/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210714.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 14, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 134
Headlines
ACCORD BUSINESS: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
ACIMA CREDIT: Court Tosses Farr Bid to Certify Class
AIR FAYRE: Soto-Trejo Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
ALIERA COMPANIES: Court Denies Arbitration Bids in Moeller Suit
AMARIN CORP: Stifled Launch of Generic Vascepa, UFCW 464A Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Secretly Records Voice & Communications, Suit Says
ATHIRA PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
ATHIRA PHARMA: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action Filing
BANNER HEALTH: Ramos et al., Awarded $1.057MM in Attorneys' Fees
BINANCE: Investors File Class Action Over Futures Trading Violation
BOBSHAN ENTERTAINMENT: Linwood Slams Illegal Tip Pool
CALIFORNIA: California Correctional Supervisors Files Class Suit
CANADA: New Chief Calls Reparations for Indigenous People
CANOO INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of August 18 Deadline
CAPIO PARTNERS: Radcliffe Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CARLOTZ INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Drezner Sues Over Condominium Building Collapse
CMRE FINANCIAL: Must File Opposition to Class Cert Bid in 4 Weeks
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Berger Montague Reminds of July 16 Deadline
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Class Action Over Misleading Statements Pending
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
CROW VOTE: Ward RICO Suit Removed From State Court to C.D. Cal.
DAVIS HEALTH: Newman Suit Removed from Circuit Court to N.D. W.Va.
DIDI GLOBAL: Kahn Swick Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DIDI GLOBAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Overman Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
DOORDASH INC: Faces Campbell Business Tort Suit in Cal. State Ct.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action
DRAFTKINGS INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of August 31 Deadline
DRAFTKINGS INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 31 Deadline
EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS: Faces Tapia-Rendon $9.9M Suit in N.D. Illinois
FCA US: E.D. Michigan Narrows Claims in Reynolds Class Suit
FLINT, MI: Discusses Fairness Hearings on Water Crisis Settlement
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Howard Smith Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
FULL TRUCK: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of September 6 Deadline
FULL TRUCK: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Class Action
GEICO CASUALTY: Unfairly Profits From COVID-19 Pandemic, Suit Says
GEICO GENERAL: Court Holds Ruling on Class Cert Bid in Abeyance
GOLDMAN SACHS: Duane Morris Discusses Securities Class Suit Ruling
HEALTHY HALO: Court Enters Initial Scheduling Order on Melgren Suit
INFORMATION RESOURCES: Renewal of Conditional Cert. Bid Granted
J'S ACE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goins Suit Alleges
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: New Jersey Judge Dismisses Test Case
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sunscreen Products Causes Cancer, Jimenez Says
KANZHUN LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
KELLOGG SALES: September 7 Claim Submission Deadline Set
KENTUCKY: Appeals Court Upholds Rationing of Hepatitis C Treatment
KIEWIT CORPORATION: Avila Has Until June 16 to File Class Cert. Bid
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Griffin Suit Over Defective Ventilators
LEADERS LIFE: Legg Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
MDL 2924: Bid to Dismiss Zantac Products Liability Suit Denied
MDL 2924: Claims in Zantac Class Suit v. Branded Defendants Trimmed
MDL 2924: Claims in Zantac Suit v. Brand-Name Manufacturers Trimmed
MDL 2924: Claims v. Retailers, Pharmacies and Distributors Tossed
MDL 2924: Court Narrows Claims in Zantac Products Liability Suit
MDL 2990: Court Denies Centralization of Eight '730 Patent Actions
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Financial Adviser Class Action Over Race Bias
MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Tosses Sandoval Class Certification Bid
NAVIENT CORP: Faces Borrower Class Lawsuit Over Payment Allocation
NURTURE INC: Food Products Tainted With Toxic Metals, Suit Says
PELHAM TRANSPORTATION: Dismissal of Hilderbrand Suit Recommended
PROVENTION BIO: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 20 Deadline
PROVENTION BIO: Klein Law Reminds Investors of July 20 Deadline
QAD INC: Faces Nantahala Suit Over Merger Deal With Thoma Bravo
REKOR SYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 30 Deadline
REKOR SYSTEMS: Faces Miller Suit Over Drop in Share Price
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 9 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
ROCKET COMPANIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 30 Deadline
SONY INTERACTIVE: Neumark Sues Over PlayStation Games Monopoly
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Ticket Refunds
SPROUT FOODS: Kimca Hits Non-disclosure of Toxins in Baby Food
STALLION OILFIELD: Class Cert. Bid Extension Deadlines Sought
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Class Action Over IEI Fire in W. Va. Certified
TALISMAN ENERGY: Judge Finalizes $24MM Class Action Settlement
TAPESTRY INC: July 29 Reset Date for Class Cert. Hearing Sought
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 23 Deadline
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 23 Deadline
TRANSUNION LLC: Jones Day Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
UBIQUITI INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 19 Deadline
UNITED STATES: Court Grants Bid to Amend Class Certification
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Klein Law Reminds of July 27 Deadline
WARRIOR MET: Claims in First Amended Angel Class Complaint Narrowed
WASHINGTON PRIME: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
WRIGHT PATT: Ohio App. Affirms Arbitration Order in Rudolph Suit
*********
ACCORD BUSINESS: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accord Business
Funding, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Accord Business Funding, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-05579 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Accord Business Funding -- https://accordbf.com/ -- is a merchant
cash advance direct funder specializing in b-paper, 1st, 2nd and
3rd positions. Partner driven direct funder.[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
ACIMA CREDIT: Court Tosses Farr Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIEARA FARR v. ACIMA
CREDIT LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-08619-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order denying class
certification.
