/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210713.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 13, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 133 Headlines ABB LTD: Cedar Lane Tech Sues Over Imaging Patents ACELRX PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of August 9 Deadline ACELRX PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline ADKIN'S BLUE RIBBON: Migrant Workers Seek Minimum Wages AGROPEC TRADING: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMARIN PHARMA: Delays Drug Competition for Vascepa, Teamsters Says AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Business Practices AMAZON.COM INC: Healthcare Workers File Alexa Recording Class Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Smith Alleges Online Retail Channel Monopoly AMERICAN GENERAL: Faegre Drinker Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ANFIELD INTERIORS: Court Terminates Valerio Bid to Certify Class ANGLO AMERICAN: Faces Suit From Mine Employees Over Lead Poisoning ATERIAN INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action BARIATRIC HEALTH: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRITISH AIRWAYS: Settles Class Action Over 2018 Data Breach BROOKLYN, NY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unfair TPT Program BUCKY'S EXPRESS: Zimmer FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Groundwater Contamination in Shannon CANDID CARE: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CARLOTZ INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 7 Deadline CARLOTZ INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 6 Deadline CARLOTZ INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 7 Deadline CARLOTZ INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of September 7 Deadline CARLOTZ INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 7 Deadline CHARTER FOODS: Class Cert. Response Deadline Extended to July 26 CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline CRUM & FORSTER: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DEMET'S CANDY: Spurck Files Mislabeling Suit Over Pretzel Product DIDI GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 7 Deadline DIDI GLOBAL: Schall Law Reminds Investors of September 7 Deadline DIDI GLOBAL: Thornton Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline DIDI GLOBAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 7 Deadline DOWN & FEATHER: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EDEN ISLE: Appeals Amendment of Judgment in Skender FLSA Suit EOG RESOURCES: Class Action Settlement in WFM Suit Gets Initial OK EQUITY DIRECT: Johnstone Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California FACEBOOK INC: Former U.S. President Trump Sues Over Censorship FISHMAN GROUP: Kline FDCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification FLORIDA: Lawsuit Claims Sugarcane Burning Makes Residents Sick FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline FRONTIER MANAGEMENT: Wright Appeals FLSA Class Suit Dismissal FUJI HANA: Desheng Lin Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Deliverymen FULL TRUCK: Kohn Sues Over Omitted Material Facts on IPO Statement FUNZALO & CANTEET: Watson Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid Wages GAIN CAPITAL: Zhang Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Yukon Taillights GRANITE SERVICES: Campo Seeks Conditional Cert. of Employee Class GRANITE SERVICES: Rodriguez Suit Moved From N.D. Tex. to N.D. Ga. GUIDANT GLOBAL: Opposes Ward Bid for Class Certification HARRIET CARTER: Popa Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Cir. HARTFORD CASUALTY: Strelow Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal HEALTH PLAN: Subject to Anti-Discrimination Provision Under ACA JAMES RIVER: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action KROGER COMPANY: Reply to Kibler Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 16 L.A.R.E. PARTNERS: Class Certification Responses Due July 28 LEGEND ENERGY: Rose Sues Over Mass Layoff of Electrical Technicians LUMICO LIFE: Shelton TCPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to E.D. Pa. MARICOPA, AZ: Luckey Suit Seeks to Certify Two Waiver Classes MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Non-Party Files Motion to Quash Subpoena MARTIN JUGENBURG: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Patient Privacy MDL 2992: 10 Debit Card Data Breach Suits Moved to S.D. Cal. MDL 2993: 13 Crop Input Anti-Trust Suits Transferred to E.D. Mo. MED-DATA INCORPORATED: Class Suit Moved to District of Kansas MONARCH RECOVERY: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Extended to Sept. 10 MONASH IVF: Faces Class Action Over Use of Non-Invasive Test NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Alston Ruling May Benefit Athlete Pay Suit NCAA: Harris Files Suit in S.D. Indiana NCAA: Smith Files Suit in S.D. Indiana NCAA: Thomas Files Suit in S.D. Indiana NEW ORIENTAL: October 19 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set NEW YORK, NY: Lamar Advertising Appeals Ruling in Zoning Suit OCUGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 17 Deadline ORPHAZYME A/S: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline PACK-FIVE CORP: Faces Osorio Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. PENTAGON FEDERAL: Charges Multiple NSF Fees on Same Item, Vue Says PROVENTION BIO: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 20 Deadline RLX TECHNOLOGY: Goldman Scarlato Evaluates Potential Claims RLX TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 9 Deadline ROCK 'EM APPAREL: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ROCKET COMPANIES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 30 Deadline SAM'S WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum and OT Wages, Sanchez Says SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Reed Suit SENTINEL INSURANCE: Seattle Bakery Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Pandemic Boarding Policy SPRINGVILLE PARTNERS: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California SUPERIOR REFINING: Parties Agree on $1 Million Class Settlement TD BANK: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees on APPSN Transactions TPUSA-FHCS: Nattoo Collective Action Gets Conditional Certification TRINITY TEEN: Seeks Dismissal of Medically Related Class Claims TWITTER INC: Faces Trump Suit Over Restricted Access on Twitter UBIQUITI INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline UNITED AUTO: Davidson Appeals 2nd Amended Class Suit Dismissal UNITED STATES: Seeks July 30 Extension to File Class Cert Response WASHINGTON PRIME: Robbins LLP Reminds of July 23 Deadline WELLPET LLC: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 3 WORLD WRESTLING: Obtains Approval for $39MM Class Action Settlement [*] Suit Filed After HHS Warns on Medical Imaging Technology Use ********* ABB LTD: Cedar Lane Tech Sues Over Imaging Patents -------------------------------------------------- Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. ABB Ltd., Case No. 21-cv-00594 (W.D. Tex., June 11, 2021) is a patent dispute over: Patent No Date Issued Description --------- ----------- ----------- 6,972,790 12/06/2005 Host interface for imaging arrays 8,537,242 09/17/2013 Host interface for imaging arrays Plaintiff is represented by: Isaac Rabicoff, Esq. RABICOFF LAW LLC 73 W. Monroe St. Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (773) 669-4590 Fax: (888) 958-8463 Email: isaac@rabilaw.com ACELRX PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of August 9 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on July 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). AcelRx investors have until August 9, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. AcelRx is a pharmaceutical company that develops therapies for the treatment of acute pain. One of its lead product candidates is DSUVIA, which has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the management of acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in certified medically supervised healthcare settings. On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that it had received a warning letter from the FDA concerning promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, the FDA concluded that certain of AcelRx's promotional communications "make false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA," and "[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its distribution violative." On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%, to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021, thereby injuring investors. 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) AcelRx had deficient disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA; (2) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in certain advertisements and displays; (3) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; 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 AcelRx securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 9, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased AcelRx securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Contacts: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com URL: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com Contact Information: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN] ACELRX PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on July 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("AcelRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACRX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-04353, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx securities between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased AcelRx securities during the Class Period, you have until August 9, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. AcelRx is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of acute pain. The Company's lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a 30 mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain. On November 2, 2018, AcelRx announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had approved DSUVIA for the management of acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in certified medically supervised healthcare settings, such as hospitals, surgical centers, and emergency departments. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AcelRx had deficient disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA; (ii) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in certain advertisements and displays; (iii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that, on February 11, 2021, the Company received a warning letter from the FDA concerning promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, having "reviewed an 'SDS Banner Ad' (banner) (PM-US-DSV-0018) and a tabletop display (PM-US-DSV-0049) (display)," the FDA concluded that "[t]he promotional communications, the banner and display, make false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA," and "[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its distribution violative." The warning letter "request[ed] that AcelRx cease any violations of the FD&C Act" and "submit a written response to th[e] letter within 15 days from the date of receipt." On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%, to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] ADKIN'S BLUE RIBBON: Migrant Workers Seek Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Juan and Delphina Luna, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Adkin's Blue Ribbon Packing Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00545 (W.D. Mich., June 25, 2021), seek to recover their unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act. Adkin's Blue Ribbon Packing Company specializes in harvesting, packaging, and shipping blueberries. Plaintiffs are migrant farmworkers admitted into the United States under the H-2A and/or H-2B temporary foreign worker visa programs to perform manual labor as packers and packagers. Adkin's allegedly breached their employment contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to pay Plaintiffs the mandatory minimum wages. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Teresa Hendricks, Esq. Benjamin O'Hearn, Esq. Molly Spaak, Esq. MIGRANT LEGAL AID 1104 Fuller Ave. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503-1371 Phone: (616) 454-5055 Fax: (616) 454-7022 Email: thendricks@migrantlegalaid.com bohearn@migrantlegalaid.com mspaak@migrantlegalaid.com AGROPEC TRADING: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agropec Trading, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Agropec Trading, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05863 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Agropec Trading, LLC doing business as Allivet -- https://www.allivet.com/ -- is a large outlet selling medication for pets & livestock as well as diagnostic & treatment supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com AMARIN PHARMA: Delays Drug Competition for Vascepa, Teamsters Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMARIN PHARMA, INC., AMARIN PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED, and AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-13406 (D.N.J., July 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unfair or deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, and violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust law. According to the complaint, the Defendants delayed the competition in the U.S. and its territories for Vascepa, a prescription medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat hypertriglyceridemia in adults, by hoarding the world's supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) needed to make the drug. As a result of the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive scheme, the Plaintiff and Class members have been forced to pay supra-competitive prices for Vascepa and its generic equivalent. Amarin Pharma, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business at 1430 Route 206, Bedminster, New Jersey. Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited is a pharmaceutical company with registered offices at 88 Harcourt Street, Dublin 2, Dublin, Ireland. Amarin Corporation plc is a biopharmaceutical company with principal executive offices at 77 Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Block C, Gran Canal Docklands, Dublin 2, Ireland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Macoretta, Esq. Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com jkodroff@srkattorneys.com dzinser@srkattorneys.com - and – Stephen C. Richman, Esq. Matthew D. Areman, Esq. MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN 24 Wilkins Place Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (800) 590-4561 Facsimile: (215) 790-0668 E-mail: srichman@markowitzrichman.com mareman@markowitzrichman.com AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Parton at courthousenews.com reports that Amazon is facing a federal class action lawsuit filed in Seattle over its Sidewalk network and claims that the company engaged in "unfair, deceptive" and "fraudulent business practices" at the expense of its customers. Amazon's Ring security cameras and Echo smart speakers that have the Sidewalk feature can allow other such devices to connect to them via Bluetooth, allowing them to draw upon a small amount of their owner's bandwidth. The company's website says that Sidewalk "creates a low-bandwidth network" that helps devices with the technology to stay connected. "Amazon Sidewalk is a shared network that helps devices like Amazon Echo devices, Ring Security Cams, outdoor lights, motion sensors, and Tile trackers work better at home and beyond the front door," the website says. "When enabled, Sidewalk can unlock unique benefits for your device, support other Sidewalk devices in your community, and even locate pets or lost items." Sidewalk went live on June 8 and automatically connects to other Sidewalk devices without asking owners their consent to share bandwidth. The complaint, filed in the Western District of Washington state, claims that Amazon is using the bandwidth of consumers to cheaply build a wireless network. "Amazon bypasses the expense of creating such an expensive network, however, by having Sidewalk tap into Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private Internet connections, using portions of their Internet bandwidth to maintain connections between the Sidewalk Devices," the complaint states. The complaint says such usage of consumers' bandwidth could lead to overage charges on their internet bills and the knowledge of opting out is not readily available. "Owners and users of the Sidewalk Devices can only stop the unfair use of their Internet bandwidth if they are aware of the taking of the bandwidth via Sidewalk, find instructions for disabling Sidewalk, and take several steps to disable Sidewalk on their devices," the complaint states. "Owners and users of Sidewalk Devices who do not opt out and have Sidewalk enabled are not compensated by Amazon for the use of their bandwidth. "Additionally, Amazon does not clearly disclose that even if a customer initially opts out of the Sidewalk network, if they obtain a new Sidewalk-enabled device, Sidewalk will automatically be re-enabled, and they will need to opt-out again." The complaint claims the company committed theft of telecommunication services and violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit says that Amazon "affirmatively misrepresents that its consumers are voluntarily sharing and donating their Internet bandwidth, constituting deceptive acts and practices." The plaintiffs seek punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Healthcare Workers File Alexa Recording Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hannah Mitchell, writing for Becker's Health IT, reports that four healthcare workers have filed a class-action lawsuit against Amazon, alleging that their Alexa devices recorded their HIPAA-protected conversations, according to a July 2 Newsweek report. Five things to know: 1. The suit, filed in a Washington district court, claims that "Amazon's conduct in surreptitiously recording consumers has violated federal and state wiretapping, privacy, and consumer protection laws." 2. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon failed to disclose at the time the plaintiffs bought their devices that it records and stores interactions with Alexa. The devices may have recorded and stored conversations the healthcare workers had with patients that contained protected health information, the lawsuit alleges. 3. The lawsuit cites an Evanston-based Northwestern University study demonstrating that certain phrases can alert Alexa and trigger it to start recording. Alexa may also be triggered if the speakers are talking in Spanish or if they spoke with an accent not typical to native-born American speakers. 4. A spokesperson from Amazon told Newsweek that "Alexa and Echo devices are designed to only detect your chosen wake word (Alexa, Amazon, Computer, or Echo). No audio is stored or sent to the cloud unless the device detects the wake word (or Alexa is activated by pressing a button)." 5. Alexa's blue light will pop up, indicating that the device has been awoken, the spokesperson said. Alexa users can opt out of having their voice recordings included in the recordings that get reviewed. Users also can elect to not have their recordings saved at all or to have them deleted every few months, they said. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Smith Alleges Online Retail Channel Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------ MEGAN SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00838 (W.D. Wash., June 23, 2021) arises from the Defendant's use of monopoly power in the market for online retail platforms in the United States to restrain prices, resulting to violation of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant attained monopoly power as an online distribution channel in the United States, with approximately 50% of all electronic commerce sales occurring through Defendant's website, Amazon.com. After the Novel Coronavirus-19 pandemic emerged, Amazon's monopolistic grasp over the relevant market grew - as Amazon's sales skyrocketed by 38% in 2020, says the suit. Allegedly, the Defendant uses its pervasiveness over the relevant market to abuse consumers and merchants alike. It also imposes a "price parity clause" on merchants through its "Amazon Services Business Solutions Agreement." And, because the merchants' goods are overpriced due to the existence of the "referral fees," Amazon is able to undercut the merchants' prices with its own Amazon-label branded goods - vanquishing competition and eliminating consumer freedom to purchase the goods they seek in a normal functioning market free of anticompetitive conduct, the suit asserts. Amazon.com, Inc. is an e-commerce channel and retail giant with its principal place of business located in the state of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Glenn Phillips, Esq. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC 17410 133rd Ave. N.E., Suite #301 Woodinville, WA 98072-3200 Telephone: (425) 482-1111 E-mail: glenn@justiceforyou.com - and - Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq. Elizabeth McKenna, Esq. Robert A. Wallner, Esq. Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: pwedgworth@milberg.com emckenna@milberg.com rwallner@milberg.com byagman@milberg.com AMERICAN GENERAL: Faegre Drinker Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shaunda Patterson-Strachan, Esq., of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that while challenges to insurers' exercises of discretion in setting cost of insurance rates has been the principal focus of litigation involving universal life (UL) insurance products for quite some time, a putative class action filed in a California federal court in December has the insurer's determination of credited rates in its crosshairs. LSIMC v. Am. General Life Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-11518 (C.D. Cal.). The plaintiff alleged that American General breached its UL contracts "by redetermining credited rates based on factors other than its expectations of future investment earnings." However, in a June 7 ruling District Judge Stephen J. Wilson granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the operative complaint -- a first amended complaint that had been filed in response to American General's initial dismissal motion. In particular, the plaintiff claimed that American General's lowering of the interest rates to the guaranteed minimum on many policies amounted to a breach of a provision in the subject contracts, which has a clause stating: "Any redetermination of interest rates will be based only on expectations of future investment earnings." The amended complaint seized on purported "admissions" by American General in its initial motion to dismiss that it designs UL policies "to achieve a profit spread" and adjusts interests rates "to try to maintain this projected spread," and further claims that the contracts have been breached "[b]ecause neither profit targets nor competitive environment goals are 'expectations of investment earnings.'" In granting American General's motion to dismiss, Judge Wilson found the allegations of a profit motive -- which he said was alleged "in conclusory fashion" -- was, at this stage, "too attenuated from the 3% interest rate calculation to render the Plaintiff's theory of breach plausible." Notably, among the changes in the amended complaint was the addition of an allegation that American General's 2019 annual statement shows "a 4.9% annual return -- 1.9% higher than the new premium crediting rate that AmGen declared in each of 2019 and 2020." Judge Wilson found the allegation to be "[t]he only fact in the FAC related to Defendant's return on investment." But, as he further recognized, "[t]hat Defendant received a companywide return 1.9% higher than the credited minimum 3% interest rate, however, does not by itself give rise to a reasonable inference that redeterminations before, during, or after 2019 were based on a factor other than expectations of future investment earnings." The court also pointed out the plaintiff's failure to "plead facts suggesting that this 1.9% variance changed over time, or that the existence of such a variance in a single year reflects a profit or other impermissible basis for that year's or the next year's redetermination." Further, the court found that the lack of allegations in the complaint about American General's investment returns in other years "is especially important given the policy's prospective focus -- allowing redeterminations based on 'expectations of future investment earnings.'" Judge Wilson also addressed the plausibility of the plaintiff's theory that "any single-year variance between the credited interest rate and companywide return on investment is not allowed by the policy," but he not only found no showing by the plaintiff how the policy supports such an interpretation, he found such an interpretation "would be inconsistent with the prospective character of interest rate determinations, and the policy language emphasizing future expectations." He further noted that "[i]nvestments can exceed expectations, and an interest rate can be 'based on' expectations without precisely equaling actual returns." But, as the order also granted leave to do the same, the plaintiff has already filed a second amended complaint, and thus the possibility that the lawsuit might generate more litigation against issuers of UL polices focused on credited rates remains. [GN] ANFIELD INTERIORS: Court Terminates Valerio Bid to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Valerio v. Anfield Interiors, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02275 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Debra C. Freeman entered an order terminating motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] ANGLO AMERICAN: Faces Suit From Mine Employees Over Lead Poisoning ------------------------------------------------------------------ IOL reports that a medical doctor who worked in Kabwe, Zambia has claimed in an affidavit that Anglo American South Africa had been aware of lead poisining at its mine as early as 1970. Dr Ian Lawrence, who was stationed where Anglo operated the world's largest lead mine in the 1970s, said in an affidavit that the company was aware of lead poisoning to their employees as blood levels of staff were checked regularly. Lawrence said that there had been a high number of deaths among children under the age of five years in the township housing mine employees. "I became deeply concerned at the number of deaths among children under the age of five in the residential township where local employees lived (the township), particularly children between one and three years old," Lawrence said. The class action was filed on behalf of the victims by Johannesburg and London-based human rights legal firms Mbuyisa Moleele and Leigh Day in October last year at the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa. Lawrence said that he took samples of blood of 500 children under the age of five who visited the township's clinic between 1969 and 1970 and found many of the results were serious enough to cause brain damage and even death. "I do not think the fumes were a major contribution to the problem, I believe rather that dust from the plant and underground contaminants were a major source of the pollution," Lawrence said. The class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 100 000 children and women poisoned in Kabwe, alleges that between 1925 and 1974, Anglo American played a huge role in the management of medical, technical and other services at the mine. An Anglo spokesperson said on July 4 that in fact the mine operator was Zambia Broken Hill Development Company (ZBHDC), so matters relating to the operation of the mine, including employee health, would have been its responsibility. The spokesperson said that conflating ZBHDC with Anglo American was simply incorrect. "With Anglo American not owning or operating the mine, we do not have such records – medical or otherwise – relating to the operation of the mine. Operational information was transferred to Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines, who took over control of the operations after nationalisation," said the spokesperson. July 5 marked the second day of a court hearing into whether Anglo American can receive a second extension to file its response to the class action. Anglo American said the extension was necessary as it had still not been able to gain access to critical documents and other information that it needed in order to respond appropriately. Zanele Mbuyisa of Mbuyisa Moleele said Lawrence's testimony was a powerful contribution to the fight for justice for the people of Kabwe. "It supports our argument that Anglo failed to take adequate steps to protect the local community. "Anglo continues to attempt to distance itself from its responsibility to the people of Kabwe in direct contrast to its commitments to provide remediation as part of the Anglo American's Human Rights Policy," Mbuyisa said. Richard Meeran of Leigh Day said: "Given its significant organisational expertise, Anglo needs to explain the circumstances in which it disposed of all these important Kabwe documents. "In any event, it is crystal clear from the work of doctos Lawrence and Clark that a huge problem of lead contamination of the environment and poisoning of local children occurred under Anglo's watch before ZCCM came on the scene," Meeran said. [GN] ATERIAN INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATER) Investors Affected: December 1, 2020 - May 3, 2021 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Aterian, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's organic growth is plummeting; (ii) the Company's recent, self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments for flawed assets from questionable sources; (iii) Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software is a flawed product that lacks customer interest; (iv) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid or artificial reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17392&from=1 Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:DNMR) Investors Affected: October 5, 2020 - May 4, 2021 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Danimer Scientific, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Danimer had deficient internal controls; (ii) as a result, the Company had misrepresented, inter alia, its operations' size and regulatory compliance; (iii) Defendants had overstated Nodax's biodegradability, particularly in oceans and landfills; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17392&from=1 Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATHA) This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021 and/or purchased common stock in or traceable to the Company's registration statement issued in connection with the Company's September 2020 initial public offering priced at $17.00 per share. A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Athira Pharma, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the research conducted by Defendant 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 through the altering of Western blot images; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, 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 made not misleading. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/athira-pharma-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17392&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] BARIATRIC HEALTH: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bariatric Health & Wellness, P.C. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bariatric Health & Wellness, P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-05864 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bariatric Health & Wellness, PC -- https://www.bariatricdirect.com/ -- is a medical group practice located in Tuscaloosa, AL that specializes in Obstetrics & Gynecology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com BRITISH AIRWAYS: Settles Class Action Over 2018 Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Todd Gillespie, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that British Airways Plc settled a U.K. class-action lawsuit involving hundreds of thousands of customers caught up in a 2018 data breach. The settlement, for an undisclosed sum, followed the leak of the personal data of 420,000 customers and staff, including bank details, contact information and addresses. The deal between IAG-owned British Airways and law firm PGMBM doesn't include any admission of liability by the airline. "The pace at which we have been able to resolve this process with British Airways has been particularly encouraging and demonstrates how seriously the legal system is taking mass data incidents," said Harris Pogust, chairman of PGMBM, said in an emailed statement. British Airways has been rocked by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on its industry. In October, the U.K. Information Commissioner's Office reduced the airline's fine for the breach from 183 million pounds ($254 million) to 20 million pounds in the wake of the pandemic's financial impact. The case was filed under the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, which ramped up potential fines for firms failing to protect consumers' control of their personal data. British Airways' rival, EasyJet Plc, also faces a lawsuit led by PGMBM after exposing private details of nine million passengers. British Airways said in an emailed statement that it "apologized to customers who may have been affected by this issue and are pleased we've been able to settle the group action." When "the issue arose we acted promptly to protect and inform our customers," the carrier said. [GN] BROOKLYN, NY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unfair TPT Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Major at blackenterprise.com reports that a federal court ruled three Brooklyn homeowners of color can move forward with a class action lawsuit to recover their wealth lost through New York's Third Party Transfer (TPT) program. The homeowners all lost their residences from alleged illegal seizures taken in "in rem" foreclosure proceedings under the TPT program. The city conducted the seizures under the Department of Housing, Preservation and Development (HPD), which confiscates the entire property value of a home from the owner, even if the owner only owed a few thousand dollars in water or sewer charges or taxes. HPD would then give the property to development organizations of the administration's choosing for free or a small fee. Two nonprofits, the Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund and BSDC Kings Covenant Housing Development Fund Company, are now defendants in the case according to the Brownstoner. McConnell Dorce, Cecilia Jones and Sherlivia Thomas-Murchinson say their properties were stolen from them by the TPT program and given away. "The TPT program has affected my family in many ways. My family and our neighbors who should have remained shareholders in the building have lost real, personal and future assets and value in the millions of dollars, not even measuring the value of having a home for the long term," Thomas-Murchison told the BKReader. "My now deceased mother worked, for close to 25 years, to ensure that our family would have long-term residency in an already-existing affordable housing co-op. The City took that away with the stroke of a pen." The group wants to represent a class of minority property owners across the city who have lost their homes to the TPT program without compensation. The plaintiffs already won one battle when the city challenged their right to file a class-action suit, arguing the case should be argued in state court. The group successfully argued the case is a federal issue that falls under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires just compensation for the taking of a person's property. When the suit was initially filed, the plaintiff's homes were valued at $66 million combined. Today, they are worth significantly more as the neighborhoods and the city has largely been gentrified. The suit is also seeking the equity value of hundreds of properties dating back to the 1990s that have been taken under the TPT program. Many of the homes, including the plaintiffs' residences, were in the Crown Heights and Bed-Stuy neighborhoods of Brooklyn. Both are predominately communities of color with Black Americans and immigrants from Caribbean countries including Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad, Barbados and others. [GN] BUCKY'S EXPRESS: Zimmer FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JULIE ZIMMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BUCKY'S EXPRESS, LLC, Case No. 21CN-CC00026, was removed from the Circuit Court of Clinton County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on July 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-06077-JAM to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Bucky's Express, LLC is a consumer services company based in Nebraska. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Justin M. Dean, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PLLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 Facsimile: (816) 471-1303 E-mail: justin.dean@ogletree.com CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Groundwater Contamination in Shannon ------------------------------------------------------------------ The parties in this case are pleased to announce that the individual claims period will begin on July 10, 2021. The claims period will run for 12 months and will end on July 10, 2022. On December 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to grant leave to appeal to the parties. The January 17, 2020, decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal ordering Canada and the other defendants to pay moral and punitive damages in connection with the contamination of the groundwater in the municipality of Shannon has therefore put an end to the litigation between the parties. According to this decision, persons aged 18 years and over on December 21, 2000, and who resided in certain specific areas of the municipality of Shannon, Quebec, for at least a month during certain periods between April 1995 and June 2006 could be entitled to cumulative compensation ranging from $250 to $64,000, plus interest and additional indemnity accrued between July 16, 2007, and the date of payment of the compensation. Since the Supreme Court of Canada's decision was announced, the parties have been engaged in discussions with respect to the terms of the protocol that will govern the individual claims process. The parties worked together throughout the discussions to develop this protocol and to ensure that the steps it sets out could be carried out promptly and efficiently. In the context of said discussions, the parties agreed to propose the services of a claims administrator to manage the claims process. This decision was made to ensure a rigorous, fast and efficient claims process. The Superior Court of Quebec approved the agreed-upon protocol on June 30, 2021. Additional information is available on the website created by the claims administrator for the Claims Process, at actioncollectiveshannon.ca. [GN] CANDID CARE: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Candid Care Co. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Candid Care Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-05890 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Candid Co. -- https://www.candidco.com/ -- sells direct-to-consumer clear aligners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal CARLOTZ INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 7 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz publicly traded securities between December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 7, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the Company stated that gross profit and gross profit per unit ("GPU") "were softer than . . . expected" due to "the surge in inventory during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit profitability." CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory "created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher days to sell." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.79, or 8.5%, to close at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to decline over the next two consecutive trading sessions by $0.62, or 7.3%, to close at $7.83 per share on March 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced its first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that gross profit per unit fell below expectations. In particular, the Company had expected retail GPU between $1,300 and $1,500 but reported $1,182. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.94, or 14%, to close at $5.57 per share on May 11, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $0.45, or 8%, to close at $4.12 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on May 26, 2021, before the market opened, CarLotz announced an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement. Specifically, CarLotz stated that its "profit-sharing corporate vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in light of current wholesale market conditions, it has paused consignments to the Company." Moreover, this partner "accounted for more than 60% of the cars sold and sourced" during first quarter 2021 and "less than 50% of the cars sold and approximately 25% of cars sourced" during second quarter 2021 to date. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.70, or 13.4%, to close at $4.51 per share on May 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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 made material misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that, due to a surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower processing and higher days to sell; (2) that, as a result, the Company's gross profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3) that, to minimize returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the Company was offering aggressive pricing; (4) that, as a result, CarLotz's gross profit per unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) that this Company's corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments to the Company due to market conditions, including increasing wholesale prices; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] CARLOTZ INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 6 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against CarLotz, Inc. ('CarLotz' or 'the Company') (NASDAQ:LOTZ; LOTZW) and certain of its directors on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz securities between December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/lotz. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to a surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz was experiencing a 'logjam' resulting in slower processing and higher days to sell; (2) as a result, the Company's gross profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3) to minimize returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the Company was offering aggressive pricing; (4) as a result, CarLotz's gross profit per unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) CarLotz's corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments to the Company due to market conditions, including increasing wholesale prices; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/lotz or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in CarLotz you have until September 6, 2021, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] CARLOTZ INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 7 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz, Inc. ("CarLotz" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: LOTZ) securities between December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). CarLotz investors have until September 7, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the Company stated that gross profit and gross profit per unit ("GPU") "were softer than . . . expected" due to "the surge in inventory during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit profitability." CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory "created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher days to sell." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.79, or 8.5%, to close at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to decline over the next two consecutive trading sessions by $0.62, or 7.3%, to close at $7.83 per share on March 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced its first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that gross profit per unit fell below expectations. In particular, the Company had expected retail GPU between $1,300 and $1,500, but reported $1,182. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.94, or 14%, to close at $5.57 per share on May 11, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $0.45, or 8%, to close at $4.12 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on May 26, 2021, before the market opened, CarLotz announced an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement. Specifically, CarLotz stated that its "profit-sharing corporate vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in light of current wholesale market conditions, it has paused consignments to the Company." Moreover, this partner "accounted for more than 60% of the cars sold and sourced" during first quarter 2021 and "less than 50% of the cars sold and approximately 25% of cars sourced" during second quarter 2021 to date. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.70, or 13.4%, to close at $4.51 per share on May 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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 made material misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that, due to a surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower processing and higher days to sell; (2) that, as a result, the Company's gross profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3) that, to minimize returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the Company was offering aggressive pricing; (4) that, as a result, CarLotz's gross profit per unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) that this Company's corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments to the Company due to market conditions, including increasing wholesale prices; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased CarLotz securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 7, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased CarLotz securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] CARLOTZ INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of September 7 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against CarLotz, Inc. ("CarLotz" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LOTZ) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz publicly traded securities between December 30, 2020, and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). On May 26, 2021, the Company's stock price fell 13.4% after the consignment-to-retail used vehicle marketplace operator announced its profit-sharing corporate vehicle sourcing partner had paused consignments to the Company. The Company cut its year guidance as a result of the current business climate, as impacted by the lack of vehicles from this profit-sharing account, coupled with the unpredictable timeline of the chip shortage for new cars and its impact on the wholesale and retail automotive markets. This announcement follows the release of disappointing financial results for the first quarter of 2021, as revealed in a May 10 press release issued by the Company. CarLotz stock dropped more than 20% over two days when it reported first quarter results but did not provide forecasts for gross profit per unit specifically for the second quarter. William Blair analyst Sharon Zackfia said in a report that the omission will cause more "investor angst" about the visibility on its progress toward its full-year targets. While management reiterated that GPU has improved significantly on a sequential basis, CarLotz has missed its original GPU targets for both the fourth and first quarters. Zackfia said CarLotz is also seeing constrained inventory levels due to rapidly rising wholesale prices, which has led to some commercial consignors liquidating via wholesale instead of consignment. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of CarLotz during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the September 7, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] CARLOTZ INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 7 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP discloses that purchasers of CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ; LOTZW) securities between December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until September 7, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the CarLotz class action lawsuit. The CarLotz class action lawsuit was commenced on July 8, 2021 and charges CarLotz and certain of CarLotz's top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The CarLotz class action lawsuit, Erdman v. CarLotz, Inc., No. 21-cv-05906, was filed in the Southern District of New York and is assigned to Judge Ronnie Abrams. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the CarLotz class action lawsuit. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the CarLotz class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September 7, 2021. CASE ALLEGATIONS: On or about January 21, 2021, CarLotz became a public entity via merger with Acamar Partners Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC") or blank check company, formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination with one or more businesses. The CarLotz class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) due to a surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower processing and higher days to sell; (ii) as a result, CarLotz's gross profit per unit ("GPU") would be negatively impacted; (iii) to minimize returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, CarLotz was offering aggressive pricing; (iv) consequently, CarLotz's GPU forecast was likely inflated; (v) that CarLotz's corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments to CarLotz due to market conditions, including increasing wholesale prices; and (vi) as such, defendants' positive statements about CarLotz's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, CarLotz stated that gross profit and GPU "were softer than . . . expected" due to "the surge in inventory during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit profitability." CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory "created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher days to sell." On this news, CarLotz's stock price fell more than 8%. Then, on May 10, 2021, CarLotz announced its first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that GPU fell below expectations. In particular, CarLotz had expected retail GPU between $1,300 and $1,500, but reported $1,182. On this news, CarLotz's stock price fell by more than 14%. Finally, on May 26, 2021, CarLotz announced an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement. Specifically, CarLotz revealed that its "profit-sharing corporate vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in light of current wholesale market conditions, it has paused consignments to the Company." Moreover, this partner "accounted for more than 60% of the cars sold and sourced" during first quarter 2021 and "less than 50% of the cars sold and approximately 25% of cars sourced" during second quarter 2021 to date. On this news, CarLotz's stock price fell an additional 13%, further damaging investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly developing investment arena. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased CarLotz securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the CarLotz 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 CarLotz class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the CarLotz class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the CarLotz class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. About Robbins Geller 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 https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more information. [GN] CHARTER FOODS: Class Cert. Response Deadline Extended to July 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM DAVIS, et al., v. CHARTER FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00159-CEA-CRW (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Richardson Wyrick entered an order granting the Defendants motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective and/or class certification to and including July 26, 2021 and Plaintiffs' reply is due on August 9, 2021. No other deadlines are altered by entry of this Order, says Judge Wyrick. Charter Foods was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r5s2fw at no extra charge.[CC] CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on July 5 disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE: CCIV) ("CCIV") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired CCIV securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline Reminder: In accordance with an order issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the lead plaintiff deadline has been changed to August 30, 2021. CCIV investors who purchased or acquired CCIV securities during the Class Period may, no later than August 30, 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/churchill-capital-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=churchill CCIV is a blank check company, also known as a special purpose acquisition company. Atieva, Inc., d/b/a Lucid Motors ("Lucid") is an American automotive company specializing in electric cars. As of 2020, Lucid's first car, Lucid Air, is in development. The Class Period commences on January 11, 2021, when Bloomberg News reported that Lucid "is in talks to go public through a merger with one of Michael Klein's special purpose acquisition companies, according to people familiar with the matter." Michael Klein launched CCIV in April 2020 and raised $2,070,000,000 in CCIV's initial public offering. It was rumored that Lucid was merging with CCIV. On February 16, 2021, Lucid's Chief Executive Officer, Peter Rawlinson, appeared on Fox Business News with Neil Cavuto touting that Lucid was aiming for a spring delivery of its first vehicles. On Monday, February 22, 2021, the long anticipated merger agreement between CCIV and Lucid was announced. CCIV and Lucid's transaction equity value was estimated at $11.75 billion. However, at 6:22 p.m. that same night, Ed Ludlow of Bloomberg News reported that Mr. Rawlinson announced that production of its debut car will be delayed until at least the second half of 2021, with no definite date set for delivery of an actual vehicle. Following this news, CCIV's stock price fell from a close of $57.37 per share on February 22, 2021, to a close of $35.21 per share on February 23, 2021. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose a true and accurate picture of CCIV's business, operations and financial condition. CCIV investors may, no later than August 30, 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] CRUM & FORSTER: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crum & Forster Insurance Brokers, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Crum & Forster Insurance Brokers, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05892 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Crum & Forster -- https://www.cfins.com/ -- provides specialty and standard commercial lines insurance products through our admitted and surplus lines insurance companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal DEMET'S CANDY: Spurck Files Mislabeling Suit Over Pretzel Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessicca Spurck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Demet's Candy Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-05506 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021) arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive and misleading representation of its "White Fudge [Covered Pretzels]" because it lacks the type and amounts of ingredients consumers expect in fudge. The complaint asserts that the product lacks the type and amount of dairy and milk fat ingredients essential to fudge - viz, butter - and substitutes vegetable oils. The absence of milk fat ingredients and their substitution with vegetable oils means the resulting "fudge" provides less satiety, has a waxy and oily mouthfeel and leaves an aftertaste, says the suit. Demet's Candy Company, LLC manufactures, labels, markets and sells pretzels.[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 DIDI GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 7 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming September 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi" or the "Company") (NYSE: DIDI): (a) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your DiDi 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/didi-global-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. DiDi purports to be the world's largest mobility technology platform. The Company claims to be the "go-to brand in China for shared mobility," offering a range of services including ride hailing, taxi hailing, chauffeur, and hitch. On or about June 30, 2021, DiDi sold about 316.8 million ADSs in its IPO for $14 per share, raising nearly $4.5 billion in new capital. On July 2, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC") stated that it had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect national security and the public interest. It also reported that it had asked DiDi to stop new user registrations during the course of the investigation. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.87, or approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July 2, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. On July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered smartphone app stores to stop offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app because it "collect[ed] personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations." Though users who previously downloaded the app could continue to use it, DiDi stated that "the app takedown may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China." On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had asked the Company as early as three months prior to the IPO to postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to "conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.04 per share, or 19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading as low as $12.06 per share, a nearly 14% decline from the $14 per share IPO price. The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. 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 DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations governing privacy protection and the collection of personal information; (2) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace Administration of China; (3) that the CAC had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of its network security; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be taken down from app stores in China, which would have an adverse effect on its financial results and operations; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi ADSs pursuant or traceable to the IPO and /or securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 7, 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. [GN] DIDI GLOBAL: Schall Law Reminds Investors of September 7 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi" or "the Company") (NYSE: DIDI) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in June 2021 (the "IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before September 7, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/2UMdFB2 to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. DiDi "had the problem of collecting personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations." The Company's app would be subjected to a cybersecurity review by Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC"). The CAC instructed all app stores in the country to remove the Company's app. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about DiDi, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN] DIDI GLOBAL: Thornton Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired DIDI American Depositary Shares pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering or investors who purchased DIDI securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/DiDiGlobal for more information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. The case alleges that DiDi Global and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations governing privacy protection and the collection of personal information; (2) as a result, DiDi was reasonably likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC"); (3) the CAC had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of its network security; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be taken down from app stores in China. Interested DiDi Global investors have until September 7, 2021 to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a lead plaintiff. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] DIDI GLOBAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that federal securities fraud class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Central District of California against DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) ("DiDi") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired DiDi: American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with DiDi's June 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"); and/or securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased the ADRs of DiDi Global Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the ADRs of DiDi Global Inc., you may, no later than September 7, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the ADRs of DiDi Global Inc. On June 30, 2021, DiDi issued an IPO in the United States, in which they sold approximately 316,800,000 ADRs at a price of $14.00 per ADR. The Registration Statement emphasized that DiDi purportedly "follow[ed] strict procedures in collecting, transmitting, storing and using user data pursuant to [its] data security and privacy policies." In fact, the Registration Statement claimed that DiDi "collect[s] personal information and other data from [its] users and use such data in the course of [its] operations only with their prior consent." The truth began to emerge on July 2, 2021 when the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC") stated that it had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect national security and the public interest. Following this news, DiDi's ADR price fell $0.87, or approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per ADR on July 2, 2021. July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered smartphone app stores to stop offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app because it "collect[ed] personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations." DiDi was ordered to make changes to comply with Chinese data protection rules to "ensure the safety of the personal information of users." On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had asked DiDi as early as three months prior to the IPO to postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to "conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security." Following this news, DiDi's share price fell $3.04 per ADR, or 19.6%, to close at $12.49 per ADR on July 6, 2021. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN] DOWN & FEATHER: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Down & Feather Company, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Down & Feather Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05859 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Down & Feather Company -- https://www.downandfeathercompany.com/ -- specialize in sourcing the finest textiles and Hungarian goose down to make premium quality down bedding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com EDEN ISLE: Appeals Amendment of Judgment in Skender FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Eden Isle Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Skender v. Eden Isle Corporation et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00054-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central. On January 14, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to pay him overtime for work performed during off-the-clock hours. He seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay proper overtime compensation. The Defendants are now seeking a review of the Court's Order dated May 25, 2021, granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e). The appellate case is captioned as Steson Skender v. Eden Isle Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-2365, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 22, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on August 2, 2021; -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Eden Isle Corporation and Gary Redd is due on August 2, 2021; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Defendants-Appellants Eden Isle Corporation and Gary Redd are represented by: Daveante Jones, Esq. Jane A. Kim, Esq. WRIGHT & LINDSEY 200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone: (501) 371-0808 E-mail: jkim@wlj.com - and - Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq. WRIGHT & LINDSEY 200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone: (501) 371-0808 Plaintiff-Appellee Steson Skender, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Lydia Hicks Hamlet, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM P.O. Box 39 Russellville, AR 72811 Telephone: (479) 880-0088 E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM Kirkpatrick Plaza, Suite 510 10800 Financial Centre Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com EOG RESOURCES: Class Action Settlement in WFM Suit Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as White Family Minerals, LLC v. EOG Resources, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00409 (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Ronald A. White entered an order: -- preliminarily approving class action settlement; -- approving Form and Manner of Notice; and -- setting date for final approval hearing to Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West for Findings & Recommendation pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b) (1). The nature of suit states contract -- other contract. EOG Resources is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. It is organized in Delaware and headquartered in the Heritage Plaza building in Houston, Texas.[CC] EQUITY DIRECT: Johnstone Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equity Direct Financial LLC, et al. The case is styled as Linda Johnstone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equity Direct Financial LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:21-cv-01177-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Equity Direct Financial, LLC in Irvine, California -- http://www.equitydirectfinancial.com/-- specialize in mortgages, home loans, mortgage rates, refinance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com tfriedman@toddflaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Former U.S. President Trump Sues Over Censorship -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Miiller at thetrumpet.com reports that soon after the January 6 Capitol protests, the most influential companies in the world conspired to muzzle United States President Donald Trump. Facebook and Twitter shut down his accounts. Apple, Discord, Google, Instagram, Pinterest, Reddit, Shopify, Snapchat, Stripe, TikTok, Twitch, YouTube and other major platforms banned or restricted his messages. When Parler insisted on allowing the president to continue using its forum, Apple and Google stepped in to punish it by blocking the social networking app from their app stores. This was overt Big Tech censorship against a sitting president. On January 7, former First Lady Michelle Obama encouraged this censorship, saying, "Now is the time for Silicon Valley companies to stop enabling this monstrous behavior-and go even further than they have already by permanently banning this man from their platforms and putting in place policies to prevent their technology from being used by the nation's leader to fuel insurrection." Six months later, Donald Trump is still banned from Facebook and Twitter. But with widespread election rigging in Arizona and Georgia being exposed and Joe Biden's border catastrophe growing worse by the day, Mr. Trump is ready to start pushing back against this egregious censorship. On July 7, Mr. Trump announced that he was filing a class action lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, Google and their respective ceos: Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai. "Today, in conjunction with the America First Policy Institute," he said. "I'm filing as the lead class representative, a major class-action lawsuit against the Big Tech giants including Facebook, Google and Twitter as well as their ceos - Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai and Jack Dorsey, three real nice guys." Mr. Trump said he would file his lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida. He addressed claims that Big Tech companies can censor whomever they want because they are nominally private entities. "There is no better evidence that Big Tech is out of control than the fact that they banned the sitting president of the United States earlier this year," he said. "While the social media companies are officially private entities, in recent years, they have ceased to be private with the enactment and their historical use of Section 230, which profoundly protects them from liability. It is in effect a massive government subsidy, these companies have been co-opted, coerced and weaponized by government actors to become the enforcers of illegal, unconstitutional censorship." Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In practice, this statute protects tech companies from lawsuits over content generated by users on their sites. It gives Facebook, Twitter, and Google the right to moderate content. Still, it does not provide them with the responsibility to do so. Mr. Trump claims that Section 230 makes Big Tech companies dependent on the U.S. government, and therefore more willing to engage in government-sponsored censorship that violates freedom of speech. Legal experts do not think Mr. Trump's lawsuit has a chance in court, so it is likely that his July 7 announcement is more of a publicity stunt to relaunch his political career by focusing people's minds on Big Tech censorship. Whether or not these companies have a legal right to censor people, Big Tech censorship is still a danger to America. For eight years, behavioral psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein has warned that Google can easily determine the outcome of elections by adjusting its search algorithms to favor one political party over another. Research shows that Google handles over 86 percent of all search queries worldwide. And when Google's search results come up, 95 percent of the clicks are on the very first page of search results. When Google pushes a site off the first page, very few will ever click on it. "Google's search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more-up to 80 percent in some demographic groups-with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated," Epstein wrote in a 2015 editorial "How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election." Epstein based his calculations on experiments he conducted with Ronald Robertson and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Epstein told Fox News on Nov. 23, 2020, that he believed search engine manipulation shifted a "bare minimum" of 6 million votes to Joe Biden during the 2020 election. If true, Mr. Trump would have won the popular vote and the electoral vote if Google had not biased news coverage against him. Former Google employee Zachary Vorhies went public as a whistleblower in 2019, leaking over 950 pages of internal Google documents to Project Veritas and the Justice Department. The information confirmed that Google had biased its algorithms to promote liberalism and suppress conservatism. It also revealed that Google has blacklists of search terms and a blacklist of websites. Vorhies warned, "[T]he reason why I collected these documents was because I saw something dark and nefarious going on with the company, and I realized that they were going to not only tamper with the elections but use that tampering with the elections to essentially overthrow the United States." For 230 years, the U.S. has been a constitutional republic where people freely elect the representatives who govern them. Now Google's board of directors is trying to change that-not by abolishing elections but by gradually increasing its control over what people learn and know. If it can manipulate what people think is true, it can fundamentally change America into whatever it wants! Bible prophecy reveals how the devil uses a host of people to cast truth to the ground. "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground . . . . " (Daniel 8:11-12). Antiochus iv Epiphanes fulfilled this prophecy when he desecrated the temple in Jerusalem with an idol of himself. But the book of Daniel was written for the end time (Daniel 12:4). This prophecy about Antiochus is also being fulfilled in God's Church and in America in our time. Strong's Concordance defines "host" as "a mass of persons (or figuratively, things), especially reg. organized for war (an army) . . . . ." Depending on the context, the expression can refer to an army of demons, angels or men. The host referred to in Daniel 8 is an army of demons and evil men who help an end-time Antiochus in God's Church and an end-time Antiochus in the United States of America. Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry explains in America Under Attack that the spiritual Antiochus "cast down the truth to the ground" inside God's Church, and a political Antiochus is doing the same thing in the United States. The most anti-Bible president in American history, Barack Obama, fulfills the role of the political Antiochus. He is out of office now, but he and his powerful allies have been at work in the mainstream media trying to, as Vorhies said, "essentially overthrow the United States." A host of bureaucrats, military leaders, intelligence agents, media moguls, tech entrepreneurs, Wall Street financiers and Chinese spies are helping this Antiochus-type cast truth to the ground. This network is the biggest threat to America today. It aims to destroy the United States, its Judeo-Christian history, its constitutional form of government, and the biblical principles this form of government is based on. God exposes the corruption in U.S. politics so people have a chance to repent before a lawless spirit destroys America by replacing the rule of law with the horrifying rule of powerful deception and brutal force. When people do not sincerely love the truth, they come to believe lies (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). Like the ballot audits in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Fulton County, Georgia, Donald Trump's class action lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter and Google is a vital part of this exposure! For more information on the threat that Big Tech companies pose to America, please read our articles "The Obama Media Empire Strikes Back" and "The Biggest Threat to American Democracy." And for more information about the role Donald Trump is playing in Bible prophecy, please read "What Will Happen After Trump Regains Power," by Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry. [GN] FISHMAN GROUP: Kline FDCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD KLINE Sr., LINDA KLINE, and IRREONA BYRD, On behalf of themselves and All others similarly situated, v. FISHMAN GROUP PC, RYAN FISHMAN, MARC FISHMAN, ALEXANDRA ICHIM, FENTON OAKS, LLC dba FENTON OAKS MHC, And PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. OF MICHIGAN d/b/a PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-11272-NGE-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs and putative class plaintiffs ask the Court granting their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. This case arises, in relevant part, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Michigan Occupation Code (MCO), the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MRCPA), and Unjust Enrichment, Negligence, and Conversion pursuant to the common law. The Plaintiffs and the putative class are allegedly obligated to pay debts now owed or due to Defendant Creditors. The Plaintiffs' alleged obligations owed or due arise from transactions in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the transactions were incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r2WSFL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alyson Oliver, Esq. Christopher Brown, Esq. OLIVER LAW GROUP P.C. 1647 W. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 327-6556 E-mail: notifications@oliverlawgroup.com - and - Rex Anderson, Esq. REX ANDERSON PC 9459 Lapeer Road No. 1011 Davison, MI 48423 Telephone: (810) 653-3300 E-mail: rex@rexandersonpc.net FLORIDA: Lawsuit Claims Sugarcane Burning Makes Residents Sick -------------------------------------------------------------- cbs12.com reports that the sugar industry is a multi-billion dollar business that employs thousands of people statewide, and for about half the year, Florida sugarcane farmers set their crops on fire. Sugarcane burning is a cheap and effective way to harvest one of the state's most important crops, but concern is growing that too much smoke can cause health issues for people who live and work near the cane fields. The Glades region is key to sugarcane production, and "big sugar" is the top employer in town. Now, some say the burns are making them sick. "Doctors talk about how people in the Glades come to them in September and October because they know they're about to have respiratory issues for the next six months," Matthew Moore, an attorney at Berman Law Group, told CBS12 News. Moore is the lead attorney on a class-action lawsuit claiming that sugarcane burning is affecting the health of Glades residents. Michael Brauer, an internationally recognized air quality expert, agrees that the pollutants in the air caused by these burns can be very harmful to people who live in nearby communities. "This is quite serious stuff," Brauer said. "Half the year of high pollution is quite extreme." A spokesperson for the U.S. Sugar Corp told CBS12 News that the air quality in the Glades in in compliance with the Clean Air Act, writing in an email, "the Glades communities enjoy some of the best air quality in the state of Florida, with Palm Beach and Hendry counties ranking among the top of all of Florida's 67 counties." The government does have one air monitor in Belle Glade monitoring the air quality all year long, but some are concerned that might not be sufficient. "Basically that state monitor is probably not picking up the spread of the smoke," Brauer said. During an independent investigation, the Palm Beach Post and ProPublica partnered to test the air quality in the region to see whether the government-run air sensor was missing any harmful pollutants. They used their own sensors and reported that the single air monitor doesn't always account for short spikes in pollution that occur during a burn. U.S. Sugar says the air monitor in Belle Glade is effective and accurate, and they criticized the Post/ProPublica effort, writing "the Palm Beach Post story relies on data from amateur-grade air monitors they stuck in a Pahokee resident's yard, not professionally set up or following the protocols outlined by the EPA." For a full statement, click here. Meanwhile, after overcoming numerous challenges to his suit, Moore is now gearing up to face these companies in court. "Sugar keeps coming back and coming back, trying to pick at our lawsuit and so far we've prevailed," Moore told CBS12 News. Moore says he hopes these companies will ultimately switch to a more environmentally responsible and health-conscious method for harvesting sugar. One option, is what he calls 'mechanical harvesting,' otherwise known as 'green harvesting.' This is a process by which machines with cutting blades remove the outer foliage from sugarcane instead of burning the leaves off. "Burning is a cheap way to do it," he said. "But it remains completely perplexing why they stick to this burning when there's a viable alternative that's fairly easy for them to switch." In the early 1990's, the Department of Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) made some changes to the state's burning regulations. The changes came after complaints from residents in Royal Palm Beach and Wellington, and did now allow for burning when the winds blew eastward towards costal cities. Since then, the rules have been updated. Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried began introducing 'improvements' to the state's prescribed burning program in 2019. Among the changes was an initiative to re-zone the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) beginning in 2021. The majority of the EAA lies within Palm Beach County, and in a press release, Fried's team noted "the zones have been redrawn to lessen the potential smoke impact across all communities." Still, people CBS12 News spoke to in the Glades have not noticed a difference in the smoke concentration since the new regulations and re-zoning went into effect. [GN] FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jakubowitz Law on July 5 disclosed that securities fraud class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below. Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:DNMR) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT DNMR: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17383&from=1 Class Period: October 5, 2020 - May 4, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Danimer had deficient internal controls; (ii) as a result, the Company had misrepresented, inter alia, its operations' size and regulatory compliance; (iii) Defendants had overstated Nodax's biodegradability, particularly in oceans and landfills; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FREQ) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT FREQ: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17383&from=1 Class Period: November 16, 2020 - March 22, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's Phase 2a trial results failed to live up to the Company's expectations as the results revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and the placebo. In spite of the disappointing results, the Company continued to conduct the Phase 2a study while releasing positive statements in earnings calls, press releases, SEC filings, and pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's potential. These statements materially misled the market and artificially inflated the value of Frequency's common stock. RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:RLX) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT RLX: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/rlx-technology-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17383&from=1 This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased, or otherwise acquired, RLX American Depository Shares pursuant or traceable to the documents issued in connection with RLX's January 2021 initial public stock offering. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 9, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's then-existing exposure to China's ongoing campaign to establish a national standard for e-cigarettes, which would bring them into line with ordinary cigarette regulations, and that RLX's reported financials were not nearly as robust as the offering materials projected, nor were they indicative of future results. As a result, investors purchased RLX shares at artificially inflated prices. Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: JAKUBOWITZ LAW 1140 Avenue of the Americas 9th Floor New York, New York 10036 T: (212) 867-4490 F: (212) 537-5887 [GN] FRONTIER MANAGEMENT: Wright Appeals FLSA Class Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Joshua Wright filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled JOSHUA WRIGHT, LORETTA STANLEY, HALEY QUAM, and AIESHA LEWIS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, FRONTIER SENIOR LIVING LLC, and GH SENIOR LIVING LLC, dba GREENHAVEN ESTATES ASSISTED LIVING, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD, in the U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 15, 2021, Judge John A. Mendez granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with prejudice. Joshua Wright, Loretta Stanley, Haley Quam, and Aiesha Lewis ("Plaintiffs") filed the putative class action against the Defendants over several of their wage and hour policies. The Defendants operate a chain of retirement and assisted living communities. Plaintiff Wright worked as a medication technician at one of the assisted living locations in California from April 12, 2018, until March 15, 2019. Stanley worked as a lead medical technician and caregiver at a facility in Oregon from December 2018, until September 2019. Quam worked as a caregiver at a facility in Washington from September 2017, until September 2018. Lewis worked as a caregiver at a facility in Illinois from July 2017, until October 2017. The Plaintiffs, collectively, allege that the Defendants' wage and hour practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. Plaintiff Wright, on behalf of the California class, alleges violations of several provisions of the California Labor Code and behavior amounting to unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. Quam, on behalf of the Washington class, alleges violations of Washington labor law and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Lewis, on behalf of the Oregon class, alleges a host of labor violations pursuant to Oregon law. Stanley, on behalf of the Illinois class, alleges violations of Illinois labor law, consumer fraud, and deceptive business practices. The Plaintiffs' state law claims are similar in that they generally allege that the Defendants failed to properly compensate them and denied them several employee entitlements like meal and rest periods and accurate, itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of the dismissal order entered by Judge Mendez. The appellate case is captioned as Joshua Wright, et al. v. Frontier Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-16052, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 22, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Joshua Wright Mediation Questionnaire was due June 29, 2021; -- Appellant Joshua Wright opening brief is due on August 16, 2021; -- Appellees Frontier Management, LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC and GH Senior Living, LLC answering brief is due on September 15, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSHUA WRIGHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com Defendants-Appellees FRONTIER MANAGEMENT, LLC, FRONTIER SENIOR LIVING, LLC, and GH SENIOR LIVING, LLC, DBA Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living, are represented by: Barbara Iole Antonucci, Esq. Sarah Hamilton, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 918-3006 E-mail: bantonucci@constangy.com shamilton@constangy.com - and - Anthony Sbardellati, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 E-mail: asbardellati@constangy.com FUJI HANA: Desheng Lin Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Deliverymen ------------------------------------------------------------- DESHENG LIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUJI HANA RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Fuji Hana Kosher Japanese Restaurant d/b/a Fuji Hana; LORRAINE GINDI, ESTATE OF ISADORE GINDI, by executor RAYMOND BETESH, ISADORE NATKIN, and JACK COHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03832 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 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 minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked, failure to pay spread of hours compensation, failure to keep records, failure to provide time of hire wage notice, failure to provide wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and misappropriated tips. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a deliveryman at 512 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York from January 01, 2006 to June 21, 2021. Fuji Hana Restaurant Corp. is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the name Fuji Hana Kosher Japanese Restaurant located at 512 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 FULL TRUCK: Kohn Sues Over Omitted Material Facts on IPO Statement ------------------------------------------------------------------ TOMAS EDUARDO KOHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FULL TRUCK ALLIANCE CO. LTD., PETER HUI ZHANG, SIMON CHONG CAI, SHANSHAN GUO, GUIZHEN MA, WENJIAN DAI, RICHARD WEIDONG JI, JENNIFER XINZHE LI, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, COGENCY GLOBAL INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., UBS SECURITIES LLC, HUATAI SECURITIES (USA), INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED and CLSA LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 654232/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially false and misleading registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to attract investors to purchase Full Truck Alliance American Depositary Shares (ADSs) on its initial public offering (IPO) on January 23, 2021. Specifically, the registration statement allegedly failed to disclose that Full Truck Alliance was the subject of a cybersecurity review by the Chinese government that threatened the company's ability to operate and grow its proprietary platform. Rather than disclose these facts, the registration statement claimed that the company complied with all data privacy laws and was committed to the protection and security of user data. When the truth emerged, Full Truck Alliance's ADSs fell to a low of only $14.89 per ADS on July 6, 2021, before closing at $17.75 per ADS and continuing to fall the next trading day. This intraday low represented a nearly 22% decline from the price at which Full Truck Alliance's ADSs had been sold to the investing public in the IPO less than two weeks previously, says the suit. Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. is a company that operates a digital freight platform based in Guizhou, China. Cogency Global Inc. is a provider of registered agent service based in New York, New York. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an investment management company, headquartered in New York, New York. China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited is a wealth management firm based in Hong Kong, China. Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. is a wealth management firm based in Hong Kong, China. UBS Securities LLC is an investment bank based in New York, New York. Huatai Securities (USA), Inc. is a broker dealer, headquartered in New York, New York. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is a provider of banking and financial services, headquartered in New York, New York. Nomura Securities International, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered in New York, New York. China Renaissance Securities (Hong Kong) Limited is a financial institution based in China. CLSA Limited is a capital markets and investment group based in Hong Kong, China. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and – Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 674-4674 Facsimile: (312) 674-4676 E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and – Ralph M. Stone, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 1700 Broadway, 41st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 292-5690 Facsimile: (212) 292-5680 E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com FUNZALO & CANTEET: Watson Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- AVIS WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUNZALO & CANTEET, INC. d/b/a "Right at Home", ZUBIN KAPADIA, SANDRA P. QUARTUCCIO, PHILIP QUARTUCCIO and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03833 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violations of Wage Parity Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to pay spread of hours premium, failure to maintain accurate records, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a home health aide/maid from about October 30, 2020 until about April 15, 2021. Funzalo & Canteet, Inc. is a home health care services company, with its principal place of business at 400 Post Ave. Suite 302, Westbury, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com GAIN CAPITAL: Zhang Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jun Zhang filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled JUN ZHANG, a.k.a., JUNE ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3-20-cv-09426, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 4, 2021, Judge Brian R. Martinotti issued an Opinion: a. granting Defendant Gain Capital Holdings ("GCH")'s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens; and b. denying as moot GCH's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Jun Zhang's Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). GCH is a global provider of trading services and solutions with customers located in over 180 countries. Its shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange and it has offices in New York, Illinois, Ohio, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, China, U.A.E., Poland, and Singapore. GCH uses a global digital trading platform that can be accessed through the internet and mobile devices. Its retail customers are composed of "self-directed traders" who execute trades on their own behalf. In 2018, these self-directed traders represented approximately 99.7% of GCH's retail trading volume. Trades are executed through GCH's GAIN Trader proprietary trading platform. GCH has several operating subsidies, including a Cayman Islands company named Gain Global Market, Inc. ("GGMI"). The Plaintiff is a self-directed trader who has been using GCH's GAIN Trader platform to trade derivatives of commodity futures since 2017. When the Plaintiff opened his account through GCH's website, forex.com, he had to fill in his personal information and set up a username and password. The Plaintiff does not remember signing any contract for opening the account, and the entire process took him only a few minutes. To his understanding, GCH's platform allows its users to buy and sell futures derivatives offered by GCH -- it is not an agent which buys and sells futures on behalf of the users. The Plaintiff alleges the action arose from the negative pricing of WTI futures. On April 3, 2020, the CME Group announced to its CME Globex and Market Data customers that effective April 5, 2020, futures and options including crude oil will be flagged as eligible to trade at negative prices. Historically, negative pricing for commodity trading has existed for many years, but the CME Group did not allow it until April 5, 2020. On April 8, 2020, CME Group published an advisory notice which stated, in relevant part, that if major energy prices continued to fall towards zero in the following months, CME Clearing had a tested plan to support the possibility of negative options and enable markets to continue to function normally. The notice specifically mentioned WTI Crude Oil futures, RBOB Gasoline futures, and Heating Oil futures for possible negative pricing. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the dismissal order entered by Judge Martinotti. The appellate case is captioned as Jun Zhang v. Gain Capital Holdings Inc., Case No. 21-2206, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 23, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JUN ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AKA June Zhang, is represented by: Jing J. Li, Esq. LILAW INC 1905 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95125 Telephone: (650) 521-5956 - and - Benjamin B. Xue, Esq. 1 School Street Glen Cove, NY 11542 Telephone: (516) 595-8887 Defendant-Appellee GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS INC, a Delaware Corporation, is represented by: Michael M. Rosensaft, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN 575 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 940-6631 E-mail: michael.rosensaft@kattenlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Yukon Taillights --------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Mceachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors by a plaintiff who says the taillights on their K2XX-platform GMC Yukon are faulty. This lawsuit, which was first reported on by Car Complaints, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by a plaintiff named Rhonda Small. The plaintiff claims the factory taillights in their K2XX-platform GMC Yukon have faulty LED light strips that may cause the brake and/or taillights to fail. These lights may also have a faulty connection inside the light assembly or a defective circuit board, which can lead to similar issues with the brake and taillights. GM issued a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) in November of 2019 for certain 2015-2016 model year GMC Yukon SUVs to address a problem with these vehicle's taillights. The TSB, entitled "Tail Lamps Inoperative," indicated the stop and tail functions inside the taillamps may experience various issues and instructed dealers "to replace tail lamps if they are found to be inoperative." The class action lawsuit says later model year GMC Yukon vehicles should have been included in this TSB, which only involved 2015 and 2016 model year vehicles. As noted by Car Complaints, the plaintiff says the problems with the taillights can be traced back to the "defective design of the alloy base circuit used to maintain continuity," in the taillights of affected vehicles. "The alloy's inability to expand and contract due to the current design causes the Tail Lamp Assembly Defect, whereby the alloy breaks, interrupts the current from maintaining continuity, and results in failure when the circuit trace inside the housing cracks," the lawsuit says. "The tail lamp assembly should have had expansion and contraction points to prevent premature failure." This lawsuit also says the taillights can experience similar issues if enough moisture is allowed to enter the light assembly. If this condition occurs, owners may also observe moisture or a clear white film forming on the inside of the taillight lense(s). The plaintiff claims GM has actively tried to hide these defects and has left GMC Yukon owners on the hook for costly repairs. The filing also alleges this problem is so widespread that it has led to a backorder of replacement parts across the country. We'll provide an update on this class-action proceeding as it moves through the courts. [GN] GRANITE SERVICES: Campo Seeks Conditional Cert. of Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILIO CAMPO, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., and FIELDCORE SERVICES SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00223-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all employees of Granite Services and FieldCore (except for EHS employees who worked in Texas) in the past three years who were paid "straight time for overtime;" 2. directing the Defendants to produce to undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the names, the last known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members within the defined class; 3. authorizing undersigned counsel to send notice to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel by first-class mail, e-mail, and text- message; 4. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants with 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff; and 5. any other relief that is just and appropriate. Granite Services provides professional engineering services. The Company provides service solutions to the power generation industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TT4PkV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8581 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (710) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com GRANITE SERVICES: Rodriguez Suit Moved From N.D. Tex. to N.D. Ga. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., and FIELDCORE SERVICES SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00274, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02689-TCB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to provide compensation for missed meal and rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records, and waiting time penalties. Granite Services International, Inc. is a professional engineering services company doing business in Florida. FieldCore Services Solutions, LLC is an independent industrial field services company based in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 E-mail: Rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and – Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com GUIDANT GLOBAL: Opposes Ward Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WARD, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. GUIDANT GLOBAL, INC. d/b/a GROUP INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-10283-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Defendants Guidant Global, Inc. and Corporate Employment Resources, Inc. oppose the Plaintiff's renewed motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff William Ward seeks to certify a nationwide class of Defendant's employees who were paid "straight time for overtime." While Plaintiff was paid "straight time for overtime," Bartech's practice is legal under the FLSA and therefore Ward cannot show the requisite widespread violation of law. Moreover, Plaintiff's proof falls well short of what is required to show that the class he seeks to represent is similarly situated, and there are a high number of individualized determinations that would need to be made. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion should be denied, the Defendants say. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wzbduS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. Pavlick, Esq. Gregory N. Blase, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 210 Sixth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 355-6275 Facsimile (412) 355-6501 E-mail: Michael.Pavlick@klgates.com Gregory.Blase@klgates.com HARRIET CARTER: Popa Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Ashley Popa filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Ashley Popa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation and Navistone, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2-19-cv-00450, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff brought this class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Defendants alleging that they violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act of 1978 by unlawfully intercepting her data while she shopped online. According to the complaint, in early 2018, Popa visited Harriet Carter's website, www.harrietcarter.com, where she provided her email address, searched for pet stairs, and added one or more items to her online cart but ultimately did not purchase anything. Although this interaction seems simple enough, it was simultaneously accompanied by various underlying communications between Popa's Safari web browser, Harriet Carter's website server, and a marketing technology company's -- Navistone's -- servers. It is from the interplay between these underlying communications that Popa brings this action alleging that "Harriet Carter procured Navistone to automatically and secretly spy on, and intercept, Harriet Carter's website visitors['] electronic communications with Harriet Carter in real-time." Popa alleges that both Harriet Carter and Navistone violated Section 5703 of WESCA because Navistone unlawfully intercepted her communications with Harriet Carter. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order, Memorandum Opinion and Judgment dated June 17, 2021, granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Ashley Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts Inc., et al., Case No. 21-2203, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 23, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ASHLEY POPA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: kiverson@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com Defendants-Appellees HARRIET CARTER GIFTS INC, a Pennsylvania corporation; and NAVISTONE INC, a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Carrie H. Dettmer Slye, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 852-2626 E-mail: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com - and - Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com - and - Emily B. Thomas, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 2929 Arch Street 12th Floor, Cira Centre Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 564-8368 E-mail: ethomas@bakerlaw.com - and - David W. Bertoni, Esq. Eamonn Hart, Esq. David Swetnam-Burland, Esq. BRANN & ISAACSON 184 Main Street, P.O. Box 3070 Lewiston, ME 04243 Telephone: (207) 786-3566 E-mail: dbertoni@brannlaw.com ehart@brannlaw.com dsb@brannlaw.com - and - Devin J. Chwastyk Rachel R. Hadrick, Esq. MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 237-5482 E-mail: dchwastyk@mwn.com rhadrick@mcneeslaw.com HARTFORD CASUALTY: Strelow Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jennifer Strelow filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled MARIO D. CHORAK, DMD, P.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00627-BJR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 19, 2020, the lawsuit alleges that Hartford wrongfully denied claims for coverage relating to COVID-19 pandemic and/or orders issued by Governor Jay Inslee, other Governors, and other civil authorities. Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff cannot provide dental orthodontic services. The Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to keep its business as a going concern, says the complaint. The Plaintiff says it filed the lawsuit to ensure that it and other similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order and Judgment dated May 28, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Strelow, et al. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 21-35478, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 23, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Jennifer Strelow Mediation Questionnaire was due June 30, 2021; -- Appellant Jennifer Strelow opening brief is due on August 17, 2021; -- Appellee Hartford Casualty Insurance Company answering brief is due on September 16, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JENNIFER STRELOW, DMD, is represented by: Kathryn M. Knudsen, Esq. RUIZ & SMART PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1220 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 203-9100 - and - Sarah Gordon, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-8005 HEALTH PLAN: Subject to Anti-Discrimination Provision Under ACA --------------------------------------------------------------- Lacie Pierson, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that a federal judge ruled that The Health Plan of West Virginia is subject to compliance to a specific provision under the Affordable Care Act that prohibits sex discrimination, including against transgender Americans. The Health Plan of West Virginia is a private company that provides health insurance services for the state. U.S. District Judge Robert Chambers on June 28 denied a motion from The Health Plan to dismiss a lawsuit from two transgender men who say their state-funded health insurance won't cover hormone replacement therapy solely because they are transgender. Christopher Fain and Zachary Martell filed a lawsuit challenging blanket exclusions of coverage for gender-confirming health care in West Virginia's health plans, the state's Medicaid program and the Public Employees Insurance Agency, or PEIA, in November 2020. The case is pending in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia. Martell receives health care coverage through his husband, Brian McNemar, who is a public employee and receives benefits through PEIA. Their respective health care insurance providers have denied Fain and Martell, both of Huntington, coverage for their testosterone prescriptions because neither West Virginia Medicaid nor PEIA covers "treatments associated with gender dysphoria," they said in the class-action lawsuit. Not only have Martell and McNemar had to pay out of pocket for the coverage, but Martell, at times, has either had to delay or forgo treatment, he said in the lawsuit. The men are seeking a permanent injunction that would require the state agencies to provide coverage for treatments for all gender-confirming health care treatment, as well as other compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. In the motion to dismiss the case, attorneys for The Health Plan argued that the health insurance company should be dismissed as a defendant because Martell and McNemar didn't allege that their specific health care plan was supported by federal money through the Affordable Care Act, meaning it wasn't subject to the anti-discrimination provision in the law. The Health Plan's attorneys also argued that Martell's claim against the company should be dismissed because his claim is through his husband's health insurance, making him a secondary party to any issues with the plan. The Health Plan's attorneys specifically relied on a definition of "health program or activity" as it pertains to Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex and other characteristics. The Trump administration narrowed the definition of "health program or activity" to include entities "principally engaged in the business of providing health care. In denying the motion, Chambers said that, without clarity in the law from Congress, existing legal precedent keeps the definition of "health program or activity" open to interpretation. He noted that The Health Plan did receive federal financial assistance through its Medicare Advantage program, making it accountable to the provisions of Section 1557. "Congress clearly intended to prohibit discrimination by any entity acting within the 'health' system," Chambers said in his order. "Here, The Health Plan's role as a health insurance provider undoubtedly implicates the health of persons falling within the scope of [Affordable Care Act] protections." In addition to The Health Plan of West Virginia, other defendants named in the lawsuit are Bill Crouch, secretary of the state Department of Health and Human Resources; Cynthia Beane, commissioner for the state Bureau of Medical Services; PEIA director Ted Cheatham; and the DHHR's Bureau for Medical Services. [GN] JAMES RIVER: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against James River Group Holdings, Ltd. ("James River" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRVR) and certain of its executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased James River common stock between August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action is captioned: Employees' Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth dba Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund v. James River Group Holdings, Ltd, et. al., 3:21-cv-00444 (E.D. Va.). James River is a Bermuda-based holding company that owns and operates a group of specialty insurance and reinsurance companies. In 2014, James River ramped up its Commercial Auto Division by underwriting a new type of insurance policy that covered Rasier LLC ("Rasier"), a subsidiary of the ride-sharing company Uber Technologies, Inc. (together with Rasier, "Uber"). The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) James River had not adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (2) James River was using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that materially understated the Company's true exposure to Uber claims; (3) as a result, James River was forced to increase its unfavorable reserves in subsequent quarters even after cancelling the Uber policies; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about James River's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The truth emerged through two disclosures that caused James River's stock price to fall and investors to suffer substantial losses. First, on October 8, 2019, James River announced that it had delivered a notice of early cancellation, effective December 31, 2019, for all insurance policies issued to Uber, though the Company remained contracted to provide coverage for future claims related to the period the Company's Uber policies were in effect (known as "runoff"). The Company also advised of an adverse development between $55 and $60 million-primarily related to Uber policies for the 2016 and 2017 underwriting years. In response to this news, James River's stock price fell $11.06 per share, or more than 22 percent. Significantly, despite the runoff coverage commitment, Defendants assured investors throughout the Class Period that James River's issues with Uber were behind it and the Company had adequately reserved. These misrepresentations and omissions caused the Company's stock to continue trading at artificially inflated prices. Then, on May 5, 2021, eighteen months after the Company announced its cancellation of the Uber contract, and after repeated assurances to investors that the legacy contract posed no challenges, James River surprised the market by disclosing an additional $170 million of unfavorable reserves related to the Uber policies. In response to this news, James River's stock price dropped $12.27 per share, or more than 26 percent. If you purchased James River common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia no later than September 7, 2021. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. [GN] KROGER COMPANY: Reply to Kibler Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kibler v. Kroger Company, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00509 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply to first motion to certify supervisors class on or before July 16, 2021. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kroger is an American retail company founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is the United States' largest supermarket by revenue, and the second-largest general retailer. [CC] L.A.R.E. PARTNERS: Class Certification Responses Due July 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Umbrino, et al., v. L.A.R.E. Partners Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-06559 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order regarding motion to certify class: -- Responses are due on or before July 28, 2021. -- Replies are due on or before August 4, 2021. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] LEGEND ENERGY: Rose Sues Over Mass Layoff of Electrical Technicians ------------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB ROSE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGEND ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00124 (W.D. Tex., July 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act by terminating the Plaintiff's employment without advance written notice as part of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an electrical technician from September 2020 to May 15, 2021. Legend Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1055 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net LUMICO LIFE: Shelton TCPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to E.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JAMES EVERETT SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUMICO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and ASSURANCE IQ, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-06494, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03045-JMY to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending pre-recorded telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system without prior express written notice. Lumico Life Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its principal place of business at 175 King Street, Armonk, New York. Assurance IQ, Inc. is a provider of software solutions, with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com MARICOPA, AZ: Luckey Suit Seeks to Certify Two Waiver Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samuel Luckey and Michael Calhoun, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, and Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, v. Allister Adel, in her official capacity as County Attorney for Maricopa County, Case No. 2:21-cv-01168-JJT—ESW (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two classes: 1. The "Pre-Waiver Class" "All current and future people whom the Maricopa County Attorney's Office 5 (MCAO) has charged and assigned to Maricopa County's Early Disposition 6 Courts (EDCs) and who are subject to MCAO's blanket policy, practice, or custom of making or threatening to make plea offers harsher in response to people exercising their right to a preliminary hearing and/or trial, but who have not yet made the decision to waive their preliminary hearing or reject their initial plea offer; and 2. The "Post-Waiver Class" "All current and future people whom the MCAO has charged and assigned to Maricopa County's EDCs, and who are subject to MCAO's blanket policy, practice, or custom of making or threatening to make plea offers harsher in response to people exercising their right to a preliminary hearing and/or trial, but who have waived their preliminary and/or rejected their initial plea offer. This action seeks to protect people accused of crimes in the EDCs from the Defendant's unconstitutional policy of making plea offers "substantially harsher" in retaliation for defendants asserting their rights to a preliminary hearing and/or trial (the "Retaliation Policy"). Arizonans are guaranteed a right to trial under the U.S. Constitution and guaranteed a preliminary hearing under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona statutes. In Maricopa County, people charged with felonies by information and not a grand jury are first taken before a magistrate judge for an initial appearance. The initial appearance is a non-adversarial proceeding at which the magistrate, among other things, (1) determines whether the person is indigent for purposes of assigning a public defender; (2) sets dates for 28 a status conference and follow-up preliminary hearing, and (3) decides whether the person will be detained while awaiting those dates. Maricopa County is located in the south-central part of the U.S. state of Arizona. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated its population was 4,485,414 as of 2019, making it the state's most populous county, and the fourth-most populous in the United States, containing about 62% of Arizona's population. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yOtAgN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Somil Trivedi, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT 915 15 th St., NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 715-0802 E-mail: strivedi@aclu.org - and - Jared G. Keenan, Esq. Victoria Lopez, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA 3707 North 7th Street, Suite 235 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: (602) 650-1854 E-mail: jkeenan@acluaz.org vlopez@acluaz.org MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Non-Party Files Motion to Quash Subpoena ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action lawsuit styled as TODD HALL, KEVIN BRANCA, and GEORGE ABDELSAYED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:21-mc-80165-TSH, Julie Drassinower, a non-party, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 7, 2021 a motion to quash a deposition subpoena that was issued to her on June 10, 2021 by Defendant Marriott International, Inc. in the case captioned Todd Hall et al. v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG, that is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of California's consumer protection laws by engaging in false and deceptive advertising of its hotel rooms, services, and amenities. Marriott International, Inc. is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential, and timeshare properties, headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN] The Non-Party is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Lilach Halperin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com lilach@consumersadvocates.com - and – Robert L. Teel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL 1425 Broadway Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (866) 833-5529 Facsimile: (855) 609-6911 - and – L Timothy Fisher, Esq. Sean L. Litteral, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com slitteral@bursor.com MARTIN JUGENBURG: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Patient Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------------- Between January 1, 2017 and December 13, 2018, Dr. Martin Jugenburg (the self-styled "Dr. 6ix") operated surveillance video cameras throughout his clinic, the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute, located in the toney Fairmont Royal York Hotel. The cameras were placed not only in public areas, but within consultation and examination rooms, and in the operating room. The Information and Privacy Commissioner found in a September 2019 report that the clinic's operation of the video surveillance system breached the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. On November 28, 2019, the law firms of Howie, Sacks & Henry, Waddell Phillips and Beyond Law launched a proposed class action against Dr. Jugenburg and his professional corporation, alleging that patient privacy had been breached. The privacy breach is alleged to have occurred by Dr. Jugenburg surreptitiously taking video of his patients without their consent through the network of surveillance cameras, including during their private doctor-patient consultations while patients were nude or semi-nude, and during surgeries. The action claims compensation for Dr. Jugenburg's patients for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, breach of trust, intrusion upon seclusion and invasion of privacy, among other liabilities. None of these allegations have yet been proven in court. The action has now been certified to proceed as a class action in respect of the claims arising from the non-consensual use of surveillance cameras. A court-approved notice of the class action will delivered to all patients who attended Dr. Jugenburg's clinic for any surgical or non-surgical consultations, treatments, procedures, or follow-up appointments between January 1, 2017 and December 13, 2018. More information about the class action and how it may affect you if you were a patient at the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute between January 1, 2017 and December 13, 2018 is available on the law firms' websites. When originally filed, the lawsuit also included allegations that Dr. Jugenburg posted some individuals' images without consent online, through his clinic's website or social media platforms such as Snapchat and Instagram. The court did not permit these claims to proceed as part of the class action. Any such claims will have to be pursued through individual lawsuits. The legal team of Howie, Sacks & Henry, Waddell Phillips and Beyond Law are available to discuss whether any individual has a claim for such privacy breaches. Patients who attended Dr. Jugenburg's Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Clinic between January 1, 2017 and December 13, 2018 or patients who want to discuss individual claims arising from Dr. Jugenburg publishing their images on the internet can contact the legal team at 1-877-771-7006 or reception@waddellphillips.ca. About Howie, Sacks & Henry Howie, Sacks & Henry advances mass tort claims and class actions on behalf of people injured by dangerous products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. For more information, call our firm at 1-877-771-7006, or email vlord@hshlawyers.com. About Waddell Phillips PC Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation is a boutique law firm, specializing in plaintiff-side class actions. The principals of the firm have helped victims in a wide range of cases, including product liability, consumer protection, residential schools, franchise disputes, and securities misrepresentations. For more information, call our firm at 647-261-4486, or email reception@waddellphillips.ca. About Beyond Law LLP Beyond Law LLP is a Toronto-based litigation firm focusing on serious personal injury cases including medical malpractice, wrongful death and insurance disputes. The firm prides itself on its hands-on and personalized approach. [GN] MDL 2992: 10 Debit Card Data Breach Suits Moved to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ In the data breach litigation titled, "In Re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation," MDL No. 2992, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers eight actions from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and one each from the Eastern and Northern Districts of California, all to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Larry A. Burns for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that Bank of America, the entity contracted by California to distribute unemployment benefits to eligible recipients, failed to safeguard and properly manage benefits during the pandemic and unlawfully froze or denied access to funds in recipients' debit card accounts. Common factual questions include the nature of Bank of America's relationship with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) with respect to administering unemployment benefits and responding to claims of fraud, its policy and practices for responding to fraud reports from recipients of EDD benefits, in particular, the process for conducting investigations in response to error claims and its alleged decision to freeze their debit card accounts on a mass basis in late 2020. Additionally, nearly all actions share questions of fact as to Bank of America's data security practices. The panel concluded that the claims and proposed classes overlap extensively but with substantive differences that will make informal coordination unwieldy. The Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation being a less-frequently utilized district, where seven potential tag-along actions are pending. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2021 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3jZqqCA MDL 2993: 13 Crop Input Anti-Trust Suits Transferred to E.D. Mo. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the anti-trust litigation, "In Re: Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 2993, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers seven actions from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, five from the District of Minnesota and one from the District of Kansas, to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Stephen R. Clark, Sr. for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The actions allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act involving Defendants' distribution process that keeps crop input prices inflated at anti-competitive levels, denied farmers access to relevant market information, including transparent pricing terms that would allow competition and better-informed purchasing decisions and information about seed relabeling practices that would enable farmers to know if they are buying newly developed seeds or identical seeds repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a higher price. Defendants allegedly conspired and coordinated to boycott online Crop Inputs sales platforms because of the threat these posed to their market position and price control. The panel concluded that Eastern District of Missouri is the appropriate transferee district for this dispute since Defendant Bayer CropScience is based there. Several other defendants also have a significant presence in Missouri. Documents and witnesses relevant to plaintiffs' claims may be found there. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2021 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3jVVMtN MED-DATA INCORPORATED: Class Suit Moved to District of Kansas ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as C.