020. Louisiana Purchase LLC entered into an insurance contract with Ohio Security Insurance Company for a policy period of March 5, 2020 through March 5, 2021. On March 4, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency in California due to the threat of COVID-19. On March 16, 2020, San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer issued an executive order prohibiting all gatherings of 50 or more people. This order also closed all bars and prohibited in-person dining at restaurants. Three days later, on March 19, 2020, Gov. Newsom issued an executive order directing all residents to shelter-in-place. The Plaintiffs claim that the COVID-19 pandemic and related government-issued closure orders forced them to "temporarily close their businesses or restrict these businesses to delivery or serving take-out only customers," resulting in loss of business income. More specifically, they contend their losses "were not proximately caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus, but rather by the government-issued closure orders." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs allege their losses amount to covered losses under the business income, extra expense, and civil authority provisions of their Policy. The Plaintiffs timely filed an insurance claim for coverage with the Defendants, which the Defendants denied. They thereafter commenced the litigation in the Court and raised four causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., ("UCL"); and (4) declaratory relief. The Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim followed. Discussion The Defendants primarily argue that the Plaintiffs failed to allege "direct physical loss of or damage" within the ordinary and popular meaning of that phrase to trigger coverage under the Policy. And, moreover, they claim that the Plaintiffs' claimed losses are barred by the Virus Exclusion. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, primarily argue that "direct physical loss" does not only mean a physical, distinct alteration of sorts but also the inability to use the property or temporary dispossession of the property. A. Business Income and Extra Expense Provisions According to the FAC, the Policy covers business income lost when business operations are suspended due to a covered cause of loss, but the "suspension must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises." Similarly, the Policy covers extra expenses incurred during a period of restoration that the insured "would not have incurred if there had been no direct physical loss of or damage to property." The Plaintiffs' arguments focus on the "direct physical loss of" property prong of the provision. Judge Battaglia finds that the resulting redundancy is not fatal and the Business Income and Extra Expense Provisions have not been triggered. The Plaintiffs do not and cannot allege that they have been permanently dispossessed of property. At most, they can allege that they were temporarily dispossessed of a service of their business. B. Civil Authority Provision The Plaintiffs also allege that they have established coverage under the "Civil Authority" coverage extension of the Policy because they have alleged that the Closure Orders caused the restaurants to close down, and as a result, they lost business income. The Civil Authority coverage kicks in when the insured incurs loss of business income and extra expenses as a result of civil authority action. The Defendants argue that Civil Authority coverage does not apply for four reasons: (1) Civil Authority provision only comes into play when there is "direct physical loss of or damage to" the covered property, and, just like the Business Income provision, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a "physical loss"; (2) Plaintiffs fail to establish the causal link required by the Civil Authority provision; (3) Civil Authority provision requires prohibition of access to the premises; and (4) the Civil Authority actions are not triggered from "fear of future harm." First, Judge Battaglia finds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the Closure Orders prohibited access to their property. Second, even assuming that the Closure Orders prohibited access to Plaintiffs' premises, the orders were not issued "due to direct physical loss of or damage to property, other than at the described premises." Nowhere is the presence of COVID-19 in the surrounding areas of the Plaintiffs' premises cited as the impetus for the Closure Orders. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged a covered loss under the Civil Authority provision. C. Viability of Plaintiffs' Causes of Action While Judge Battaglia is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs' situation, he must find, as a matter of law, that their insurance claims are not covered by the Policy. And as the Plaintiffs' causes of action for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, and declaratory relief all rely upon the existence of coverage under the Policy, they will be dismissed. Order In light of the foregoing, Judge Battaglia grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC. He notes that the overwhelming majority of California courts to have considered the issues raised in the Plaintiffs' FAC have concluded that temporarily closing a business due to government closure orders during the pandemic does not constitute a direct loss of property under insurance policies. Any amendment is therefore likely to be futile. As such, the FAC is dismissed without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ut8byz3 from Leagle.com. ATHIRA PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a Lead Plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Athira Pharma, Inc. ("Athira" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATHA) from September 18, 2020 through June 17, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington alleges violations of the Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Athira securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Athira Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding the Company's business. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the research conducted by Athira's President and CEO Leen Kawas, which formed the foundation for Athira's product candidates and intellectual property, was tainted by Kawas' scientific misconduct, including the manipulation of key data; and (2) that, as a result of the foregoin, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and omitted material facts necessary in order to make the statements not misleading. On June 17, 2021, after the market closed, Athira issued a press release announcing that the Company's Board of Directors had placed Kawas on temporary leave pending a review of actions stemming from doctoral research Kawas conducted while at Washington State University. An article published in STAT News later that day revealed that the investigation of Kawas relates to allegations that she altered images in four separate papers relating to her research on hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), a protein with the potential to treat Alzheimer's disease. On this news, Athira's stock price fell $7.09 per share, or nearly 39%, to close at $11.15 per share on June 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Athira securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/athirapharmainc-atha-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-407/apply/ or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 Seidman@bernlieb.com [GN] ATHIRA PHARMA: Faces Jawandha Suit Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- HARSHDEEP JAWANDHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATHIRA PHARMA, INC.; DR. LEEN KAWAS; GLENNA MILESON; TADATAKA YAMADA; JOSEPH EDELMAN; JOHN M. FLUKE, JR.; JAMES A. JOHNSON; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; JEFFERIES LLC; STIFEL; NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; and JMP SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00862 (W.D. Wash., June 25, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Athira common stock pursuant and 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"), seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). According to the complaint, 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. 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. 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 complaint contends that the Registration Statement filed by the Defendants 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. Athira Pharma, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company develops molecule therapies for neurological disorders and alzheimer's disease treatments. Athira Pharma serves patients in the State of Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Benjamin T.G. Nivison, Esq. ROSSI VUCINOVICH, P.C. 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 1780 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (425) 646-8003 Facsimile: (425) 646-8004 -and- Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 -and- Lesley Portnoy, Esq. THE PORTNOY LAW FIRM 1800 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 692-8883 E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com ATHIRA PHARMA: Faces Three Class Actions Over SEC Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte Schubert, writing for GeekWire, reports that the lawsuits have begun. Barely a week after the CEO of Athira Pharma was placed on temporary leave after allegations of altered images in scientific papers she authored, three class action suits alleging SEC violations have been filed on the behalf of shareholders. All three lawsuits were filed on June 25 and allege that the Bothell, Wash.-based company made false and misleading statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission in its filings in preparation for its IPO in September of last year, ultimately misleading investors about "invalid research." The company, in clinical-stage development of a compound for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease dementia, raised about $204 million in the IPO, at a share price of $17.00. Share prices have fallen by about 40% since the CEO, Leen Kawas, was put on leave on June 17, and were trading at $10.37 on June 29. On June 17 the news site STAT published a story examining the claims of image manipulation in Kawas' papers, which first emerged on PubPeer, a service where scientists can comment on the integrity of data in scientific papers. A comment first appeared in 2016 on one paper, and more recently on three other studies. They concern papers Kawas researched while a graduate student at Washington State University, where she received a doctorate degree in 2011. According to one of the lawsuits, Athira's SEC filing failed to state that Kawas "had published research papers containing improperly altered images while she was a graduate student," and that "as a result, Athira's intellectual property and product development for the treatment of Alzheimer's were based on invalid research." The lawsuits maintain that Kawas' graduate research laid the groundwork for Athira's efforts to develop new treatments. One suit notes that Kawas is put forward in a key SEC document as "essential in creating our innovating translational development strategy." The suits seek compensatory damages from the defendants, named as Athira Pharma and Kawas in one lawsuit. The other two also name company CFO Glenna Mileson and the company directors, including Joseph Edelman, founder and CEO of Perceptive Advisors, which led a Series B round for the company, and Tadataka Yamada, board chair and a partner at the venture firm Frazier Healthcare Partners. Yamada is also the former president of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation global health program. Athira had no comment on the lawsuits, according to a spokesperson contacted by GeekWire. In a June 17 press release Yamada said, "Athira is committed to the integrity of scientific research in its mission." He also said that the company's lead compound, ATH-1017, "was discovered, developed, and patented by Athira on the basis of novel data generated within the Company. The Company is confident in the therapeutic potential of ATH-1017 for treating dementia." Last summer, Kawas told GeekWire that the potential of Athira's technology is "huge." She co-founded Athira -- formerly known as M3 Biotechnology -- with WSU researchers Joseph Harding, her graduate advisor, and Jay Wright, with WSU noting the promise of initial studies in a 2012 article. Harding resigned from the company's board of directors in August of 2020. Wright also does not appear to be affiliated with the company per its website and is not associated with the IPO filings. WSU is conducting its own investigation into the matter. The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington by Seattle law firms Tousley Brain Stephens, Rossi Vucinovich, and Keller Rohrback. Two of the suits also name as defendants the underwriters of the IPO: Goldman Sachs and Co., Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Jefferies, and JMP Securities. Editor's note: This story was updated with details about Harding's board departure. [GN] BAKER TILLY: Kamal Sues Over Noteholders' Krieger Loan Losses ------------------------------------------------------------- K. TAUSIF KAMAL and SAMUEL EDISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAKER TILLY VIRCHOW KRAUSE, LLC, BAKER TILLY US, LLP, and DELOITTE, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-01549 (D. Minn., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their duties of due care through their ongoing and persistent failures to evaluate the collectability of Aspirity Holdings, LLC's loan to Krieger Enterprises and their consequent blessing of Aspirity's quarterly and annual reports presenting the Krieger Loan as an asset in the form of a payable. Hundreds of investors purchased or renewed short-term renewable unsecured subordinated notes from Aspirity on the basis of these materially misleading financial statements that were blessed by the Defendants. When the truth was revealed, Aspirity immediately ceased all further note payments, and the company was placed into bankruptcy soon thereafter. All of Aspirity's outstanding noteholders, including the Plaintiffs, lost their entire investment as a result of Aspirity's collapse, the suit says. Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLC is an advisory, tax and assurance firm, with its principal place of business located at 1301 W. 22nd St., Suite 400, Oak Brook, Illinois. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a public accounting and consulting firm, with its principal place of business located at 1301 W. 22nd St., Suite 400, Oak Brook, Illinois. Deloitte, LLP is a consulting services firm, with its principal place of business located at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com - and – Joseph Peiffer, Esq. Daniel B. Centner, Esq. Grace A. Hancock, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, LLP 1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 523-2434 Facsimile: (504) 608-1465 E-mail: jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com dcentner@peifferwolf.com ghancock@peifferwolf.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Abarr Suit Over Stolen Money From EDD Cards ------------------------------------------------------------------ PAUL ABARR, KOBE ABBOTT, JORDAN ADERS, JONATHAN AGUIRRE, CHRISTOPHER ALLISON, KEVIN ALVAREZ, COURTNEY ALVAREZ, DAVID ANDERSON, REBEKAH ANDERSON, AMANDA ANDRADE, SAMUEL DE LOS ANGELES, SR., SHEILA ANISTIK, ROBERT ARNOLDSTARR, VANESSA ARREY, CHRISTAL AYALA, CELINA BACK, MARK BARNETTE, DOUGLAS BECKHAM, SKY BEEHLER, AMBER BENNETT, FORREST BERLT, STONE BLACKSANDS, DEAN BOMMEL, NICHOLAS BRADY, JAMES BROOKS, JAMES BRUNO, BETH BURNS, DWIGHT BURROW, MARIO BYNUM, DANIEL BYRN, JOSEPH CALZADO, STACEY CAMBEROS, KIMBERLY CARPENTER, PATRICIA CASTILLO, RICHARD CATON, SUSAN CHAPPLE, RANDY CHASE, ANGELA CHAVEZ, PHILLIP CHAVEZ, TIFFANY COCHRAN, LAMAR COLLINS, JENNIFER CONTRERAS, JOSE CONTRERAS, DONMONIQUE CORELLA, VICTOR CARDENAS CORTEZ, CRYSTAL CORTEZ-GONZALEZ, TERESA D'AGOSTINO CRIADO, HEATHER DALE, TIMOTHY DEASY, LUIS DELARIVA, DELBERT DELGADO, SELENA DELGADO, NICKOLAUS DIRICKSON, LORINA DONES, ANTHONY DOUGLAS, BENJAMIN DOUGLASS, KAYLI DUEY, ROXANNE EASON, PETER ECHEVERRIA, LINDA EDWARDS, MARITZA ESCALANTE, MARLEY ESPALIN, JUAN ESTRADA, DAWN FARINA, CODY FERRARO, JACOB FLORES, ARNOLD FLORES, STEPHANIE FLORES, ANTHONY FRANKS, MEREDITH FRIDAY, JOSEPH FRIEND, ABIGAIL GALICIA, LATISHA GAGE, MONICA GARCIA, GLYNDA GAYNOR, LAQUITTA GEORGE, ELIZABETH GIDDENS, SEANTE GLASSFLOWERS, ANGELA GONZALEZ, BARTON GONZALEZ, LIZET GONZALEZ, LAINIE ANN GRAHAM, AUDREY GRANT, WILLIE GRAY, SEAN GRIMES, JEFFREY GUADALAJARA, NOAH GUIRGUIS, LYNDSEY GUTCHER, ANDRES GUTIERREZ, ANGELICA GUTIERREZ, CRYSTAL GUTIERREZ, SHANT HAKOPIAN, JAMES HANES, MICAH HANEY, PRESTON HANNA, REBECCA HARDEN, JOHNNY HARPER, IVAN HARRIS, MARKEE HARRIS, BAHRAM HASSANSHAHI, KAYTRICIA HAYDEN, GRETCHEN HEINZ, RONNIE HERNANDEZ, RUBEN HERNANDEZ, VANESSA HERNANDEZ, ANTHONY HOLLINGSWORTH, LINDSIE HOLLOWAY, CRYSTAL HORATH, TERRANCE HOWZE, MARCUS DE HOYOS, SHARONNA HUTCHINS, QUOC HUYNH, JOHN IDEMUDIA, JUANITA ISLES, DERRICK JABARA, SHREEL JACKSON, ROBERT JAURIGUE JR., ANTHONY JEFF, EVETT JOHNSON, LESTER JOHNSON, TERRELL JOHNSON, BRIAN JONES, VICTORIA JONES, OLIVIA KELLY, ERICK KESSLER, DEANDRE KNIGHT, COREY LAWSON, SABRINA LAXTON, TONYA LIND, LIMMIE LITTLES, RONDA LOPEZ, ERNIE LOREDO, RAINA MADRID, MARIO MADRID, JOSEPH MAGALLAN, JOSEPH MAIN, DANELA MARTINEZ, RUSSELL MATSON JR., VERNON MATTHEWS, JANELLE MAURER, CHRISTINA MCCAFFERTY, BRENDA MCCANN, MICHAEL MCCRARY, TRAVIS MIDDLETON, LINDA MILLER, LAVELL MOORE, SARA MORALES, ALBERT MORALES, SHARISE MORGAN, HEATHER MORRIS, JANETTE MOUCK, ROBERT MURPHY, SARAH MURPHY, KIMBERLY NICHOLSON, LELANYA OJEDA, FRANK ORTIZ JR., KELLY OWEN, MARK OWENSBY, FLOUZEL PANINGBATAN, ISMAEL PENA, JR., ANN PEREZ, PAUL PEREZ, KENYON PERKINS, MELANIE PIETTE, RYAN PITA, DARNELL PITTS, VANNESSA PITTS, MISTY POINTER, TINA POMEROY, RANDLE POSTEN, JOSHUA PUMMILL, ANDREA QUESADA, MAURILIO QUIROZ, MYKELA RAIFF, MOANEY RAY, KAWANA REED, NEHEMIAH RIMA-FLEURIMA, RHONDA RITCHEY, ISRAEL RIVERA, MIGUEL ROA, CARMEN ROBINSON, JOE ROBLES, CATRINA RODRIGUEZ, JOSE RODRIGUEZ ROMO, MELISSA ROYSTON, RAYLENE SALAZ, MIGUEL SALAZAR, FRANKIE SALDATE, MICHAEL SCHMIDT, TIMOTHY SCHMITZ, MELISSA SERRATO, ARMINDA SEVILLA, JENNA SILVA, JESSICA SIMPSON, MICHAEL SIMS II, DENISE SMITH, NICOLE SMITH, JONATHAN SPARKS, AMY STANFILL, LUCAS STEPHENS, CRYSTAL STIDHAM, CESAR TAMAYO, MICHELLE TAYLOR, TONYA TAYLOR, NICHOLAS TONNA, TASHA TRAMMEL, JIMMY TRESSLER, JASON TURNBULL, THOMAS TURNER, REINA VALADEZ, JUAN VALENZUELA, DAVID VASQUEZ, MICHELL DE VERA, MANUEL VILLAGOMEZ, LUIS VIRAMONTES, NORMAN WALKER, JASON WALLACE, CAMEREN WILBURN, DENISE WILDS, TERRENCE WILKINS, ZACHARIA WILLIAMS, TYRISHA WILLIAMS, WILLIE WILLIAMS, LATASHA WILLIAMSON, LEANNA WILLIS, LACEY WISE, COLTON WOOD, MATTHEW YEATS, GLEN YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZETTLEMOYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01203-BEN-AGS (S.D. Cal., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se; breach of contract; breach of implied contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of contract, third-party beneficiaries; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, third-party beneficiaries; and violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Federal Due Process Under the 14th Amendment, the California Due Process Clause, the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer Records Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to protect the Plaintiffs' benefits under the California Employment Development Department (EDD) from fraudulent access by third parties. The Defendant's EDD debit cards use outdated magnetic stripe technology, which makes them readily susceptible to cloning and other schemes that have allowed third parties to fraudulently use and access the Plaintiffs' EDD debit cards and accounts. As a result, cardholder information has been obtained by unauthorized third parties in a series of security breaches that have allowed millions of dollars to be stolen from cardholders through unauthorized transactions, says the suit. Bank of America, N.A. is a financial institution headquartered in North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Juliana G. Blaha, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S., Ste. 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Facsimile: (866) 219-8344 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Juliana@SwigartLawGroup.com - and – Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S., Ste. 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com BANK OF AMERICA: Lubin FSCA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DANIEL LUBIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. CACE-21-010486, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 1, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-61356 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida Security of Communications Act by intercepting the Plaintiff's and Class members' electronic communications. Bank of America, N.A. is a financial institution headquartered in North Carolina. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason H. Baruch, Esq. Jessica S. Kramer, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 100 North Tampa St., Suite 4100 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 227-8500 Facsimile: (813) 229-0134 E-mail: jason.baruch@hklaw.com jessica.kramer@hklaw.com - and – Brandon T. White, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-8500 E-mail: brandon.white@hklaw.com BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL: Reply to Renewed Class Cert. Bid Extended ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Stephen, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00005 (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge John A. Jarvey entered an order granting the Defendant Barnstormers Basketball, Inc. to and including July 16, 2021 to file its response to the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Barnstormers Basketball of Iowa is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization.[CC] BEDFORD PITZA: Ignacio Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- GUILLERMO IGNACIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEDFORD PITZA CORP. (D/B/A MOUSTACHE PITZA PITZA), SALAM AL-RAWI and RAKAN DROUBI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05724 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated delivery workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to pay them appropriate minimum wages, failing to pay them spread of hours premium, failing to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to reimburse them for business expenses, failing to pay them on a regular weekly basis, and making unlawful wage deductions. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at Moustache Pitza located at 90 Bedford St., New York, New York from August 2019 until April 30, 2021. Bedford Pitza Corp. is an owner and operator of a Middle Eastern restaurant under the name Moustache Pitza located at 90 Bedford St., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Baby Food Contains Heavy Metals, Mezile Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARIE MEZILE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00756-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Act and the New York False Advertising Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the deceptive marketing, advertising, and labeling of its baby food products. The Defendant manufactured, advertised, marketed, distributed, and sold its baby food products as safe for consumption by infants. However, it was discovered that the products contain toxic heavy metals. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members incurred financial loss. They would not have purchased the products had they known the truth. Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. is a baby food manufacturer with its principal place of business and headquarters located at One Nutritious Place, Amsterdam, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Peluso, Esq. DREYER BOYAJIAN LLP 75 Columbia Street Albany, NY 12210 Telephone: (518) 463-7784 E-mail: jpeluso@dblawny.com - and – Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Zahra R. Dean, Esq. Aarthi Manohar, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: zdean@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com chillwig@kohnswift.com amanohar@kohnswift.com - and – David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Ave; Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and – Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Karen Halbert, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us BLUE RIDGE BANK: Powers Sues Over Bank Overdraft Fees ----------------------------------------------------- Stefanie Powers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Ridge Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00047 (W.D. Va., June 24, 2021), seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from the unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of overdraft fees on accounts that were never actually overdrawn, in breach of contract. Blue Ridge Bank is engaged in the business of providing retail banking service with headquarters in Luray, Virginia and operates over 30 banking branches in Virginia and North Carolina. Blue Ridge Bank issues debit cards to its checking account customers which allows its customers to have electronic access to their checking accounts for purchases, payments, withdrawals and other electronic debit transactions. Powers alleges that Blue Ridge charges fees for debit card transactions that purportedly result in an overdraft.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq. Stacey Rose Harris, Esq. DIMURO GINSBERG, PC 1101 King Street, Suite 610 Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: (703) 684-4333 Email: bdimuro@dimuro.com sharris@dimuro.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielplic.com sgold@kalielgold.com BMO NESBITT: Judge Approves $100M Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP on June 30 disclosed that an Ontario judge has approved the settlement of a class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., BMO InvestorLine Inc., and BMO Trust Company for a total of $100 million. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants imposed an undisclosed fee on foreign exchange transactions made in registered accounts held with the defendants. The case was commenced in 2006 by James R. MacDonald, and was certified as a class action in January 2012. The Class is represented by Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP. The Class includes individuals resident in Canada who held registered accounts, such as RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs, with the defendants and had a currency conversion performed in their account between June 14, 2001 and September 6, 2011 at BMO InvestorLine Inc., and between October 1, 2002 and September 6, 2011 at Nesbitt Burns Inc. There are approximately 135,000 class members. In February 2020, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found the defendants liable to the class members for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, and required the defendants to return their profits on the amounts charged to the class members. A reference was scheduled to be heard in January 2021 to determine the amount of the defendants' profits. Prior to the hearing of the reference, the parties reached a proposed settlement of the class action. Under the settlement, the defendants will make an all-inclusive payment of $100 million. Money will be distributed to eligible class members either directly into their registered account or, if their account is no longer open, by cheque mailed to the class member. Like all class action settlements in Ontario, the settlement was subject to court approval. On June 17, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the parties' proposed settlement. The Court commented that it was a "genuinely commendable settlement". Payments will be made directly to eligible class members. Individuals do not need to take any steps at this time. The process of distributing money to eligible class members will occur over the coming months. Please check the case website for updates: rrspclassaction.com Further information about the claim and settlement, including a copy of the court's reasons for approving the settlement, is available at: rrspclassaction.com. For further information: Odette Soriano and Paul Davis at Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP. Ms. Soriano may be reached odette.soriano@paliareroland.com. Mr. Davis may be reached at paul.davis@paliareroland.com. http://www.paliareroland.com[GN] BONKERS SALOON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gerardo Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTINE GERARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BONKERS SALOON, LLC dba BONKERS SALOON; KENNETH A. FEES; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00787 (W.D. Wis., June 24, 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 Gerardo was employed by the Defendants as exotic dancer. BONKERS SALOON, LLC dba BONKERS SALOON owns and operates a strip club located at Manitowoc, 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 BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Bid in Faerber BELO Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CLAYTON FAERBER, Individually, and as the Administrator of the Estate of D.F., a Minor Plaintiff v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY Defendants, Cause No. 1:20-CV-328-LG-RPM (S.D. Miss.), Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division: (i) granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and (ii) denied Faerber's Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Order. The case arises out of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA") in the Deepwater Horizon litigation. The Plaintiff, a "Zone A Resident" under the MSA, filed the Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") lawsuit against BP alleging that his minor child, D.F., was exposed to oil and chemical dispersants after the blowout of the Macondo Well which caused the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Due to the exposure to the harmful chemicals, D.F. allegedly suffered permanent injuries and was diagnosed on Dec. 11, 2015, with T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. D.F. passed away from cancer on Dec. 14, 2017. The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on June 10, 2020, in the Eastern District of Louisiana. His case was transferred to the Court on Oct. 19, 2020. The Court's Case Management Order required the Plaintiff to designate experts by April 16, 2021. On April 15, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to modify this deadline so that he could designate a new expert, Dr. Natalie Perlin, who is expected to give opinions concerning the effects of "invisible oil." He also sought to include dermal exposure assessment models for children and their recreational activities, such as swimming and play on contaminated beaches, so experts could use those models in conjunction with the "invisible oil" model to evaluate the minor decedent's exposure to a variety of harmful chemicals. On April 27, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to timely designate experts who could testify as to legal causation. The Plaintiff filed a Response, relying on the arguments set forth in his then-pending Motion to Modify the expert designation deadline. The Defendants filed a Reply. On May 11, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order declining to extend the expert designation deadline and citing the Court's decision in a similar case, Reeves v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 1:19-cv-456-LG-RPM. On May 25, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Order, arguing that the Reeves order, as well as the Magistrate Judge's reliance on it, was clearly erroneous and contrary to law. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that he does not "request an extension for the Invisible Oil Study, but rather requests an extension for the newly discovered research regarding potential oil exposure to children." Yet, he contradicts himself by admitting that the dermal exposure models to children rely on the Invisible Oil study developed by Dr. Perlin. The Defendants filed a Response, to which the Plaintiff filed a Reply. Discussion I. Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Order In his Order, the Magistrate Judge declined to modify the scheduling order to allow the Plaintiff to develop exposure assessment models for minors. The Magistrate Judge's disputed Order found that the material issues currently before the Court were resolved in a related case, Reeves. In Reeves, the Court denied a Motion to Extend Deadlines to allow the plaintiff to designate the same expert, Dr. Natalie Perlin. The Court applied the Rule 16(b) factors and found that the plaintiff had sufficiently explained the delay, but that an extension was not warranted because Dr. Perlin's "Invisible Oil" theory was untested and probably inadmissible under the Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Plaintiff raises four objections to the Magistrate Judge's reliance on Reeves in denying his Motion to Modify Court's Scheduling Order. In so doing, he assails the Magistrate Judge's Order on which it is based. First, the Plaintiff asserts that the decision in Reeves is distinguishable from the instant case. Second, he objects that the Magistrate Judge's Order sets a precedent that is contrary to Daubert. The Plaintiff's other two objections rest on the factual discrepancies between the plaintiff in Reeves and the minor decedent. Judge Guirola is not persuaded by the Plaintiff's reliance on other BELO cases for justifying modification to the scheduling order. In agreement with the Magistrate Judge, he is convinced that the reasoning shared by Reeves is indistinguishable and applicable to the Plaintiff's Motion. Hence, the Magistrate Judge did not commit clear error in relying on the Reeves decision, and the Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Order must therefore be denied. II. Motion for Summary Judgment The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), which provides that summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." "When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." "The nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." The Plaintiff invokes Rule 56(d), which provides that, where "a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order." Because he affirms the Magistrate Judge's denial of an extension to designate this expert, Judge Guirola must regard this Rule 56(d) request as moot. The Judge holds that beyond his proposed late designation of Dr. Perlin based on the Invisible Oil theory, as well as the dermal exposure models developed by various other experts, the Plaintiff has not designated any experts to prove the essential legal causation element of his claim. As such, BP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and this lawsuit must be dismissed with prejudice. Disposition For these reasons, Judge Guirola granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendants and denied the Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Order filed by the Plaintiff. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4m762v37 from Leagle.com. BRIAR TEAM: Gronik Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER GRONIK, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BRIAR TEAM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-01089-WWB-GJK (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an Instrument Man in January 2017 until March 5, 2021. The Plaintiff asserts that he and other similarly situated employees worked hours in excess of 40 hours within a workweek. However, the Defendant did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime premium at the rate of one and one-half times their individual regular hourly rates for all of the overtime hours that they worked. In addition, the Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to each of its employees in a manner sufficient to determine their wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, the suit says. The Briar Team, LLC is a site development contractor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA P.A. 1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel (Main): (813) 224-0431 Tel (Direct): (813) 386-0995 Fax: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com CALIFORNIA: Denial of Class Status for Thomas Suit Recommended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, Plaintiff v. J.C. FRY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-1041 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recommended that the Plaintiff's motion that the action proceed as a class action be denied. The Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that the case proceed as a class action. However, Magistrate Judge Delaney finds that no other Plaintiffs are identified in the operative second amended complaint, nor is a class defined. She says the claims in the Plaintiff's second amended complaint, and the claims upon which the action proceeds pertain to the Plaintiff only. Furthermore, as to whether plaintiff is capable to represent the interests of a class, Judge Delaney holds that it is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. She says, this rule becomes almost absolute when, as in the case, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. In direct terms, plaintiff cannot "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Judge Delaney recommended that the Plaintiff's motion that the action proceed as a class action be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections will be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Findings & Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/4d2ka9e2 from Leagle.com. CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cochran Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS COCHRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1-40, Defendants, Case No 2:21-cv-01125 (E.D. Cal., June 24, 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 Cochran was employed by the Defendant as transportation survey party chief. State of California is located in the Western region of the United States. The State provides a full range of services including education, transportation, health, safety, law, regulation, and business development. California has an economy that is primarily based on trade, real estate, agriculture, and manufacturing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Wasserman, Esq. Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207-8253 Telephone (209) 477-3833 -and- MARK S. ADAMS, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK S. ADAMS 3031 W. March Lane, Suite 120 Stockton, CA 95219 Telephone: (209) 481-3485 Facsimile: (209) 956-0640 E-mail: madams@adamsemploymentlawyer.com CAMELOT BANQUET: Gerardo Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTINE GERARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMELOT BANQUET ROOMS, INC. dba SILK EXOTIC MILWAUKEE; CAMELOT BANQUET ROOMS II LLC dba SILK EXOTIC MILWAUKEE; CRAIG PLOETZ; SCOTT KRAHN; JOSEPH F. MODL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00814 (E.D. Wis., July 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip sharing. The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at Silk Exotic at 11400 West Silver Spring Road, Milwaukee from approximately July 2020 to September 2020. Camelot Banquet Rooms, Inc. is an owner and operator of an adult entertainment facility under the name Silk Exotic Milwaukee located at 11400 West Silver Spring Road, Milwaukee. Camelot Banquet Rooms II LLC is an owner and operator of an adult entertainment facility under the name Silk Exotic Milwaukee located at 11400 West Silver Spring Road, Milwaukee. [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 CAPITAL ONE: McClenney Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- Lonnie McClenney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Capital One Services, LLC, Capital One Financial Corporation, and Capital One, National Association, Case No. 3:21-cv-00429 (E.D. Va., July 1, 2021) is a claim for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff who was employed by Capital One, hereby bring this collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of himself and others who are similarly situated current or former non-managerial "Process Managers" seeking unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs arising out of the Defendants’ FLSA violation. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly works or worked more than 40 hours per workweek for the Defendant without receiving overtime compensation as required under the FLSA. Capital One wrongly classified Plaintiff and other non-managerial Process Managers as exempt from overtime under the FLSA, added the suit. Capital One provides financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Zev Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Ste. 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com harris@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com CAPITOL COMPLIANCE: Faces Long Employment Suit in Cal. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capitol Compliance Management, LLC, et al.. The case is captioned as David Long v. Capitol Compliance Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 34-2021-00302928-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 21, 2021), The case arises from employment-related issues. The Defendants include Alternative Medical Center, Inc.; CC101, Inc.; Does 1-50; Kolas & Co., Inc.; Kolas, LLC; and Sharp Source. Capitol Compliance Management is a consulting agency in the Sacramento Area, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste, 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com CHARTER FOODS: Seeks July 26 Extension on Class Cert. Opposition ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM DAVIS and NIKLAUS RYKER SCHLEUFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHARTER FOODS, INC., CHARTER CENTRAL, LLC, and CHARTER FOODS NORTH, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00159-CEA-CRW (E.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Collective Action and Class Action Certification; 2. extending the date for filing the Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action and Class Action Certification until July 26, 2021; and 3. extending the date by which the Plaintiffs may file a Reply to the Defendants' Opposition until 14 days thereafter, or August 9, 2021. Charter Foods is located in Morristown, Tennesse, United States and is part of the Fast-Food & Quick-Service Restaurants Industry. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 6, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qYUIXu at no extra charge.[CC] CHRONISTER OIL: Insurers Refuse to Cover BIPA Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reports that two insurers told an Illinois federal court that they don't owe a gas station operator coverage for a putative class action brought by a woman accusing the operator of collecting her fingerprints in violation of Illinois' Biometic Information Privacy Act. AMCO Insurance Co. and Depositors Insurance Co. said on June 29 that their policies with Chronister Oil Co. contained multiple exclusions that barred coverage for the class action. [GN] CLAIMS QUESTIONS: Williams Hits Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Yalanda Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Claims Questions, LLC, Rebecca Keiver and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00630, (M.D. Fla., June 24, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked above 40 in a workweek, unpaid backwages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and attorney's fees and litigation expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate an insurance adjusting service in Jacksonville FL where Williams performed adjusting services. She claims to have been misclassified as an independent contractor and denied overtime premium. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Cathleen Scott, Esq. Scott Wagner & Associates, P.A. Jupiter Gardens 250 South Central Blvd, Ste. 104-A Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 653-0008 Facsimile: (561) 653-0020 Email: cscott@scottwagnerlaw.com - and - Michael A. Starzyk, Esq. STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 8665 New Trails, Suite 160 The Woodlands, TX 77381 Tel: (281) 364-7261 Fax: (281) 715-5764 Email: akarns@starzyklaw.com mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com CLEVELAND WATER: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Billing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Regan, writing for News5Cleveland, reports that Cleveland Water continues to pay huge legal bills fighting its own customers in a federal class-action lawsuit alleging unfair and discriminatory billing practices. The lawsuit followed years of extensive reporting by the News 5 Investigative Team into unexplained, huge water bills received by customers who insisted they had no leaks and were never offered an opportunity for a water review board hearing they are legally entitled to receive. The lawsuit was brought by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in December 2019 and alleges the Cleveland Division of Water engaged in discriminatory billing practices. It also alleges a disproportionate number of Black homeowners faced losing their homes due to water tax liens placed against their property as a method to force payment of contested water bills. The lawsuit alleges the water department is in violation of both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Ohio Civil Rights Act. Legal bills obtained by News 5 reveal more than $271,000 paid to the Cleveland law firm of Tucker-Ellis—one of the most prominent law firms in the nation—to fight the case in federal court. Coty Montag is a senior attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and serves as lead attorney in the case that continues to review thousands of water department records as part of the initial discovery phase where potential evidence is initially gathered. "Because this is a class-action lawsuit," said Montag, "We are entitled to information that is not just about our main five named plaintiffs, but everyone who has been affected by Cleveland's water lien and water shutoff practices." Meanwhile, complaints over billing continue even as legal bills piling up. For example, Denise Marusa filed a complaint with the Ohio Attorney General's Office over a water bill last December that showed a huge, one time increase in her water usage. Marusa said she had no leaks, but still received a $600 water and sewer bill for the month, with her water bill immediately returning to her regular $16-a-month bill the very next month. She says she was never told of her right to a water review board hearing and instead was put on a payment plan to avoid having her water shutoff. News 5 contacted the Cleveland Division of Water and requested her case be reviewed. As a result, Marusa says a water department representative contacted her and arranged to have her bill "adjusted" to the average of what her normal bill would be. "The representative was very nice and helpful," said Marusa, who was initially "extremely frustrated" over her treatment when she first complained. The water department declined to comment, saying it cannot discuss customer water bills publicly. Meanwhile, the federal class action lawsuit is expected to continue in court well into next year. [GN] CONTAINER STORE: Fails to Provide Product Refunds, Graham Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- TERESA GRAHAM; and TIMOTHY GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03793-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to refund the amounts paid by the Plaintiffs. According to the complaint, the Defendants promised to remove all unwanted products and refund the amount paid by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants breached their oral agreement with the Plaintiffs by taking the property and never refunding the amounts paid by the Plaintiffs. Moreover, the Defendants kept property that they took from the Plaintiffs' home and did not provide Plaintiffs with a refund for the property even though Defendants were the one who removed the property from the Plaintiffs' home. The treatment of the Plaintiffs by the Defendants has been allegedly awful from the very start of the relationship. The Plaintiffs purchased tens of thousands of dollars of products from the Defendants and they took took excessive amounts of time to provide the Plaintiffs with the purchased products, delivered the wrong products, provided Plaintiffs with installers that failed to show up and overall treated the Plaintiffs as if they were a nuisance. The Container Store, Inc. is a retail store that specializes in providing customers with storage solutions for the home. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick G. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW GROUP LLC 513 East Rich Street, Suite 201A Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 226-4077 Facsimile: (614) 6759919- E-mail: pwarner@pwarnerlaw.com CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 16 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com. ContextLogic Inc. (NASDAQ: WISH) Class Period: December 16, 2020 – May 12, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2021 Investors with losses exceeding $50,000 are encouraged to contact the firm The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) ContextLogic's fourth quarter 2020 MAUs had declined materially and were not then growing; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, defendants materially overstated the Company's business metrics and financial prospects. Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE: UI) Class Period: January 11, 2021 – March 30, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2021 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants, in their statements concerning the data breach, failed to speak fully and truthfully because they failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had downplayed the data breach in January 2021; (2) that attackers had obtained administrative access to Ubiquiti's servers and obtained access to, among other things, all databases, all user database credentials, and secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies; (3) that, as a result, intruders already had credentials needed to remotely access Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVB) Class Period: November 2, 2020 – April 8, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2021 Investors with losses exceeding $100,000 are encouraged to contact the firm The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the teplizumab BLA was deficient in its submitted form and would require additional data to secure FDA approval; (2) accordingly, the teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led investors to believe it possessed; (3) the Company had thus overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization timeline for teplizumab; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Washington Prime Group, Inc. (NYSE: WPG) Class Period: November 5, 2020 – March 4, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2021 Shareholders with $250,000 losses or more are encouraged to contact the firm The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that WPG's financial condition was deteriorating substantially; (2) that, as a result, there was substantial uncertainty about the Company's ability to meet its capital structure obligations as they became due; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 16 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges ContextLogic Inc. (NASDAQ:WISH) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities class action is pending and certain investors who purchased shares in the company's December 2020 IPO or on the open market may have valuable claims. Class Period: Dec. 16, 2020 - May 12, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/WISH Contact An Attorney Now:WISH@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 ContextLogic Inc. (NASDAQ: WISH) Securities Class Action: The complaint alleges that ContextLogic's IPO registration documents materially overstated the company's business metrics and financial prospects. Specifically, the IPO registration documents touted ContextLogic's exponential monthly active user (MAUs) growth, claiming its then108 million MAUs was a key driver of revenue growth. In reality, by the time of its December 2020 IPO, ContextLogic's MAUs had declined materially and the IPO registration documents failed to disclose this known trend reasonably likely to materially impact ContextLogic's profitability. On Mar. 8, 2021, Context reported disappointing 4Q 2020 and full year 2020 results, disclosing its MAUs had already “declined 10% YoY during Q4 to 104 million.” Then, on May 12, 2021, ContextLogic announced poor Q1 2021 results, including another 7% drop in MAUs to just 101 million, and the company slashed sales guidance for Q2 2021. These disclosures caused the price of WISH shares to decline sharply. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving ContextLogic overstated MAUs and concealed known trends," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are a ContextLogic investor and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding ContextLogic should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email WISH@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN] CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming July 16, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased ContextLogic Inc. common stock: (1) between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (2) pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued on connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about December 16, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). ContextLogic investors have until July 16, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their ContextLogic investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. In December 2020, ContextLogic completed its initial public offering ("IPO") in which it sold 46 million shares at $24 per share. On March 8, 2021, ContextLogic reported its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020 financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020, disclosing that by the time of its December 2020 IPO, ContextLogic's monthly active users ("MAUs") had already "declined 10% YoY during Q4 to 104 million, primarily in some emerging markets outside of Europe and North America where Wish temporarily de-emphasized advertising and customer acquisition as the company worked through logistics challenges it faced earlier in the year." On this news, ContextLogic's common stock price fell $1.83, more than 10%, to close at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021, thereby injuring investors. On May 12, 2021, ContextLogic reported its first quarter 2021 financial results and disclosed that MAUs had declined another 7% to just 101 million. On this news, ContextLogic's stock price fell $3.36 per share, or approximately 29%, to close at $8.11 per share on May 12, 2021, significantly below the IPO price of $24 per share. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) ContextLogic's fourth quarter 2020 MAUs had declined materially and were not then growing; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, defendants materially overstated the Company's business metrics and financial prospects. If you purchased or otherwise acquired ContextLogic common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO and/or during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 16, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. 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 these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN] CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Scott+Scott Reminds of July 26 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a securities class action lawsuit against ContextLogic, Inc. (NASDAQ: WISH) ("ContextLogic" or the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's December 2020 initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of both the Securities Act of 1933 and, separately, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased ContextLogic securities between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact Jonathan Zimmerman for additional information at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. ContextLogic is a mobile ecommerce company that operates the Wish platform, which connects customers with merchants across the globe. On December 16, 2020, ContextLogic completed its IPO, issuing 46 million shares of its Class A common stock at $24 per share, raising more than $1.1 billion in gross proceeds. According to the complaint, the Registration Statement and Prospectus used to effectuate ContextLogic's IPO were materially false and misleading. Specifically, these offering materials misrepresented the then-existing truth about: (1) the "differentiated user experience" ContextLogic repeatedly credited as driving the wide-adoption of the Wish platform by customers who are offered access to high-quality merchants, selling affordable, high-quality products, and merchants who are offered reliable logistical services; (2) the Company's sales and marketing engine, which ContextLogic said it would "continue to invest in" and that purportedly serves as a competitive advantage in attracting new users and increasing user engagement on the Wish platform; and (3) the Company's monthly active user (MAU) growth, which it considered "a key indicator of user engagement and awareness of [its] brand." On March 8, 2021, ContextLogic reported its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020 financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020, disclosing that its MAUs had already "declined 10% year over year during Q4." In that same report the company also revealed logistics challenges it faced earlier in the year. On this news, ContextLogic's stock declined 10%, falling from $17.77 on March 5, 2021 to close at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021, the next trading day. Then on May 12, 2020, ContextLogic announced 1Q21 financial results for the interim period ended March 31, 2021, revealing that its MAUs had declined another 7%. On this news, ContextLogic's stock price fell $3.36 per share, or 29%, to close at $8.11 per share on May 13, 2021. What You Can Do If you purchased ContextLogic securities between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is July 26, 2021. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio. Contacts: Jonathan Zimmerman Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169 (888) 398-9312 jzimmerman@scott-scott.com [GN] CRONOS GROUP: Ontario Court Tosses Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that an Ontario court has denied leave for a potential securities class action against a cannabis company, Cronos Group Inc., finding that the company's stock price was more likely affected by the market-wide disruption caused by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic rather than alleged misstatements in the company's financial disclosure. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied a motion from a retail investor who sought to bring a shareholder class action against Cronos Group and various officers and directors of the company, alleging that investors suffered losses due to numerous misrepresentations in the company's public disclosure. The allegations stemmed from financial reporting issued by the company, starting in 2019, that was ultimately amended and restated to address accounting errors, including changes in revenue recognition practices. According to the decision, the plaintiff alleged there were over 570 individual misrepresentations in Cronos' 2019 quarterly financials and management discussion and analysis, which were ultimately corrected in restated financials in March 2020. The plaintiffs argued that the numerous accounting issues amounted to a material misrepresentation. However, the court found it wasn't clear that the accounting errors were material to the company's stock price. "The possibility exists that there were misrepresentations in the form of inaccuracies in financial statements, but that they had negligible market impact and so were not material in the [securities law] sense of the term," the court said in its ruling. Moreover, the court found that the bigger factor affecting the company's stock price when it publicly corrected its accounting issues was the pandemic-driven market turmoil. Citing a report from Morningstar at the time, the court said, "The market decline in late March 2020 that is pointed to by the plaintiff and his economics expert is, according to this evidence, more reflective of the materiality of the pandemic than of anything that Cronos did or did not announce to the public." The court also said that the company's accounting issues were "relatively obscure, with market analysts generally perceiving them as insignificant in both the long and the short term." And it noted that a report issued by Raymond James Ltd. at the time regarded the accounting restatement "as a positive rather than a negative reflection on the company." Ultimately, the court found that, while the company may have had accounting issues, those issues didn't appear to impact its stock price, noting "materiality is in the eye of the investors, not the accountants." The court said the evidence of materiality "is weak and tends to confuse market-wide movements in share prices, especially those coinciding with the March 2020 onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, with company-specific movements." The court denied leave to pursue the case as a securities class action and denied a motion for certification as a class action on other grounds too, citing the lack of evidence of market impact. [GN] CSC SERVICEWORKS: Faces Hochman Suit Over Unauthorized Admin Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA HOCHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03595 (E.D.N.Y., June 25, 2021) is an action alleging breach of contract by the Defendant when it charge all of its customers an unauthorized 9.75% administrative fee, above and beyond the fees that the customers agreed to pay for the Defendant's coin-operated laundry machines. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's CEO, Mark Hjelle, has directed a scheme to defraud thousands of the Defendant's laundry customers across the country, based on false representations he made concerning the Defendant's authorization to charge all of its customers an unauthorized 9.75% administrative fee, above and beyond the fees that the customers agreed to pay the Defendant (the "Unauthorized Fee"). The Defendant has allegedly imposed and continues to impose the Unauthorized Fee on all its customers, and is therefore breaching thousands of leases every month, confiscating millions of dollars in fees not authorized by its leases with customers. Contrary to Defendant's CEO, Mr. Hjelle's false representations to customers across the country, the parties' leases do not permit the Defedandant to charge the Unauthorized Fee, the suit says. CSC Serviceworks, Inc. provides consumer services. The Company offers air vending and laundry solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Slarskey, Esq. SLARSKEY LLC 420 Lexington Ave., Suite 2525 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 658-0661 DAN ELLZEY: Eunice Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dan Ellzey, et al. The case is styled as Angela Eunice, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Dan Ellzey, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce; The South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce; State of South Carolina; Case No. 2:21-cv-02010-BHH (D.S.C., July 6, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Dan Ellzey is the Executive Director of the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (DEW) -- https://www.dew.sc.gov/ -- who is responsible for paying unemployment insurance benefits, collecting unemployment taxes, helping people find jobs, matching businesses with qualified candidates, and collecting and disseminating state/federal employment statistics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Poe Sloan, III, Esq. Carl Everette Pierce, II, Esq. PIERCE HERNS SLOAN AND MCLEOD PO Box 22437 Charleston, SC 29413 Phone: (843) 722-7733 Email: chipsloan@piercesloan.com carlpierce@phswlaw.com - and - Donald Valentine Richardson, III, Esq. RICAHRDSON PLOWDEN CARPENTER AND ROBINSON PO Drawer 7788 Columbia, SC 29202 Phone: (803) 771-4400 Email: terry@richardsonthomas.com - and - Doward K Harvin, Esq. DOWARD KEITH HARVIN LLC 417 West Broad Street Hemingway, SC 29554 Phone: (843) 558-9000 Email: keith@dkharvinlaw.com - and - Jeremy Morgan Forrester, Esq. Robert Richard Gergel, Esq. PIERCE SLOAN WILSON KENNEDY AND EARLY 321 East Bay Street PO Box 222437 Charleston, SC 29413 Phone: (843) 722-7733 Fax: (843) 722-7732 Email: morganforrester@piercesloan.com richardgergel@piercesloan.com - and - Kimberly V. Barr, Esq. Ronnie Alan Sabb, Esq. RONNIE A. SABB LAW OFFICES PO Box 88 Kingstree, SC 29556 Phone: (843) 355-5349 Fax: (843) 355-3434 Email: kbarr@sabblaw.com sabblaw1@ftc-i.net - and - William Camden Lewis, Esq. RICAHRDSON THOMAS HALTIWANGER MOORE AND LEWIS LLC 1513 Hampton Street, 1st Floor Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (803) 281-8145 Fax: (803) 632-8263 Email: will@richardsonthomas.com DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Scott+Scott Reminds of July 13 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Danimer Scientific, Inc. ("Danimer" or the "Company") (NYSE: DNMR) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Danimer securities between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact Joseph Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. Danimer specializes in bioplastic replacements for traditional petrochemical-based plastics. Since 2020, the Company has sold polyhydroxyalkanoates ("PHAs") commercially under its proprietary "Nodax" brand name for usage in a wide variety of plastic applications including water bottles, straws, and food containers, among others. The Company has touted Nodax as a 100% biodegradable, renewable, and sustainable plastic, unlike traditional plastics. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, 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 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. On March 20, 2021, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") published an article entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly Biodegrade in the Ocean, Not Quite, Scientists Say" addressing, among other things, Danimer's claims that Nodax breaks down far more quickly than fossil-fuel plastics. The article alleged that, according to several experts, "many claims about Nodax are exaggerated and misleading." On this news, Danimer's stock price fell from $49.98 to close at $43.55 on March 22, 2021 – a drop of nearly 13%. On April 22, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point") published a report on Danimer, noting, among other red flags, various inconsistencies with the Company's historical and present claims regarding the size of its operations, Nodax's makeup and degradability, and the Company's expected profitability. On this news, Danimer's stock price fell $2.01 per share, or 8%, to close at $22.99 per share on April 22, 2021. Then, on May 4, 2021, Spruce Point published another report on Danimer alleging that the Company had "wildly overstated" production figures, pricing, and financial projections based on documents Spruce Point had acquired from the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Department of Environmental Protection ("KDEP") under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), all of which cast serious doubt on the integrity of the Company's internal controls. On this news, Danimer's stock price fell $1.49 per share, a drop of over 6%, to close at $22.14 per share on May 4, 2021. What You Can Do If you purchased Danimer securities between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joseph Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is July 13, 2021. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio. Contacts: Joseph Pettigrew Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820 (844) 818-6982 jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN] DESIGNED METAL: Lara Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA LARA v. DESIGNED METAL CONNECTIONS, INC. DBA PERMASWAGE USA, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV23080 (June 21, 2021), is an action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly-situated employees alleging violations of the California Labor Code. Ms. Lara asserts that Defendant failed to pay Ms. Lara and other aggrieved employees for all hours worked in violation of California law, including both minimum wage and overtime compensation. Allegedly, Ms. Lara and other aggrieved employees were not paid non discretionary bonuses for purposes of paying legally mandated overtime when she worked over eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff and similarly-aggrieved employees seek civil penalties from the Defendant for violations of numerous Labor Code provisions. Designed Metal is located in Gardena, California, United States and is part of the Aerospace Products & Parts Manufacturing Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq. Justin Lo, Esq. WORK LAWYERS, PC 22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (424) 355-8535 Facsimile: (213) 784-0032 E-mail: beyonca@caworklawyer.com iustin@caworklawver.com DETROIT, MI: Faces Class Action Over I-94 Freeway Flood Damage -------------------------------------------------------------- FOX 2 Detroit reports that I-94 is closed on the eastbound side for repairs after flooding last weekend and MDOT says it's going take about at least a week to fix. The epicenter of I-94 freeway flood damage problems is in and around Warren Avenue in Detroit. The eastbound side is closed from I-96 to Michigan Avenue in east Dearborn. Attorney Ven Johnson filed a class-action lawsuit representing hundreds, if not thousands of people who suffered property damage in the floods. "It's dangerous, very dangerous out there, and on top of that, people's homes are flooded, it's been a bad bad week," said Ali Nassar, who owns the Warren and Livernois Mini Mart. Sewer-soaked possessions line the streets of many cities, some parts of I-94 are still damaged and closed, and thousands still don't have power. Attorney Ven Johnson blames the government. "People have got to understand this - our governments are set up to protect us," Johnson said. "That is their job, that is what we pay them to do. And now Johnson is bringing a class-action lawsuit against the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department for tens of thousands of dollars in damages and irreplaceable losses to victims of the floodwaters. "Yet again we have another infrastructure failure by our government," he said. Over seven inches of rain fell last weekend. Authorities say a combination of power failures and the oversaturation of the rivers and streams used for drainage, cause of the floods. Johnson said that after the massive flood problems and damage from 2014, the infrastructure should have been improved since then and more prepared for this recent torrential downpour. FOX 2: "The water department says there was seven inches of rain. How could they guard against that?" "The answer is they have to know that it's happening," Johnson said. "It has been happening for years." MDOT says the cause of these floods was a combination of the rain and a power outage affecting the pumping stations. Those have no back up generators, but when they finally got new power, the streams and creeks were already filled up with water and couldn't handle any excess. [GN] DT EMPLOYER: Rosales Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ROCIO ROSALES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DT EMPLOYER LLC, HILTON EMPLOYER INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01202903-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 1, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01146 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay timely wages upon termination, failure to provide and maintain accurate itemized wage statements and maintain records, failure to pay for necessary expenses, and unlawful business practices. DT Employer LLC is a limited liability company based in Virginia. Hilton Employer Inc. is a hospitality company based in Virginia. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cynthia L. Filla, Esq. Paul J. Cohen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Cynthia.Filla@jacksonlewis.com Paul.Cohen@jacksonlewis.com - and – Laila Rashid, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 E-mail: Laila.Rashid@jacksonlewis.com EQUIFAX INFO: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Matatov Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kenia Matatov, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01078-DMF (D. Ariz., June 21, 2021) is a consumer class action brought against the Defendant Equifax for willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This lawsuit challenges Equifax's failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure that it does not improperly associate a consumer's social security number with a person who is deceased. According to the complaint, Ms. Matatov was shocked to learn that Equifax had associated her social security number with that of a deceased person. When Plaintiff reviewed her Equifax consumer report six months earlier, there was no indication that her social security number was associated with a deceased person or otherwise unverifiable. The Defendant had no reliable information upon which to form its belief that Ms. Matatov's social security number was associated with a deceased individual, the suit says. Equifax does not obtain any social security information directly from the Social Security Administration (SSA), but rather through a third party. Equifax Information provides data solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Chami, Esq. THE CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM 8245 N. 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 757-6367 Facsimile: (480) 581-1721 E-mail: dchami@cjl.law EXCLUSIVE HOSPITALITY: Improperly Pays Housekeepers, Kaur Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOGINDER KAUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXCLUSIVE HOSPITALITY, LLC, KRISHNA HOSPITALITY, LLC, STERLING HOSPITALITY, LLC, KAUSHIK PATEL, and CHANDRESH PATEL, Defendants, Case No. 715038/2021 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., Queens Cty., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to pay them spread of hours premium, and failing to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a housekeeper from February 2009 until March 12, 2020. Exclusive Hospitality, LLC is an operator of a Quality Inn franchise, with its principal office at 87-23 144th Street, Jamaica, New York. Krishna Hospitality, LLC is an operator of a Country Inn & Suites franchise, with its principal office at 87-23 144th Street, Jamaica, New York. Sterling Hospitality, LLC is an operator of a Ramada franchise, with its principal office at 87-23 144th Street, Jamaica, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wims, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS 1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11233 Telephone: (646) 393-9550 FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Rudy Suit Over Smoked Almonds' Deceptive Label ------------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER RUDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03575 (N.D. Ill., July 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for fraud, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Smoked Almonds under its Eatz brand. The Defendant's product is labeled as "Smoked Almonds" and the front label does not disclose the addition of any added natural smoke flavor. Consumers will reasonably expect the product to have an appreciable amount of its smoked taste from having undergone a smoking process. However, the product is misrepresented as "Smoked Almonds," and has not been subjected to any smoking. The ingredient list reveals "Natural Smoke Flavor," which purports to be "smoke condensed into a liquid form," instead of from being smoked. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar products. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it, says the suit. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is an American variety store chain, with its principal place of business in Chesapeake, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com FIVE GUYS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Demaria Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- PAUL DEMARIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-03688 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant seeing relief for its alleged violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Store Manager from 2013 to June 2016 at a Five Guys location in Long Beach, New York. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all persons who worked as manual workers in their employment for the Defendant in the State of New York. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him and the Class on a timely basis as required by NYLL by paying them every other week rather than on a weekly basis. For himself and for other similarly situated manual workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Five Guys Enterprises, LLC owns and operates restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie. Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com FLASH MARKET: Underpays Maintenance Technicians, Brister Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ RUSSELL BRISTER and MICHAEL NISWONGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLASH MARKET, LLC; PFMFC, INC.; and JENELLE GARRETT, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00599-BRW (E.D. Ark., July 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated maintenance technicians appropriate minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Mr. Brister and Mr. Niswonger were employed by the Defendants as maintenance technicians in Arkansas from October of 2017 or 2018 to March of 2019 and from around 2001 until April of 2020, respectively. Flash Market, LLC, is a company that owns and operates multiple Flash Market stores throughout Arkansas. PFMFC, Inc., formerly known as Flash Market, Inc., is a for-profit corporation that operates Flash Market stores in Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Ford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com FORESTERS LIFE: Court Enters Show Cause Order in Siino Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAMELA SIINO, Plaintiff v. FORESTERS LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02904-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California orders the parties to show cause why the case should not be stayed pending the decision by the California Supreme Court in McHugh v. Protective Life Ins., No. S259215 (Cal. Supreme Ct.). In the putative class action, Plaintiff Siino alleges that Defendant Foresters violated California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 ("the Statutes") by terminating her life insurance policy, and the policies of putative class members, without strictly complying with the Statutes. On June 10, 2020, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim arguing that the Statutes only apply to policies issued and delivered after the Statutes became effective on Jan. 1, 2013. In the alternative, the Defendant moved to stay the case pending resolution of appeals before the Ninth Circuit and California Supreme Court which raise the question of whether the Statutes apply to policies issued and delivered before Jan. 1, 2013 -- Bentley v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., No. 20-55435 (9th Cir.); Thomas v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. 20-55231 (9th Cir.); McHugh. The Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's contract claim, finding that the Statutes were incorporated into the Plaintiff's policy because her annual premium payments constituted a renewal of the policy. It also denied the motion to stay, noting that resolution of the McHugh, Bentley, and Thomas appeals might be years away, and that the Defendant had failed to show it would suffer undue prejudice if the case were to proceed. Since that time, however, the status of the appeals has changed. The McHugh case was argued and submitted on June 2, 2021. The following day, the Ninth Circuit stayed proceedings in both Bentley and Thomas and deferred decisions pending the issuance of the California Supreme Court's decision in McHugh. Additionally, several other district courts have considered the propriety of a stay pending the outcome of McHugh, Bentley, and Thomas in similar cases. The Court's denial of a stay now appears to be an outlier. In light of the foregoing, Judge Tigar orders the parties to show cause why the case should not be stayed pending the decision by the California Supreme Court in McHugh. The parties are ordered to file simultaneous briefs of no more than eight pages by July 16, 2021. If no party files a responsive brief, the Court will stay the case. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, currently scheduled for July 15, 2021, is vacated. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/587aas58 from Leagle.com. FORTY LEE, FL: Civil Rights Class Action Defendants Down to One --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Braun, writing for Fort Myers News-Press, reports that Forty Lee County Court felony case defendants who were part of a class action suit claiming a violation of civil rights caused by a malware attack at the public defender's office in April have been trimmed to one. However, at least two of the dropped defendants, Kevin Agenord, and Freddie Gordinee also filed individual motions. The class action suit claims a violation of civil rights relating to the malware attack. It was filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Myers June 9 against the Law Offices of the Public Defender for the 20th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The suit also names the state attorney's office, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody. Thirty-nine of the defendants, whose hand-written signatures were attached to the suit on a separate paper, were dismissed from the suit June 24 by Senior U.S. District Judge John E. Steele because the main defendant, Robert Pierre, the court explained, "is not an attorney and cannot represent the other plaintiffs before the Court." Furthermore, the court said, "As a preliminary matter, Mr. Pierre cannot represent other plaintiffs because "admission in the Middle District bar is necessary to practice in the Middle District." Pierre, facing charges of burglary, aggravated stalking, assault on a police officer and resisting arrest without violence, is currently in Collier County Jail on sexual assault charges. Pierre was to file an amended complaint without the additional plaintiffs within 30 days, the ruling stipulated. No new hearings have been scheduled. The class action suit claimed the data breach resulted in PTSD, stress, weight loss, insomnia, high cholesterol, depression, and hypertension and asked for $5 million per client as punitive damages. Once the attack was discovered, the public defender's office issued a release saying it did not believe the attack would significantly impact their ability to defend clients. However, the office also said that while the agency has no evidence that any confidential or personal information was disseminated as a result of the incident, "the Agency cannot guarantee that information was not misused by the perpetrators of this crime." The public defender's office said that routine backups are made of all case file documentation. The office also said it had taken every step possible to minimize the impact the incident has had on clients. At the time of the breach the office said it immediately cut access to all technological resources, contacted law enforcement, and assembled a team of experienced professionals to contain, investigate, and respond to the incident. Since the breach was reported, the office said that "the agency's focus has been on creating new IT infrastructure to restore full functionality, and working with our data recovery team to safely regain access to the affected equipment." "As a rule, we do not comment on pending litigation," Katie Downey, Chief Operations Officer for the Office of the Public Defender, said. "However, this matter was dismissed on June 24." Agenord is seeking a writ of mandamus to have his charges dismissed and Gordineer is seeking a Nelson Hearing to determine whether his court appointed attorney should be removed. Both men cited the April 1 malware attack. In Agenord's writ of mandamus, which he filed pro se, he stipulates that the hack at the public defender's office violated and destroyed his attorney-client privilege rendering the case unavailable for prosecution. He is seeking to have all charges in his case before Judge Keith R. Kyle dismissed and costs and fees awarded to him. Agenord, 25, was charged in two crimes, including sexually assaulting a woman older than 65 and breaking into a home and exposing his genitals to a child, according to a FMPD arrest report. He remains in Lee County Jail on $205,000 bond. Gordineeer's Nelson Hearing motion, also filed pro se, names his public defender Ryan Downey as part of the class action suit. Gordineer, 38, cited the chance that documents and information could have been altered by the attack. He remains in Lee County Jail on $100,000 bond. He was arrested in March 2020 on sexual assault charges involving a child between 12 and 18. A charge of harassment of a victim or witness was added in August 2020. [GN] FUTURE LOOK: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Nisbett Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- KAREEM NISBETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUTURE LOOK, INC., d/b/a Elegatto, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05559-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2021) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Website, www.elegatto.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Pattern Brands, Inc. is a consumer goods holding company. The company was founded by Emmett Shine and Nicholas Ling in 2018 and is headquartered in New York, NY. [BN] FUTURE LOOK, INC., d/b/a Elegatto is a men's accessory store based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com GAP INC: Court Stays Hennessey Pending Barba Settlement Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JILL HENNESSEY, Plaintiff v. THE GAP INC. and OLD NAVY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01867-SEP (E.D. Mo.), Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Final Approval of Settlement in a Parallel Action. Plaintiff Hennessey filed the action in the Eastern District of Missouri on July 1, 2019, alleging that the Defendants market their merchandise to the public by making false and misleading price comparisons, in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. On March 3, 2021, the Defendants moved for a stay pending the approval of a proposed nationwide settlement in the Superior Court of the State of California, Anastasha Barba, James Andrews, Anna Nemykina and Brenda Tripicchio, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Old Navy, LLC, Old Navy (Apparel), LLC, Old Navy Holdings, LLC, GPS Services, Inc., and The Gap, Inc., No. CGC-19-581037 (Cal. Super. Ct.) The proposed nationwide settlement suggests the following class: All United States citizens who made one or more purchases in store at an Old Navy Store or Old Navy Outlet Store located in the United States or online from the Old Navy website between July 1, 2014 and the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. The Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Stay. On April 28, 2021, the parties notified the Court that Hennessey had intervened in Barba and was granted the right to conduct discovery. Hennessey has met and conferred with the other parties about discovery, and they have set a scheduling conference to discuss a motion to amend the complaint and preliminary approval of the settlement. The Defendants argue that the claims in Barba encompass Hennessey's claims, and staying the case will "encourage the preservation of resources, promote judicial economy and efficiency, and prevent conflicting rulings and overlapping litigation and settlement classes." In addition to wasting judicial resources, the Defendants argue that to proceed in both lawsuits would prejudice them due to the costs of duplicative litigation, especially for "repeated motion practice and discovery." Judge Pitlyk holds that the putative class of Plaintiffs in the case will not be unfairly prejudiced by the stay because the case is still in its early stages and Hennessey is now a party to Barba. She says Hennessey can pursue any concerns about the potential fairness of the proposed settlement as an intervening plaintiff in that case. The Judge explains that courts "routinely" stay cases pending nationwide settlements in which a plaintiff is a potential class member, and Hennessey is not only a member of the proposed Barba nationwide class, but she is a party to the action. Hennessey is actively litigating her claims in the California court. If the California court disapproves the proposed settlement, Hennessey can lift the stay and litigate her claims before the Court. If that occurs, the fact that identical discovery has been conducted in Barba will lighten the discovery burden in this action and mitigate any harm caused by the delay from the stay. Judge Pitlyk finds that any possible harm from such delay is outweighed by the greater likelihood that duplicative litigation would impose unnecessary burdens on both the Court and the parties. She therefore finds it appropriate to stay the action pending approval or disapproval of Barba's proposed nationwide settlement. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Final Approval of Settlement in Parallel Action is granted. The matter is stayed pending the California Superior Court's decision in Barba, No. CGC-19-581037. The parties will notify the Court within 14 days of approval or disapproval of the proposed settlement in Barba. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/aj3s3yk from Leagle.com. GOLDMAN SACHS: Perkins Coie Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Greenspan, Esq., and Jacob Taber, Esq., of Perkins Coie, in an article for JDSupra, report that in a significant decision on securities class actions, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the generic nature of alleged misrepresentations will often be "important evidence of a lack of price impact" that can be used by defendants to defeat class certification. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Ret. Sys., No. 20-222 (June 21, 2021). Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion for the Court did not go quite as far as the defense bar may have hoped in rebalancing the securities class action playing field, it nonetheless provides useful guidance on how the generic nature of challenged statements can be used by defendants, particularly in inflation-maintenance cases, in an effort to disprove price impact and thereby rebut the Basic presumption of reliance and defeat class certification. Background The full background on the Goldman Sachs case can be found in our update from earlier this year, but here are the critical facts and issues. In 2010 the stock price of petitioner Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Goldman) declined after disclosure of significant government enforcement activity -- a filed SEC action and a DOJ investigation -- focusing on whether the company should have disclosed conflicts of interests related to certain collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions. Shareholders sued, claiming that these alleged "corrective" disclosures revealed the falsity of generic representations that Goldman had made in earlier SEC filings, such as "we have extensive procedures and controls that are designed to identify and address conflicts of interest" and "integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business." Plaintiffs did not claim that these allegedly false statements artificially increased Goldman's stock price. Rather, they pursued an "inflation-maintenance" theory, which posits that false statements can have actionable price impact by maintaining a previously inflated stock price and preventing it from decreasing. After extensive litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on two legal questions regarding class certification: * Whether a defendant may show a lack of price impact by submitting evidence regarding the generic nature of the alleged misstatements, even though such evidence is also relevant to the substantive element of materiality (which plaintiffs need not prove at class certification); and * Whether a defendant seeking to rebut the presumption of reliance bears only a burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption, as opposed to also bearing the burden of persuading the court that the evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption. The Court's Opinion On the first question, the Court was unanimous -- the generic nature of the challenged misstatements "often will be important evidence of a lack of price impact, particularly in cases proceeding under the inflation-maintenance theory." Finding that the Second Circuit's opinion was unclear as to whether that court took into account "all record evidence related to price impact," including the generic nature of the statements, the high court vacated and remanded. (Justice Sotomayor dissented in part and would not have remanded; in her view the Second Circuit properly considered, and rejected, Goldman's evidence and arguments.) Importantly, the Court adopted a key argument from Goldman's briefing and provided guidance on the application of the price impact inquiry in inflation-maintenance cases. Such a case relies on the inference that a stock price drop is equal to the amount of inflation maintained by a prior misrepresentation. As the Court observed, this inference "starts to break down when there is a mismatch between the contents of the misrepresentation and the corrective disclosure" -- for example, when the alleged false statement is very generic and the alleged corrective disclosure is specific. The Court noted that under those circumstances, "it is less likely that the specific disclosure actually corrected the generic misrepresentation" (emphasis added), and therefore there is "less reason to infer front-end price inflation -- that is, price impact -- from the back-end price drop." On the second question, a 6-3 majority of the Court held that defendants bear both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion to show a lack of price impact. However, in an apparent effort to soften the practical impact of this holding on public company defendants, which have often had a difficult time in proving a negative, the Court stated that a class should be certified only if all evidence relating to price impact, both "direct and indirect," shows that it is "more likely than not that the alleged misrepresentations had a price impact." According to the Court, the impact of the burden of persuasion will ultimately be felt in only those limited cases where "the evidence is in equipoise," in which case the plaintiff would prevail. Indeed, the Court went so far as to say that "the burden of persuasion should rarely be outcome determinative." Although it remains to be seen whether district courts will fully heed the Court's observations on the practical implications of assigning the burden of persuasion on price impact to defendants, the Goldman Sachs decision provides defendants with some clearer pathways to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance, especially in inflation-maintenance cases, and thereby defeat class certification. [GN] GOLDMAN SACHS: Ulmer & Berne Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Frances Floriano Goins, Esq., Amanda Martinsek, Esq., and David Yeagley, Esq., of Ulmer & Berne LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that a decade of litigation in the Goldman Sachs securities fraud class action has ultimately revealed an unremarkable truth, confirmed by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court -- in a case brought under Rule 10b-5 premised on an inflation-maintenance theory, a publicly traded company's generic, garden-variety statements can be shown, at the all-important class certification stage, not to have maintained an inflated stock price. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys., No. 20-222 (June 21, 2021) (Part II-A). Whether Goldman Sachs' generic statements in fact caused the price of its stock to be artificially maintained is a $13 billion question that will be addressed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on remand from the Supreme Court's decision. The more nuanced question that divided the Court was who bears the burden of proving or disproving "price impact" for class certification. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett reasoned in Part II-B of the opinion that defendant Goldman Sachs must prove the absence of price impact. Chief Justice Roberts joined with Justices Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in Part II-B, with Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissenting from Part II-B, reasoning that a securities fraud plaintiff maintains the burden of proving its case. The Goldman Sachs case was the subject of a previous Ulmer Client Alert, which, at the time the Court granted certiorari, previewed the importance of the rebuttable presumption, called the Basic presumption, that a publicly traded company's statements are reflected in the price of its stock. If the presumption applies, then a court will presume by operation of law that investors relied on the statements in purchasing the stock. The alternative, which is individualized proof that each investor relied on a company's statements, would decimate class action securities litigation. The Supreme Court previously ruled in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), 573 U.S. 258, 134 S.Ct. 2398, 189 L.Ed.2d 339 (2014), that the Basic presumption is rebutted if, at the class certification stage, there is no "price impact," i.e., the allegedly false or misleading statements did not impact the stock's price. However, the Supreme Court also ruled in an earlier case that the "materiality" of a statement, meaning whether it is too generic or vague to matter, is an objective test that must be adjudicated on a common and class wide basis on the merits and not at the earlier class certification stage. See Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013). The distinction between the concepts of price impact, which is addressed at class certification, and materiality, which must await the merits, is critical because almost all securities fraud class action cases are settled if they are certified due to the leverage of aggregate liability. With this backdrop, the question initially presented in Goldman Sachs was whether a company's generic superlatives are relevant to price impact under the Basic presumption or whether instead they go to materiality. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Goldman Sachs that a company's allegedly misleading statements can be considered both as to price impact (at class certification under Halliburton II) and materiality (on the merits under Amgen). The Court's unanimous ruling explained that the notion (in an inflation-maintenance case) that a "back-end price drop equals front-end inflation (price impact) starts to break down when there is a mismatch between the contents of the misrepresentation and the corrective disclosure." The Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to "take into account all record evidence relevant to price impact, regardless whether that evidence overlaps with materiality or any other merits issue." (Justice Sotomayor dissented from Part II-A-2 of the opinion, reasoning that the Second Circuit properly rejected Goldman Sachs' argument below that its generic statements are, as a matter of law, incapable of causing a price impact). The Justices drew sharper lines on the question of which party bears what burden on price impact at the class certification stage. More specifically, if a securities fraud plaintiff initially establishes the Basic presumption, then does the defendant bear only the burden of production to rebut the presumption, which in turn would shift the burden of persuasion back to the plaintiff to affirmatively prove price impact? Or does the defendant bear the burden of persuasion to disprove price impact, thereby severing the link between the alleged misstatements and the stock price? The Court ruled in Part II-B of the opinion that a securities fraud defendant bears the burden of persuasion on price impact at class certification, interjecting a common sense point that "the allocation of the burden is unlikely to make much difference on the ground." The Court observed that parties always submit competing expert evidence on the issue of price impact, the district court assesses the evidence to determine whether it is more likely than not that the alleged misrepresentations had a price impact, and thus the burden comes into play only in the rare instance when the evidence is in equipoise. Justice Gorsuch penned a dissenting opinion as to Part II-B, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. The dissenters observed that while the Basic presumption is critical to "proceeding with a securities fraud action on a classwide basis," the Basic presumption is still just a presumption. Consequently, if the defendant meets its burden of production to rebut the presumption, then the plaintiff should be required to affirmatively prove price impact. The dissent pointed out that it is unusual, as the majority ruled, that a defendant would be charged with the burden of persuasion as to any aspect of a plaintiff's case. And, in contrast to the majority's observation that allocation of the burden matters only in close cases, Justice Gorsuch commented "[t]hat close cases may not be common ones is no justification for indifference about how the law resolves them." As it turns out, the opinion in the Goldman Sachs case is not groundbreaking, and in most cases the allocation of the burden of persuasion will not affect the outcome. Nonetheless, the Court's clear directive to consider all of the evidence going to price impact is important in the context of Rule 10b-5 litigation, especially given that inflation-maintenance cases are particularly susceptible to 20/20 hindsight (i.e., the stock price drops and the company's prior statements are scrutinized to find ones that supposedly maintained a higher "inflated" price). More generally, the Court's opinion builds on the important Civil Rule 23 principle that courts must consider all of the facts that bear on class certification at the class certification stage, notwithstanding that those same facts overlap the merits. Finally, dedicated SCOTUS commentators undoubtedly will note the interesting alignment of the justices in a straightforward, middle-of-the-road decision by the Court in a closely watched business case. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Taraneh Ashrafi, Esq., and Patrick Williams, Esq., of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that recently, a California court certified a class action against Google alleging that the company discriminated against female employees. While American, the case continues a developing trend of plaintiffs seeking to address alleged systemic discrimination claims through class actions. The case, and others like it, may lead to the filing of similar cases in Canada. The representative plaintiffs allege that Google (i) paid women in certain positions less than men in the same positions performing substantially similar work, (ii) assigned women fewer responsibilities than men with comparable experience and education, and (iii) promoted women less frequently than men. The Superior Court of California held that the case could be adjudicated using common evidence and that individual claims would be wasteful and redundant. There are over 10,000 women in the class; their claims date to 2013. This case continues a trend of class actions based on discrimination that we have written about before. While this case was filed in the United States, workplace harassment and discrimination class actions have also been filed in Canada recently. However, Canadian cases have often focused on governments. For example, in 2020 the Federal Court of Canada approved the settlement of a class action by women who worked for the RCMP and who alleged they were subject to gender-based discrimination and harassment from 1974 to 2019. Similarly, in 2019 the Federal Court of Canada approved the settlement of a class action against the Canadian military regarding allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Discrimination-based class actions against companies remain relatively rare in Canada (though some have been filed). However, certification of American discrimination-based class actions -- like the Google case -- may increase filings in Canada. Many Canadian class actions follow substantially similar class actions in the United States. And certification is often a lower bar for plaintiffs in Canada. For example, only Ontario has a predominance requirement comparable to Federal Rule 23(b)(3) in the United States. In most Canadian jurisdictions, cases can be certified whether or not the common issues predominate over issues affecting individual class members. While the certification analysis will be different in every case—and the viability and commonality of discrimination cases may turn on local workplace or human rights legislation—this trend is worth watching north of the border. [GN] GRAND CARIBBEAN: Barney Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE BARNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND CARIBBEAN CRUISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-012921 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., June 30, 2021) seeks injunctive relief against the Defendant as a result of its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action alleging that the Defendant has been sending prerecorded voice messages to the cellular telephone of consumers without obtaining their consent to do so for the purpose of promoting its business. The Plaintiff also assert that the Defendant placed prerecorded voice message on her cellular telephone number ending in 6225 on or about January 28, 2021 encouraging her to book a cruise vacation through the Defendant. The Plaintiff says that she never provided the Defendant her prior express written consent to call her on her cellular telephone utilizing a prerecorded voice message. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have suffered actual harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, conversion, inconvenience, and disruption of their daily life, because of the Defendant's unsolicited calls. Grand Caribbean Cruises, Inc. owns and/or operates a vacation marketing and sales business. [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 – Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com - and – Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (786) 496-4469 E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com GRANT & WEBER: Stokes FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KRISTINA STOKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRANT & WEBER, INC., Case No. 2021 CH 02490, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 2, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03561 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Grant & Weber, Inc. is a revenue solutions and receivables management company, headquartered in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: David M. Schultz, Esq. Louis J. Manetti, Jr., Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-3000 Facsimile: (312) 704-3001 E-mail: dschultz@hinshawlaw.com lmanetti@hinshawlaw.com HARBOR FREIGHT: Faces Sbarra Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, ANTHONY SBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00966-UNA (D. Del., June 30, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a Logistics Supervisor from April 2019 to April 2021, claims that the Defendant paid him and other similarly situated manual workers every other week, rather than weekly. Throughout their employment with the Defendant, the Defendant failed to compensate them on a timely basis as required by NYLL for all hours they worked for the benefits of the Defendant, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action to recover the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. owns and operates a chain of discount tool and equipment stores across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. Dean R. Roland, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 984-3800 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com droland@coochtaylor.com HOME POINT: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 20 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming August 20, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point Capital Inc. ("Home Point" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HMPT) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). If you suffered a loss on your Home Point 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/home-point-capital-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 January 2021, Home Point conducted its IPO, selling 7.25 million shares of common stock for $13.00 per share. On May 6, 2021, Home Point announced financial results for the first quarter of 2021, reporting revenue of $324.2 million, which missed consensus estimates by $41.72 million. On this news, Home Point's stock price fell $1.66, or 17.7%, to close at $7.72 per share on May 6, 2021, significantly below the IPO price. The complaint filed alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Home Point's aggressive expansion of its broker partners would increase the Company's expenses dramatically; (2) as a result of rising interest rates in 2021, the mortgage industry was anticipating decreased gain-on-sale margins industry-wide, and Home Point would be subject to the same competitive pressures; (3) accordingly, Home Point had overstated its business and financial prospects; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than August 20, 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] HOVG LLC: Faces Goldstein FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HOVG, LLC. The case is captioned as Goldstein v. HOVG, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03485-DG-TAM (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2021). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Diane Gujarati. HOVG, LLC, founded in 1963, is an international recovery services organization. It provides debt collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamir Saland, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com INTELSAT CORP: California Court Hears Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Satnews reports that a Class Action is being heard in the US District Court (Northern District of California, at Oakland) by Judge Jeffery White. The Action revolves around allegations that Intelsat shareholders Silver Lake Group LLC and BC Partners LLP, some senior partners at the two businesses who were also directors at Intelsat and some of their investment funds, and David McGlade, chairman at Intelsat, made use of inside information in order to sell shares in Intelsat prior to a near-total collapse in the share's value. The Action alleges that the defendants made unlawful use of non-public material and collectively gained some $185 million in profits over the sale of Intelsat stock. The listed defendants sold $246 million of Intelsat stock in an alleged overnight 'fire sale' on November 5th 2019. A Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for July 23 and the two main defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss on June 14th. Mr. McGlade's lawyers filed their Motion to Dismiss on March 31st. The sale of shares (and described as "the quintessential insider trading case" by the Plaintiffs) was on and around the period that (then FCC Chairman) Ajit Pai told Intelsat senior staff that the FCC would back an auction of C-band frequencies handled by the FCC, and not to support the C-Band Alliance's (CBA) preferred private method of an auction organized by the CBA. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, no supporter of the C-Band Alliance's plan to itself manage the sale of satellite spectrum, speaking at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on June 16th, 2020, said, "On November 5th, 2019, the CEO of Intelsat met with one of [the FCC's] senior lawyers, [and] two of the biggest Intelsat shareholders sold $246 million of their own stock. Shortly thereafter, the FCC announced that it was going to conduct a public auction . . . and the price of Intelsat stock dropped more than 75% from like 25 bucks to six bucks . . .. Something happened in that meeting." On November 18, 2019, the FCC formally rejected Intelsat's 'private sale' proposal. Furthermore, FCC Chairman Pai appeared to foreclose any future prospects, wholly conveying his support for a public, rather than private auction of the C-Band spectrum. The market's reaction to this news was quick and harsh - Intelsat's stock fell over 40 percent on extremely heavy trading, closing down from $13.41 per share on November 18th, 2019 to $8.03 per share. The Intelsat total share price collapse continued over the following few days declining 77 percent in barely two weeks. As was later revealed, however, certain insider shareholders were allegedly able to sell a large chunk of Intelsat shares (collectively 10 million shares) just before this massive stock plunge, and allegedly capitalizing on their inside knowledge that Intelsat's proposals were viewed negatively by the FCC. The July 23 Motions to Dismiss will see the Court hear submissions from all the parties, including the McGlade submission. BC Partners, in its Motion to Dismiss, argues that it has not broken any rules and not used non-public information and stated that meetings between the FCC and Intelsat (and the CBA) were "routine" and that the FCC was scrupulous that no material non-public information was disclosed at the November 5th meeting with Intelsat's executives. The "plaintiff's claims solely rely on a set of vague allegations from two confidential witnesses ("CWs") who were not present at the Nov 5 meeting, who never communicated with BC Partners about it, and whose tales lack any indicia of personal knowledge or reliability," says BC's Motion. McGlade's defence is that he did not possess material non-public information and knew nothing of the key FCC meetings and in particular had no knowledge of the key November 5 meeting. His lawyers argue that McGlade only sold a portion of his shareholding as he "tagged along" with the sale by Silver Lake and BC Partners. His lawyers state that at the time of the sale, McGlade held more than $80 million-worth in shares and that he joined the block sale (by Silver Lake and BC Partners) "because it permitted him to liquidate a small portion of his holdings while retaining the vast majority of his shares pending the FCC's ultimate decision." McGlade's defence statement continues saying that as a result in the near-total collapse of Intelsat's share price, he personally lost "well over $81 million." Under the terms of a Shareholders Agreement and its Tag-Along provision, he sold 14 percent of his holdings and retained the 86 percent balance that was eventually sold in the summer of 2020 for less than $600,000. Judge White will determine whether the Action is dismissed or can go forward. [GN] JAMES FRANCO: Settles Sexual Misconduct Class Action for $2.2MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Anastasia Tsioulcas, writing for NPR, reports that actor James Franco and two other men have agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit led by Sarah Tither-Kaplan and Toni Gaal, former students of an acting school owned by Franco and one of the other men. Tither-Kaplan and Gaal, who filed their suit in Oct. 2020, claimed that they were sexually exploited and victims of fraud at the now-closed school, which was called Studio 4. According to the settlement agreement announced on June 30, Franco, Jay Davis and Vince Jolivette, along with production company Rabbit Bandini Films (owned by Franco and Jolivette, with Davis as its general manager) and the shuttered school (co-owned by Franco and Jolivette), will pay out $2,235,000. The terms of the deal, which still has to be approved by a judge in Los Angeles Superior Court, were first published on June 30 by The Hollywood Reporter. Franco has repeatedly denied the women's allegations. Tither-Kaplan and Gaal spoke to NPR when they initially filed their suit. They said they were promised that as paying students, they would be offered opportunities to audition for Franco and Rabbit Bandini. Tither-Kaplan said that she auditioned and paid extra money for a class called Sex Scenes, taught by Franco. She said that she assumed that the class would teach her how to negotiate sex scenes professionally. Instead, she told NPR, "I did what seemed to be the thing that they wanted in this class, and that was get naked and do sex scenes and not complain and push the envelope." Gaal said that most of the auditions eventually offered had nudity requirements. Back in February, Tither-Kaplan and Gaal agreed to drop their individual complaints. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the settlement includes a statement that reads in part: "While defendants continue to deny the allegations in the complaint, they acknowledge that plaintiffs have raised important issues; and all parties strongly believe that now is a critical time to focus on addressing the mistreatment of women in Hollywood. All agree on the need to make sure that no one in the entertainment industry -- regardless of race, religion, disability, ethnicity, background, gender or sexual orientation -- faces discrimination, harassment or prejudice of any kind." [GN] JOHNSON CONTROLS: Scott Consumer Suit Goes to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RANDY SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. d/b/a COLEMAN, Case No. CV421681, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Lake to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 2, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-05131 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law. Johnson Controls, Inc., doing business as Coleman, is an electronics company with its principal place of business in Wisconsin. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Zoe K. Wilhelm, Esq. Michael Jaeger, Esq. David A. Belcher, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 203-4000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1285 E-mail: zoe.wilhelm@faegredrinker.com michael.jaeger@faegredrinker.com david.belcher@faegredrinker.com KAISER PERMANENTE: Magistrate Judge Wants Class Claims Trimmed -------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that an Atlanta federal magistrate judge recommended cutting the proposed class claims from a former Kaiser Permanente employee's disability bias suit, faulting her for failing to alert the EEOC that she wanted to pursue allegations on a group basis before filing suit. [GN] KELLOGG SALES: Tarts Strawberry Label, "Deceptive," Chiappetta Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- STACY CHIAPPETTA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03545 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Unfrosted Strawberry Pop Tarts. The Defendant promotes the strawberry content of the product on its website by only mentioning strawberries, through pictures and statements. However, the product contains less strawberries than consumers expect, as the ingredient list reveals the strawberry filling contains pears and apples. The product's name, "Strawberry Pop Tarts," is misleading because it includes strawberries but does not include pears and apples, even though these fruits are in the small print on the ingredient list. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the product is an sold at a premium price. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for them, the suit says. Kellogg Sales Company is a food manufacturer with a principal place of business in Battle Creek, Calhoun County, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Class Action Over Sleep Apnea Machines ----------------------------------------------------------------- The national plaintiffs' law firm Berger Montague has filed a class action lawsuit against Dutch medical equipment company Philips to protect consumers harmed by Philips' recalled sleep apnea machines, including CPAP and BiPAP machines, and ventilators, which may increase users' risk of cancer and pulmonary fibrosis, and cause other injuries such as headaches, irritation, inflammation, respiratory issues, and exposure to materials with toxic and carcinogenic effects. The case is Shelton v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al., No. 1:21-cv-11076 (D. Mass.). On June 14, 2021, Philips announced a recall of many of its Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) machines, which are used to treat sleep apnea, and ventilators, which treat respiratory failure. The recalled products contain polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam for sound abatement. It has now been revealed that the PE-PUR foam may break down and be inhaled or ingested and may emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) resulting in adverse effects to organs, and even cancer. In an announcement to doctors, Philips explained that these hazards could result in "serious injury which can be life-threatening or cause permanent impairment." Specifically, Philips stated that it "has received reports of possible patient impact due to foam degradation. The potential risks of particulate exposure include headache, irritation, inflammation, respiratory issues, and possible toxic and carcinogenic effects. The potential risks of chemical exposure due to off-gassing include headache, irritation, hypersensitivity, nausea/vomiting, and possible toxic and carcinogenic effects." Sleep apnea is a sleeping disorder in which breathing is disturbed temporarily during sleep. Breathing may stop or become very shallow. This may be associated with fatigue, daytime sleepiness, interrupted sleep, or snoring, among other symptoms. Serious cases can lead to hypertension, heart attack, or stroke, among other medical ailments. CPAP therapy is a common treatment for sleep apnea. In CPAP therapy, a machine delivers a flow of air through a mask over the nose or mouth, which increases air pressure in the throat so that the airway does not collapse during inhalation. CPAP therapy assists breathing during sleep and can successfully treat sleep apnea. Philips's flagship CPAP/BiPAP machine product family is known as the "DreamStation" family line, which includes the original DreamStation, launched in October 2015, and the DreamStation Go (a travel version). Philips sells DreamStation products through its subsidiary Respironics, which Philips acquired in 2008. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Philips knew about these substantial and material risks from its CPAP machines long before the recall. The Complaint alleges that patients who used the affected devices have complained to Philips about black particles in their machines for many years, but Philips did not warn the public about the hazards until late April 2021 and did not recall its machines until June 14, 2021. The Complaint also alleges that Philips self-servingly timed its recall to coincide with its launch of its next generation of CPAP products that do not suffer from the same issues. Thus, the only safe option that Philips offers to its customers -- many of whom need and rely on the recalled breathing machines -- is to purchase Philips's newer model, profiting Philips further. The Complaint alleges that Philips has no concrete timeline for replacing the recalled CPAP machines and other devices and may not provide replacements for a year or more, even though patients need to use their devices every day. As a result, the recall leaves patients without safe, free options and patients are going to be forced to buy Philips' next-generation product or a competitor's product—at full price. "This important class action lawsuit seeks to recover all damages suffered by consumers who purchased the recalled CPAP devices, and have Philips replace them free of charge with safe and effective devices," said Shanon Carson, Plaintiffs' attorney and Managing Shareholder of Berger Montague. "Our clients and the many patients who have contacted us should not have to deal with finding out that they have been breathing volatile organic compounds harmful to their health. It is outrageous and we look forward to fighting on their behalf to obtain a resolution with Philips that provides damages for their economic and personal injuries. If there is any person that believes they have been injured by these recalled machines, or has inside information that can help the case, we encourage them to please contact us." More information about this case, Shelton v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al., No. 1:21-cv-11076 (D. Mass.), now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is available at www.bergermontague.com/philips-recall, including the precise list of recalled CPAP/BiPAP machines and ventilators. The recalled machines by Philips include the following models: E30; DreamStation ASV; DreamStation ST, AVAPS; SystemOne ASV4; C Series ASV, S/T, AVAPs; OmniLab Advanced Plus; SystemOne (Q Series); DreamStation CPAP, Auto CPAP, BiPAP; DreamStation Go CPAP, APAP; Dorma 400, 500 CPAP; REMStar SE Auto CPAP; Trilogy 100 and 200; Garbin Plus, Aeris, LifeVent; A-Series BiPAP Hybrid A30; A-Series BiPAP V30 Auto; A-Series BiPAP A40; and A-Series BiPAP A30. Berger Montague PC is a national law firm headquartered in Philadelphia with additional offices in Minneapolis, San Diego, and Washington, D.C. The Firm litigates complex civil cases and class actions in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Berger Montague has played lead roles in major cases for over 50 years and has recovered more than $36 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. [GN] L.A.R.E PARTNERS: Umbrino Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICKI UMBRINO and RICHARD ZOLLER, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated. v. L.A.R.E PARTNERS NETWORK, INC. d/b/a L.A.R.E. PARTNERS f/k/a LIST ASSIST REAL ESTATE, INC., REAL AGENT PRO, LLC f/k/a L.A.R.E. MARKETING LLC, L.A.R.E. PROPERTIES, LLC, LIST-ASSIST OF ROCHESTER, LLC, and ISAIAH COLTON, Case No. 6:19-cv-06559-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the matter as a class action pursuant to Rule 23; 2. approving the plaintiffs as class representatives; 3. appointing Thomas & Solomon LLP as class counsel; 4. approving plaintiffs' proposed notice to be sent to all class members; 5. directing the defendants to provide plaintiffs' counsel in both electronic format (in an Excel spreadsheet) and by hard copy, a list containing the following information for each class member in a separate field: name, current or last known address, phone number, job title, dates of employment, last four digits of social security number, date of birth and e-mail address, within 15 days of the issuance of the Order; and 6. for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 6, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jWLZnt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Lingle, Esq. Adam T. Sanderson, Esq. THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Telephone: (585) 272-0540 E-mail: mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com asanderson@theemploymentattorneys.com LAWPRACTICECLE LLC: Faces Goren ADA Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LawPracticeCLE, L.L.C. The case is captioned as Goren v. LawPracticeCLE, L.L.C., Case No. 8:21-cv-01503-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla., June 21, 2021). The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William F. Jung. LawPracticeCLE is a national continuing legal education company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Waldo, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN F. WALDO 2108 McDuffie Street Houston, TX 77019 LE CABARET: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks ------------------------------------------------------------- MADEA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LE CABARET, INC. dba TEXAS JAY'S GENTLEMEN'S CLUB MILWAUKEE; JOHN A. URBAN; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00815 (E.D. Wis., July 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip sharing. The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at Texas Jay's Gentlemen's Club Milwaukee located at 813 South 1st Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin from at least September 2019 to May 2021. Le Cabaret, Inc. is an owner and operator of an adult entertainment facility under the name Texas Jay's Gentlemen's Club Milwaukee located at 813 South 1st Street, Milwaukee, 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 LIBERTY HOMECARE: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Headly v. Liberty Homecare Options, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00579 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer entered an order denying without prejudice the motion to certify class and amended motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In light of the Court's order requiring the plaintiff to comply with the Court's rules if plaintiff wishes to seek leave to file an amended complaint, the Court denies the motions to certify a class and FLSA collective without prejudice to the re-filing of such motions within 21 days of the Court's ruling on any motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On the other hand, if plaintiff decides not to seek leave to file an amended complaint, then plaintiff shall file any class certification and conditional certification for FLSA class motion by July 27, 2021 . The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Liberty Homecare Options is a non-medical agency committed to providing quality in home and community based services.[CC] LSP PRODUCTS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Harris Product Liability Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIFFANY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LSP PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02973-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The action arises from a purportedly defective product that caused damage to the Plaintiff's home. The Defendant is a corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells "Aqua-Flo Mighty Flex" braided steel water supply lines ("Braided Lines"). Braided Lines are flexible tubing covered by tightly braided stainless-steel wires that connect the water supply line to common household fixtures (e.g., toilets, faucets, dishwashers, etc.) to supply them with hot and cold water. Each Braided Line tubing has a compression nut (either metal or plastic) at each end of the line to connect the water supply line to the fixture. If either compression nut fails, the entire Braided Line is useless. The Defendant advertises the Braided Lines as a "safe and superior alternative to rigid metal pipes with shutoff valves," made with "high-quality materials" to provide "`unmatched' durability, and long, useful lifespan." However, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant "uses a low-grade material for its brass compression nuts and inserts that, at the point of sale, is brittle, degraded, and highly susceptible to stress corrosion cracking and branching fractures." Similarly, the Defendant uses a low-grade material for its plastic coupling nuts that is also susceptible to stress cracking and branching fractures. As a result, the Plaintiff alleges all compression nuts in the Braided Lines are defective because they fail under normal use (including continuous water pressure) due to cracking and branching fractures resulting from stress. This defect is not discernable to an untrained person or without magnification. The Plaintiff further alleges Defendant was aware of this defect but failed to disclose it to the public and failed to instruct its customers to inspect their Braided Lines for signs of stress cracking or branching fractures on the compression nuts. In March 2013, a set of Braided Lines from the Defendant was installed in the Plaintiff's bathroom in her vacation home in Truckee, California. In October 2015, the Plaintiff alleges the Braided Line broke -- specifically, the brass insert of the compression nut fractured -- and flooded the first floor of her home. By the time the flooding was discovered, the property had sustained more than $30,000 in damages. The Plaintiff initiated the action on April 12, 2018 in the Central District of California. She seeks to bring the action on behalf of herself and a nationwide class, as well as a subclass of individuals in the state of California, who purchased and/or own Braided Lines. The Defendant moved to dismiss and transfer venue to the Eastern District of California, where the subject Braided Line allegedly failed and damage occurred. On Nov. 13, 2018, the Central District Court granted the Defendant's motion to transfer venue and transferred the action to the Court. The operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC") appears to assert ten causes of action: (1) violations of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1790, et seq.); (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) unlawful and unfair business acts and practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.); (5) negligence; (6) negligent failure to warn; (7) strict liability - defect and failure to warn; (8) violations of California's False Advertising Act ("FAL") (Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. Sections 17500 et. seq.); (9) violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") (Cal. Civ. C. Sections 1750 et. seq.); and (10) unjust enrichment. On Dec. 18, 2018, the Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b), 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). On Jan. 21, 2019, the Plaintiff opposed the motion and on Feb. 14, 2019, the Defendant replied. I. Analysis The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's first, second, third, fourth, eighth, and ninth claims pursuant to Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). It additionally moves to dismiss all of the Plaintiff's nationwide class claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b) A. Song-Beverly Act and Warranty Claims (Claims One, Two, and Three) The Defendant argues the Plaintiff's Song-Beverly Act3 (Claim One) and warranty-based claims (Claims Two and Three) should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because they are time-barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations. Alternatively, it argues the Braided Line at issue is not a "consumer good" within the meaning of the Song-Beverly Act, the Plaintiff lacks vertical privity with Defendant required for an implied warranty claim, and the Braided Line outlasted its one-year express warranty. Because Judge Nunley finds these claims are time-barred, he addresses the statute of limitations argument and declines to evaluate the remainder of the Defendant's arguments. He concluedes that the Plaintiff fails to establish the future performance exception applies, or otherwise identify any distinct exception for latent defects. Additionally, the Judge concludes the exception does not apply to Plaintiff's express warranty claim (Claim Three). He says while the FAC notes the Defendant's express one-year warranty, it does not allege facts showing Defendant expressly warranted its Braided Lines for some "specific period of time," or that the product was delivered for "future performance." Accordingly, the statute of limitations runs from the time that the defect first existed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims for violations of the Song-Beverly Act, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty (Claims One, Two, and Three) are barred by the statute of limitations. Having found the Plaintiff's claims are time-barred, the Judge need not reach the Defendant's remaining arguments with respect to Claims One, Two, or Three. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nunley grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims for violations of the Song-Beverly Act, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty (Claims One, Two, and Three, respectively). However, he grants the Plaintiff leave to join another potential class representative who has a claim which is not time-barred. B. California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act Claims (Claims Four, Eight, and Nine) The UCL, FAL, and CLRA are California consumer protection statutes. The standard for all three statutes is the "reasonable consumer" test, which requires a plaintiff to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived by the business practice or advertising at issue. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) on the basis that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing with respect to her request for injunctive relief and for the claims generally. Alternatively, it argues the Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) because: (1) the Plaintiff fails to allege actual reliance under the heightened pleading requirements; (2) the Defendant's advertisements are non-actionable puffery; (3) the Defendant's product outlasted its warranty; and (4) the Plaintiff has not adequately pled a basis for her UCL claim. First, Judge Nunley finds that the Plaintiff concedes her failure to plead an intent to repurchase but indicates she may cure it through amendment. Her claims -- to the extent they seek injunctive relief -- are therefore dismissed with leave to amend. Second, the Plaintiff fails to establish standing for her UCL, FAL and CLRA claims and the Judge cannot say the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. Third, the Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded reliance because she has not alleged facts showing awareness of the advertisement for Braided Lines on Defendant's website prior to the product being purchased and installed in her home. Fourth, all but one of the identified statements as actionable misrepresentations from the Defendant's website constitutes non-actionable puffery. Fifth, the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege a material omission based on safety concerns. Lastly, in light of the Court's determination that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Song-Beverly Act, FAL, or CLRA, her derivative UCL claim under the unlawful prong also fails. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the UCL, FAL, or CLRA. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claims Four, Eight, and Nine is granted. The Plaintiff may amend these claims consistent with the findings of Judge Nunley. C. Nationwide Class Claims (All Claims) Finally, the Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's nationwide class claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) because non-residents may not invoke the protection of California statutes, the Plaintiff does not specify which state's laws apply to her common law claims, and the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant with respect to the non-resident class members' claims. First, Judge Nunley finds that the Plaintiff concedes the non-residents in the case cannot assert California law-based claims. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is granted with respect to the nationwide class claims asserted under California law as follows: Claims One, Four, Eight and Nine are dismissed without leave to amend. To the extent the Plaintiff's Claims Two, Three, Five, Six, Seven, and Ten are predicated on California common law, these claims are also dismissed without leave to amend. Second, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff fails to identify which states' laws apply to her common law claims on behalf of the nationwide class. As the Defendant correctly notes, failure to allege which state law governs a common law claim is grounds for dismissal. However, its argument that the claims must be dismissed with prejudice is unsupported in law. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is granted as to the Plaintiff's common law claims (Claims Two, Three, Five, Six, Seven, and Ten) as asserted by the nationwide class. The Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to state which state law applies. In light of the Court's dismissal of all claims asserted by the nationwide class, Judge Nunley does not reach the Defendant's remaining arguments. II. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nunley granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's claims for violations of the Song-Beverly Act, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty (Claims One, Two, and Three) as asserted by the Plaintiff are dismissed with leave to join another potential class representative who has a claim which is not time-barred; 2. The Plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Claims Four, Eight, and Nine) as asserted by the Plaintiff are dismissed with leave to amend; 3. The Plaintiff's claims under the Song-Beverly Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Claims One, Four, Eight and Nine) as asserted by the nationwide class are dismissed without leave to amend; and 4. The Plaintiff's common law claims for implied warranty, express warranty, negligence, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, and unjust enrichment (Claims Two, Three, Five, Six, Seven, and Ten) as asserted by the nationwide class are dismissed with leave to amend. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint not later than 30 days after the date of electronic filing of the Order. The Defendant will file a response to the amended complaint pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rtb69v8x from Leagle.com. MAPCO EXPRESS: Pay Disparity Class Action Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------- Brian Flood, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that a lawsuit accusing Mapco Express LLC of paying female convenience store managers less than their male colleagues can move forward as a class action, a federal court in Tennessee said. Joy Vasser and Amy Lusane sued under the Equal Pay Act, alleging that the gas station and convenience store chain systematically underpaid female managers compared to male ones with identical responsibilities. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on June 29 denied Mapco's motion to dismiss, and granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification. [GN] MARYLAND: Class Action Seeks Extension of Unemployment Benefits --------------------------------------------------------------- Jess Arnold, writing for WUSA9, reports that many Marylanders are frustrated that they still haven't received payments from weeks, even months ago. It comes as extra federal pandemic unemployment benefits set to run out July 3. Gov. Larry Hogan announced in early June that even though the federal policy allows for the extra benefits to be given out through September, Maryland would be halting the payments on July 3. The Unemployed Workers Union filed a class-action lawsuit, asking a judge to overrule Gov. Hogan's decision to end the benefits early and re-extend them to September (the federal deadline.) The plaintiffs' lawyer, Alec Summerfield, said a magistrate told him on June 29 that the suit should be on a judge's desk first thing June 30, so they're hoping for a decision soon. It's a last shred of hope for some Marylanders feeling despondent after trying to get in touch with the Department of Labor (DOL). "It's been hell, um, let's say the least," claimant Timothy Issette, who lives in Washington County said. Issette said he hasn't been able to get his benefits since Gov. Hogan announced the early end to the federal benefits and the filing system changed. He said he had to refile, and it's caused a whole host of problems. "I've sent multiple forms to unemployment," Issette said. "They'll open them, it says assigned. And then, like, I won't hear nothing. I call, I don't know, probably 100 times a day." One Reddit user sent WUSA 9 a screenshot of their calls, saying they tried to get through to the DOL 500 times just on June 29. They said a person answered three times but ended up hanging up on them. "I had to move out of my place and stay with family right now because I can't afford rent," Issett said. Some, like Joshua Rice, who lives in Owings Mills, have never received their benefits. He filed back in August 2020. "They say, oh, we're updating tickets, which it does not, and they submit inquiries, which does nothing," Rice said. "When you get an email, you don't get a response. Everything is just like going unnoticed at this point. Pretty horrible." He and Auriel Farley, who lives in Greenbelt, take issue with Gov. Hogan saying it's time to get a job. They said they've been trying. "I'm a graduate of University of Baltimore master's program. I have a Master of Science in Information Technology," Rice said. "And I can tell you that it doesn't take less than four weeks for you to really get a job." Farley said this is the first time she's ever had to file for unemployment. "I was working since I've been 14," she said. "So not working for a period of time, like this to this magnitude is it's does a little bit it does something to me mentally." Farley's landlord has even taken her to court, because she hasn't been able to pay rent. "What is the government going to do? What is the Department of Labor going to do for fellow Marylanders when it comes down to receiving money because a lot of people are struggling?," she questioned. Other claimants said their claims have messages like "unresolved issues" or "awaiting adjudication," and they can't get a timeline for when they will be resolved. The Department of Labor said with the federal benefit program ending soon, call volume has been high. A spokesperson said they will continue to add more call center agents throughout the summer. They also said that as long as people file before July 3, they will eventually get their money -- not a comforting thought for those who have already been waiting for months. [GN] MCCLATHY COMPANY: Kelly et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT KELLY, ERYN LEARNED, and KERRY WANO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MCCLATHY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-05468-DWC (W.D. Wash., June 29, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs received multiple telemarketing calls from the Defendant on their personal cellular telephone numbers that were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Defendant purportedly failed to obtain first their prior express consent to receive such calls. The Plaintiffs asserts that almost immediately after they cancelled the Defendant's one-month promotional subscription, the Defendant contacted them and continuously sending them telemarketing calls despite their request to stop calling them. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited telemarketing calls, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals have suffered an invasion of privacy and harassment. The McClathy Company, LLC is a publishing company that operates 29 daily local newspapers in 14 states. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th St., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Tel: (206) 816-6603 Fax: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com amcentee@terrellmarshall.com - and – Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 936 North 34th St., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Tel: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com MERRILL LYNCH: Gilmore Sues Over Bias Against African American FAs ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAVYNNE GILMORE and LUCINDA COUNCIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC. & CO. and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-11553-TGB-APP (E.D. Mich., July 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in discriminatory employment policies, patterns, and/or practices against their African American employees, including the Plaintiffs. The case alleges that African American financial advisors have received less compensation, have been promoted less frequently, and have higher termination rates than their white counterparts. The financial advisors also experienced minimum threshold production credit requirements, lack of support, and inequitable teaming opportunities. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Council are African American women who were employed by the Defendants as financial advisors from October 2017 to January 2020 in Troy, Michigan and Warren, Michigan and from March 2018 to September 2019 in Paramus, New Jersey, respectively. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. & Co. is an investment advisory firm based in New York, New York. Bank of America, N.A. is a nationally chartered banking association, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Megan A. Bonanni, Esq. PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER, BONANNI & RIVERS P.C. 117 West 4th Street Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com - and – Adam T. Klein, Esq. Nantiya Ruan, Esq. Chauniqua D. Young, Esq. Maya S. Jumper, Esq. Michael Danna, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, Floor 25 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 - and – Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo Meireles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Rd. Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Metrocity Group Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The case is styled as Metrocity Group, Inc. individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated New York lien law article 3-A trust beneficiaries v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Case No. 654207/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., July 6, 2021). The Metropolitan Transportation Authority -- https://new.mta.info/ -- is a public benefit corporation responsible for public transportation in the New York City metropolitan area of the U.S. state of New York.[BN] MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT: IPRS Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MICHAEL T. CARTWRIGHT, KIRK R. MANZ and ANDREW W. McWILLIAMS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00407 (M.D. Tenn.), the Lead Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. approving its selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 6, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jUKDJT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System is represented by: Christopher M. Wood, Esq. Christopher h. Lyons, Esq. Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Francisco J. Mejia, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com clyons@rgrdlaw.com darrenr@rgrdlaw.com fmejia@rgrdlaw.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com MICHAEL KORS: Vasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled NORMA VASQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01201548-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 1, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05354 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay timely wages, failure to unlawfully receive wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay timely wages upon termination, and unfair business practices. Michael Kors (USA), Inc. is a company that designs and sells apparel, accessories, and footwear, with its principal place of business located in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq. Jennifer R. Nunez, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com elevy@seyfarth.com jnunez@seyfarth.com MTA NEW YORK: Underpays Transit Management Analysts, Johnson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MONICA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03667 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime compensation. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an "Associate Transit Management Analyst" since approximately February 10, 1997, asserts that the Defendant maintained a policy and practices of requiring her and other similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours a week without paying them appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation as required by federal laws. Instead of paying them overtime 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 Defendant allegedly paid them straight-time regular hourly rate for all hours worked. The Defendant also failed to keep records under the FLSA. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking to recover all unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs and disbursements, other damages due under common law principles of unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel, and other relief as may be just and proper. MTA New York City Transit operates public transportation in New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS, LLP 31-19 Newtown Avenue, 7th Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Tel: (718) 269-2240 E-mail: CTucker@saccofillas.com MV PUBLIC: Smith Sues Over Wrongful Discharge, Age Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- THEODIS SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MV PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV24336 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for wrongful discharge in violation of the California Public Policy, age discrimination in violation of the California Government Code, and unfair competition pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a bus driver out of a facility in Carson, California from November 30, 2001 through July 17, 2019. MV Public Transportation, Inc. is a transportation company doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Warren D. Kelly, Esq. THE KELLY LAW OFFICES 3812 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 250 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 373-5505 Facsimile: (310) 347-4412 E-mail: warren@wkellylaw.com NAVER CORPORATION: Apps Illegally Collect User Data, Ji Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SYDNEY JI, JUNE ABE, LEE SHUBERT, KIRA TOMLINSON, RANELA SUNGA, and STEFANIE BONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NAVER CORPORATION, NAVER CLOUD CORPORATION, NAVER CLOUD AMERICA INC. f/k/a NAVER BUSINESS PLATFORM AMERICA INC., SNOW CORPORATION, SNOW INC., Z HOLDINGS CORPORATION, LINE CORPORATION, LINE PLUS CORPORATION, and LINE EURO-AMERICAS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05143 (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, restitution/unjust enrichment, and violations of the Right to Privacy under California Constitution, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in unlawful collection and storage of private and/or personally identifiable user data without user consent through the LINE Messenger and B612 mobile applications (apps). The apps unlawfully collect user biometrics with the aid of SenseTime, a China-based technology company that focused on artificial intelligence (AI). Moreover, the Defendants unlawfully intercepted videos, Uniform Resource Locator (URLs), and particular keywords from LINE Messenger's chat messages despite claims that the app uses end-to-end encryption (E2EE) to encrypt all messages between senders and recipients. The Plaintiffs and Class members incurred harm as a result of the invasion of their privacy through the Defendants' theft of their personal information, the suit contends. Naver Corporation is a mass media and technology conglomerate headquartered in South Korea. Naver Cloud Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Naver Corporation based in South Korea. Naver Cloud America Inc., formerly known as Naver Business Platform America Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Naver Corporation, located in San Jose, California. Snow Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Naver Corporation, located in South Korea. Snow Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Naver Corporation, located in Los Angeles, California. Z Holdings Corporation is a subsidiary of a joint venture between Naver Corporation and third-party SoftBank Group Corporation, located in Tokyo, Japan. LINE Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Z Holdings Corporation, located in Tokyo, Japan. LINE Plus Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of LINE Corp., located in South Korea. LINE Euro-Americas Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of LINE Plus Corp., located in Palo Alto, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kara M. Wolke, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Raymond D. Sulentic, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and – Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214.7900 E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com - and – Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Thomas R. Freeman, Esq. Marc E. Masters, Esq. BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG & RHOW P.C. 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com tfreeman@birdmarella.com mmasters@birdmarella.com - and – Marc S. Williams, Esq. Youngbin Son, Esq. COHEN WILLIAMS LLP 724 South Spring Street, 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 232-5162 Facsimile: (213) 232-5167 E-mail: mwilliams@cohen-williams.com yson@cohen-williams.com - and – Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Joshua Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com NAVY FEDERAL: Ramos Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navy Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Teodoro Ramos, and other similarly situated consumers and judgment debtors v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 516530/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., July 6, 2021). Navy Federal Credit Union -- https://www.navyfederal.org/ -- is a global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[BN] NEW STANDARD: Walker Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- DIERDRE WALKER, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General, Plaintiff v. NEW STANDARD EQUITIES, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV23983 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 29, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendants seeking penalties for its alleged unlawful employment policies and practices that violated the California Labor Code and the Private Attorney General Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid and non-exempt employee from February 2020 until November 2020. The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated aggrieved employees were required by the Defendants to frequently perform numerous tasks off the clock pre- and post-shift and during meal periods, thereby failing to provide them meal and rest periods. However, the Defendant did not compensate them for all the hours spent working for the benefits of the Defendants. In addition, the Defendants has a practice of rounding off time-card entries. Moreover, the Defendant did not include all the nondiscretionary bonuses in their employees' regular rate of pay when calculating their overtime, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful pay practices, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees were paid less than the minimum wage and were not paid overtime compensation at the federally mandated overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. New Standard Equities, Inc. is a real estate investment and asset management company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 761-5484 Fax: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com NEWFOUNDLAND: Class Action Over Travel Restrictions Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Moore, writing for CBC News, reports that a class-action suit against the Newfoundland and Labrador government for restricting travel to the province amid the COVID-19 pandemic has been denied certification. In his decision on June 29, Justice Daniel Boone of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador said plaintiffs Werner and Sharon Koehler's class action was dismissed because it did not meet the required criteria under the provincial Class Actions Act. The Koehlers live in Ontario but own a home and a seasonal business in Bay Roberts. They claimed travel restrictions imposed by the provincial government under the COVID-19 pandemic violated their charter rights to mobility, equality and freedom of expression and also caused actionable nuisance. "The plaintiffs' application did not demonstrate that they had a viable cause of action. In particular, although the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a violation of their mobility rights, they did not have a viable cause of action for charter damages because they did not plead that the government actions were an abuse of power, in bad faith, or with clear disregard for their charter rights," Boone wrote in his decision. "The government action of which they complained did not affect land and, therefore, did not constitute a viable plea in nuisance." The restrictions introduced in May 2020 closed the province's borders to anyone other than permanent residents and essential workers. Boone also noted the couple said they had arrangements to travel to Newfoundland in the spring of 2020, but cancelled those plans after learning of the travel ban. On July 16, the couple applied for an exemption, which was granted the following day, and they travelled to Bay Roberts later that summer. "We are disappointed in the decision. We were expecting the application to be certified," Bob Buckingham, one of the couple's lawyers, told CBC News on June 30. "We are now in the process of analyzing the decision and the next step will be for us to meet with our clients, to have a session with them, advise them of the options and see where they instruct us to go to next." When the lawsuit was launched last year, Buckingham said, thousands of people had been prevented from entering the province. He said he believes the province eventually began allowing exemptions because of the lawsuit. "That's sort of my assessment of it," he said. "In any case we have to have a discussion with them to see how they wish to go forward and if they wish to go forward. It's been a long case for them, so they have to look at what their options are." [GN] NORTH AMERICAN: Lagrisola Labor Suit Goes to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled LORETO A. LAGRISOLA and MERCEDES P. LAGRISOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTH AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORP. and DOES 1-100, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 5, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01222-DMS-WVG to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the California Business and Professions Code. North American Financial Corp. is an insurance agency located in Henderson, Nevada. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: David M. Greeley, Esq. James R. Thompson, Esq. GREELEY THOMPSON LLP 2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 515 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 658-0462 E-mail: dgreeley@greeleythompson.com jthompson@greeleythompson.com - and – Michael T. Conway, Esq. OFFIT KURMAN, P.A. 590 Madison Avenue, Sixth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (929) 476-0041 E-mail: Michael.Conway@OffitKurman.com NORTH SHORE: Bodiford Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BODIFORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00807 (E.D. Wis., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked as a certified nursing assistant at the Defendant's Menomonee Falls Health Services located in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin from approximately January 2021 until March 2021. North Shore Healthcare LLC is a privately-owned assisted living, skilled-nursing, and rehabilitation entity headquartered in Glendale, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00553 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Embry J. Kidd entered an order extending deadline to file motions for class certification: -- The Plaintiff's expert disclosure deadline is extended through July 8, 2021; -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is extended through July 29, 2021; and -- The Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on September 1, 2021. The nature of suit states contract -- Medicare Act. OneBeacon is an Intact Financial Corporation brand. Through its underwriting companies, it provides specialty insurance products sold through independent agencies, regional and national brokers, wholesalers and managing general agencies, to over 20 industry and customer groups.[CC] PALOMAR HEALTH: Faces Dessamero Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- EVELYN DESSAMERO-SISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALOMAR HEALTH, PALOMAR MEDICAL CENTER ESCONDIDO, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01206-DMS-LL (S.D. Cal., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Business and Professions Code, and California Government Code by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to keep accurate record of wages due to them, and discriminating against them on the basis of race, national origin and disability. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee at the Defendant's facility in California. Palomar Health is a health care district in San Diego County, California. Palomar Medical Center Escondido is a hospital located in Escondido, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq. SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 Facsimile: (619) 702-6761 E-mail: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com PANDA RESTAURANT: Scott Sues Over Deceptive Flat $2.95 Delivery Fee ------------------------------------------------------------------- NATASHA SCOTT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-05368-MCS-GJS (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2021) is a proposed class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant Panda Restaurant arising from its deceptive and untruthful promises to provide a flat $2.95 delivery fee on food deliveries ordered through is App and website. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Panda Express has moved aggressively into the food delivery business, exploiting an opportunity presented by Americans' reduced willingness to leave their homes. To appeal to consumers in a crowded food delivery marketplace, Panda Express has promised its customers low-price delivery in its mobile application and on its website, usually in the amount of $2.95. The Plaintiff contends that the representations are false, because that is not the true cost of having food delivered by Panda Express. In fact, Panda Express allegedly imposes hidden delivery charges on its customers in addition to the low "delivery charge" represented in its app and on its website. The hidden delivery upcharge makes Panda Express's promise of low-cost, $2.95 delivery patently false. The true delivery costs are obscured and far exceed its express representation that its delivery fee is $2.95, the Plaintiff adds. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., parent company of Panda Inn, Panda Express and Hibachi-San, was founded by Andrew and Peggy Tsiang Cherng and Andrew's father, Master Chef Ming-Tsai Cherng, the family originating in the Yangzhou region of China's Jiangsu province.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Goren Gold, Esq KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street., NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com PARAMOUNT HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zinko Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ GALYNA ZINKO, BOGAAN ZINKO, and LUBOV KONIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARAMOUNT HOME CARE AGENCY INC.; ROMAN OFFENGEYM; MARINA OFFENGEYM; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03607 (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as home health aides. Paramount Homecare Agency Inc. is a licensed home care service agency located in Brooklyn, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Ave., 15 th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com PLANT HEALTH: Counsel Files a Motion to Dismiss Toporek Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the putative class action lawsuit styled RICHARD TOPOREK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLANT HEALTH, INC. DBA HIGHLAND PHARMS, Case No. 605396/2021, Mark E. Goidell, Esq., filed a motion to dismiss action with the New York Supreme Court for the County of Nassau on July 2, 2021. Mark E. Goidell, Esq., is the counsel of Defendant Plant Health, Inc. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Highland Pharms products because of their undisclosed non-natural, synthetic ingredients. Plant Health, Inc., doing business as Highland Pharms, is a manufacturer of food products, with its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com PURDUE PHARMA: Howard County, Kokomo Opt Out of Opioid Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Juranovich, writing for Kokomo Tribune, reports that both Howard County and the city of Kokomo have joined several other municipalities and counties in opting out of the state's class-action lawsuit against opioid manufacturers and distributors, reasoning that they will likely see more cash from their own litigation filed in response to the nation's opioid epidemic. Both the county commissioners and Kokomo City Council unanimously approved resolutions recently formalizing the decisions. A state law signed by Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb this year requires cities and counties that want to continue to pursue their own legal action against the opioid manufacturers and distributors to "opt out" of the attorney general's lawsuit by June 30. Cities and counties are automatically a part of the state's class-action lawsuit and will receive any settlement reached, except those that opt out. Numerous localities across the state have decided to opt out, largely because the state stipulates localities will split 15% of whatever the state receives in the lawsuit. Of the other 85%, the state will receive 15% of any settlement, and the Family and Social Services Administration will get the remaining 70% to distribute around the state. "We're strictly limited, if we continue with the state lawsuit, in the amount of money that can be collected . . . whereas we don't have that requirement in our own lawsuit," said Alan Wilson, county attorney. Both the city and county have 60 days from their respective passage of the resolutions to change their minds. The attorney general's office said in a statement that it was hopeful the dissenting cities would reconsider and rejoin the state's lawsuits. "Our goal from the beginning has been to partner with cities, towns and counties by splitting the proceeds evenly between the state and local communities," the office said in the statement. About half of Indiana's cities and counties have filed lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, distributors and dispensers, seeking to recover funds they have spent on police, fire, treatment programs and prevention in response to opioid abuse, The Indianapolis Star reported. Those municipalities sued more opioid-related companies than the state did, and they have said they believe they'll get better settlements on their own because of it. The city of Kokomo first announced it would be joining the class-action lawsuit in October of 2017. The county soon announced its intention to do the same thing. Both governments claimed the country's top drug distributors were responsible for "dumping millions of dollars' worth of prescription opiates into its community" and as being "responsible for the opioid epidemic" that has killed hundreds in Howard County. The Associated Press contributed to this story. [GN] RCI HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Turner Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SHALONDA TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC.; XTC CABARET, INC. d/b/a XTC CABARET; and ERIC S. LANGAN, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-02076 (S.D. Tex., June 24, 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 Turner was employed by the Defendants as exotic dancer. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and bar operations in Texas and other locations in the United States. The Company, through its subsidiaries, also owns and operates media and websites related to their operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com leigh@hughesellzey.com REAL BUILDERS: Workers Seek Overtime Pay, Slam Illegal Deductions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Martinez, Jr. and Idar Dominguez on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Real Builders Construction, Incorporated, and Guillermo Martinez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03413 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages due to invalid tip credit, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance of the Municipal Code of Chicago and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Defendants own and operate a construction business located in Matteson, Illinois, performing a range of construction services including, but not limited to, demolition, building and dry wall finishing. Martinez and Dominguez were employed by Real Builders as laborers and construction workers between 2013 and 2021, performing manual labor duties related to construction and demolition services, including clean up and scrap removal and delivery of materials to construction sites. They received only straight time pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in individual work weeks and did not receive an overtime premium for overtime eligible hours worked over 40 in individual work weeks, asserts the complaint. They claim to be improperly deducted business expenses without receiving proper and contemporaneous authorizations. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 853-1450 Fax: (312) 853-1459 REKOR SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in Maryland -------------------------------------------------------- Sierra Jackson, writing for Reuters, reports that a license plate scanning technology company has been hit with a securities class action accusing it of making misleading statements about the business's potential for growth. In a complaint filed in federal court in Maryland, investor Robert Keith Miller, said the company and its executives had "overstated" Rekor's potential revenues, profitability and overall business prospects for its license plate recognition software. Rekor Executive Vice President of Government Relations and Corporate Communications Charles Degliomini said in a statement on June 30 that "the company and defendants believe that the lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to defend it vigorously." Jeremy Lieberman and J. Alexander Hood II of Pomerantz, who represent Miller, did not immediately respond to requests to comment on June 30. Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, Rekor has a partnership with Oklahoma, which uses the company's technology to scan license plates and identify uninsured vehicles, according to the complaint. Rekor earns a cut of the fines levied upon uninsured drivers identified with its technology. Miller said the company "consistently touted" the value of the Oklahoma partnership and the company's stock price "ballooned" because of the perception the deal was a "stepping-stone to capturing similar deals with other municipalities." The company, however, failed to disclose that it was unlikely that other states would pass legislation greenlighting similar partnerships, Miller alleged. He claimed the company made positive statements in regulatory filings that the Oklahoma program would lead to partnerships with states like Tennessee, where legislation had been introduced that would allow the activity. But when media reports began circulating in May 2021 that the bill might be dead, Rekor's stock fell 40.45% within two days, according to the complaint. Miller also cited research reports that alleged competitors controlled more of the market than Rekor and that the Oklahoma program wasn't as lucrative as the company said. The case is Miller v. Rekor Systems Inc et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, No. 1:21-cv-01604. For Miller: Jeremy Lieberman and J. Alexander Hood II of Pomerantz; and Steven Toll, Daniel Sommers and S. Douglas Bunch of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. Counsel information for Rekor was not immediately available. [GN] REKOR SYSTEMS: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 28 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of Rekor Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: REKR) securities between April 12, 2019 and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Miller v. Rekor Systems, Inc., No. 21-cv-01604, and is assigned to Judge George L. Russell III. The Rekor Systems class action lawsuit charges Rekor Systems and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Rekor Systems class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Rekor Systems class action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or contact J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Rekor Systems class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than August 28, 2021. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Rekor Systems was formerly known as Novume Solutions, Inc. and traded under the ticker symbol NVMM before changing its name to Rekor Systems, Inc. and its ticker symbol to REKR on April 30, 2019. The Rekor Systems class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Rekor System's automatic license plate recognition ("ALPR") technology and uninsured vehicle enforcement diversion ("UVED") related business is outclassed by global competitors with an established, dominant market share; (ii) it was unlikely that states would pass legislation authorizing deals similar to Rekor Systems' Oklahoma UVED partnership because of, among other things, state and local privacy laws and related public concerns; (iii) Rekor Systems' UVED partnership was not as profitable as defendants had led investors to believe because of known impediments to enrollment rates and costs associated with the partnership; (iv) accordingly, Rekor Systems had overstated its potential revenues, profitability, and overall ALPR- and UVED-related business prospects; and (v) as a result, Rekor Systems' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 10, 2021, a bill authorizing the establishment of a state UVED program was excluded from the Texas Legislature's Daily House Calendar and left pending in a state committee. Because May 10, 2021 was the deadline for the Texas UVED bill to move from the committee, news sources reported significant market speculation that the bill was dead. On this news, Rekor Systems' stock price fell nearly 28%. Then, on an earnings call that same day to discuss Rekor Systems' first quarter 2021 financial results, Rekor Systems' President and Chief Executive Officer, defendant Robert A. Berman, also indicated that Rekor Systems may not secure a UVED agreement with Texas. On this news, Rekor Systems' stock price fell nearly 18%. Finally, on May 26, 2021, private investor Western Edge published a report entitled "Rekor Systems: Lackluster Growth Runway And Exaggerated Insurance Scheme Raise Substantial Downside Risk." The report alleged, among other things, that global competition was "miles ahead" of Rekor Systems in ALPR development and market establishment; that Rekor Systems' "realized results suggest management's potential revenue guidance could be overstated by up to 80%"; and that investors were at risk of facing a "massive downside if [Rekor Systems'] growth doesn't show up." The report also noted that Rekor Systems' predecessor in the Oklahoma UVED partnership had exited it because "the program is not economically feasible" given costs associated with the program and because "there was typically no consequences for individuals that simply ignored the fines/insurance requirements after they were identified." Also on May 26, 2021, Mariner Research Group published another report entitled "REKR – Government documents do not support investor expectations." The report "highlight[ed] government documentation which shows that REKR's revenue opportunities are likely a fraction of what investors expect." Among other things, the report alleged that "Oklahoma government budgets imply that REKR's much vaunted UVED program is a sub $2MM revenue opportunity – almost 96% less than the >$40MM in revenue intimated by Rekor's CEO." The report likewise echoed the issues disclosed in the Western Edge report, including, among other things, those that had caused Rekor's predecessor in the Oklahoma UVED partnership to exit the program. On this news, Rekor Systems' stock price fell an additional 3.9%, further damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Rekor Systems securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Rekor Systems class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Rekor Systems class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Rekor Systems class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Rekor Systems class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN] RIV PIZZA: Napier Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Delivery Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA NAPIER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. RIV PIZZA LLC d/b/a DOMINO'S and RUTBEL VENTURA, Case No. 1:21-cv-02650-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 1, 2021) is a a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by the Defendants at its Domino's stores. The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. Allegedly, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-2069 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com RLX TECHNOLOGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 9 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE: RLX) ("RLX") investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired RLX American Depository Shares ("ADSs") pursuant or traceable to RLX's January 2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"). Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired RLX ADSs pursuant or traceable to the IPO may, no later than August 9, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/rlx-technology-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rlx_technology RLX claims to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in China," which it also claims is its "largest potential market." On January 19, 2021, RLX filed its final amendment to a Form F-1 registration statement (the "Registration Statement"), which registered 133,975,000 RLX ADSs for public sale. On January 22, 2021, the defendants priced the IPO at $12 per ADS and filed the final prospectus for the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement. Through the IPO, the defendants issued and sold approximately 116,500,000 RLX ADS, all pursuant to the Registration Statement, for gross proceeds of nearly $1.4 billion. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement misrepresented and omitted, among other things, RLX's exposure to China's then-existing campaign to establish a national standard for e-cigarettes that would bring them into line with regular cigarette regulations. The truth was revealed when draft regulations were posted by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, before the market opened on March 22, 2021, eight weeks after RLX's IPO, which confirmed e-cigarettes and new tobacco products would be regulated similar to traditional tobacco offerings. Following this news, the price of RLX's shares suffered an enormous decline. On March 22, 2021, RLX's ADSs closed at $10.15 per ADS, down nearly 48% from its previous close of $19.46 per ADS on March 19, 2021, the previous trading day. Then, on June 2, 2021 RLX published its first quarter 2021 financial results, announcing only a 48% increase in net revenues quarter over quarter, and second quarter guidance suggesting that its gross margin would "remain steady." Following this news, RLX's shares declined, closing on June 4, 2021 at $9.90 per ADS, down nearly 9% from its June 3, 2021 close of $10.87 per ADS. Before the commencement of the lawsuit, RLX's shares traded as low as $7.89 per ADS, or more than 32% below the IPO price. RLX investors may, no later than August 9, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] ROCKET COMPANIES: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Aug. 28 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson Fistel, LLP on June 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT) Class A common. The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Rocket Companies between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 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 August 28, 2021. The Rocket Companies class action lawsuit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Rocket Companies class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary mortgage markets; (ii) Rocket Companies was engaged in a price war and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket Companies' Partner Network operating segment; (iii) the adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (iv) as a result, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket Companies to achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (v) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket Companies' company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below pre-pandemic averages; and (vi) consequently, defendants' positive statements about Rocket Companies' business operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On May 5, 2021, Rocket Companies reported that it was on track to achieve closed loan volume within a range of only $82.5 billion and $87.5 billion and gain on sale margins within a range of only 2.65% to 2.95% for the second quarter of 2021. At the mid-point, this gain on sale margin estimate equated to a 239 basis point decline year-over-year and a 94 basis point decline sequentially, which represented Rocket Companies' lowest quarterly gain on sale margin in two years. The stunning collapse in Rocket Companies' gain on sale margin reflected the fact that the favorable market conditions purportedly being experienced by Rocket Companies during the Class Period had, in fact reversed. During a conference call to explain the results, Rocket Companies' Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, defendant Julie R. Booth, revealed that the sharp decline in quarterly gain on sale margin was being caused by three factors: (i) pressure on loan pricing; (ii) a product mix shift to Rocket Companies' lower margin Partner Network segment; and (iii) a compression in price spreads between the primary and secondary mortgage markets. Defendant Booth also admitted that certain of these trends began "at the end of Q1." On this news, the price of Rocket Companies Class A common stock fell by nearly 17% to close at $19.01 per share. As the market continued to digest the news in the days that followed, the price of Rocket Companies Class A common stock continued to decline, falling to a low of just $16.48 per share by May 11, 2021. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Rocket Companies class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action case. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the Rocket Companies class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you are interested in learning more about the case, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. About Johnson Fistel, LLP Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA: McLaughlin Sues Over Unlawful Detention ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH MCLAUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, KYLE SMIT, ADAN OCHOA, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01118 (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of 42 U.S. Constitution, Section 1983, and California Civil Code including unlawful detention and arrest, unreasonable search and seizure, municipal liability, false arrest/false imprisonment, battery, and negligence. The case arises from the serious physical injuries sustained by the Plaintiff after he was shot by Defendants Smit and Ochoa in an open desert area in the County of Twentynine Palms on October 23, 2020. The Plaintiff was not armed with a weapon and posed no immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to any person during the shooting. Moreover, the Defendants did not timely summon medical care or permit medical personnel to treat him after he was shot. As a result of the shooting, the Plaintiff sustained life threatening injuries, spent approximately five days in the hospital, underwent surgery, and incurred financial loss, in addition to suffering pain, emotional and mental distress, humiliation, and disfigurement, says the suit. County of San Bernardino is a municipal corporation in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dale K. Galipo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO 21800 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 310 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 347-3333 Facsimile: (818) 347-4118 E-mail: dalekgalipo@yahoo.com SCRIPPS HEALTH: Matthews Sues Over Alleged Medical Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- GALE ANN MATTHEWS; MICHAEL MATTHEWS; ALMA UPHOFF; KEVIN UPHOFF; and SUSAN MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCRIPPS HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00027326-CU-MC-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 24, 2021) alleges violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the class are patients of the Defendant who received treatment at one of Defendant's hospital, satellite, or urgent care locations on or before April 29, 2021 and who received notices from Defendant that their information was compromised. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant negligently created, maintained, preserved, and stored the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' confidential medical information in a non-encrypted format onto a data server which became accessible to an unauthorized person who deployed malware and obtained copies of some of the documents on Defendant's system, without the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' prior written authorization. SCRIPPS HEALTH operates as a hospital. The Hospital provides audiology, behavioral health, cardiology, cosmetic surgery, and critical care. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 8033 Linda Vista Rd, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92111 Tel: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA: Heard Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHALONDOUS HEARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA, A JOINT VENTURE, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV18812, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 2, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05419 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay earned wages, failure to provide a safe and healthful employment, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide safe working conditions, failure to provide suitable seating, failure to reimburse for necessary business expenditures, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unfair competition. Skanska-Traylor-Shea is a construction company in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kenneth R. Pedroza, Esq. Joshua C. Traver, Esq. Amy E. Rankin, Esq. COLE PEDROZA LLP 2295 Huntington Drive San Marino, CA 91108 Telephone: (626) 431-2787 Facsimile: (626) 431-2788 E-mail: kpedroza@colepedroza.com jtraver@colepedroza.com arankin@colepedroza.com SOLER BROTHERS: Underpays Deli Employees, Cuello Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIDER CUELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLER BROTHERS DELI GROCERY CORP. ((D/B/A SOLER BROTHERS DELI) (A.K.A 2015 DELI FOOD)), CASTILLO SOLER, and GABRIEL SOLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05725 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated deli employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to pay them appropriate minimum wages, failing to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, failing to provide accurate wage statements, and making unlawful wage deductions. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook, cashier, sandwich maker, stock worker and cleaner at Soler Brothers Deli located at 2015 1st Avenue, New York, New York from May 2019 until June 9, 2021. Soler Brothers Deli Grocery Corp. is an owner and operator of a deli under the name Soler Brothers Deli, also known as 2015 Deli Food, located at 2015 1st Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com SPIRIT AIRLINES: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Garcia Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01065-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Website, https://www.spirit.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers like her, which is a direct violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendants' Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the suit says. Spirit Airlines, Inc. owns and operates airlines. The Company provides travel opportunities principally to and from South Florida, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Spirit Airlines offers travel insurance, onboard beverages and snacks, vacation packages, carry-on and checked baggage, online booking, and other services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com STERIGENICS US: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Vallejo Complaint Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEXANDER VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STERIGENICS U.S., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01788-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California: (i) denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state court; and (ii) grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike the Complaint. I. Background The Defendant is in the hazardous waste service industry, providing sterilization solutions. It employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Machine Operator from approximately January 2012 through January 2018. The Plaintiff originally filed the action in San Diego Superior Court, as Case No. 37-2020-00027438-CU-OE-CTL. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of "all current and former non-exempt employees of any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of the complaint up until the time that notice of the certified class action is provided to the class." The Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action against the Defendant: (1) failure to pay overtime (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 510, 1198); (2) unpaid meal period premiums (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7, 512, subd. (a)); (3) unpaid rest period premiums (Cal Lab. Code Section 226.7); (4) unpaid minimum wage violations (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194, 1197, 1197.1); (5) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201-203); (6) itemized wage statement penalties (Cal Lab. Code Section 226, subd. (a)); (7) failure to reimburse expenses (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 2800, 2802); and (8) violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. On Sept. 11, 2020, the Defendant timely removed the action. The Plaintiff filed the instant motion alleging the Complaint fails to meet the minimum amount-in-controversy necessary for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Defendant also filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike the Complaint. II. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand The parties dispute the "amount in controversy" element of CAFA jurisdiction. While the Plaintiff asserts that the amount in controversy is less than $5 million, the Defendant contends that the amount in controversy for CAFA jurisdiction is at least $7,731,414.41. 1. Plaintiff's Meal and Rest Break Claims (Second and Third Causes of Action) In order to determine whether the Defendant has shown that the Court has CAFA jurisdiction, Judge Battaglia needs to review the amount in controversy for each of the Plaintiff's claims. In sum, he finds that the Defendant's calculations as to the potential meal and rest period violations are thus based on actual employee data which shows that there are approximately 233 putative class members, and that each putative class member would have been eligible for meal periods and rest periods based on their regular schedule. Accordingly, its assumptions are appropriate, and Defendant has proven the meal and rest break premium amounts in the Plaintiff's meal and rest break claims are approximately $2,769,820.69 by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. Plaintiff's Overtime and Minimum Wage Claims (First and Fourth Causes of Action) The Defendant argues that the damages at issue with regard to the Plaintiff's overtime and minimum wage claims is around $2,057,704.79. The Plaintiff contends that the $2,057,704.79 amount for these claims is exorbitant. The Defendant's estimation is calculated as 27,141.80 workweeks x $30.62 (1.5 x $20.41 hourly rate) x 2.5 hours of off-the-clock work per workweek. At issue between the parties is the assumption that each employee worked at least 2.5 hours of unpaid overtime per week. Judge Battaglia finds that the Defendant has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the metric of 2.5 hours of unpaid overtime is a reasonable assumption. The $831,081.92 (27,141.80 workweeks x $30.62 [1.5 x $20.41] x 1 hour [of off-the-clock work per workweek]) is a more appropriate amount in controversy. Moreover, because the Plaintiff additionally seeks liquidated damages on the minimum wage claim, this amount should also factor into the amount in controversy analysis. At the very minimum, the Judge calculates liquidated damages as $315,523.43 (calculated as 27,141.80 workweeks x 1 hour per week of unpaid wages x $11.6253). 3. Wage Statement Penalties The Plaintiff seeks recovery based on the Defendant's alleged failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Defendant estimates that the amount in controversy for non-compliant wage statements is $433,500 as there were approximately 170 Putative Class Members employed during the 26 pay periods between Aug. 5, 2019 and Aug. 5, 2020. The Plaintiff concedes that the claims for non-compliant wage statements are barred by the one-year statute of limitations, and agrees to withdraw these claims as Plaintiff "never was entitled to recover that amount" thus "the suit cannot involve the necessary amount" for removal. But, Judge Battaglia holds that the Plaintiff is incorrect because the amount of controversy is tested at the time of removal, not as increased or decreased due to later events." Thus, the Plaintiff may not unilaterally decide to dismiss the claim at this stage in the hopes of reducing the amount in controversy. Because the Plaintiff does not otherwise dispute the reasonableness of the amount in damages for the wage statement claims, the Judge finds that the Defendant's estimate of $433,500 proper for the instant motion. 4. Plaintiff's Waiting Time Penalties Claim The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant "intentionally and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and the other Class Members who are no longer employed by the Defendants all of their wages, earned and unpaid, including but not limited to minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages, within 72 hours of their leaving the Defendants' employ. An employer's failure to timely pay wages owed pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 201 or 202 results in a penalty of the employee's wages for every day that it is late, up to a maximum of thirty days' wages. The Defendant approximates that the amount in controversy for waiting time penalties for failure to timely pay final wages should be calculated at a 100% violation rate for a total of $278,964 (63 former employees that were terminated within the class period × $18.45 average hourly rate × 8 hours/day × 30 days of waiting time). The Plaintiff takes issue with the 100% violation rate, arguing the Defendant's calculation is entirely speculative. However, as discussed, Judge Battaglia has concluded that the Defendant adequately supports violations of the California Labor Code for at least one hour of unpaid overtime per five-day work period, as well as at least five unpaid rest and one unpaid meal break. These reasonably assumed violations would support the waiting time penalties in the amount the Defendant calculates. Thus, the Defendant's estimate of $278,964 in waiting time penalties is proper. 5. Plaintiff's Unreimbursed Business Expenses Claim The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's calculation of $156,588 in unreimbursed business expenses is arbitrary and speculative. His claim for unreimbursed business expenses alleges that, throughout the time period, the Defendants failed to reimburse him and the Class for all necessary business-related expenses, including but not limited to the use of their personal cell phones and vehicles for work-related duties. Judge Battaglia finds that the contention that the Defendant's calculations are unsupported is wrong. Notwithstanding the Complaint's inclusion of other unreimbursed business expenses, he says the Defendant made assumptions based on only the allegation of unreimbursed cell phone bills. The Defendant assumed that each employee incurred cell phone expenses of $25 per month, or $300 per year. Based on the total putative class size of 233 employees and the total workweeks of 27,141.80, the Defendant calculated the amount-in-controversy to be about $156,588 for unreimbursed business expenses. This amount is not unreasonable and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence given that the Complaint alleges other expenses owed. 6. Attorney's Fees The Defendant asks the Court to use the percentage-of-recovery method to calculate the attorneys' fees in controversy at the rate of 25%. This amounts to $1,246,028.37. It applies attorneys' fees only to the following causes of action: (1) meal and rest periods; (2) overtime; and (3) business expenses. Judge Battaglia finds that the Defendant does not submit evidence to justify the proposed 25% rate for attorneys' fees in controversy. Rather, it argues that the 25% rate constitutes a reasonable assumption of attorneys' fees based on Ninth Circuit precedent as a matter of law. However, the Ninth Circuit has rejected calculation of attorneys' fees in controversy for purposes of CAFA at a 25% rate as a matter of law, and held instead that the defendant must prove the amount of attorneys' fees at stake by a preponderance of the evidence, noting that courts may not relieve the defendant of its evidentiary burden by adopting a per se rule for one element of the amount at stake in the underlying litigation." Although the Defendant provides very little to support a 25% fee calculation, the Judge can rely on his own knowledge of customary rates and his experience concerning reasonable and proper fees. Thus, he uses the amount of $939,372.65 as attorneys' fees. 7. Conclusion Based on all the reasons he provided, Judge Battaglia calculates the amount in controversy as follows: (i) Meal Period & Rest Period Premiums: $2,769,820.69; (ii) Unpaid Overtime (through Aug. 5, 2020): $831,081.92; (iii) Liquidated Damages: $315,523.43; (iv) Wage Statement Penalties: $433,500; (v) Waiting Time Penalties: $278,964; (vi) Unreimbursed Business Expenses: $156,588; (vii) Injunctive Relief: Not included; and (viii) Attorneys' Fees (25%) $939,372.65. The total is $5,724,850.69. As demonstrated, the Defendant has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied. III. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Having found that the Court has CAFA jurisdiction over the instant action, Judge Battaglia turns to the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike the Complaint. 1. Sufficiency of the Complaint The Defendants request dismissal of the Plaintiff's entire Complaint based on the failure to allege sufficient facts under Rule 12(b)(6). They contend that besides the dates of the Plaintiff's employment, his position title, and the fact that he was an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, no factual support exists in the Complaint. In reply, the Plaintiff argues that it has provided adequate factual support by pointing to the very allegations Defendant contends to be threadbare. Judge Battaglia holds that the Plaintiff fails to meet the minimum pleading requirements for each of the claims he asserts. He says in each claim, the Plaintiff follows the same pattern of stating various obligations California law imposes upon employers, and providing a legal conclusion that the Defendant violated those laws. In the employment class action context, courts have also repeatedly rejected similar allegations that simply "recite the statutory language setting forth the elements of the claim, and then slavishly repeat the statutory language as to the purported factual allegations." In light of these deficiencies, the Judge dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend. 2. Plaintiff's Sixth Claim for Relief is Time-Barred The Defendant argues the Plaintiff's sixth cause of action improperly seeks time-barred statutory penalties. The Plaintiff is requesting "the greater of his actual damages or an aggregate penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars" pursuant to Section 226(e). He does not dispute the untimeliness of his claim, and in fact concedes that his claim is time-barred in his motion to remand. As such, Judge Battaglia dismisses the Plaintiff's sixth claim for failure to provide accurate wage statements pursuant to Labor Code Section 226(a) without leave to amend. 3. Plaintiff's Fourth and Seventh Claims for Relief In his fourth cause of action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay minimum wages to him and the putative class members and demands statutory wage penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 1197.1. In his seventh cause of action, the Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code Section 2802 for unreimbursed business expenses. Claims seeking statutory penalties have a one-year statute of limitations. As California Labor Code Sections 1197.1 and 2802 provide for statutory penalties, and as the Plaintiff failed to bring his claims within the one-year statute of limitations, he is barred from seeking statutory penalties pursuant to Sections 1197.1 and 2802. These requests for penalties are stricken from the Complaint. 4. Plaintiff's Claims for Injunctive Relief Lastly, the Defendant asks the Court to either dismiss or strike the Plaintiff's injunctive relief request pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226(g) (relating to accurate and itemized wage statements) and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. ("UCL"). It argues that as its former employee, the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue for injunctive relief. Judge Battaglia holds that the Defendant is correct. The Supreme Court has held that "plaintiffs no longer employed by a defendant lack standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief against its employment practices," citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011); Milligan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 327 F. App'x 694, 696 (9th Cir. 2009). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has held in cases specifically arising under the UCL that injunctive relief is precluded as a matter of law for plaintiffs no longer employed by defendant companies, citing Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief under Labor Code Section 226(g) and the UCL is dismissed without leave to amend. IV. Conclusion For all the reasons he stated, Judge Battaglia denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand the action. He grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike. However, the Judge grants the Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint consistent with the Order. If he so chooses, the Plaintiff must file any Amended Complaint within 14 days of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bezuwmhw from Leagle.com. STEVENS TANKER: Hargrove Suit Asserts WARN Act Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Leonard Hargrove, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Stevens Tanker Division, LLC and Stevens Transport, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00606 (W.D. Tex., June 24, 2020), seeks compensation for all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rate and all unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days as result of a mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendants without the required statutory notification pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. Hargrove was previously employed in Defendants' facility located in Dallas, Texas as a dispatcher and was terminated on October 15, 2019. Stevens Tanker Division, LLC and Stevens Transport, Inc. operated an oilfield services company that transported sand to various oil wells. Hargrove claims to have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime pay. Defendants allegedly misclassified Hargrove as exempt from overtime and denied him pay at the rate of time and one half his regular rates of pay when he worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. On October 15, 2019, all employees were terminated without 60 days' advance notice. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. Jerry W. Mason, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com jmason@hftrialfirm.com TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Holdings Sues Over Amitiza Monopoly -------------------------------------------------------------- FWK HOLDINGS, LLC; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.; ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass., June 25, 2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in conspiracy to monopolize and to restrain trade in the U.S. market for Amitiza, an anti-constipation drug, and its generic equivalents. The Defendants' alleged illegal acts and conspiracy to delay generic competition for Amitiza caused the Plaintiffs and all members of the class to pay more than they would have paid for Amitiza absent this illegal conduct. If generic competitors had not been unlawfully prevented from entering the market earlier and competing in the relevant markets, direct purchasers, such as the Plaintiffs and members of the class, would have paid less for Amitiza by (i) paying lower prices for their remaining brand purchases of Amitiza, (ii) substituting purchases of less-expensive generic Amitiza for their purchases of more-expensive brand Amitiza, and/or (iii) purchasing generic Amitiza at lower prices sooner, says the suit. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED is engaged in research and development, manufacturing, sales and marketing, and import and export of pharmaceutical drugs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq. Jessica R. MacAuley, Esq. Bradley J. Vettraino, 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 jessicam@hbsslaw.com bradleyv@hbsslaw.com -and- Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. David P. Germaine, Esq. Eamon Kelly, Esq. John Bjork, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 55 W. Monroe Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com dgermaine@sperling-law.com ekelly@sperling-law.com jbjork@sperling-law.com -and- John D. Radice, Esq. Daniel Rubenstein, Esq. Natasha Fernandez-Silber, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 Facsimile: (609) 385-0745 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com nsilber@radicelawfirm.com TAR TIGER: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, Lyles Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- NORMAN LYLES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. TAR TIGER PIZZA, LLC and SEAN T. HEANEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00538 (M.D.N.C., June 29, 2021) alleges the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from June 2017 to December 2020 as a delivery driver. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has employed a flawed reimbursement policy which reimburses him and other similarly situated delivery drivers on a per-delivery basis that equates to below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation of their automobile expenses, which they incurred while delivering pizzas and other food items for the primary benefit of the Defendants. As a result of the Defendant's alleged systemic failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses, the Plaintiff and delivery drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the state and federal minimum wage requirements that constitutes a "kickback" to the Defendants. Tar Tiger Pizza, LLC owns and operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. Sean T. Heaney is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Modla, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR P.C. 115 Elk Ave. Rock Hill, SC 29730 Tel: (803) 328-0898 E-mail: jmodla@jasontaylor.com - and – Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul, St. #700 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com TARGET CORPORATION: Oil-Free Products Harmful, Sorkin Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADAM SORKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-03546 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2021) is a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Oil-Free Products against the Defendant for harm caused by the Defendant's deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct in the design, marketing, manufacturing, distribution, and/or sale of its Oil-Free Products. The labeling and packaging of the Oil-Free Products contains false and misleading "oil-free" claims (the Oil-Free Claims). This misleads consumers into believing that the Oil-Free Products contain no oil or oil-inclusive ingredients even though the Oil-Free products actually do include oil or oil-inclusive ingredients, the Plaintiff says. By doing so, Defendant is able to charge a substantial price premium for its Oil-Free Products on account of the false and misleading Oil-Free Claims. Oil-Free cosmetics are desired by consumers because "oil-free" products purportedly nourish and renew skin without clogging pores, causing breakouts, or making consumers' skin visibly oily. The Defendant has allegedly engage in widespread and deceptive advertising of the Oil-Free Products by claiming they are "oil-free." However, contrary to Defendant's representations, the Oil-Free Products do, in fact, contain oil. The Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass Members purchased Oil-Free Products designed, marketed manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendant as "oil-free." Further Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass Members relied to their detriment on Defendant's representation that the Oil-Free Product are "oil-free." Plaintiff and Class and Subclass Members would not have paid to purchase Defendant's Oil-Free Products - or would not have paid as much as they did to purchase them - had they known that they are not, in fact, "oil-free". Plaintiff and Class and Subclass Members thus suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendant's deceptive and false representations. Plaintiff Adam Sorkin is a citizen of Illinois, residing in Chicago, Illinois. In March 2020, Plaintiff Sorkin purchased Up & Up Oil-Free Facial Moisturizer for Sensitive Skin for his personal use for approximately $6.99 from Target in Chicago, Illinois. Target manufactures, sells, and/or distributes Up & Up-brand products, and is responsible for the advertising, marketing, trade dress, and packaging of the Oil-Free Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Ave. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com - and - Brittany S. Scott, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: bscott@bursor.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com TONY'S PIZZERIA: Improperly Pays Pizzeria Staff, Lopez Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ GONZALO HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TONY'S PIZZERIA OF NASSAU AVE CORP. (D/B/A TONY'S PIZZERIA) and ANTHONY SINNONA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03753 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours premium for all hours worked, failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Mr. Lopez was employed as a cook and kitchen helper at Tony's Pizzeria located at 175 Nassau Ave Brooklyn, New York from November 12, 2019 until April 11, 2021. Tony's Pizzeria of Nassau Ave Corp. is an owner and operator of a pizzeria under the name Tony's Pizzeria located at 175 Nassau Ave Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Fails to Pay for Auto Repairs, Foust Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA FOUST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORP., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-05414 (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly identify and pay for all of the vehicle parts and labor that should correctly be covered pursuant the California Emissions Warranty relating to model year 2011 through 2017 Lexus CT200h and model year 2007 through 2019 Toyota Prius Toyota PZEV vehicles. Specifically, the California Emissions Warranty requires that, for PZEV Vehicles, all defects in materials or workmanship that would cause the vehicle's on-board diagnostic malfunction indicator light to illuminate, all defects in materials or workmanship that would increase emissions, and all defects in materials or workmanship that would result in a vehicle not being able to pass a California smog check are warranted for 15 years or 150,000 miles, whichever occurs first. Toyota has violated the California Emissions Warranty by failing to cover the hybrid battery in the Class vehicles for 10 years or 150,000 miles, as expressly required by the regulations. Instead, Toyota covers the battery under warranty for only 8 years or 100,000 miles. As a result of Toyota's alleged conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have paid and are continuing to pay out-of-pocket for repairs that should be covered under the California Emissions Warranty. Toyota Motor Corp. is a multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Aichi, Japan. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corp. that oversees all operations of in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is a subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corp. that oversees all operations of in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: RAV4 Owners Sue Over Defective Car Battery -------------------------------------------------------- Paola Guevara, Lee Krukowski, Pamela Woodman, and Kris Huchteman, 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. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05136, (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2021), seeks actual damages, statutory minimum damages and equitable monetary relief, punitive damages, as allowable by law, any and all remedies provided pursuant to the state and federal consumer protection statutes, including any applicable statutory and civil penalties and pursuant to the state warranty statutes, including any applicable statutory and civil penalties, disgorgement of the ill-gotten profits, attorneys' fees and litigation costs, prejudgment and post-judgement interest on any amounts awarded and such other and further relief resulting from fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Plaintiffs allege that Toyota's 2013-2018 Toyota RAV4 vehicles equipped with a 12-Volt battery causes electrical shorts when the B+ terminal makes contact with the battery hold down frame, which may result in the sudden loss of electrical power, vehicle stalling and/or a fire originating in the engine compartment. Despite the common design and/or manufacturing defect in the batteries being a potentially life-threatening safety issue, Toyota has refused to recall or replace the defective batteries. Guevara owns a certified pre-owned 2018 Toyota RAV4. [BN] Plaintiff is 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 Email: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: rpaul@bm.net agertner@bm.net apark@bm.net - and - Greg Coleman, Esq. Ryan P. McMillan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 232-1315 Email: gcoleman@milberg.com rmcmillan@milberg.com TRADER JOE'S: Gierwatowski Suit Moved From Illinois to California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendant's Motion to Transfer the case, ROBERT GIERWATOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-1119 (N.D. Ill.). The case arises from the Defendant's almond granola cereal, which is marketed as containing vanilla and other natural flavors. The Plaintiff claims that the cereal actually contains artificial vanilla, not natural vanilla, and that the cereal's marketing is misleading. He alleges that the Defendant's labeling and marketing of the cereal violates the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and claims breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The case was filed after the Plaintiff's counsel filed similar class actions in California and New York challenging the Defendant's marketing of vanilla cereals. The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the two class actions in New York, but the California class action is still being litigated in the Northern District of California. The Defendant moves to transfer the case to California under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 and the first-filed rule. Analysis Judge Coleman opines that the Plaintiff's legal theories and claims are similar in both complaints. For example, both complaints include claims of breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The factual allegations in both complaints are almost identical. Both products are vanilla almond cereals that are marketed as containing vanilla and other natural flavors. Both complaints allege that the marketing reflects consumer preferences for natural vanilla but actually contain artificial flavors. As to the convenience factors, the Judge finds that the Defendant is headquartered in California, relevant witnesses are in California, and other evidence is in California. California is the location of material events, as the Defendant has posited that decision-making regarding the labeling and marketing of the product occurred in California. Neither party has discussed the location of non-party witnesses, so the Court places more weight to the location of the party witnesses. The named Plaintiff is in Illinois, but he seeks to represent classes from Wyoming, Iowa, and Indiana. Further, the overlap between the case and the California case demonstrate the convenience of transferring the case. As to fairness and the interest of justice, the Judge agrees with the Defendant that allowing both cases to proceed separately presents a risk of inconsistent outcomes and unfairly increases the burden on the federal court system. Given the location of the Defendant, it is more desirable to litigate this claim in California as opposed to Illinois. The Plaintiff claims that the product at issue (vanilla almond granola cereal) is distinct from the product at issue in California (vanilla almond clusters cereal), but both complaints stem from the same marketing and labeling tactics: That the product does not actually contain natural vanilla (or only contains trace amounts of natural vanilla) and the labeling and marketing misleads the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff also argues that the complaint is different because it is brought under Illinois law while the California complaint is brought under California law. Judge Coleman opines that this argument is unavailing because the Plaintiff's California complaint includes claims on behalf of an Oregon class. There is no reason the California court cannot evaluate claims on behalf of an Illinois class. Further, the Judge says the complaint is not just on behalf of Illinois plaintiffs; it is on behalf of Wyoming, Iowa, and Indiana plaintiffs as well. The Plaintiff additionally argues that the manufacturers of cereal are all headquartered in the Midwest, closer to Illinois than in California. But the Judge finds that the cereal manufacturers' locations did not stop the Plaintiff from bringing the California action then (which includes an Oregon class). Further, she says the Plaintiff's argument is speculative; he does not know what company manufactured the product. The totality of the factors points to California's stronger nexus to the relevant events. The Northern District of California is a more convenient forum and it would serve the interests of justice to transfer the case there. Because Judge Coleman finds transfer proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404, she does not address the arguments on the first-filed rule. Conclusion Judge Coleman, in her discretion, grants the Defendant's motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5h6yw5t8 from Leagle.com. TRAINCROFT INC: Concepcion Alleges Unpaid OT for Aircraft Mechanics ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN CONCEPCION, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRAINCROFT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-11100-NMG (D. Mass., July 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Mr. Concepcion was hired by the Defendant as an aircraft mechanic in Roswell, New Mexico from September 2020. Traincroft, Inc. is a logistics support company headquartered in Medford, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip J. Gordon, Esq. Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP 585 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 536-1800 Facsimile: (617) 536-1802 E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com khurley@gordonllp.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 – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com TRANSUNION LLC: Baker Donelson Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Eve Cann, Esq., Jonathan Green, Esq., and Kristine Roberts, Esq., of Baker Donelson, in an article for JDSupra, report that on June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling for businesses in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, validating TransUnion's standing challenge to class claims that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This decision will have far-reaching implications for litigants in cases involving consumer claims, privacy disputes, and data breaches, particularly in the class action context. The Court held that only those class members, including Sergio Ramirez himself, who demonstrated an injury-in-fact had standing under Article III to seek redress under the FCRA in federal court, summarizing its ruling as "[n]o concrete harm, no standing." The Court held that 6,332 of 8,185 class members lacked standing and thus had no viable claim that TransUnion failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of their credit files. The Court further held that all of the class members, save for Ramirez himself, lacked standing on their other claims related to formatting defects in mailings sent to them by TransUnion. The Court's 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, upended the Ninth Circuit's judgment in favor of Ramirez and the class, reversing same, and remanding the action for further consideration, including an invitation to revisit class certification altogether based on the Court's conclusion about standing. Background The lawsuit was not based upon traditional credit reporting activities. Rather, TransUnion had introduced an add-on product in 2002 called "OFAC Name Screen Alert," which was designed to run consumers' first and last names against the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control's list of "specially designated nationals" who threaten national security. If a company opted into this service, TransUnion would use a third-party vendor to run the consumer's first and last names against the OFAC list, and if a match was found, TransUnion would place an alert on the credit report indicating that the consumer was a "potential match" to a person on the OFAC list. No other data was used to compare the consumer and the OFAC list, and this process generated many false positives. In February 2012, Sergio Ramirez brought suit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of individuals similarly situated alleging violations of the FCRA. He asserted that in the process of purchasing a new car in February 2011, his credit was run, and the car dealer denied the sale after noting that his TransUnion credit report had been flagged with an OFAC Advisor Alert. Following that experience, Ramirez contacted TransUnion and requested a copy of his credit file. TransUnion sent him two mailings, the first listing everything except the OFAC alert in his file. That mailing included the statutorily required summary of rights prepared by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The second mailing was a letter alerting Ramirez that his name was considered a potential match to one on the OFAC list. This second mailing did not include the summary of rights. Ramirez asserted three violations of the FCRA against TransUnion: 1. through the Name Screen product, TransUnion failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of information in his credit file; 2. TransUnion failed to provide him with all the information in his credit file upon his request; and 3. TransUnion violated its obligation to provide him with a summary of rights with each written disclosure. He sought statutory and punitive damages. The case progressed to a jury trial. Importantly, the parties stipulated that the class included 8,185 members, including Ramirez, and that only 1,853 members of the class (including Ramirez) had their credit reports disseminated by TransUnion to potential creditors during the agreed-upon violation period from January through July 2011. Ramirez testified at trial about his own personal experience as to how he was harmed by the alleged violations of the FCRA committed by TransUnion, but no evidence about the experiences of other class members was presented. The jury returned a verdict for Ramirez and the class – including both statutory and punitive damages of more than $60 million. TransUnion appealed the verdict, challenging the class members' Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit Decision The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in relevant part, holding that all members of the class had Article III standing sufficient to recover damages on all three of the claims asserted and that Ramirez's claims satisfied the typicality requirement under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Ninth Circuit reduced the punitive damages award, which lessened the total judgment amount to about $40 million. The Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court of the U.S. granted TransUnion's petition for a writ of certiorari, confirming that the question presented for the Court's determination was whether all 8,185 class members had Article III standing as to all three of the claims asserted. The Court concluded that they did not. Judge Kavanagh's majority opinion relied heavily on the Court's prior decision in Spokeo v. Robins to conclude that injury-in-fact is required to establish Article III standing, reconfirming that such injury-in-fact requires harm that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. The Court took pains to outline its prior ruling in Spokeo in which it rejected the proposition that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and authorizes that person to sue to vindicate that right. The Court explained that "Congress's creation of a statutory prohibition or obligation and a cause of action does not relieve courts of their responsibility to independently decide whether a plaintiff has suffered a concrete harm under Article III." Absent the "concrete harm" requirement, Congress "could authorize virtually any citizen to bring a statutory damages suit against virtually any defendant who violated virtually any federal law." Such an expansive view of Article III, wrote the majority, "would flout constitutional text, history, and precedent." In addressing the standing of the 8,185 class members on their first cause of action – based on the claim that TransUnion failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy of its credit files, the Court differentiated between the allegations of the 1,853 class members whose reports were disseminated to third-party businesses and the 6,332 other members who claimed a "risk of reputational harm" based on a potential future publication. The Court determined that the mere existence of a misleading OFAC alert in a consumer's internal credit file did not constitute a concrete injury, and thus the 6,332 class members whose reports were not transmitted to third parties did not have Article III standing.1 The Court applied a similar analysis to the 8,185-member class as a whole on the other two claims asserted against TransUnion. Ultimately, the Court determined that Ramirez's testimony at trial about his personal experience at the car dealership and his subsequent request and receipt of his credit file from TransUnion in two separate, deficient mailings established his injury-in-fact, and thus conferred Article III standing upon him to bring the claims asserted and recover damages. However, the Court ruled, the remaining class members did not have standing, as they had not demonstrated that they suffered any concrete harm from the formatting and mailing violations, and thus could not recover any damages. Justice Thomas authored a scorching dissent, articulating his clear distress at the majority's conclusion that "courts alone have the power to sift and weigh harms to decide whether they merit the Federal Judiciary's attention." In Justice Thomas's words, "[n]ever before has this Court declared that legal injury is inherently insufficient to support standing. And never before has this Court declared that legislatures are constitutionally precluded from creating legal rights enforceable in federal court if those rights deviate too far from their common-law roots." Justice Thomas further notes that the majority decision effectively determined that TransUnion's actions were "so insignificant that the Constitution prohibits consumers from vindicating their rights in federal court," despite there being no constitutional support for such a finding. Justice Thomas pointed out in a footnote that TransUnion's victory here may be "pyrrhic," explaining that the Court's decision may lead plaintiffs to pursue their claims in state court instead of federal court, and state courts may become the "sole forum" for certain types of class actions. Justice Thomas also took TransUnion to task for failing to modify its "Name Screen" process after previously being sued for similar FCRA violations in 2005. Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion and also joined in a separate dissent by Justice Kagan, opining that "Congress is better suited than courts to determine when something causes a harm or risk of harm." The three liberal justices urged courts to "give deference to those congressional judgments" and only override them "when Congress could not reasonably have thought that a suit will contribute to compensating or preventing the harm at issue." It remains to be seen what will happen as the Ninth Circuit addresses Ramirez on remand, including whether that court will accept the Supreme Court's invitation to revisit class certification. Implications of the Supreme Court Decision This decision will have far-reaching implications for litigants in cases involving consumer claims, privacy disputes, and data breaches, particularly in the class action context. Indeed, the biggest impact is likely to be seen in challenges to standing made at every stage in the process for putative class actions filed in federal court for claims of violations of federal statutes, such as the FCRA and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Defendants will certainly focus on standing as a defense in such cases. Plaintiffs may file class actions in state court instead of federal court, because many states' standing doctrines differ from - and are looser than - the federal standard, rather than risking dismissal for lack of Article III standing. Those states with more lenient views of standing may see an increase in both single plaintiff litigation and class actions, as plaintiffs search for receptive jurisdictions to hear their claims. 1 In a footnote, the majority outlined an argument that the plaintiffs made for the first time before the Court – that the class members' information was "published" internally to TransUnion's own employees and its vendors who printed and sent the mailings. The Court confirmed that the argument was unavailing (and untimely). This "publication" argument and whether it confers Article III standing to bring claims under federal statutes (like FCRA, FDCPA, and TCPA) and in privacy and data breach cases demonstrates the courts' struggle to interpret Spokeo, and has often led to inconsistent results. For example, the defendant in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. has petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for rehearing en banc; that matter involves FDCPA violations based on publication of consumer debt information to a mailing vendor [GN] TRANSUNION LLC: Ballard Spahr Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel McKenna, Esq., and Christopher Willis, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in TransUnion, LLC. v. Ramirez that only class members who were concretely harmed by TransUnion's FCRA violation had Article III standing to seek damages. In the case, Sergio Ramirez, the named plaintiff, alleged that he suffered difficulty in obtaining credit and other harm after an automobile dealer received a credit report from TransUnion indicating that his name matched a name found on the list of terrorists and narcotics traffickers with whom U.S. companies may not transact business that is maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). He filed a class action complaint alleging that TransUnion violated the FCRA, including by failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of information in his credit file. Before trial, the parties stipulated that the class consisted of 8,185 members whose credit files contained misleading OFAC alerts and that only 1,853 members (including Mr. Ramirez) had their credit reports disseminated by TransUnion to potential creditors during the class period. The district court ruled that all 8,185 class members had Article III standing and following a trial, the jury awarded each class member $984.22 in statutory damages and an additional $6,353.08 in punitive damages for a total award of more than $60 million. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that all class members had Article III standing to recover damages for their FCRA claims but reduced the punitive damages to $3,936.88 per class member (thereby reducing the total award to approximately $40 million). In the opinion of the Court written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court first considered the Article III standing of the 1,853 class members whose reports were disseminated to third parties. The plaintiffs argued that their asserted intangible injury from being labeled a potential terrorist qualified as concrete harm under Spokeo because it bore a close relationship to harms traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts 00 namely, the reputational harm associated with the tort of defamation. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that "[w]e have no trouble concluding that the 1,853 class members suffered a concrete harm that qualifies as an injury in fact." In turning to the remaining 6,332 class members whose credit information was not provided by TransUnion to any potential creditors, the Court called them "a different story." It found that "the mere presence of an inaccuracy in an internal credit file, if it is not disclosed to a third party, causes no concrete harm." In the Court's view, "the plaintiffs' harm is roughly the same, legally speaking, as if someone wrote a defamatory letter and then stored it in her desk drawer. A letter that is not sent does not harm anyone, no matter how insulting the letter is. So too here." The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to satisfy Spokeo's concrete harm requirement through the assertion that they suffered a material risk of future harm. While acknowledging that a plaintiff exposed to a risk of future harm can pursue forward-looking injunctive relief, the Court distinguished a plaintiff's standing to seek injunctive relief from the plaintiff's standing to seek retrospective damages. It found the plaintiffs' argument for standing for their damages claim based on an asserted risk of future harm to be unavailing because they had not demonstrated that the risk of future harm materialized or presented evidence that the class members were independently harmed by their exposure to the risk itself (e.g. that they suffered an emotional injury from the mere risk their credit reports would be provided to third parties.) The Court also found that "even apart from this fundamental problem with their argument based on the risk of future harm," the plaintiffs had not factually established a sufficient risk of future harm to support standing. More specifically, they had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood that their individual credit information would be requested by third parties and provided by TransUnion during the relevant period or that TransUnion would intentionally or accidentally release their information to third parties. In addition, the Court noted that the plaintiffs had not presented evidence that the 6,332 class members even knew the OFAC alerts were in their credit files and observed that "[i]t is difficult to see how a risk of future harm could supply the basis for a plaintiff's standing when the plaintiff did not even know that there was a risk of future harm." In addition to the "failure to follow reasonable procedures" FCRA claim, the complaint alleged that TransUnion violated the FCRA by failing to provide the plaintiffs with all of the information in their credit files upon request and by failing to provide them with a summary of rights. In their disclosure claim, the plaintiffs alleged that TransUnion sent them copies of their credit files that omitted the OFAC information and then sent the OFAC information in a second mailing. In their summary of rights claim, the plaintiffs alleged that TransUnion should have included another summary of rights in the second mailing with the OFAC information. The Court found that only Mr. Ramirez had suffered a concrete harm sufficient to provide Article III standing to assert these claims. According to the Court, the plaintiffs had not demonstrated they suffered any harm at all from these violations, having presented no evidence that a single class member other than Mr. Ramirez had "so much as opened the dual mailings" or that they would have tried to correct their credit files if they had been sent the information in the proper format. (emphasis included). The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that in light of its conclusion about Article III standing, "we need not decide whether Mr. Ramirez's claims were typical of the claims of the class under Rue 23." It stated that on remand, "the Ninth Circuit may consider in the first instance whether class certification is appropriate in light of our conclusion about standing." In a surprising twist, Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion which was joined by the Court's three liberal justices. Justice Thomas wrote that the majority's decision "might actually be a pyrrhic victory for TransUnion" because "[t]he Court does not prohibit Congress from creating statutory rights for consumers; it simply holds that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear some of these cases." He made the observation that "[this] combination may leave state courts -- which 'are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability even when they address issues of federal law,' -- as the sole forum for such cases, with defendants unable to seek removal to federal court." (citations omitted). According to Justice Thomas, "[b]y declaring that federal courts lack jurisdiction, the Court has thus ensured that state courts will exercise exclusive jurisdiction over these sorts of class actions." [GN] TRANSUNION LLC: Fisher Phillips Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Fanning, Esq., and Kevin Simon, Esq., of Fisher Phillips, in an article for JDSupra, report that the U.S. Supreme Court just gave employers and businesses a powerful tool to fight back against those class actions seeking monetary damages where class members only experienced technical statutory violations. By a 5-to-4 vote in TransUnion v. Ramirez, the Court substantially reduced a $40 million class action jury verdict by eliminating three quarters of the class. The Court ruled that individuals who suffered purely technical violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act's (FCRA) procedural and notice provisions with no actual disclosures to third parties or other evidence of harm do not have standing to pursue FCRA claims despite the availability of statutory damages. What can you take away from the June 25 ruling to assist in defending class actions that threaten your business? Rare Class Jury Trial Involving Atypical Class Representative Prompts SCOTUS Review On Multiple Damages Class Issues This case caught the attention of businesses across the country after a Northern District of California jury awarded $40 million to 8,184 absent class members in a FCRA lawsuit based on the experiences of a single class representative. This was only one of a handful of occasions where a class action actually proceeded to a jury trial and reached a verdict, as opposed to dismissal or settlement, and presented a number of important issues involving standing and typicality. The Facts - Nightmare at the Car Dealership The case arose from class representative Sergio Ramirez's experiences at a car dealership in February 2011. Mr. Ramirez went to the dealership with his wife and father-in-law to buy a new car. After negotiating the terms of the deal, the dealership ran a credit check on Mr. Ramirez and his wife. The credit report contained an alert stating that Mr. Ramirez's name matched the names of two individuals on the Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) list of individuals to whom businesses in the United States are not permitted to transact business due to terrorism, drug trafficking, national security, or foreign policy related reasons. Although Mr. Ramirez's middle initial and date of birth did not match the individuals listed in the report, the dealership refused to sell the vehicle to Mr. Ramirez and ultimately only agreed to sell it to his spouse. Mr. Ramirez testified that this caused him significant embarrassment, shock, and fear, such that he even cancelled an impending vacation to Mexico out of concern over the alert and his name appearing on the OFAC's list. After learning of the alert, Mr. Ramirez testified that he contacted TransUnion, the company that supplied the credit report. Mr. Ramirez claimed that TransUnion told him over the phone that there was no alert on his credit report. To verify this, Mr. Ramirez requested a copy of his credit report. In response, TransUnion sent Mr. Ramirez two separate mailings. The first mailing enclosed a copy of his credit report (without the OFAC alert) and including the FCRA's mandatory "Summary of Rights" form. The second letter explained that Mr. Ramirez's name potentially matched a name on the OFAC's database and provided information about the OFAC list but did not include the "Summary of Rights" form. Nevertheless, Mr. Ramirez followed up with TransUnion and the company removed the alert such that it would not appear in any future disclosures. The District Court Proceedings and Trial Mr. Ramirez filed a putative class action in February of 2012 against TransUnion claiming that it violated the FCRA by failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure that the accuracy of the OFAC alerts to avoid false-positives, disclose to the class members their entire credit reports, and provide a summary of FCRA rights enclosed with the OFAC alert correspondence to class members. The District Court ultimately certified a class that included all individuals to whom TransUnion sent the letter stating that their name was a potential match to one on the OFAC list. This included individuals who received their own credit information at home but never had their reports sent to any third parties. Specifically, out of the 8,184 class members, less than 25% (1,852) actually had a report disseminated to someone other than themselves. Additionally, no evidence was introduced that any class members besides Mr. Ramirez was ever hindered in obtaining credit. During the trial, the jury only heard Mr. Ramirez's story. Based on Mr. Ramirez's account, it found that TransUnion's policies violated the FCRA. Under the FCRA, each plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages between $100 and $1,000. Here, the jury awarded each class member $984.22 in statutory damages (nearly the maximum) and $6,353.08 in punitive damages. This resulted in a total verdict of $60 million. The Appeal TransUnion appealed the verdict as well as the District Court's Rule 23 class certification decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing, among other things, that the class should not have been certified. It contended that, because Mr. Ramirez's damages claim was not typical of the class, the absent class members did not have standing as they did not suffer any concrete injuries. TransUnion also argued that the punitive damages award was too high. While the 9th Circuit reduced the punitive damages award $3,936.88 per class member, it held that the differences between the injuries suffered by Mr. Ramirez and the class did not defeat the Rule 23 typicality requirement because the underlying theories of liability for the injuries were the same. The 9th Circuit further held that each class member had standing because the alleged FCRA violations presented a material risk of harm to the privacy and reputational interests of the class as the OFAC information could have been disclosed to a potential creditor at a moment's notice. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case on the limited issue of whether Article III of the Constitution or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits a damages class action when the majority of the class did not suffer an injury comparable to that of the class representative. The Upshot: Availability of Statutory Damages Alone Are Insufficient To Confer Standing The Supreme Court held that the vast majority of the absent class members did not introduce sufficient evidence of Article III standing. To have standing to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must have suffered some actual or threatened concrete (injury in fact) and particularized (personal) injury. The Court once again clarified that in a class action involving damages, each member of the class must demonstrate standing and, in turn, a concrete injury. In reaching this decision, the Court concluded that Congress's decision to make available a statutory damages remedy by itself fails to qualify as a concrete injury to confer standing. Rather, the Court reasoned that courts must be more vigilant in analyzing standing in such circumstances to ensure that plaintiffs are actually and concretely injured, rather than drawn into federal courts by the lure of statutory damages. Here, the Court held that that the class was overbroad as it included individuals who never had the OFAC alerts disclosed to third parties. The Court found that the lack of evidence of any concrete actual or imminent harm foreclosed the absent class members from recovering any damages. The Court explained that, "in cases such as these where allegedly inaccurate or misleading information sits in a company database, the plaintiffs' harm is roughly the same, legally speaking, as if someone wrote a defamatory letter and then stored it in her desk drawer. A letter that is not sent does not harm anyone, no matter an asserted risk of future harm." On the other hand, the Court concluded that the class members whose OFAC alerts were disclosed to third parties did suffer a concrete injury akin to reputational damage. Additionally, the Court concluded that none of the class members suffered any concrete injury just because TransUnion failed to enclose a summary of FCRA rights enclosed with the OFAC alert correspondence to class members, as it had contemporaneously provided the notice in a separate envelope along with the individual's credit report. As the Court noted, the class members did not introduce any evidence that they failed to receive any required information or even opened the envelopes. Ramirez v. TransUnion May Provide Needed Relief to Employers Facing Class Actions Involving Technical Statutory Violations The June 25 decision may have a broad potential impact for employers beyond potential FCRA claims. Indeed, the decision could impact employers facing class or multi-plaintiff actions in federal court involving privacy claims involving statutory damages (such as biometric time-clock laws), certain ADA accessibility claims, or other state or local statutory claims involving statutory damages. Employers and their lawyers should conduct such review of any such pending class claims in federal and even state court to assess the impact of Ramirez v. TransUnion and whether class de-certification is warranted and appropriate. [GN] TRANSUNION LLC: Husch Blackwell Attorney Discusses Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Kirsten Atanasoff, Esq., Scott Helfand, Esq., Michael Klebanov, Esq., and Natalia Kruse, Esq., of Husch Blackwell LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in reemphasizing the "concrete harm" requirement for Article III standing, the Supreme Court may have raised the hurdle to federal court but exposed defendants to more state court suits. On June 25, 2021, in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision, reemphasizing that a plaintiff must have concrete harm caused by a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in order to have Article III standing. As a result, the Supreme Court dramatically narrowed the scope of the plaintiff's class action. The case is a big win for the defendant (TransUnion), but may pose problems for other class-action defendants seeking to avoid state court. As noted in the opinion, Article III limits the federal judicial power to the resolution of "Cases" and "Controversies" in which a plaintiff has a "personal stake." In order to have Article III standing to bring a lawsuit in federal court, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that the plaintiff suffered concrete injury. As Justice Kavanaugh succinctly stated in his opinion for the Court: "No concrete harm, no standing." Under Article III, an injury in law under a statute -- i.e., a statutory violation -- is not in and of itself necessarily an injury in fact. The FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq., regulates, among others, consumer reporting agencies that compile and disseminate information about consumers. And FCRA provides a cause of action for consumers to sue credit reporting agencies and recover damages for certain violations, including violations related to inaccurate credit-reporting. Section 1681n(a). TransUnion is one of the "Big Three" credit reporting agencies. In Ramirez, a class of 8,185 individuals, allegedly incorrectly labeled as potential terrorists in their credit files, sued TransUnion, claiming that it failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of their credit files. The class members also complained about "formatting defects" in mailings sent to them by TransUnion. At trial, each class member was awarded $984.22 in statutory damages plus $6,353.08 in punitive damages, totaling around $60 million. For the vast majority of these class members -- over 75% -- their credit files bearing the potential-terrorist alert were never disseminated to any third party during the relevant time period. The question in Ramirez focused on the Article III requirement that a plaintiff's injury be "concrete." For 1,853 of the class members, TransUnion provided misleading credit reports to third-party businesses. The Court found that those 1,853 class members demonstrated concrete reputational harm, and, therefore, they have Article III standing to sue on the reasonable-procedures FCRA claim. In finding that these class members had standing, the Court agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that their injury bears a "close relationship" to the reputational harm associated with the tort of defamation, a harm historically recognized as a basis for a lawsuit in federal court. Thus, the Court had "no trouble concluding that the 1,853 class members suffered a concrete harm that qualifies as an injury in fact." The credit files of the other 6,332 class members also contained the alleged misleading alerts, but TransUnion did not provide those plaintiffs' credit information to any third parties during the relevant time period. The Supreme Court noted that the existence of inaccurate information, without dissemination, traditionally does not provide grounds for a lawsuit in federal court. Consistent with this principle, the Court concluded that those 6,332 class members could not demonstrate that the misleading information in the credit files itself establishes concrete harm. For this reason, the Court held that those 6,332 class members lack Article III standing to sue on the reasonable-procedures claim. The plaintiffs also argued standing based on their exposure to the risk that the misleading information would be disseminated in the future. The Court was not persuaded by this argument, finding that risk of future harm -- without any other accompanying harm -- is insufficient to establish standing for a damages claim. As to the "formatting errors" claim, the Court found that none of the class members had shown concrete injury. Thus, none of them had standing on that claim. At the same time, though, the Court assumed that the named Plaintiff had standing to raise the formatting issue. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. In his dissent, Justice Thomas concluded that even the class members whose reports were not disseminated to third parties still suffered harm, stating, "TransUnion's misconduct here is exactly the sort of thing that has long merited legal redress." Justice Kagan also dissented separately, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. In so doing, Justice Kagan emphasized her disagreement with the majority's conclusion that the majority of class members had only "speculative" harm. The Court's ruling is important for consumer-facing businesses defending against lawsuits predicated on federal statutory claims. It reaffirmed and strengthened the Court's previous warning in Spokeo v. Robins five years ago that statutory violations, without a concrete injury, do not create standing. What this means to you While the Court's ruling dramatically narrows TransUnion's exposure in this case, there is a dark shadow here. Plaintiffs remain free to pursue these claims in state court, and state courts (especially in consumer-friendly states) tend to have less strict-standing requirements. So -- like the Court's decision in Spokeo -- this case may result in businesses facing more class actions in state court alleging violations of federal law. Because many state courts are consumer friendly on both the merits and the ability of plaintiffs to get a class certified, Ramirez might come to haunt businesses and their advocates. [GN] TRANSUNION LLC: Saul Ewing Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- Ryan L. DiClemente, Esq., Casey Grabenstein, Esq., and James Morsch, Esq., of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its decision in the closely watched class action case, Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, No. 20-297. The Court's 5 to 4 decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, promises to have long-reaching implications for class action practice. Defense counsel undoubtedly will be citing the Court's decision and the phrase Justice Kavanaugh used at the beginning and end of his analysis - "[n]o concrete harm, no standing" - in a wide variety of class certification-related proceedings. Plaintiff's class action lawyers likely will scramble to limit the Court's holding, arguing that it should be confined to class actions based on violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). This article examines the potential, long-term implications of Ramirez. First, a little background on the case. Plaintiff Sergio Ramirez was shocked to learn when he applied for financing to buy a car that his name had been flagged by TransUnion as an individual on the United States government's list of Specially Designated Nationals ("SDN"). The SDN list consists of individuals "who threaten America's national security." The car dealer told Ramirez that he was precluded from extending him credit in light of that information. Worse, the dealer told Ramirez of his SDN designation on his TransUnion credit report in front of his wife and father-in-law, allegedly causing him great embarrassment. After Ramirez complained, TransUnion sent him a copy of his credit report, which did not list him as a SDN but then followed up in a separate letter the next day saying he was a potential match and, in violation of FCRA, not setting forth his rights. Ramirez sued TransUnion on behalf of himself and approximately 8,200 other consumers who also were wrongly designated as SDNs in their credit files. The trial court certified a damages class despite evidence in the record that only 1,853 of the class members actually had their SDN designations sent to a party outside of TransUnion. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict of $60 million against TransUnion, which included statutory damages for violations of FCRA and punitive damages. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1, decision, affirmed the trial court's certification of the class under FRCP 23(b) and the award of statutory damages but reduced the punitive damages award. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit held that, in order to obtain damages, the class had to demonstrate that each member of the certified class has Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit found that the class had met this burden at trial through evidence that TransUnion had violated each class member's rights under FCRA by sending out non-compliant notices to each class member about their SDN designations. The Ninth Circuit found these statutory violations were, in and of themselves, sufficient to show "concrete injury" and that the class was not required to prove each of the class member's credit reports were actually sent to third parties in order to satisfy Article III's standing requirement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the class certified above was too broad and that the approximately 6,300 members of the class whose credit reports were never shared with anyone outside of TransUnion lacked Article III standing to participate in the case. Quoting Judge Tatel from the D.C. Circuit, Justice Kavanaugh framed the question this way: "if inaccurate information falls into 'a consumer's credit file, does it make a sound?'" The majority answered the question "no." According the Court, "[t]he mere presence of an inaccuracy in an internal credit file, if it is not disclosed to a third party, causes no concrete harm." The Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they had standing because they may suffer a "future harm," because the plaintiffs sought to certify a damages action (and not a claim for injunctive relief) and because the plaintiffs failed to present any evidence demonstrating a substantial likelihood of future disclosure to third parties. The Supreme Court held that every member of the class must have individual standing, which must be maintained through all stages of the litigation. In dissent, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's decision steps on the toes of the legislature since the Court "has relieved the legislature of its power to create and define rights." The Supreme Court nonetheless vacated the verdict and remanded Ramirez with instructions that the trial court revisit its class certification decision in light of its holding. Ramirez will be viewed as a watershed event for class action defense lawyers. Plaintiff's lawyers will wrestle to limit the impact of the ruling, arguing that the case presents nothing new or novel and that a statutory injury should be enough in most cases to satisfy Article III at the class certification stage. The question is how far will trial and lower appellate courts take the Supreme Court's holding. The authors[1] believe the decision will have far-reaching implications and not just for FCRA and related privacy case cases. Here are some potential implications: Many class actions involve evidence of purported violations of federal or state statutes or regulations but are weak on the injury sustained by class members as a result of those violations. Since the merits of those alleged violations are typically adjudicated on summary judgment after the trial court has ruled on a motion to certify a class, class plaintiffs' allegations that the defendant violated the law usually are presumed accurate at class certification. The name plaintiff(s) will therefore hit that issue hard in their motion papers and argue that a statutory violation is the equivalent of evidence of statutory injury and statutory injury is the same as actual injury needed for Article III purposes. Usually, class counsel will select a name plaintiff like Sergio Ramirez who can show some form of concrete injury (even if it is difficult to quantify the damages from a statutory violation like publication of erroneous or private information). The defendant will attack those argument, as TransUnion did in Ramirez, by showing that certain members of the class suffered no concrete injury or that the name plaintiff(s) injuries are atypical of the class. In the aftermath of Ramirez, we predict that trial courts will be more amenable to putting the class to the task of showing actual injury to all persons within the proposed class definition at the class certification stage instead of just deferring that issue to the damages stage of the case or assuming that evidence of a statutory violation presumptively means all members of the class have been injured. Ramirez also could give greater momentum to defense arguments that a class should not be certified because the class cannot come up with a common methodology for determining whether each class member suffered a concrete injury from the defendant's purported statutory violations. In many class actions, a defendant's records, or more importantly data, does not track information that would show that members of the class have suffered concrete injury. Class counsel, accordingly, will have to develop a common methodology for determining whether each class member suffered a concrete injury as a result of the defendant's conduct that is dependent on something other than information from the defendant. That could be challenging in many cases and lead trial courts to certify fewer damage class actions in light of the rigorous requirements of FRCP 23(b)(3). Take for example Sergio Ramirez's case. The most concrete injuries he suffered were (1) the denial of credit by his car dealer and (2) the embarrassment he experienced in front of his family when told he is a SDN. That evidence was particular to Ramirez and not in TransUnion's possession. To prove other class member's suffered similar injuries to meet Article III's standing requirement, the class presumably would have to go to each individual class member but, doing so, would only underscore that individual issues of proof predominate over common issues, or that a class action is not a superior or manageable method of resolving disputes compared to individual litigation or alternative dispute resolution. Finally, we believe Ramirez will have implications beyond the FCRA. Defense attorneys will seek to apply Ramirez to a wide variety of cases involving statutory penalties, including those filed under the FCRA, TCPA, and other statutes, including possibly the ever-expanding mountain of lawsuits filed under state biometric statutes. For example, if a statute requires a company to utilize a certain methodology or to make certain disclosures to consumers, does it necessarily follow that a company's failure to do that injured each class member? If the defendant's improper methodology did not cause members of the putative class to be paid less than they were owed, for example, it is difficult to see how the class can establish Article III for those class members. The decision will also have implications in common law cases. For example, if the class member never read the defendant's improper or inadequate disclosure of certain mandated information, how was the class member injured by the defendants' conduct? If the class's claim is based on a misrepresentation or fraud theory, the class will be hard pressed to show how class members that never read, and therefore never relied on, the defendant's improper disclosures were harmed at all by them. Only time will tell the true implications of Ramirez. Undoubtedly, the phrase "[n]o concrete harm, no standing" will become a mantra for defense counsel. And the plaintiff's class action bar, with its resources and creativity, will no doubt have an influence on how the requirement of proving Article III standing at the class certification stages of a case is interpreted by the courts. It promises to be a wild ride. 1. The authors are partners at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP where they focus on class actions affecting clients in a variety of industries, from insurance and financial services to higher education, food and beverage and manufacturing. The views expressed in this article are personal to the authors and do not reflect the views of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP or its clients. [GN] TURO INC: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website -------------------------------------------------- Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Turo Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-05544, (S.D. N.Y., June 24, 2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is a car-sharing company, and owns and operates the website, www.turo.com, that allows consumers to browse cars for purchase and delivery, view FAQs, obtain defendant's contact information, and related goods and services available online. Pascual is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: Joseph@cml.legal TWO RIVERS: Dismissed from Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Two Rivers Water and Farming Co., the company that operates a bankrupt marijuana greenhouse leasing business, was dismissed from a proposed shareholder class action on June 29 after the judge agreed with its investors that the company was blocking them from moving forward with a settlement. [GN] UNILEVER PLC: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Dove Products' Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq., Jennifer Yang, Esq., and Anisha Shenai-Khatkhate, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a class action alleging that Unilever's differential pricing of men's and women's antiperspirants violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). In doing so, the Court found plaintiff's claims wrongly equated marketing targeted to women with point-of-sale price discrimination by gender (i.e. charging a different price for the same product based on the gender of the purchaser, at the time and place where the retail transaction is completed). Schulte v. Conopco, Case No. 20-2696 (8th Cir. May 18, 2021). Dove "Men + Care" is an antiperspirant line primarily marketed to men, with five different scents. A differently branded product, Dove "Advanced Care," is marketed primarily to women. Dove Advanced Care is offered in a range of fifteen different scents – all of which are different from the scents available with the Men + Care product. The two lines have distinct packaging and labels, and are often priced differently. Plaintiff alleged she purchased an Advanced Care antiperspirant stick from each of the six defendant retailers, and paid a premium of up to $1.00 per stick. According to plaintiff, this price differential constituted a "pink tax," which she claimed violated the MMPA's prohibition on "unfair practices." The district court dismissed the complaint, noting "[w]omen are able to purchase any of the Dove antiperspirants for the same price as men regardless of the scent or variety." 