The Court said, "The equitable claims brought in this case are not
exempt from arbitration, nor can plaintiff adequately represent a
class made up of individuals that may be subject to the mandatory
arbitration agreement and class action waiver. While leave is
generally freely granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2), the request here is presumptively futile in light of the
instant order. The Plaintiff may file a supplemental brief not to
exceed five pages by July 21, 2021, addressing this issue."
The Plaintiff Sieara Farr brings this putative consumer class
action against defendant Acima Credit LLC for violations of
California's Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, and Unfair Competition Law. Farr alleges that Acima unlawfully
charged her a processing fee when she applied to finance certain
merchandise.
On September 18, 2020, the plaintiff Sieara Farr sought to acquire
furniture from a nonparty merchant. To finance this transaction,
plaintiff entered into a rental-purchase agreement (RPA) with
defendant Acima Credit LLC. The Defendant offers to enter into
rent-to-own arrangements with customers on behalf of retail
merchants with whom it has established business relationships. As
an alternative to a traditional retail sale, this arrangement
allows qualified customers who may not be able to pay the cost
upfront to rent the good from the lessor.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xFkH8Y at no extra charge.[CC]
AIR FAYRE: Soto-Trejo Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ANA SOTO-TREJO, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) v. AIR FAYRE
CA, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 21TRCV00462 (Cal. Super., June 25, 2021) is a
representative action brought pursuant to the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act challenging the Defendants' systemic
illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the stated
provisions of the Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants jointly and severally
acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious
disregard to the rights of all employees in (1) failing to pay all
meal period wages and rest break wages, (2) failing to properly
calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, (3) failing to
provide accurate wage statements, (4) failing to pay all wages due
and owing during employment and upon termination of employment, and
(5) failing to reimburse all necessary business expenses.
The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate the Plaintiff and
other aggrieved current and former employees for all hours worked,
resulting in a failure to pay all minimum wages and overtime wages,
where applicable.
Plaintiff Ana Soto-Trejo is an individual residing in the State of
California. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants within the
statutory time period.
Air Fayre provides logistics services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Jason W. Rothman, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
ALIERA COMPANIES: Court Denies Arbitration Bids in Moeller Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA MOELLER and RON MOELLER, Plaintiffs v. THE
ALIERA COMPANIES, INC.; TRINITY HEALTHSHARE; TIMOTHY MOSES, SHELLEY
STEELE, CHASE MOSES, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. CV
20-22-H-SEH (D. Mont.), Judge Sam E. Haddon of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Montana, Helena Division, denied:
-- Trinity's Motion to Compel Arbitration or, in the
Alternative, Dismiss Claims and Stay Remaining Litigation;
and
-- Aliera's Motion to Compel Arbitration.
The case was filed on March 20, 2020. The Complaint was amended.
Motions to compel arbitration were filed by the Defendants.
In December 2017, Plaintiff Ron Moeller submitted an application
for membership in the Unity Healthshare, LLC CarePlus Advantage
health sharing plan, administered by Aliera. Plaintiffs Ron and
Maria Moeller were notified on Dec. 17, 2017, that their membership
was "active" and effective Jan. 1, 2018.
Unity, in 2017, functioned as a health care sharing ministry
("HCSM") which marketed and sold contracts entitled "plans" that
were asserted to be exempt from healthcare insurance requirements
of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), and by which members agreed to
share in eligible medical costs and that, in several ways,
functioned like traditional insurance. The terms and conditions of
the Unity plan made available to Moellers were contained in the
Unity Member Guide.