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Med-Data Incorporated, Case No. 21CV01716 was transferred from the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on July 8, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02301-DDC-GEB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. MedData -- https://www.meddata.com/ -- is a leading provider of technology-enabled revenue cycle management services designed to engage patients, empower hospitals and health systems, and improve financial outcomes throughout the entire healthcare continuum.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucy McShane, Esq. Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 1656 Washington Street, Suite 120 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Mitchell L. Burgess, Esq. BURGESS LAW FIRM, PC 4505 Madison Avenue, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 471-1700 Fax: (816) 471-1701 Email: mitch@burgesslawkc.com - and - Phyllis A. Norman, Esq. NORMAN & GRAVES 4505 Madison Avenue, Suite 220 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 895-8985 Fax: (816) 895-8988 Email: phyllis@ngkclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Theodore A. Kardis, Esq. WALLACE SAUNDERS AUSTIN BROWN & ENOCHS CHARTERED - OP 10111 W. 87th Street Overland Park, KS 66212 Phone: (913) 752-5572 Fax: (913) 888-1065 Email: tkardis@wallacesaunders.com MONARCH RECOVERY: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Extended to Sept. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hampton v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00011 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order granting consent motion to extend deadline to file motion for class certification and re-setting the deadline for class certification motion to September 10, 2021. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving consumer credit. Monarch Recovery operates as a collection agency.[CC] MONASH IVF: Faces Class Action Over Use of Non-Invasive Test ------------------------------------------------------------ Eugene Boisvert and Zalika Rizmal, writing for ABC News, report that some people involved in a class action against two fertility services over the use of a non-invasive test which may have incorrectly classified embryos as abnormal have been told their embryos are still being stored. The lawyer representing about 200 affected parties in Victoria's Supreme Court said the mistake had resulted in some women choosing to be implanted with another person's embryo, while others have lost precious months of fertility. The class action launched last December alleges Melbourne-based Monash IVF and Adelaide-based Repromed breached their duty of care by failing to tell patients about the pitfalls of a type of testing that does not require a biopsy. There are two ways to conduct such testing: the first method is through a biopsy, which involves taking a tissue sample from an embryo, a method that is considered invasive. The second method is called non-invasive pre-implantation genetic testing and involves collecting DNA from the culture that the embryo has been growing in while in the laboratory. The inaccuracy of the test -- used by the two services between May 2019 and October 2020 -- was discovered last October. Patients were informed of the issue after many had already made the choice to donate the embryos to science or destroy them. Lawyer Michel Margalit said some clients had discovered that some of their embryos were still in storage. Those that had been donated could still be retrieved, but the others were lost forever. "They acted on the advice that their embryos were abnormal or had been destroyed," Ms Margalit said. "Some people obtained donor embryos and are now pregnant with children that aren't necessarily genetically related to them, or that had a whole host of other treatments, so it's a very painful time for our clients." She said they were not told about the pitfalls of the experimental testing regime. "In this case, there was an alternative -- a reliable test, a biopsy method -- and women were steered away from that method, to this non-invasive method and they just didn't know the mess they were walking into," she said. Decision up to patients Monash IVF and Repromed have now stopped using non-invasive pre-implantation genetic testing. Repromed medical director Professor Kelton Tremellen said the test turned out to be not as accurate as the company had hoped. He said some of the embryos that could now be used might still be abnormal. "What we're trying to do is say, look, unfortunately, we've now recognised that the test is not as accurate as it was originally portrayed to us and that we want to give these individuals the opportunity to make a decision now what they want to do with those embryos," he told ABC Radio Adelaide. "Some people will say 'I simply don't want to use them, we've moved on'. "Others will say, 'look, we'll accept the risk and transfer them and effectively consider them to be embryos that haven't been tested at all'." He said he and other scientists had "lost sleep" worrying about the effect on patients. "Rather than hide this stuff from patients, our staff have contacted them saying, 'look, those embryos are still in storage, we've now found out this test is not as accurate as we'd hoped, what would you like to do with them?'" he said. "Rather than sweeping it under the carpet, we're trying to be open and socially responsible by having full disclosure." [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Alston Ruling May Benefit Athlete Pay Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Papscun, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania that seeks to win collegiate athletes the right to compensation as employees is one of the first to consider the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision against the NCAA's limits on education-related benefits for sports stars. The proposed collective and class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania argues the National Collegiate Athletic Association's amateurism rule, barring pay-for-play arrangements for student athletes, violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state law. Judge John Padova set a July 6 deadline for the parties to submit supplemental memos addressing the high court's June 21 decision in NCAA v. Alston. Paul McDonald, an attorney who's representing plaintiffs from universities including Cornell, Fordham, and Villanova, said similar compensation litigation didn't progress far enough to allow student athletes to argue their case against the NCAA's amateurism bylaws, which are facing increased legal and legislative pressure nationally. He said he believes the high court's unanimous decision in Alston means game on. "I would like to think the decision is beneficial to our case, but don't want to assume that challenges will succeed," McDonald, of P L McDonald Law LLC, said. "I think it does mean the athletes get a fair shot, their day in court." The Supreme Court in Alston rejected the NCAA's bid for broad antitrust immunity, granting current and former collegiate athletes a partial victory by permitting them to be compensated with education-related benefits like computers, internships, and academic achievement awards. A concurrence from Justice Brett Kavanaugh opened the door to further challenges by arguing the NCAA and member schools are blocking pay for student athletes whose skills are key to the multi-billion dollar collegiate sports industry. The decision added momentum to the larger debate over compensation rights for collegiate athletes. The NCAA responded by issuing a stopgap policy to allow athletes to earn money from use of their name, image, or likeness -- a last-ditch effort as a series of so-called name-image-likeness laws took effect in multiple states July 1. While the Alston decision on its own doesn't mean pay-for-play is suddenly on the table, McDonald and other lawyers for the student-athlete plaintiffs in the case contend it stripped away the main defense the NCAA used to convince courts in past FLSA litigation not to implement tests to determine whether collegiate athletes are in fact employees. "Alston will make sure that our case, or any other -- whether it fails or succeeds -- will be based on the facts," McDonald said. "The most important aspect of Alston at 30,000 feet is that it really reaffirms that the NCAA's rules aren't law. They're just an organization saying, 'This is how we want to characterize the people who work for us.'" Building on Past Lawsuits The current and former student athletes in the Pennsylvania case, led by former Villanova University football player Ralph "Trey" Johnson, are suing the NCAA and 25 universities, including Princeton and Penn State. They contend they are employees under the FLSA and state law and are due the rights and protections afforded to employees, including minimum wages and overtime pay. "Student Athletes -- engaged in athletic work that is unrelated to academics; supervised by full-time, well-paid coaching and training staff; and integral to the billion dollar Big Business of NCAA sports -- are student employees as much as, and arguably more than, fellow students employed in Work Study programs," their complaint said. It is at least the fourth case in recent years in which student athletes have cited the FLSA in challenging the NCAA's argument that student athletes must work for free due to the tradition of amateurism that defines the "economic reality" of collegiate sports. That defense is tied to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's 1992 decision in Vanskike v. Peters, which ruled that federal inmates aren't entitled to minimum wages for prison labor. The 13th Amendment banned slavery, but it exempted those convicted of crimes. In previous cases, the NCAA has used the exception to get cases dismissed before the court could apply employment tests, Johnson's attorneys said. The nonprofit argues that because players are defined by the context they play in -- the economic reality of amateurism -- their circumstances preclude the need for employment tests. The NCAA didn't respond to emails seeking comment on the lawsuit. One attorney for the NCAA and the co-defendant universities declined to comment; others didn't respond to emailed inquiries. "With the variety of state laws adopted across the country, we will continue to work with Congress to develop a solution that will provide clarity on a national level," NCAA president Mark Emmert said in a July 1 press release about the name-image-likeness rule change. "The current environment -- both legal and legislative -- prevents us from providing a more permanent solution and the level of detail student-athletes deserve." The memorandum Johnson's lawyers plan to file will argue that the NCAA's defense in Johnson is analogous to its approach in Alston, said plaintiffs' attorney Michael Willemin. That means the high court's decision invalidates the NCAA's claims that amateurism is a shield, he said, and that the athletes' lawsuit should survive the current motion to dismiss and instead proceed to discovery. "Maybe the test comes out in the NCAA's favor, maybe in the plaintiffs', but you can't just not do the law because they are amateurs," Willemin, a partner at Wigdor LLP, added. Paths to Compensation A decision in favor of Johnson and his fellow student athletes would be the "fastest route to destroying the concept of amateurism," said Angela de Cespedes, a sports lawyer with Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP. She questioned whether such an outcome could hold up on appeal, however. Victory for the plaintiffs wouldn't mean simply monetary compensation, said Rutgers University labor professor Rebecca Givan. It could lead to other employee rights, such as the right to form unions. "The intermediate question here is, 'How many advances and rights can these athletes gain short of a clear-cut ruling that they are employees?'" Givan said. The Supreme Court's decision didn't address those questions, Givan said, but Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence seemed to argue that athletes are in fact workers. "Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law." The stakes in the Johnson case are more nuanced than what the Supreme Court had to consider in Alston, de Cespedes said. But the theme is the same: Students generate enormous revenue but are barred from sharing in the profits. "I don't think the Supreme Court came out against amateurism," de Cespedes said. "They said we can do both—preserve and compensate. They rejected the notion that amateurism is the be-all, end-all argument to justify everything." Classifying student athletes as employees is a slippery slope and could lead to complex questions over compensation for high school players and those on the college level who aren't in Division I, she said. A major shift toward employee status could even be interpreted as extending to any activity a student participates in that may be plausibly argued as generating revenue for a university—an approach with no hard limits, she added. "It is highly improbable that any activity independently run by students (e.g., student organizations) or by staff not expressly hired for the sole purpose of conducting the business of sports" would pass an employment test, McDonald wrote in an email. The slippery slope isn't as much of an issue as it might seem, as the clear criteria set by employment tests would preclude any confusion, he said. The case is Johnson v. The Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, E.D. Pa., No. 2:19-cv-05230. (Updated with quote from attorney Paul McDonald in final paragraph. Earlier version corrected court decision in 13th paragraph.) [GN] NCAA: Harris Files Suit in S.D. Indiana --------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Troy Harris, Bryan long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01998-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., July 8, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The National Collegiate Athletic Association -- https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization that regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 554-9099 Fax: (713) 554-9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com The Defendant appears pro se. NCAA: Smith Files Suit in S.D. Indiana -------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Rodney Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01994-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., July 8, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The National Collegiate Athletic Association -- https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 554-9099 Fax: (713) 554-9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com The Defendant appears pro se. NCAA: Thomas Files Suit in S.D. Indiana --------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Lance Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01996 (S.D. Ind., July 8, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The National Collegiate Athletic Association -- https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization that regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant appears pro se. NEW ORIENTAL: October 19 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP on July 5 disclosed that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of American Depositary Shares of New Oriental Education and Technology Group Inc. (NYSE: EDU): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING To: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADS") OF NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION & TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC. ("NEW ORIENTAL" OR THE "COMPANY") BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 AND DECEMBER 1, 2016, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that a hearing will be held on October 19, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Katherine Hayden, United States District Judge of the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom PO 05, Newark, NJ 07101 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $3,150,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to thirty-three percent of the Settlement Amount ($1,039,500) plus interest, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $150,000, and a Compensatory Award to Plaintiffs of no more than $10,000 collectively (or $2,500 each to Lead Plaintiffs Amy Chan, Steven Wade, Shunfeng Cheng, and Elburn Irish) should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June 1, 2020 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired ADSs of New Oriental between September 28, 2016 and December 1, 2016, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in New Oriental ADSs. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by visiting www.strategicclaims.net or by contacting the Claims Administrator toll-free at (866) 274-4004 or at info@strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must electronically submit a properly completed Proof of Claim by 11:59 p.m. on October 26, 2021 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you are unable to electronically submit a Proof of Claim, you may mail a Proof of Claim at your own expense. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than October 26, 2021 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is postmarked or hand-delivered no later than September 28, 2021, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and postmarked or hand-delivered no later than September 28, 2021, to each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of New Jersey Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07101 Lead Counsel Laurence M. Rosen THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 -or- Jeremy A. Lieberman POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, Floor 20 New York, NY 10016 Counsel For Defendants Scott D. Musoff SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may visit www.strategicclaims.net or write to Lead Counsel at the above address. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: June 4, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Lamar Advertising Appeals Ruling in Zoning Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner LAMAR ADVERTISING OF PENN, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled LAMAR ADVERTISING OF PENN, LLC, Petitioner v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, FIDEL DEL VALLE, and THOMAS FARIELLO, Respondents, Case No. 155436/2019, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. According to the complaint, the Petitioner is a registered Outdoor Advertising Company. At all relevant times, Petitioner was a tenant, and maintained outdoor signage, at a premises located at 1595 Forest Avenue, Staten Island, New York. On August 31, 2017, the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) issued three summonses to petitioner, alleging that it violated Administrative Code Section 28-105.1 by displaying signs without a permit. DOB is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of the [New York City Zoning Resolution] Zoning Resolution related to the placement of advertising signage throughout the City of New York. Petitioner Lamar Advertising of Penn, LLC is now seeking an appeal from the Decision and Order of the Honorable Debra A. James of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated December 7, 2020, dismissing its petition without costs and disbursements. The appellate case is captioned as In the Matter of the Application of Lamar Advertising of Penn, LLC For a Judgment Pursuant to the Provisions of Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; FIDEL F. DEL VALLE, as Commissioner and Chief Judge of the NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS; and THOMAS FARIELLO, as Acting Commissioner of the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, Case No. 2021-02224, in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department, filed on June 22, 2021.[BN] Petitioner LAMAR ADVERTISING OF PENN, LLC is represented by: Patrick J. Kilduff, Esq. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 216-8000 Respondents THE CITY OF NEW YORK; FIDEL F. DEL VALLE, as Commissioner and Chief Judge of the NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS; and THOMAS FARIELLO, as Acting Commissioner of the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, are represented by: James E. Johnson, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street, Room 5-179 New York, NY 10007 OCUGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 17 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Ocugen, Inc. ("Ocugen") (NASDAQ: OCGN) between February 2, 2021 and June 10, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-information-request-form?prid=17404&wire=5 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. Ocugen, Inc. NEWS - OCGN NEWS CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) the information submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was insufficient to support an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"), (ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA, (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements, as well as Defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Ocugen, you have until August 17, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Ocugen securities between February 2, 2021 and June 10, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission form https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-information-request-form?prid=17404&wire=5 or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for shareholders who have been wronged by corporations. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20 years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S. and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing investors in securities litigation with a track record of recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi & Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS") SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country, and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] ORPHAZYME A/S: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Orphazyme A/S ("Orphazyme" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ORPH) and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and docketed under 21-cv-03640, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Orphazyme American depositary shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below) issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about September 29, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) Orphazyme securities between September 29, 2020 and June 18, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired (a) Orphazyme ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO, and/or (b) Orphazyme securities during the Class Period, you have until September 7, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Orphazyme is a biopharmaceutical company that develops therapies for the treatment of neurodegenerative orphan diseases. The Company conducts its U.S. operations through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Orphazyme US, Inc., which is focused on U.S. regulatory review and preparing for the Company's first potential U.S. commercial launch, including legal, commercial, finance, advocacy relations, regulatory, and medical affairs functions. Orphazyme's lead drug candidate is arimoclomol, which is in clinical development for four orphan diseases, including Niemann-Pick disease type C ("NPC"), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ("ALS"), and Inclusion Body Myositis ("IBM"). In August 2017, Orphazyme initiated a multicenter randomized 1:1, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 clinical trial for assessing efficacy and safety of arimoclomol citrate 400 mg three times per day in patients with IBM; in August 2018, Orphazyme initiated a 2:1 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical trial assessing efficacy and safety of arimoclomol citrate 400 mg three times per day in patients with ALS; and in September 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") accepted Orphazyme's new drug application ("NDA") for arimoclomol for NPC. On September 4, 2020, Orphazyme filed a registration statement on Form F-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on September 28, 2020 (the "Registration Statement"). On September 29, 2020, pursuant to the Registration Statement, Orphazyme's ADSs began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "ORPH." That same day, Orphazyme filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the "Offering Documents"). Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Orphazyme conducted the IPO, issuing 3,966,146 of its ordinary shares to the U.S. public in the form of 3,966,146 ADSs at the Offering price of $11.00 per ADS, while concurrently offering 3,650,000 of its ordinary shares in Europe in a private placement to qualified investors, for total approximate proceeds of $77,913,174 to the Company before expenses and after applicable underwriting commissions. The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating IBM as Defendants had represented; (ii) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating ALS as Defendants had represented; (iii) the arimoclomol NDA for NPC was incomplete and/or required additional evidence and data to support the benefit-risk assessment of that NDA; (iv) as a result of (iii), the FDA was unlikely to approve the arimoclomol NDA for NPC in its present form; (v) the Company's overall business prospects, as well as arimoclomol's commercial prospects, were significantly overstated; and (vi) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. On March 29, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing] its phase 2/3 trial evaluating arimoclomol for the treatment of [IBM] . . . did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints." On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $3.59 per ADS, or 28.97%, to close at $8.80 per ADS on March 29, 2021. On May 7, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing] topline data from pivotal trial of arimoclomol in [ALS.]" The press release disclosed that the Company's "pivotal trial . . . did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints to show benefit in people living with ALS." On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $2.81 per ADS, or 32.83%, to close at $5.75 per ADS on May 7, 2021. Then, on June 18, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release announcing receipt of a Complete Response Letter from the FDA following the agency's review of the NDA for arimoclomol for the treatment of NPC. The press release disclosed that the FDA had rejected the arimoclomol NDA for NPC "based on needing additional qualitative and quantitative evidence to further substantiate the validity and interpretation" of certain data and "that additional data are needed to bolster confirmatory evidence beyond the single phase 2/3 clinical trial to support the benefit-risk assessment of the NDA." On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $7.23 per ADS, or 49.66%, to close at $7.33 per ADS on June 18, 2021. Finally, on June 21, 2021, investor resource website Seeking Alpha reported that "Orphazyme [was] cut to sell at Guggenheim after [the Company's] regulatory snub" by the FDA, stating, among other things, that "[w]ith a $1.00 price target for the stock indicating a downside of 86.4%, Guggenheim notes that there is 'little optionality left in the stock,' and adds 'it might make sense to wind down the company.'" On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $0.81 per ADS, or 11.05%, to close at $6.52 per ADS on June 21, 2021. As of the time the complaint was filed, the price of Orphazyme ADSs continued to trade below the $11.00 per ADS Offering price, damaging investors. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] PACK-FIVE CORP: Faces Osorio Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- ELIGIO OSORIO-PALMA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACK-FIVE CORP. d/b/a MINI STAR RESTAURANT, IONNA PAKKOU, ANDROULLA PAKKOU, MARIA PAKKOU, and CHARALAMBOS PAKKOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03831 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 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 minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, failure to timely pay all wages owed, and failure to provide proper wage statements. The Plaintiff worked as a food preparation employee and line cook at the Defendants' restaurant located in Queens, New York from 2000 through in or around October 2020. Pack-Five Corp. is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the name Mini Star Restaurant, with its principal place of business at 30-02 Steinway St., Astoria, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 PENTAGON FEDERAL: Charges Multiple NSF Fees on Same Item, Vue Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PANGNHIA VUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01063-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal., July 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Credit Union's improper practice of routinely charging its customers multiple insufficient funds (NSF) fees for the same item. The credit union promises its customers that if their account balance drops too low to cover a particular item such as a check, debit, or electronic bill payment, it will charge the customer a single $30 NSF fee per item. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have sustained monetary damages. Pentagon Federal Credit Union is a retail banking services provider, with its principal place of business in Alexandria, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. Jeffrey Bils, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Jeff@kicklawfirm.com - and – Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com PROVENTION BIO: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 20 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on July 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Provention Bio, Inc. securities between November 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Provention investors have until July 20, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. In November 2020, Provention completed the rolling submission of a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals (the "teplizumab BLA"). On April 8, 2021, the Company published a press release "announc[ing] that the Company received a notification on April 2, 2021 from the [FDA], stating that, as part of its ongoing review of the Company's [BLA] for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of clinical [T1D], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments at this time." On this news, Provention's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or 17.78%, to close at $8.00 per share on April 9, 2021. The 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. If you purchased Provention securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 20, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Provention securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. URL: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com. Contact Information: info@frankcruzlaw.com [GN] RLX TECHNOLOGY: Goldman Scarlato Evaluates Potential Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The investor rights attorneys at Goldman Scarlato & Penny, PC law firm ("GSP") are evaluating potential claims for compensation on behalf of investors who purchased in RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE: RLX) American Depository Shares (ADSs) in its initial public offering ("IPO") and suffered losses. The GSP attorneys' aim is to seek compensation for RLX investors individually, rather than in a class action. Each investor's situation must be individually evaluated before representation is offered. Institutional investors and family offices may consider individual representation. RLX Technology is a e-vapor company founded in 2018 and headquartered in China. In January 2021, the company published a Prospectus offering 116,500,000 ADSs approved for listing on the New York Stock Exchange at $12 per ADS. In March 2021, the Chinese regulators announced restrictions on e-cigarettes and other tobacco products, causing the price per share to decline from a $19.46 per ADS on March 19, 2021, to $10.15 per ADS on March 22, 2021. The price was further affected in June 2021 when RLX reported its first quarter earnings and announced results that disappointed many investors. On June 30, 2021, the price per RLX share was $8.73. RLX Investors May Be Able to Pursue Individual Claims Investor rights attorneys Alan Rosca and Paul Scarlato have been investigating certain alleged misrepresentations and omissions by RLX Technology in connection with its IPO and are preparing to take action on behalf of some of the RLX investors and seek compensation for their losses, separately from any pending class action. Investors in RLX interested in filing individual claims may contact attorneys Rosca or Scarlato for a free, no-obligation evaluation of their options at 888-998-0530, rosca@lawgsp.com or by leaving a message on https://investorlawyers.org/rlx-technology-investor-center/. The GSP investor rights attorneys have decades of combined experience representing investors who lost money as a result of investment misconduct. They take most cases of this type on a contingency fee basis and advance the case costs. There are no fees or costs if no recovery. Visit https://investorlawyers.org for more information about the firm and GSP attorneys' background and admissions to practice law. [GN] RLX TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 9 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming August 9, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased RLX Technology Inc. American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with RLX's January 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). Investors suffering losses on their RLX 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. RLX purports to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in China," which the Company claims is its "largest potential market." In January 2021, RLX conducted its IPO, selling approximately 116.5 million ADSs) at $12 per ADS, raising approximately $1.4 billion in gross proceeds. On March 22, 2021, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology posted draft regulations confirming that e-cigarettes and new tobacco products would be regulated similar to traditional tobacco offerings. On this news, RLX's share price fell $9.31, or 48%, to close at $10.15 per share on March 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors. Then, on June 2, 2021, the Company announced its first quarter 2021 financial results, reporting only a 48% increase in net revenues quarter over quarter, and second quarter guidance suggesting that its gross margin would "remain steady." On this news, RLX's share price fell $0.97, or nearly 9%, to close at $9.90 per share on June 4, 2021, thereby damaging investors further. The Company's shares have traded as low as $7.89 per ADS, or 32% below the IPO price. The complaint alleges that Defendants overstated certain financial metrics and failed to disclose that these metrics were not indicative of future financial performance since regulators in China were already working on a national standard for e-cigarettes that would regulate them either under the same rules or in the same manner as ordinary cigarettes. If you purchased or otherwise acquired RLX ADSs pursuant or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than August 9, 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. Contacts: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com URL: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com Contact Information: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] ROCK 'EM APPAREL: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rock 'Em Apparel Co. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Rock 'Em Apparel Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-05891 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rock 'em Apparel Co. -- https://rockemsocks.com/ -- is located in Orlando, Florida who primarily operates in the Sports Apparel business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal ROCKET COMPANIES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 30 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on July 6 disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021 No obligation or cost to you. Learn more about your recoverable losses in RKT: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17405&from=5 Rocket Companies, Inc. NEWS - RKT NEWS CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Rocket Companies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Rocket's 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; (b) Rocket 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's Partner Network operating segment; (c) the adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (d) as a result of the above, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as the Company's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and (f) 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. WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a loss in Rocket Companies you have until August 30, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Rocket Companies securities during the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees. HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information about the RKT lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click this link. ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] SAM'S WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum and OT Wages, Sanchez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAM'S WEST, INC. dba SAM'S CLUB, an Arkansas corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-05122 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code. Mr. Sanchez alleges that the Defendant failed to pay minimum wages and liquidated damages, failed to pay for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay all wages owed at termination of employment, failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, and engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in El Monte, California, from approximately August through October of 2019 as an "Associate" and held the position of "Cashier." Sam's Club is an American chain of membership-only retail warehouse "clubs" owned and operated by Walmart.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP APC 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Reed Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Scientific Games Corp. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled DONNA REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORP., a Nevada corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00565-RSL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendant Scientific Games owns and operates Internet casinos that are illegal under Washington law. It is one of several related cases before this Court alleging functionally identical claims against the Defendant's industry peers. Scientific Games and its subsidiary SciPlay own and operate a cohort of social casino games featuring slot machine-style gameplay, including Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots. These slot games are, for good reason, prohibited in Washington. The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated June 17, 2021, denying Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The appellate case is captioned as Donna Reed v. Scientific Games Corp., Case No. 21-35482, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 23, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Scientific Games Corporation Mediation Questionnaire was due June 30, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by July 23, 2021; -- Transcript is due on August 23, 2021; -- Appellant Scientific Games Corporation opening brief is due on October 1, 2021; -- Appellee Donna Reed answering brief is due on November 1, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Defendant-Appellant SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, is represented by: Sean C. Grimsley, Esq. Daniel Taylor, Esq. BARTLIT BECK, LLP 1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 - and - David T. Martin, Esq. Nicola Menaldo, Esq. Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 E-mail: dmartin@perkinscoie.com nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com kosullivan@perkinscoie.com Plaintiff-Appellee DONNA REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Todd Logan, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com tlogan@edelson.com - and - Cecily Shiel, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: cshiel@tousley.com - and - Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 SENTINEL INSURANCE: Seattle Bakery Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Seattle Bakery, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled MARIO D. CHORAK DMD PS, et al., Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00627-BJR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 19, 2020, the lawsuit alleges that Hartford wrongfully denied claims for coverage relating to COVID-19 pandemic and/or orders issued by Governor Jay Inslee, other Governors, and other civil authorities. Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff cannot provide dental orthodontic services. The Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to keep its business as a going concern, says the complaint. The Plaintiff says it filed the lawsuit to ensure that it and other similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order and Judgment dated May 28, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Seattle Bakery, LLC, et al. v. Sentinel Insurance Company Ltd, et al., Case No. 21-35479, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 23, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants CSQBKR2018, LLC, Piroshky Baking Company, LLC, Piroshky Piroshky Bakery, LLC, SCRBKR2017, LLC and Seattle Bakery, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due June 30, 2021; -- Appellants CSQBKR2018, LLC, Piroshky Baking Company, LLC, Piroshky Piroshky Bakery, LLC, SCRBKR2017, LLC and Seattle Bakery, LLC opening brief is due on August 20, 2021; -- Appellee Sentinel Insurance Company Limited answering brief is due on September 20, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SEATTLE BAKERY, LLC; CSQBKR2018, LLC; PIROSHKY PIROSHKY BAKERY, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; PIROSHKY BAKING COMPANY, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and SCRBKR2017, LLC, are represented by: Brent W. Beecher, Esq. HACKETT BEECHER & HART 601 Union Street, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 787-1828 Defendant-Appellee SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED is represented by: Matthew S. Adams, Esq. FORSBERG & UMLAUF, PS 901 5th Avenue, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: (206) 689-8500 - and - Sarah Gordon, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-8005 SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Pandemic Boarding Policy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mateusz Maszczynski, writing for Paddle Your Own Kanoo, reports that an Ohio couple has filed a class-action lawsuit against Spirit Airlines because the low-cost carrier's pandemic boarding policy stopped them from getting onboard their flight ahead of other passengers. If successful, the lawsuit could make thousands of other Spirit Airlines customers eligible for compensation. Anthony Pochiro and Barbara Kuhns claim the Florida-based airline sold them queue jump 'Shortcut Boarding' for an extra fee knowing that the passes would be of no use because COVID-19 rules meant that the airline was boarding its planes in strict order from back-to-front. Shortcut Boarding lets customers get onboard in Group 2 ahead of most other passengers and at just $5.99 it seems like a reasonable upgrade to snag overhead bin space and settle in before the hoards of other passengers arrive. [GN] SPRINGVILLE PARTNERS: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Springville Partners LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Springville Partners LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-05526 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Springville Partners -- https://springvillepartners.com/ -- offers merchant cash advances, lines of credit, invoice factoring, and unsecured business loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com SUPERIOR REFINING: Parties Agree on $1 Million Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy Lovrien at grandforksherald.com reports that a proposed class-action settlement could make evacuees of the April 26, 2018, Husky Energy refinery explosion eligible to receive $150 in compensation. According to the settlement agreement dated June 24, the plaintiffs, Jasen Bruzek, Hope Koplin and Christopher Peterson, and defendant Superior Refining Co. agreed to a settlement totaling $1.05 million, which is pending approval by a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Much of Superior, Wis., was forced to evacuate for 18 hours when an explosion, likely caused by a faulty valve, caused a fire at the refinery. The evacuations were based on the fear of a hydrogen fluoride release, though none escaped the tank. The settlement stems from a lawsuit the plaintiffs filed in 2018, claiming that while Husky allowed evacuees to file claims for evacuation expenses -- transportation, lodging and lost wages -- as well as separate claims for bodily harm, the reimbursements were "skewed" to people who could afford the up-front costs of a hotel room. Court documents estimate nearly 21,000 people over 18 are eligible to file a claim, but the settlement funds would only be able to fulfill 5,833 claims at $150 per person. A household would be eligible for up to $300. Under certain circumstances, individuals may receive up to $200 and households up to $400. The documents show the settlement money would be split three ways: -- $875,000 would go toward individual claims; -- a maximum of $169,000 would be used for administrative and notice costs, including mailers and advertisements; -- and $6,000 would be awarded to the three class representatives -- the people who originally filed the lawsuit. If there are leftover funds, up to $75,000 would be paid to the Superior Douglas County Family YMCA. The case had been headed for a trial and approval of the settlement would prevent that. The plaintiffs also accused the refinery of displaying negligence and cited preliminary reports from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board as evidence the refinery failed to maintain equipment and that led to the blast. While J. Gordon Rudd Jr., the attorney for the plaintiffs, maintained the case was "meritorious," he acknowledged it could be difficult to prove in trial as the court said the "Class Representatives may need to obtain individualized evidence of causation and damages." "Such a process would increase the possibility that class members may not participate due to the burden of trial compared to the relatively small individual awards or that class members who do participate lack sufficient evidence of their losses," attorneys wrote. The refinery said it will "fully support" the settlement though it does not agree with the plaintiffs' characterization of the case's facts and procedural history. "(Superior Refining Company) refutes that it was negligent or that its actions caused the explosion, and would vigorously defend itself throughout the remainder of this litigation," the company said. "Indeed, the only so-called 'evidence' of negligence that plaintiffs could point to in the complaint was the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's report, which does not prove negligence and is not admissible at trial." In the original complaint filed in August 2018, one evacuee said he was unable to afford a hotel and spent the night in Canal Park with his family, while another plaintiff said his children's school was canceled the next day, forcing his wife to miss work and lose wages, the complaint said. The complaint also said one plaintiff's mother was in hospice and had to be evacuated, after which "she was no longer eating or talking and her health quickly deteriorated." She died May 3, 2018. [GN] TD BANK: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees on APPSN Transactions ---------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE BURNS and RUBY HAYES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. CAM-L-002029-21 (N.J. Sup. Ct., Camden Cty., July 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, the New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, and the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's improper practice of charging overdraft (OD) fees on authorize positive, purportedly settle negative (APPSN) transactions. Pursuant to the Defendant's account documents, it should only charge OD fee on transactions where there are insufficient funds to cover them. Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card transactions at the time those transactions are authorized, the Defendant later assesses OD fees on those same transactions when they purportedly settle days later into a negative balance. Further, TD Bank also breaches its duty of good faith and fair dealing when it charges OD fees even when customers did not overdraw their accounts. TD Bank, N.A. is an American national bank, headquartered in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Richard M. Golomb, Esq. GOLOMB, SPIRT, & GRUNFELD 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 TPUSA-FHCS: Nattoo Collective Action Gets Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERMAINE NATTOO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TPUSA-FHCS, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation (d/b/a) TELEPERFORMANCE USA, Case No. 2:20-cv-14207-SMM (S.D. Fla.), he Hon. Judge Shaniek M. Maynard entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective action and to facilitate notice to potential class members; and -- directing the Parties to confer and file a joint proposed Notice to Putative Opt-In Plaintiffs incorporating the Court's ruling within seven days of the date of this Order. The Court onditionally certify and facilitate notice to the following proposed class: "current and former call center employees of Defendant who were employed/classified as customer service representatives or sales agents or held similar job titles and worked for Defendant at any time in Defendant’s Port St. Lucie office from June 2017 through resolution of this case." In the Plaintiff's Reply, the Plaintiff agrees to the 45 day opt-in period, rather than its proposed 90 day opt-in period. The Plaintiff also agrees to send notice by personal email and first-class mail and agrees to add defense counsel's names to the Notice. The Plaintiff further agrees to add a section in the Notice regarding the rights and obligations associated with being a putative class member. The Plaintiff does not address Defendant's objections to providing them with social security numbers or phone numbers. The Plaintiff also does not address the scrivener's error on page five of the proposed Consent to Join, or Defendant's desire to include the names of other plaintiff' lawyers so potential class members will know they are not required to hired Plaintiffs' counsel. Based on the parties' agreement, the Court instructs as follows: (1) The Notice shall be distributed by personal email and first-class mail only; (2) The opt-in period shall be 45 days; (3) The Notice shall include the names and contact information of defense counsel; (4) The Notice shall include a section discussing the rights and obligations associated with becoming a member of the putative class; and (5) Putative class members may electronically sign the Consent to Join forms. Regarding the remaining issues, the Court sees no reason social security numbers and phone numbers should be disclosed. Therefore, the Court grants Defendant's request not to provide that information to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are instructed to correct any scrivener's errors included in the proposed Notice. Lastly, only the names of counsel of record in this case shall be referenced in the Notice. The Notice shall, however, include a section explaining that putative class members have a right to seek independent counsel. On June 24, 2020, the Plaintiff Jermaine Nattoo filed a Complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Defendant TPUSA-FHCS, Inc., a foreign profit company doing business as Teleperformance USA. The Complaint alleges that the Defendant operates call centers throughout the United States and fails to pay its customer service representatives for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Complaint alleges the existence of an FLSA class as well as a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wJKb45 at no extra charge.