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126194 (E.D. Mo. 2020). On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Without reaching the question of whether the MMPA does, in fact, prohibit gender discrimination in pricing, the Eighth Circuit found plaintiff incorrectly equated gender-based marketing with gender discrimination. According to the Court, to plausibly allege gender discrimination, plaintiff needed to plausibly allege that the only difference between "Men + Care" and "Advanced Care" was the gender of the consumer. Noting the various other differences between the two lines (including differences in scents, packaging, and labels), the Court found plaintiff failed to do so. Instead, the Court determined these various differences make the different products potentially attractive to different customers with different preferences. The Eighth Circuit also emphasized the difference between marketing a product to appeal to a specific gender, and actually charging different point-of-sale pricing according to the consumer's gender. The Court found plaintiff's position incorrectly assumes that women must purchase products marketed to their gender, due to (in plaintiff's words) "social conditioning and societal expectations regarding what is ‘feminine' and ‘masculine.'" The Court noted that if plaintiff's primary concern was price, she was free to purchase the cheaper "Men + Care" antiperspirant line. Plaintiff chose not to because, as stated in her brief, she did not want to "smell like a man." Thus, the court concluded, plaintiff's grievance was that she did not want to pay extra for her preference. But preference-based pricing, the Court said, was not in and of itself "unfair." [GN] UNITED STATES: $12.6M Class Deal in Gallimore v. Census Bureau OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH GALLIMORE, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 11-715C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims approves the parties' final settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs in the case were certified as a class on Oct. 31, 2016, to include "all part-time Field Representatives and Senior Field Representatives employed by the United States Census Bureau -- from Oct. 28, 2005 to the present -- who performed nonovertime work on a Sunday and did not receive Sunday premium pay for that work under 5 U.S.C. Section 5546(a)." The settlement now before the Court is the agreement reached by the parties as to claims to recover Sunday premium pay brought by 3,487 members of the class, as alleged in the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, filed on July 2, 2019. On Dec. 18, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion in which they requested that the Court preliminarily approves the settlement agreement, approves the proposed notice of a fairness hearing, and conducts a fairness hearing to consider final approval of the agreement. The Court granted the motion on March 3, 2021, and notice was sent to the class members in accordance with the procedures approved by the Court. The Court conducted a fairness hearing on May 18, 2021. Subsequent to the fairness hearing, the Court granted the parties leave to file an addendum to the settlement agreement for purposes of ensuring that the final settlement amounts reflect the proper taxes due, as several of the class members' taxing jurisdictions had changed. The parties filed the final settlement agreement with addenda and attachments on May 25, 2021, and that final agreement is now before the Court. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay a total of $12,613,936.96, "minus any offsets required by law, to the Administrator for deposit in the Settlement Trust." That amount is divided as follows: 1) $12,018,087.72 (Back Pay to the end of March 2020 and interest through December 2020 inclusive of 30% attorney fees); 2) $78,865.23 (Class Counsel's costs and expenses); 3) $32,156. (Unpaid expenses of the Class Administrator); and 4) $484,828.01 (Employer's share of payroll taxes). After receiving the settlement amount, the class administrator will distribute the funds as follows: 1) $32,156.00 to be retained by the Class Administrator; 2) $6,221,518.93 to the Class Members, representing their net payments after reduction of attorney fees and estimated taxes as reflected in the Second Revised Attachment A; 3) $3,684,287.90 to the Class Counsel reflecting attorney fees of $3,605,422.67 (deducted from the Back Pay and Interest) and incurred expenses and costs of $78,865.23 (as agreed by the parties and included in the Settlement Agreement). The remainder of the settlement funds are the amounts to be withheld "for Class Members' estimated Federal, state and local taxes as reflected in the Second Revised Attachment A in an amount of "$2,191,146.12," and the "Defendant's contributions for OASDI and Medicare on the back pay which is to be remitted to the proper authorities by the Claims Administrator in an amount of $484,828.01." In exchange, the class members have agreed to release, waive, and abandon all claims against the United States, its political subdivisions, its officers, agents, and employees, arising out the complaint or otherwise involved in this case relating to Sunday premium pay, regardless of whether they were included in the complaint, including but not limited to any claims for costs, expenses, attorney fees, and damages of any sort related thereto. Upon receipt of the settlement funds, the class administrator will withhold all federal, state, and local income taxes owed by each class member, along with the Defendant's share of OASDI and Medicare contributions, and remit all withheld funds to the proper authorities. The class administrator will also provide the documentation of these actions to each class member. The class administrator will mail the proper amount and tax forms "to each Class Member at their last known address." The settlement agreement details the timing of these payments, and the protocol for managing undeliverable checks. Judge Campbell-Smith finds that the proposed settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and comports with the requirements of RCFC 23(e). As she stated at the hearing, based on the information provided to the Court in preparation for the hearing, including the settlement agreement, notices to the class members and notice of compliance indicating that the notice was communicated to class members, along with the presentations made today, the Judge is satisfied that the settlement is fair and appropriately accounts for the interests of all parties. As a final matter, Judge Campbell-Smith notes that the settlement agreement requires the parties to act within 15 days of the Court's final approval thereof. The date of the Order will be the date from which all such deadlines are calculated. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Campbell-Smith, pursuant to RCFC 23(e), approves the parties' final settlement agreement with addenda and attachments. The date of the Order, June 29, 2021, will be the date from which all deadlines included in the amended partial settlement agreement are calculated. Absent the filing of a joint motion for voluntary dismissal, by Aug. 6, 2021, the parties are directed to file a joint status report informing the court of whether any further proceedings are necessary before the case is closed. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3a7mzxts from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Epperson v. Foreign Ministry Endorsed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRIS EPPERSON, Plaintiff v. FOREIGN MINISTRY AFFAIRS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00785-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends that the matter be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to comply. Plaintiff Epperson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in the action. Currently, before the Court is the Plaintiff's complaint, filed on May 14, 2021. On May 21, 2021, a screening order issued finding that the Plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim and granting him leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. On June 14, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an unsigned document titled "Amended Complaint." The Plaintiff drafted his complaint, filed May 14, 2021, using the general complaint form provided by the Court. The caption of the complaint lists the "Foreign Ministry Affairs" located in Moscow, Russia, as the Defendant. The complaint lists as Defendants: "Putin Vladimir," George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and David Orsby. The Plaintiff has checked both federal question and diversity of citizenship as the basis of jurisdiction. In the section in which he is asked to indicate which of his federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated, the Plaintiff lists the following: Article III Constitution, Article I Constitution, First Amendment. In the section directed to the basis for diversity jurisdiction, he states that he is a citizen of the State of California, but he leaves blank the section of the complaint form requesting information regarding the defendants' states of citizenship. The statement of claim and relief sought sections of the complaint are also blank. The Plaintiff lists the amount in controversy as "100 million damages." The Civil Cover Sheet lists the Defendant as "Putin Vladimir Foreign Ministry Affairs Moscow" and states that the basis of jurisdiction is "U.S. Government Plaintiff," but identifies the Plaintiff as a citizen of California and the Defendant is a citizen or subject of a foreign country. The nature of suit is listed as "other civil rights." The origin of the proceeding is listed as multidistrict litigation. The cause of action is described as "Rule 11" and 50 U.S.C. Section 2251. The Plaintiff checks the box on the civil cover sheet indicating this is a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and lists the demand as $9 billion. I. Discussion Judge Oberto concludes that the Plaintiff filed a complaint that failed to state a cognizable claim in the action. She says the Plaintiff was provided with the legal standards that apply to his claims and provided with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. The Plaintiff has failed to comply with the May 21, 2021 order. A. Rule 8 Rule 8 requires that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Judge Oberto finds that the Plaintiff's complaint violates Rule 8 because it does not contain a short and plain statement of the claim demonstrating that he is entitled to relief. B. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act As noted, the Defendants named in the Complaint include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. It is unclear from the information contained in the Complaint whether this foreign entity would be subject to the Court's jurisdiction in the matter. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country. Under the FSIA, foreign states generally have immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts, subject to certain enumerated exceptions. Judge Oberto holds that the Complaint is devoid of any allegations that would enable the undersigned to determine whether any of the specific exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity would allow for the Complaint to move forward as to that Defendant. C. Plaintiff Cannot Maintain a Class Action The Plaintiff's civil cover sheet indicates that the complaint is a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Judge Oberto finds that the Plaintiff cannot bring a class action. She says the Plaintiff's privilege to appear in propria persona is a "privilege that is personal to him and he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself." The Plaintiff has provided no facts demonstrating that he is statutorily authorized to pursue a claim on behalf of a class. II. Unsigned Pleading The Plaintiff filed a document titled "Amended Complaint" on June 14, 2021. The document is unsigned. Judge Oberto holds that unsigned documents cannot be considered by the Court, and the amended complaint will be stricken from the record on that ground. Further, even if this document was considered, it would not suffice to state a claim in the action. The document does not identify any Defendants and there are no facts alleged that would cause the Court to reasonably infer that the Plaintiff was entitled to any relief in this action pursuant to the United States Code provision reproduced therein. III. Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim For the reasons discussed, Judge Oberto explains that the Plaintiff's complaint was screened and it was determined that he failed to state a cognizable claim. An order issued on May 21, 2021, and the Plaintiff was provided with thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. In the May 21, 2021 order, he was advised that if he failed to file an amended complaint, it would be recommended that this action be dismissed for the reasons stated in the order. More than 30 days have passed, the Plaintiff has not filed a rule-compliant amended complaint that cures the identified deficiencies, and his unsigned pleading does not indicate that he can allege any facts that would state a claim in the action. IV. Conclusion & Recommendation Accordingly, Judge Oberto recommends that the matter be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to comply. The Plaintiff's unsigned filing of June 14, 2021 is stricken from the record. These findings and recommendation are submitted to the district judge assigned to the action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within 30 days of service of this recommendation, the Plaintiff may file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C). The Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2021 Findings & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fv9h2rv from Leagle.com. VB3 LLC: Fails to Provide Kitchen Staff's OT Pay, Tello Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO TELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VB3, LLC; GIUSEPPE RUSSO; GARY LEFF; and RICKY LEFF, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-12956 (D.N.J., June 24, 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 Tello was employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff. VB3, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com VIRGIN GALACTIC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 27 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming July 27, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Virgin Galactic" or the "Company") (NYSE: SPCE) securities between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Virgin Galactic 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/virgin-galactic-holdings-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. On October 25, 2019, post-market, Virgin Galactic was formed by a business combination between Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. ("SCH"), a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), and the Company's then-private predecessor, after which SCH changed its name to "Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc." and its ticker symbol to "SPCE" (the "Business Combination"). On April 12, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued guidance advising that SPAC warrants, which are instruments that allow investors to buy additional shares at a fixed price, may need to be classified as liabilities rather than equity for many SPAC transactions, which had previously been accounted for as equity in these deals. On April 30, 2021, post-market, Virgin Galactic announced in a press release "that it has rescheduled the reporting of its financial results for the first quarter 2021 to following the close of the U.S. markets on Monday, May 10, 2021. Virgin Galactic will now host a conference call to discuss the results and provide a business update that day at 2:00 p.m., Pacific Time (5:00 p.m., Eastern Time). The Company is rescheduling its reporting due to the recent statement issued by the [SEC] on April 12, 2021 relating to the accounting treatment of warrants issued by special purpose acquisition companies (the 'SEC Statement')." The company further advised that "following its review of the SEC Statement and consulting with its advisors, the Company will restate its consolidated financial statements included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. The restatement is due solely to the accounting treatment for the warrants of Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. that were outstanding at the time of the Company's business combination on October 25, 2019. The Company expects to file the restated financials prior to the new conference call date and estimates that it will recognize incremental non-operating, non-cash expense for each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019." On this news, Virgin Galactic's stock price fell $2.01 per share, or 9.07%, to close at $20.14 per share on May 3, 2021. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) for accounting purposes, SCH's warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (2) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the Business Combination; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Virgin Galactic securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 27, 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] WAL-MART INC: Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Filing Set for Dec. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hellige, et al., v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00455 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order granting agreed motion for an extension of the discovery scheduling order. -- The Court adopts the parties' proposed schedule and extends the deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification through December 3, 2021. -- The Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion shall be filed by December 31, 2021. The Defendant, with Plaintiff's agreement, moves to extend discovery deadlines related to class certification. The parties do not seek to continue trial, which is currently set for June 2022, at this time. The nature of suit states contract product liability. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[CC] WATERMARK CONTRACTORS: Maloney Sues Over Carpenters' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH MALONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATERMARK CONTRACTORS INC., KEVIN MAHER, and HUGH HARRIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05727 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter and performed carpentry and other related construction work and services from approximately 2015 through early fall 2018. Watermark Contractors Inc. is a construction company with its principal place of business located at 612 Corporate Way, Suite 11, Valley Cottage, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Gallaway, Esq. Lee S. Shalov, Esq. Jason S. Giaimo, Esq. McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 E-mail: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com WELBILT INC: Misleads Stockholders to Approve a Proposed Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELBILT, INC., CYNTHIA M. EGNOTOVICH, DINO J. BIANCO, JOAN K. CHOW, JANICE L. FIELDS, BRIAN R. GAMACHE, ANDREW LANGHAM, and WILLIAM C. JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00984-UNA (D. Del., July 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance of a false and misleading registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in order for Welbilt's stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed merger between Welbilt and The Middleby Corporation. Specifically, the registration statement allegedly fails to provide stockholders with material information concerning: (a) Welbilt's and Middleby's financial projections and the financial analyses supporting the fairness opinion provided by the board's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley Securities, Inc.; and (b) the background of the proposed transaction. It is imperative that the material information omitted from the registration statement is disclosed to Welbilt's stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. Welbilt, Inc. is a company that designs and manufactures food products machinery, with its principal executive offices located at 2227 Welbilt Boulevard, New Port Richey, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. LONG LAW, LLC 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 729-9100 E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Must Face Driver Trainees' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line, reports that a Nebraska federal court has denied Werner Enterprises' bid to dismiss another wage lawsuit that claims it underpaid driver trainees. Earlier in June, Judge Brian Buescher of the U.S. District Court in Nebraska struck down Omaha, Neb.-based Werner's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit. In November, former trainee Cynthia Rogers filed the complaint, alleging the company violated both federal and state wage laws. Rogers began her trucking career by enrolling in Drivers Management's training school, which is owned by Werner. Typical of over-the-road trucking, trainees would essentially live in their trucks for a week at a time while trading off driving duties with their instructors. According to the complaint, trainees are "to be responsible for their assigned tractor-trailer ‘rigs' and the contents therein on a 24-hour basis." Plaintiffs argue that the only part of the 24 hours that is not compensable is the eight-hour rest period. Therefore, Werner was responsible for paying drivers for the remaining 16 hours, which it did not. However, since drivers were not allowed to "engage in private and personal pursuits of their own" during the eight-hour rest period, the lawsuit argues Werner is required to pay them for the full 24 hours of any given day out on the road. SevenOaks If this sounds familiar, that is because Werner faced a similar lawsuit not too long ago. In June 2020, a federal appeals court overturned a district court's ruling in Nebraska awarding former Werner trainees nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages. That lawsuit was litigated for nearly a decade. In its attempt to have Rogers' case dismissed, Werner argued that her and other trainees in the class action lawsuit are barred from bringing what are essentially the exact same claims. The legal principle of "res judicata" prevents any lawsuit from being heard again if a court has already settled the matter. However, that doctrine applies only to the same parties of the lawsuit. Rogers' argued the she was not a party to the former lawsuit. Judge Buescher stated in his order that "it is well settled that for a class action lawsuit for money damages to bind an absent class member, the member ‘must receive notice plus an opportunity to be heard and participate in the litigation.'" Werner does not claim that Rogers was provided with proper notice of the previous trainee class action lawsuit. In fact, Werner acknowledged that Rogers "did not work for Werner until after the judgment was entered." Furthermore, even if Rogers was qualified to be a member of the class, she would have had the opportunity to exclude herself to pursue her own lawsuit. For obvious reasons, she did not have that opportunity. "Given Rogers could have excluded her claims if she had been a member of the (previous) class, it makes little sense to this court that she should be precluded from making her claims now as someone who was not even employed by (Werner) at the time of the (previous) lawsuit." LL [GN] XPO LOGISTICS: Pruitt MHRA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANTHONY PRUITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XPO LOGISTICS FREIGHT, INC., Case No. 2022-CC10487, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on July 2, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00806 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged race discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. is an American transportation and contract logistics company, headquartered in Connecticut. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jack R. Wallace, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 750 Kansas City, MO 64108-4600 Telephone: (816) 472-6400 Facsimile: (816) 472-6401 E-mail: jwallace@constangy.com - and – Katie M. Rhoten, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 680 Craig Road, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 925-7270 Facsimile: (314) 665-1707 E-mail: krhoten@constangy.com YH RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Jin Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ LIAN HONG JIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YH RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a HAHM JI BACH, HAHM JI BACH CATERING SERVICES, INC. d/b/a JANCHI MYEONGA, and YOUNG HWAN KIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03666 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged intentional and willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed non-exempt employees (i.e. server, bartenders, hosts, busboys and kitchen workers, and cashiers), including the Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants from June 13, 2016 through May 12, 2021 as a server. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant applied for an invalid "tip credit" to pay her at a reduced minimum wage rate. Rather than the statutory minimum wage rate, she was paid for her hours of work at the rate of $6.00-10.00 per hours throughout her employment with the Defendants. In addition, the Defendants denied her of overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times the statutory minimum wage rate for the hours she worked in excess of 40 per workweek, and failed to pay her spread-of-hours pay when the length of her workday exceeded ten hours. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with wage statements with her hours worked and rates of pay at her every payday, and with a wage notice at the time of hiring and whenever her wage rates changed, says the suit. YH Restaurant Inc. owns and operates Hahm Ji Bach Korean bbq restaurant. Hahm Ji Bach Catering Services Inc owns and operates Janchi Myeonga catering restaurant. Young Hwan Kim is the President and the owner of Hahm ji Bach and Janchi Myeonga. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd., Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Tel: (718) 573-1111 E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com [*] BNPL Company Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed NSF Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Boro, Esq., of Perkins Coie, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a buy-now pay-later (BNPL) company, faces a proposed class action lawsuit in California federal district court related to undisclosed non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees the plaintiff incurred as a result of the BNPL company's automatic attempted debiting of the plaintiff's bank account. The plaintiff alleges that the potential for the resulting NSF and overdraft fees charged by the plaintiff's bank were not disclosed by the BNPL company in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law's prohibition against unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices. The complaint alleges that the BNPL company "prominently markets" itself as a service that allows users to pay for purchases at a later date with "no interest, no fees, and no hassle" when in reality there are "huge, undisclosed fees and interest" associated with using its service. According to the complaint, such undisclosed fees include NSF and overdraft fees, which the plaintiff alleges are a "likely and devastating" consequence of the BNPL company's service. The BNPL company's service allows customers to repay the balance of their purchases by making four payments over the course of six weeks. The plaintiff claims that she had no idea that small, automatic repayments could cause overdraft fees from her bank and that this risk was known to the BNPL company but omitted from its marketing. Although acknowledging that banks, not the BNPL company, assess such fees, the plaintiff alleges that the BNPL company "misrepresents (and omits facts about)" its service, thereby placing users "at extreme and undisclosed risk" of expensive bank fees. In the lead plaintiff's situation, the BNPL company had made a $15.47 deduction from the plaintiff's checking account as a partial repayment for one of plaintiff's purchases, causing a $35.00 overdraft fee. [GN] [*] DLA Attorney Discusses Class Action Challenges, Opportunities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome Doraisamy, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that while the market is becoming increasingly litigious, with new challenges and opportunities to contend with, being able to help clients in times of real need remains the one constant of such work, says one BigLaw partner. In conversation with Lawyers Weekly, DLA Piper partner Tricia Hobson -- who recently joined the firm from fellow global practice Norton Rose Fulbright -- reflected that she has been working in the class actions space for more than 17 years and she has "never seen such a dynamic environment" for such work. "Over the past 12-18 months we've seen a Parliamentary Inquiry, new requirements for funders to hold an AFSL license, contingency fees being allowed in Victoria and various law from commissions looking into the regime," she noted. Australia is definitely, she proclaimed, experiencing an "increasingly litigious culture". "That's not surprising, given our litigious history and the advancement of the class action regime and funders, but also with the shift in society to a very active voice on consumer protections, and environmental and governance issues," she explained. "Whilst the surge in class actions over the last 10 years was driven substantially against companies for continuous disclosure breaches, there's been a shift away more recently towards consumer based matters. We've also seen the big natural catastrophe cases like the Brisbane floods action which I acted in. "Looking to the future, big cyber breaches, broader leadership and governance challenges, and climate change implications are just a few areas where we are likely to see a big upswing in litigation against companies and directors." Issues and challenges In a market that is increasingly litigious, Ms Hobson feels that "there will be many challenges to face in the future" in terms of procedure, court attitudes and better equipped and aggressive opponents. "I think the biggest challenge is helping clients stay ahead of the curve. I have worked with boards, management and their insurers on lessons learned from companies in their same industry that have been subject to a class action," she surmised. "It's essential to keep on top of what the regulators are focusing on to help them take a look under their own hood. And of course, emerging risks are many and taking new forms: like cyber, climate change and even diversity and inclusion. Helping them understand and navigate these risks carefully is so important to avoid future actions." Privilege Another issue that will "influence the future of litigation in Australia", according to Herbert Smith Freehills partners Jason Betts and Christine Tran, is that the digital and social media ages are having serious implications for the volume and nature of documents needed to be disclosed in litigation. In response to this, Ms Hobson said that such concerns are not unique to class actions. "Aside from having to search for documents in more and more forums such as WhatsApp, Slack etc., the big issue is the causal way in which people use these platforms. The legal principles do not differentiate between platforms and it's important for clients to remember this," she outlined. "Having protocols in place with the basics such as limiting who privileged communications are sent to and ensuring that steps are taken not to waive privilege etc. that apply across platforms is critical." There have been a few relevant cases on privilege over the last 12 or so months, Ms Hobson pointed out, including multi-addressee emails, WhatsApp messages, Slack communications, which will likely be considered as separate communications, she said. "So, if an email or other communication seeking legal advice is sent to 10 recipients in a business and only one of the recipients is a lawyer, one of the recent cases has said that only the copy of the email that goes to the lawyer will be privileged unless the dominant purpose of the communication is to settle instructions to a lawyer," she advised. "If the dominant purpose is to obtain commercial views rather than legal advice, the communication will not be privileged. This is still an evolving area which may see many clients inadvertently caught out if they are not more aware and careful." Opportunities Elsewhere, opportunities for clients should be sought holistically, Ms Hobson mused. "At a fundamental level, it can be a sensible reform. I sit on the law committee of the AICD and they are doing great work in trying to bring permanent reform to the continuous disclosure laws to give greater certainty to companies and less fear of a class-action following each share price drop post a disclosure," she said. "Truly knowing and being involved in the class action ‘industry' is also important. Knowing the funders, knowing the insurers, knowing your opponents, and having good working relationships with all, helps you navigate difficult situations to your clients' benefit. It takes years to build up this experience and these relationships." Looking ahead When asked what she is excited about in the class actions space moving forward, Ms Hobson said that she is motivated to get out of bed in the morning by the same idea that has always inspired her: being able to support clients in their time of need. "Reputation is so often on the line in these cases and working with management and boards and their insurers to manage all interests and play an integral role to help them achieve a great outcome is very rewarding," she said. "Being in this trusted advisor role requires a career worth of experience to do really well. And although most matters settle, and most should, it is heartening to see some decisions coming through where defendants have had great wins. For a long time, this wasn't the case." [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces 1,021 PI Suits as of April 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- GMS Inc., as of April 30, 2021, is a defendant of approximately 1,021 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Of these lawsuits, 976 have been dismissed without any payment by us, 35 are pending and only 10 have been settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our financial condition or operating results. "The building materials industry has been subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated environmental, health or safety or other laws. Such product liability claims have included and may in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. In particular, certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed prior to 1979. We are exposed to product liability, warranty, casualty, construction defect, contract, tort, employment and other claims and legal proceedings related to our business, the products we distribute, the services we provide and services provided for us by third parties." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3AANDRy ********* 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 ***