The Moellers moved to Helena, Montana, in March of 2018. Monthly
"contributions" to Unity were continued.
In late 2018, Aliera sent the Moellers an email which stated, in
part, that Aliera would be changing Moellers' HCSM provider from
Unity to Trinity Healthshare, but that the plan would otherwise
remain the same and that "no action is needed" by the Moellers. In
December 2018 or January 2019, the Moellers received from Aliera a
copy of a document captioned "2018-2019 Member Guide" ("2018-2019
Trinity Member Guide"). The 2018-2019 Trinity Member Guide
differed substantially from the Unity Member Guide and included,
among other differences in content, a mandatory and binding dispute
resolution provision.
Trinity was chartered as a non-profit corporation in June of 2018.
Like Unity, Trinity claimed to provide health sharing memberships
administrated by Aliera.
Contributions to the Trinity plan were to be used in part to pay
covered member medical expenses. Trinity previously conducted
activities as "Trinity Healthshare." It now operates under the
name "Sharity Ministries, Inc."
On Jan. 13, 2019, Aliera notified the Moellers by email that "until
further notice" they were "not being transitioned to Trinity" and
that their plan will remain a Unity HCSM plan at that time. This
statement from Trinity, in substance, withdrew any offer by Aliera
and Trinity to transition Moellers to coverage by Trinity.
The Moellers took no action in response to receipt of the 2018-2019
Trinity Member Guide or to any other communications received from
Aliera, Unity, or Trinity between late 2018 and Jan. 13, 2019. No
offer was made after Jan. 13, 2019, by Aliera or Trinity for the
Moellers to transition from Unity to Trinity, nor was any such
offer from Aliera or Trinity accepted by Moellers.
Also, Aliera had sent the Moellers an email in late 2018 stating
that Aliera would be changing their HCSM provider from Unity to
Trinity, but "nothing changes on your plan except for the HCSM
name." That statement by Aliera of itself was flawed, inaccurate,
and contained misrepresentations of fact.
The 26 U.S.C. Section 5000A(d)(2)(B) requires that an entity
claiming to be a HCSM, or a predecessor entity, have existed and
functioned "continuously and without interruption" since at least
Dec. 31, 1999. Trinity, by definition, did not exist on Dec. 31,
1999. It does not qualify and never has qualified as a HCSM and
could not claim to be such an entity when chartered in June of
2018.
On April 30, 2019, the Moellers received an email from Aliera
stating in part: "Aliera is no longer selling your current health
plan with the Aliera Healthcare/Unity HealthShare, LLC component"
and that "an affordable, seamless option -- with the same benefits
and services -- exists." Later, on May 2, 2019, Ron Moeller
executed a Plan Update Authorization Form which stated in part:
"hereby authorize Aliera Healthcare to change my current
Aliera/Unity plan to an equivalent Aliera/Trinity plan."
Neither the April 30, 2019, email from Aliera nor the May 2, 2019,
Plan Update Authorization Form executed by Ron Moeller contained
any reference to arbitration of contract disputes, or to the terms,
conditions, content, or identity of any specific member guide, or
to any of the many differences between the Unity Member Guide and
the 2018-2019 Trinity Member Guide.
Aliera notified Moellers by email on June 18, 2019, of their
transition from the Unity plan to a Trinity plan, effective June 1,
2019. The Moellers then made monthly "contributions" to
Trinity/Aliera while enrolled with Trinity until membership
terminated, effective Dec. 31, 2019. Unity Healthshare, LLC is not
named as a party in the case, has not appeared as such, and is not
before the Court.
It is also worthy of note that, on June 22, 2021, Judge Amy
Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia, in a factual and
legal issue setting remarkably similar to the case, issued a
thoughtfully reasoned and exhaustive Opinion and Order holding,
inter alia: (1) Trinity did not qualify as a HCSM under the ACA;
(2) the contracts at issue in that case were contracts of
insurance; and (3) the contracts at issue there were not subject to
mandatory resolution of disputes by arbitration.
The parties, with leave of Court, conducted limited discovery
directed to questions of the content of the contract between the
parties and whether the contract required binding arbitration of
contract disputes. A F.R.E. 104 hearing was held to address and
resolve questions as to the content of the contract.
Discussion
Judge Haddon submits Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, with briefs in support. As noted, Aliera and Trinity have
filed motions to compel arbitration which are pending. Whether the
coverage and claim resolution disputes between the parties in the
case are subject to arbitration in Montana is significant to the
core issues before the Court.