[CC] TRINITY TEEN: Seeks Dismissal of Medically Related Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Leo Wolfson, writing for Cody Enterprise, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed by about 25 class action members and four listed plaintiffs against Clark troubled teen centers Trinity Teen Solutions and Triangle Cross Ranch has received pushback from these entities in federal court. The suit brought by former residents of these facilities alleges two counts of forced labor, trafficking, federal racketeering, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, for compensatory award of no less than $5 million and compensation for legal expenses. Trinity Teens is run by Angela and Jerry Woodward. Triangle Cross is run by Angela's father Jerry Schneider. All of the defendants made motions for all claims to be dismissed against them, and attorneys for Trinity Teen Solutions said even if the claims were legitimate, they exceeded the statute of limitations when brought before the court. Trinity Teen is requesting the court consider it "a health care provider" and treat all medically related claims brought against it be dismissed. Denver law firm Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, representing Trinity Teen, said any claims of abuse should be under Wyoming Department of Family Services jurisdiction or treated as medical malpractice and as a seperate issue in regards to claims of withheld or deficient treatment. Wyoming recognizes a claim for negligent infliction only when it is brought forth by a close family member of a victim who observes the infliction of serious bodily injury or death, or its immediate aftermath. Although Trinity Teen and Triangle Cross said their residents had to perform chores and other ranch activities at their facilities, they said no abuse took place under their care, nor did any tasks that could have led to post-traumatic stress disorder as some of the plaintiffs claim to have. Triangle Cross also said parents of the plaintiffs were fully aware their children would be performing chores and other rigorous activities on the ranch. "As plaintiffs' complaint concedes, the residents were responsible for helping to care for the ranch's land, equipment, and livestock," John Matthews of White & Steele P.C. wrote on behalf of Triangle Cross. "Such conduct is the very definition of ranch chores." Brice Timmons, attorney for the plaintiffs, responded and said this analysis neglects that abuse and undeserved obligation allegedly took place within the administration of these tasks. Timmons also said the defendants are not protected from liability by obtaining parental consent. "This is a patently bizarre argument for it would mean that anytime a parent left a child with a childcare provider that they consented to anything the childcare provider did," he wrote. Triangle Cross opposed the only plaintiff bringing claims against it from being allowed to proceed under a pseudonym and protective order, saying they did not meet any exceptional circumstances that grant anonymity. John Doe had claimed his "tenuous psychological recovery" would "almost certainly" be damaged if his identity were revealed, according to court documents, casting his parents and himself into "severe embarrassment." U.S. Magistrate Judge Kelly Rankin denied the pseudonym request on Feb. 11. The very next day the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, adding two identified plaintiffs who attended Triangle Cross and asserting new allegations. Church work The original filing claimed the girls at Trinity Teen had to provide weekly cleaning and set-up services for local churches like the Our Lady of the Valley Church in Clark that is owned by the Diocese of Cheyenne, but initially did not claim the churches were aware of the situation. The new complaint alleges at least four different priests were aware of what the plaintiffs said was the forced human labor taking place at the Valley Church. The Diocese said there was no proof of this. The Diocese also submitted a motion to dismiss all claims brought against it in the original and amended complaints, stating it has no affiliation with Triangle Cross or Trinity Teens, and there is no proof that any priests or other staff members were made aware of any abuse or forced labor occurring. Society of Our Most Lady of the Holy Trinity and Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel also submitted motions to dismiss charges against them to the court. The new plaintiffs are former Triangle Cross attendees, Colorado resident Andrew Scavuzzo and Florida resident Ehan Jelinek. Scavuzzo is currently in a romantic relationship with a woman who attended Trinity Teens. Scavuzzo said after turning 18, he was inducted into the adult program at Triangle Cross, which involved branding him with a cross on his right arm. He said he was provided no medical care for this despite his requests, and the wound quickly became infected. When his parents came and visited him, Scavuzzo said they were extremely alarmed by the branding and immediately removed him from the program. Later, he needed four surgeries to repair the injury. Scavuzzo and Jelinek's other claims were similar to those already made in the case, involving coerced labor and forced deprivation. In its response, Triangle Cross described these claims as "conclusory allegations without any factual support." Monasteries Jelinek said he and other boys at Triangle Cross were forced to complete substantial mechanical and construction work building a monastery owned by the Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, without any safety equipment of any kind. "Class members would perform work on buildings as high as 40 feet without safety harnesses or hard hats," the complaint alleges. The plaintiff claims that after the original filing of the lawsuit, the New Mount Carmel Foundation, the funding arm for the monastery, removed the majority of its website from the internet and described itself as a "land holding company" as a way to separate itself from the monastery. The plaintiffs alleged the foundation is guilty of criminal tax evasion, claiming highly unrealistic ongoing construction costs. At the end of 2019, the foundation possessed $29 million in net assets, according to the complaint, of which the complaint alleges the Schnieders and Woodwards provided substantial donations, and therefore the foundation played a role in benefiting from the forced labor. "And despite years of construction, the Foundation has not yet realized one dollar of appreciation in the value of its buildings, instead, continuing to capitalize the assets as though it were a land developer operating on a long-term construction contract," the complaint alleges. The complaint said this was done by the foundation to avoid taxes or to conceal profits made at Trinity Teens and Triangle Cross. In its response, the monks said the plaintiffs are conflating their construction activities, and are confusing the work Trinity Teen and Triangle Cross residents did with another project being built near Meeteetse those residents never helped out with. They also said there is no proof the foundation knew about or benefitted from any coerced labor. In tax documents, the foundation claimed $7.1 million in architecture fees in 2014 and $12.9 million in 2015. "This suggests that the Foundation claims to be constructing a complex that will ultimately cost approximately $200 million," the complaint said. The foundation responded to this assertion that it is building a custom-gothic-stone monastery that justifies these expenses. [GN] TWITTER INC: Faces Trump Suit Over Restricted Access on Twitter --------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth President of the United States, LINDA CUADROS and AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TWITTER, INC., and JACK DORSEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-22441 (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the First Amendment and declaratory judgement of unconstitutionality of Section 230 and the Communications Decency Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants permanently banned the sitting President of the United States from their platform for exercising his constitutional right of free speech on January 7, 2021. The Defendants deplatformed Plaintiff Donald Trump at the behest of, with cooperation from, and with the approval of, Democrat lawmakers. Plaintiff Donald Trump asks the court to declare that Section 230 on its face is an unconstitutional delegation of authority and that the Defendants' actions directed at him and putative Class members are a prior restraint on their First Amendment right to free speech, to order the Defendants to restore his Twitter account, as well as those deplatformed putative Class members, and to prohibit the Defendants from exercising censorship, editorial control, or prior restraint in its many forms over the posts of Plaintiff Trump and putative Class members. Twitter, Inc. is a social network company headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew L. Baldwin, Esq. Vargas Gonzalez, Esq. BALDWIN DELOMBARD, LLP 815 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Third Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 631-2528 E-mail: Matthew@VargasGonzalez.com - and – John P. Coale, Esq. THE DUDEHEFER LAW FIRM L.L.C. 2901 Fessenden St. NW Washington, DC 20008 Telephone: (202) 255-2096 E-mail: johnpcoale@aol.com - and – Frank C. Dudenhefer, Jr. THE DUDEHEFER LAW FIRM L.L.C. 2721 St. Charles Ave, Suite 2A New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 616-5226 E-mail: fcdlaw@aol.com - and – John Q. Kelly, Esq. Michael J. Jones, Esq. Roland A. Paul, Esq. Ryan S. Tougias, Esq. Sean M. Hamill, Esq. IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA 170 Mason Street Greenwich, CT 06830 Telephone: (203) 661-6000 Facsimile: (203) 661-9462 E-mail: jqkelly@ibolaw.com mjones@ibolaw.com rpaul@ibolaw.com rtougias@ibolaw.com shamill@ibolaw.com UBIQUITI INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on July 6 disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE: UI) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: January 11, 2021 and March 20, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2021 No obligation or cost to you. Learn more about your recoverable losses in UI: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ubiquiti-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17400&from=5 Ubiquiti Inc. NEWS - UI NEWS CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Ubiquiti Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had downplayed the data breach in January 2021; (2) attackers had obtained administrative access to Ubiquiti's servers and obtained access to, among other things, all databases, all user database credentials, and secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies; (3) as a result, intruders already had credentials needed to remotely access Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a loss in Ubiquiti you have until July 19, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Ubiquiti securities during the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees. HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information about the UI lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click this link. ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] UNITED AUTO: Davidson Appeals 2nd Amended Class Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jerry Davidson filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled JERRY DAVIDSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AUTO CREDIT CORPORATION, a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01263-LMB-JFA, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 2, 2021, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema granted United's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The parties do not dispute the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), and agree that the dispositive issue is whether the Defendant's Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement, through which the Plaintiff, who was an active member of the United States military, financed his purchase of a 2011 GMC Acadia SUV on Oct. 13, 2018, is covered by the Military Lending Act ("MLA"), 10 U.S.C. Section 987 et seq. The Plaintiff describes United as one of the ten largest non- prime automobile lenders in the United States, having over 4,500 auto dealer customers and financing over $350 million in auto loans to more than 53,000 borrowers. He alleges that United has violated multiple provisions of the MLA. Specifically, the SAC alleges that the Defendant violated Section 987(c)(1) by failing to make mandatory disclosures of various fees including a $250 processing fee, a $350 fee for Guaranteed Asset Protection ("GAP") insurance, and a $129.61 charge for prepaid interest (Count I); violated Section 987(c)(1) by failing to disclose the true cost of credit because the true military annual percentage rate ("MAPR") for the Plaintiff was 26.31% and not 22.99% as written in the Contract (Count II); and violated Section 987(e)(3) by requiring borrowers to submit to arbitration (Count III). The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of the dismissal order entered by Judge Brinkema. The appellate case is captioned as Jerry Davidson v. United Auto Credit Corporation, Case No. 21-1697, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 22, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JERRY DAVIDSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 E-mail: rglezakos@faruqilaw.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com - and - Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 East Cumberland Avenue Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Christopher Eric Stiner, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com Defendant-Appellee UNITED AUTO CREDIT CORPORATION, a California corporation, is represented by: Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Esq. Abraham Colman, Esq. Zachary C. Frampton, Esq. HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 896-2414 E-mail: raymond.kim@hklaw.com abe.colman@hklaw.com zac.frampton@hklaw.com - and - Rachel Y. Chuang, Esq. REED & WICKER, PLLC 321 West Main Street Louisville, KY 40202-0000 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 E-mail: rchuang@reedsmith.com - and - Travis Aaron Sabalewski, Esq. Ariel Simone Wossene, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 1650 Tysons Boulevard McLean, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 720-8075 E-mail: travis.sabalewski@hklaw.com ariel.wossene@hklaw.com UNITED STATES: Seeks July 30 Extension to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR D. TORRES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THOMAS W. HARKER, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (ACTING), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-00306-RCL (D.D.C.), the Defendant Thomas W. Harker asks the Court to enter an order enlargng the response deadline to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel by 14 days, to July 30, 2021. The Defendant has conferred with Plaintiff on the substance of this motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), and Plaintiff consents to the relief sought. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b), Defendant's response is currently due on July 16, 2021. The Defendant respectfully requests an enlargement of two weeks due to the pre-planned leave schedule of counsel and the press of other work. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests an enlargement until July 30, 2021 to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion. The United States Navy is the maritime service branch of the United States Armed Forces and one of the eight uniformed services of the United States. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i6QKsa at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua E. Gardner, Esq. Andrew Carmichael, Esq. Stephen Ehrlich, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH 1100 L Street NW, Room 11502 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 305-7583 Facsimile: (202) 616-8460 E-mail: Joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov WASHINGTON PRIME: Robbins LLP Reminds of July 23 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a class action was filed against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of all purchasers of Washington Prime Group, Inc. (NYSE: WPG) securities between November 5, 2020 and March 4, 2021, for remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. WPG is a self-managed and self-administered real estate investment trust ("REIT") that owns properties and conduct operations through Washington Prime Group, L.P. ("WPG, L.P."). WPG is the sole general partner and holds approximately 84.7% of the partnership interests of WPG L.P. If you suffered a loss due to Washington Prime Group, Inc.'s misconduct, click https://bit.ly/3r3RMce. Washington Prime Group, Inc. (WPG) Misstated its Financial Condition According to the complaint, during the class period, WPG failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) WPG's financial condition was deteriorating substantially; (2) there was substantial uncertainty about the Company's ability to meet its capital structure obligations as they came due; and (3) as a result, the positions statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On February 16, 2021, WPG disclosed that its operating partnership, WPG L.P., had "elected to withhold an interest payment of $23.2 million due on February 15, 2021 with respect to WPG L.P.'s outstanding Senior Notes due 2024," and that "WPG L.P. has a 30-day grace period to make the interest payment before such non-payment constitutes an 'event of default.'" The Company further advised that, in an event of default, certain counterparties to the senior notes "could accelerate the outstanding indebtedness due . . . making such indebtedness due and payable, which would result in a cross-default with respect to some of WPG L.P.'s or the Company's other indebtedness." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.59, or 38%, to close at $7.49 per share on February 16, 2021. Then, on March 4, 2021, Bloomberg reported that WPG "is preparing a potential bankruptcy filing as time runs out to avert default after it skipped an interest payment on its debt, according to people with knowledge of the plans." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.77, or 60%, to close at $2.51 per share on March 4, 2021. On March 16, 2021, after the market closed, WPG disclosed that it had entered into a forbearance agreement with respect to the Senior Notes due in 2024 and stated there was substantial doubt as the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The Company confirmed that it had engaged in discussions for a financial restructuring. If you purchased shares of Washington Prime Group, Inc. (WPG) between November 5, 2020 and March 4, 2021, you have until July 23, 2021, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. [GN] WELLPET LLC: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ZEIGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WELLPET LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-04056-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties Parties agree to extend the deadlines 30 days as follows: Current Proposed Deadline New Deadline -- Plaintiff's amended Sept. 2, 2021 Oct. 3, 2021 damages reports -- Plaintiff's renewed Sept. 2, 2021 Oct. 3, 2021 class certification motion -- Defendant's rebuttal Oct. 28, 2021 Nov. 29, 2021 reports -- Defendant's opposition Oct. 28, 2021 Nov. 29, 2021 to Plaintiff’s amended damages reports and renewed class certification motion -- Plaintiff's reply in Nov. 24, 2021 Dec. 27, 2021 support of his renewed class certification motion On May 4, 2021, the Parties participated in a productive conference with Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. In anticipation of another forthcoming settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Spero, the Parties entered into a stipulation on May 27, 2021, to extend expert and class certification deadlines. The Court entered an order consistent with the Parties' stipulation. Subsequently, the settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Spero scheduled for June 15, 2021 was continued to July 1, 2021. WellPet is a pet food company formed by the combination of Wellness Natural Pet Food, Holistic Select Natural Pet Food, Eagle Pack Natural Pet Food and Old Mother Hubbard Natural Dog Snacks, purchased by Berwind Corporation. A copy of the Parties motion dated July 6, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r3QvCb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com The Attorneys for the Defendant WellPet LLC, are: Amir Nassihi, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Montgomery, Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94104-4505 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0291 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com WORLD WRESTLING: Obtains Approval for $39MM Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Ravens, writing for Wrestling News, reports that WWE and a group of investors have been given approval by a judge to move forward with a $39 million settlement regarding a class action lawsuit filed by the Firefighters' Pension System of the Kansas City, Missouri Trust. The group alleged that WWE executives deceived investors regarding their business in Saudi Arabia by artificially inflated their stock and that senior execs sold more than $280 million of their shares at "fraud inflated prices." The lawsuit also alleged the company did not disclose failed negotiations with the Saudi government over their TV deal as well as WWE not being able to expand in that region, despite claiming otherwise to their investors. Last November, an SEC filing by WWE revealed that the company closed on a $39 million settlement for a class action lawsuit Bloomberg Law reports the final approval was given by Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The deal represents around 18.2% of estimated classwide damages. The judge previously rejected WWE's bid to dismiss the suit in late 2020 and then the settlement was approved in March of this year. The settlement cast includes everyone who acquired WWE common stock from February 7, 2019 through February 5, 2020, and lost money as a result. Labaton Sucharow LLP of New York City will get $7.02 million in attorney's fees, which is 18% of the settlement fund, in addition to more than $468,000 as reimbursement for litigation expenses. The Firefighters' Pension System of the Kansas City, Missouri Trust will receive more than $6,200 as a reimbursement for their expenses. It should be noted that WWE did not admit any fault to the allegations. [GN] [*] Suit Filed After HHS Warns on Medical Imaging Technology Use ---------------------------------------------------------------- beckershospitalreview.com reports that two patients filed a class action against two radiology companies after more than 1 million patients who received care at hospitals nationwide may have been exposed because of vulnerabilities in medical imaging archiving software. Five things to know: In mid-2019, cybersecurity researchers analyzed 2,300 medical images hosted by picture archiving communications systems, which hospitals use to share medical images and data, according to court documents. The researchers discovered flaws in Northeast Radiology and Alliance HealthCare's service that allegedly permitted unauthorized access to more than 1.2 million patients' protected health information. The PHI that was exposed allegedly includes 61 million X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, medical test results, patient names, Social Security numbers and more. The researchers contacted the radiology companies, but their warnings were ignored, the court documents said. Two Northeast Radiology patients are suing the radiology firms on behalf of themselves and the class members to settle damages caused by the breach, the court filings said. The researchers who discovered the breach said the value of the damages exceeds $1 billion and might be as high as $3.3 billion, due to the risk of theft from exposure and a large number of alleged victims. In a June 29 news release, HHS warned that about 130 hospitals and health systems were using PACS, with more than 2 million patients and 275 million medical images and PHI potentially exposed. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***