The Moellers, Aliera, and Trinity all contend that a contract
existed between the parties. If such a contract is to be said to
exist, two questions must, at the outset, be answered: (1) who are
the parties to the contract; and (2) what are the specific terms
and conditions of the contract.
The Moellers claim the substantive terms of the contract are
contained in four documents: (1) the Unity Member Guide; (2) the
Plan Update Authorization Form; (3) the Unity Sell Sheet; and (4)
the Unity Quick Guide. The Plaintiffs ground their assertion in
the April 30, 2019, email which stated, in part, that the terms of
the contract between the Plaintiffs, Aliera, and Trinity, would
have "the same benefits and services" and be "equivalent" to the
Unity plan.
On the other hand, Aliera and Trinity allege that the substantive
terms of the contract are contained in two documents: (1) the Plan
Update Authorization Form; and (2) the 2019 Trinity Member Guide.
They base their assertion on the premise that the Jan. 13, 2019,
email from Aliera to the Moellers: (1) constituted only "a pause in
the invitation to join Trinity's sharing program" referenced in the
2018 email from Aliera that had informed Moellers they would be
unilaterally transferred to a Trinity Plan, and (2) that the April
30, 2019, email revived or reinstated the late 2018 "invitation to
join".
Judge Haddon holds that fundamentally, the disagreement between the
parties encompasses and turns upon the answers to several separate
contract law questions: (1) identities of the contracting parties;
(2) terms and conditions of the contract that was entered into; (3)
whether the contract contains a mandated dispute resolution clause;
(4) the substantive nature of the contract, specifically, is the
contract a contract of insurance; and (5) if the contract is a
contract of insurance, is mandatory dispute resolution by
arbitration a valid and enforceable component.
Montana law prohibits arbitration of an insurance contract, Judge
Haddon explains. The Defendants claim that Montana's "no
arbitration of insurance" statute (Mont. Code Ann. 27-5-114(2)(c))
is both unconstitutional and preempted by the Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA"), Judge Haddon explains.
Judge Haddon finds both assertions wrong. He says the FAA directly
conflicts with the McCarran-Ferguson Act ("MFA"), which states that
"No Act of Congress will be construed to invalidate, impair, or
supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of
regulating the business of insurance unless such Act specifically
relates to the business of insurance." The plain specific language
of the MFA reverse preempts application of the broad language of
the FAA to Montana law barring arbitration clauses in contracts of
insurance. The Montana statute is constitutional and, contrary to
the FAA, applies to prohibit arbitration of insurance contracts in
this state.
Judge Haddon says that it is an unfortunate reality that the case,
as now postured before the Court, presents and leaves unanswered
numerous significant issues, several of which have not been raised
by the parties, that the Court will be obliged to address, and that
must be resolved before the case is positioned for merit
disposition. Judge Haddon's analyses and rulings in the Order,
however, apply only to the issues specifically addressed and
decided and are dispositive solely as to those issues.
Conclusion
Judge Haddon concludes that the Moellers (a) did not accept an
offer to enter into a contract containing a binding arbitration
clause, (b) did not enter into a contract containing a binding
arbitration clause, and (c) are not parties to a contract
containing a binding arbitration clause. Accordingly, he denied
the Motions to Compel Arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Findings is available
at https://tinyurl.com/havhav9c from Leagle.com.
AMARIN CORP: Stifled Launch of Generic Vascepa, UFCW 464A Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Local 464A United Food and Commercial Workers Union Welfare Service
Benefit Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., Amarin Pharmaceuticals
Ireland Limited, Amarin Corporation PLC, BASF Americas Corporation,
BASF Corporation, BASF Pharma (Callanish) Limited, BASF USA Holding
LLC, Chemport, Inc., Nisshin Pharma, Inc., Novasep, LLC, Novasep,
Inc., Groupe Novasep SAS and Finorga SAS, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-13009, (D. N.J., June 25, 2021), seeks overcharge damages
arising from Amarin's litigation against generic manufacturers,
which delayed the regulatory approval and launch of generic
versions of Vascepa and accuses Defendant of hoarding the supply of
the active pharmaceutical ingredient needed to make said drug.
Amarin is a biotechnology company that created a drug called
Vascepa intended to treat cardiovascular disease claiming 25%
relative risk reduction for patients taking Vascepa. Beginning July
26, 2016, three generic drug companies filed applications with the
FDA to launch generic versions of Vascepa, namely Roxane
Laboratories, Inc. and related entities, later acquired by Hikma
Pharmaceuticals PLC, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc. and Teva
Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. and related entities. Hikma, Dr. Reddy
and Teva each contended that all of the asserted patent claims were
either invalid or not infringed by their respective generic version
of Vascepa. Amarin sued each of these generics in turn in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.
Amarin was able to delay and limit Hikma and Dr. Reddy's launches
of generic Vascepa (and potentially prevent the approval and/or
launches of other generic manufacturers) by initiating patent
litigation and also by purposely contracting with at least four
different icosapent ethyl API suppliers where one or two is
standard in the pharmaceutical industry. Amarin allegedly prevented
these suppliers from selling IPE API to any other generic
manufacturer. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
Lauren M. McGinley, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
tziegler@ktmc.com
ebarlieb@ktmc.com
lmcginley@ktmc.com
- and -
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Kevin B. Love, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Fax: (305) 357-9050
Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com
klove@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
- and -
John Radice, Esq.
Dan Rubenstein, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel: (646) 245-8502
Fax: (609) 385-0745
Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Secretly Records Voice & Communications, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA MIRABILE, MATHEW MERMAN, DIANE McNEALY, MICHAEL McNEALY,
MARK FLADD, STEPHANIE FLADD, and LISA HOVASSE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00854-RAJ (W.D. Wash.,
June 24, 2021) seeks to hold the Defendants accountable for
violating the laws of Washington, Florida, California, New
Hampshire, and Massachusetts by using smart-speaker technology
("Alexa") to secretly record and maintain millions of Americans'
voices and communications.
Smart-speaker technology is an omnipresent feature in Amazon's
products. Alexa has become part of the 21st-century lexicon. In
addition to Amazon products utilizing Alexa -- such as Echo Dot,
Echo Plus, Echo Sub, Echo Show, Echo Input, Echo Frames eyeglasses,
Amazon Fire TV digital media player, and Amazon Fire tablets --
Amazon has authorized several third-party device manufacturers to
offer products that either come with Alexa capability built-in or
that are easily integrated with Alexa. The widespread proliferation
of Alexa Devices underscores the magnitude of information Alexa can
impermissibly capture.
When Plaintiffs and Class members used Alexa Devices or otherwise
had their communications recorded, stored, intercepted, or
monitored by an Alexa Device, Amazon allegedly recorded their
communications, transmitted them to cloud servers, and retained
copies of them, in violation of Cal. Penal Code section 632(a) and
(b), which prohibits any "corporation" from intentionally using a
"recording device to eavesdrop upon or record" any "confidential
communication" without the "consent of all parties" to the
confidential communication.
The Plaintiffs and Class members seek statutory damages in
accordance with section 637.2(a), which provides for the greater
of: (1) $5,000 per violation; or (2) three times the amount of 3
damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount to be
proven at trial, as well as injunctive or other equitable relief.
The Plaintiffs and Class members have also suffered irreparable
injury from these unauthorized acts of disclosure, their persona,
private, and sensitive health information have been collected,
viewed, accessed, stored, and used by Defendants, and have not been
destroyed, and due to the continuing threat of such injury, have no
adequate remedy at law, entitled Plaintiffs to injunctive relief.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Koehler Moore, Esq.
Brad J. Moore, Esq.
STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE
3600 15th Avenue West, #300
Seattle, WA 98119
Telephone: (206) 448-1777
Facsimile: (206) 728-2131
E-mail: brad@stritmatter.com
- and -
Paul Jj. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Maxwell H. Sawyer, Esq.
Samuel h. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
msawyer@rgrdlaw.com
srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
1 Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 720-1333
Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
ATHIRA PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Athira Pharma, Inc. ("Athira
" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ATHA) on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Athira common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's September 2020 initial public offering ("IPO" or
the "Offering"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/atha.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) that
Kawas had published research papers containing improperly altered
images while she was a graduate student; (2) that this purported
research was foundational to Athira's efforts to develop treatments
for Alzheimer's because it laid the biological groundwork that
Athira was using in its approach to treating Alzheimer's; (3) that,
as a result, Athira's intellectual property and product development
for the treatment of Alzheimer's were based on invalid research;
and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On or around September 18, 2021, Athira conducted its initial
public offering ("IPO"), selling 12 million shares priced at $17.00
per share. Then, on June 17, 2021, Athira announced that the
Company's board had placed its President and Chief Executive
Officer, Leen Kawas, on temporary leave pending an investigation of
"actions stemming from doctoral research Dr. Kawas conducted while
at Washington State University." On this news, Athira's stock price
fell $7.09 per share, or 38.87%, to close at $11.15 per share on
June 18, 2021.
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/atha 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 Home
Point you have until August 24, 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.
Contacts:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
ATHIRA PHARMA: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on July 7 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on behalf of those who acquired
Athira Pharma, Inc. ("Athira" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATHA)
securities from September 18, 2020 through June 17, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 24, 2021 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
In September 2020, the Company closed its initial public offering,
in which the Company sold and issued 12,000,000 shares of common
stock at a price to the public of $17.00 per share. In January
2021, the Company completed a follow-on public offering of its
common stock. As part of the follow-on offering, the Company issued
and sold 4,000,000 shares of its common stock at a public offering
price of $22.50 per share.
On June 17, 2021, Athira issued a press release announcing that the
Company's Chief Operating Officer had "assumed day-to-day
leadership responsibilities for the Company, effective
immediately." The Company further disclosed that the Board of
Directors placed the President and Chief Executive Officer Leen
Kawas ("Kawas"), "on temporary leave pending a review of actions
stemming from doctoral research [the CEO] conducted while at
Washington State University." The Company also disclosed that the
"Board has formed an independent special committee to undertake
this review." On this news, Athira's share price declined by $7.09
per share, or approximately 38.9%, from $18.24 per share to close
at $11.15 per share on June 18, 2021.
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omitted to material adverse facts
regarding the Company's business. Specifically, Defendants failed
to disclose to investors: (1) that the research conducted by Kawas,
which formed the foundation for Athira's product candidates and
intellectual property, was tainted by Kawas' scientific misconduct,
including the manipulation of key data; and (2) that, as a result
of the 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Athira securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
BANNER HEALTH: Ramos et al., Awarded $1.057MM in Attorneys' Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORRAINE M. RAMOS, et al.,
v. BANNER HEALTH, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02556-WJM-NRN (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order:
1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, and
for an Award to the Class Representatives, and Memorandum
in Support is granted in part and denied in part.
2. The Plaintiffs are awarded $1,057,282.72 in attorneys'
fees and $21,713 in expenses;
3. Lorraine Ramos and Robert Moffitt are awarded an incentive
award for serving as class representatives in the amount
of $12,500 each to be paid from the class recovery; and
4. Constance Williamson, Karen McLeod, Cherlene Goodale,
Linda Heyrman, and Delri Hanson are awarded an incentive
award for serving as class representatives in the amount
of $7,500 each to be paid from the class recovery.
The Plaintiffs Lorraine M. Ramos and others brought this class
action against Banner, as well as current and former employees of
Banner Health alleging that Banner Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties related to the Banner Health Employees 401(k) Plan
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
After filing the initial complaint, the Plaintiffs sought and
obtained certification of the following class:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Banner Health
Employees 401(k) Plan from November 20, 2009 through the date
of judgment, excluding the Defendants."
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wCsDGW at no extra charge.[CC]
BINANCE: Investors File Class Action Over Futures Trading Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Turner Wright, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that a group of
Italian and international investors have filed a class-action suit
against major crypto exchange Binance, alleging the firm violated
its own rules on futures trading.
In a July 6 announcement, Italy-based legal and consulting firm
Lexia Avvocati said it would be taking legal action against Binance
to recover damages from trades on the crypto exchange's futures
platform. On behalf of a group of investors, the company and the
Swiss Blockchain Consortium allege Binance breached its rules on
crypto derivatives trading and did not function properly at certain
peak trading times.
According to local news outlet Milano Finanza, the lawsuit is
centered around the crypto exchange going offline for several hours
on different days -- such as on Feb. 8, when Elon Musk announced
that Tesla had purchased $1.5 billion in Bitcoin (BTC). The
investors in the class-action suit allege they lost "tens of
millions" of dollars due to not being able to manage their trading
positions and view their balances. They also claim similar outages
that occurred on April 18, May 5, May 19, May 28 and June 4 were
grounds for compensation.
Though Binance did reportedly allow users affected by the outages
to request compensation, Lexia said the exchange was offering a
"pitiful amount" for its clients, who refused the "laughable"
proposal. The law firm said the investors would be willing to
dismiss the lawsuit if Binance were to appropriately compensate
them before July 12, also warning it would seek regulatory
restrictions for the exchange in the European Union and
Switzerland.
The legal action comes amid Thailand's Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority recently
announcing a regulatory crackdown on Binance for operating in their
respective jurisdictions without a proper license. In March, news
outlets reported the exchange may also be under investigation by
the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission regarding
possible trades made by U.S.-based customers.
Cointelegraph reached out to Lexia for comment but did not receive
a response at the time of publication. This story may be updated.
[GN]
BOBSHAN ENTERTAINMENT: Linwood Slams Illegal Tip Pool
-----------------------------------------------------
Jelicia Linwood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bobshan Entertainment, Inc. and Robert
Ebbert, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00789, (N.D. Tex., June 25,
2021) seeks damages for violations of the mandatory minimum wage
and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
illegally withholding tips and demanding illegal fees.
Defendants operate as "Elegance Cabaret," an adult-oriented
entertainment facility located in Fort Worth, Texas where Linwood
worked as an "exotic dancer." Plaintiff was compensated exclusively
through tips from customers. Elegance allegedly failed to pay
minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked and failed to
notify Plaintiff about the tip credit allowance before the credit
was utilized. Dancers did not retain all of their tips and instead
required that they divide their tips amongst other employees who do
not customarily and regularly receive tips in violation of the
tip-pool law. Furthermore, Elegance allegedly demanded illegal
kickbacks in the form of "House Fees." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: leigh@hughesellzey.com
jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
CALIFORNIA: California Correctional Supervisors Files Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California
Correctional Health Care Services, et al. The case is captioned as
California Correctional Supervisors Organization (CCSO) vs.
California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS)/Division of
Health Care Services (DHCS), Case No. 34-2021-00303103-CU-MC-GDS
(Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 24, 2021).
The Defendants include California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; and California Department of Human Resources
(CalHR).
CCSO operates as a professional trade association.
CCHCS was established to oversee and provide a constitutionally
appropriate level of health care in all 35 adult prisons operated
by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiff CCSO is represented by:
Richard P. Fisher. Esq.
GOYETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2366 Gold Meadow Way Ste 200
Gold River, CA 95670-4471
Telephone: (916) 851-1900
Facsimile: (916) 851-1995
E-mail: richard@goyette-assoc.com
CANADA: New Chief Calls Reparations for Indigenous People
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Patrick Jones at CBC News reports that the newly elected
leader of the largest advocacy organization for First Nations in
Canada has thrown her support behind the idea of reparations for
Indigenous people.
Speaking at a virtual press conference one day after being elected
national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, RoseAnne Archibald
said settler colonialism has had dire effects on Indigenous people
in Canada -- effects that continue to this day and demand redress.
"Reparations are an essential part of the journey on
reconciliation," Archibald said. "Our communities have had
longstanding negative impacts as a result of colonization."
Archibald was responding to a media question about a report
released by Sen. Patrick Brazeau, a member of the Kitigan Zibi
Anishinabeg First Nation in Quebec, that examined the history of
the relationship between the federal government and Indigenous
people.
In a subsequent interview with online news site iPolitics, Brazeau
said his report highlighted a history of "broken promises" and
"Band-Aid solutions" to First Nations issues, and that
reconciliation must include a "process of reparations."
Reparations should go beyond existing settlements: Archibald
The federal government has set up a number of mechanisms to
compensate Indigenous people who experienced specific forms of
discrimination or abuse.
The 2007 Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement set up a
"common experience payment" for all students who attended the
government-sanctioned institutions, along with an "independent
assessment process" for people who experienced sexual and physical
abuse.
So far, those funds have paid out over $4.8 billion to residential
school survivors.
A separate nationwide class action lawsuit brought to compensate
survivors of federally-operated Indian Day Schools resulted in a
settlement with the federal government. That settlement offers
former students a range of compensation between $10,000 and
$200,000, based on abuse suffered while attending the schools.
And a class action settlement agreement with Sixties Scoop
survivors, signed in November 2017, set aside $750 million to
compensate First Nations and Inuit children who were removed from
their homes and placed with non-Indigenous foster or adoptive
parents between 1951 and 1991, and lost their cultural identities
as a result.
Archibald said reparations for Indigenous people must go beyond
these existing settlements.
"That's only one piece of reparations," said Archibald. "We need
those reparations to happen not only with individuals, but
communities and nations."
While Archibald didn't specify the exact form such reparations
should take, Indigenous people often argue it should go beyond
money and include returning control over land that was taken from
them.
CBC requested comment from the federal government but has not
received a response.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said his party is open to the idea of
reparations.
"We know that the Government of Canada has stolen the lives, the
culture, the identity, and the future of Indigenous people across
Canada," Singh said in a media statement. "We must listen to those
hurt the most by colonization and take action to build a new
pathway towards reconciliation."
Jamie Schmale, Conservative critic for Crown-Indigenous relations,
said his party recognizes that more work needs to be done to
address the harmful effects residential schools have had on
survivors.
"We also know that the path to reconciliation must be walked in
partnership with Indigenous peoples," Schmale said in a media
statement. "Trudeau has demonstrated time after time that he has no
plans and only hollow words for Canada's Indigenous peoples."
Schmale said Conservatives have called on the Liberal government to
take immediate action to address the Truth and Reconciliation
Commissions' calls to action that deal with missing children and
those who died at residential schools. [GN]
CANOO INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of August 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Canoo Inc. ("Canoo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOEV) against
certain of its officers and directors.
Recently a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against
the Company on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Canoo from
August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Canoo
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Canoo had decreased its
focus on its plans to sell vehicles to consumers in the form of a
subscription model; (2) Canoo's engineering services business would
be deemphasized; (3) Canoo did not have partnerships with original
equipment manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously
announced partnership with Hyundai, contrary to prior statements ;
and (4) positive statements about Canoo's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis, as a result of the foregoing.
If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Canoo Inc , holding
shares before August 18, 2020 , you may have standing to hold Canoo
harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and directors
of the Company by making them personally responsible. You may also
be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance
to prevent future wrongdoing.
If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
Additionally, if you are a current, long-term shareholder of Canoo,
holding shares before August 18, 2020 , you can [Click here to join
this action]. There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]
CAPIO PARTNERS: Radcliffe Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capio Partners, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Daliz Radcliffe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capio Partners, LLC, CF
Medical LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-03898 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Capio Partners -- https://capiopfw.com/ -- is a debt collection
agency located in Georgia, Texas, and Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
CARLOTZ INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
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.
Investors suffering losses on their CarLotz 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.
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, 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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Drezner Sues Over Condominium Building Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Drezner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Champlain Towers South Condominium Association, Inc.,
Case No. 12948073 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., June 24, 2021) is a
class action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to
secure and safeguard the lives and property of Plaintiff and Class
members in connection to the collapse of Champlain Towers South.
On June 24, 2021, the condominium building where the Plaintiff, the
Class, and their families own property, located at 8777 Collins
Avenue, Surfside, FL, 33154 and known as Champlain Towers South,
suffered a catastrophic collapse at approximately 1:30 a.m. local
time.
According to the complaint, the collapse of Champlain Towers South
occurred, upon information and belief, due to Defendant's acts and
omissions and their failure to properly protect the lives and
property of Plaintiff and Class members.
Defendant's attorney Ken Direktor states that "repair needs had
been identified" with regard to certain structural issues but had
not been implemented; one of the most breathtakingly frightening
tragedies in the history of South Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradford Rothwell Sohn, Esq.
THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM, PLLC
1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1205
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 708-9750
Facsimile: (305) 397-0650
E-mail: brad@bradsohnlaw.com
- and -
Rami Shmuely, Esq.
CHAVIN MITCHELL SHMUELY, P.A.
12955 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 201
Miami, FL 33181-2021
Telephone: (786) 345-2055
Facsimile: (305) 631-2886
E-mail: rshmuely@cmslawgroup.com
- and -
Graham LippSmith, Esq.
MaryBeth LippSmith, Esq.
Celene Chan Andrews, Esq.
LIPPSMITH LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 344-1820
Facsimile: (213) 513-2495
E-mail: g(@lippsmith.com
mb@lippsmith.com
cca(@lippsmith.com
CMRE FINANCIAL: Must File Opposition to Class Cert Bid in 4 Weeks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN TRIM, Individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CMRE FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00451-AJB-LL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order that:
-- The Defendant CMRE has four weeks to file its Opposition
to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
-- The Plaintiff will have three weeks to file his reply.
-- The parties are to contact Judge Battaglia's chambers
before filing their motion and no later than October 8,
2021, to get a motion hearing date.
CMRE provides financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2U6ohur at no extra charge.[CC]
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Berger Montague Reminds of July 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague reminds investors of the upcoming deadline of July
16, 2021 for investors to seek lead plaintiff status in a
securities fraud class action against ContextLogic, Inc.
("ContextLogic" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who
purchased ContextLogic securities (NASDAQ: WISH) between December
13, 2020 and May 12, 2021 (the "Class Period").
If you purchased ContextLogic securities during the Class Period,
would like to discuss Berger Montague's investigation, or have
questions concerning your rights or interests, please contact
attorneys Andrew Abramowitz at aabramowitz@bm.net or (215)
875-3015, or Donnell Much at dmuch@bm.net or (215) 875-4667, or
complete the form on www.bergermontague.com/contextlogic.
According to a recently filed lawsuit, throughout the Class Period,
the Company and its senior management concealed from investors that
ContextLogic's fourth quarter 2020 monthly average users ("MAUs")
had declined materially and were not growing. This caused the
Company's business metrics and financial prospects to be materially
overstated.
In December 2020, ContextLogic completed its initial public
offering ("IPO") in which it sold 46 million shares at $24 per
share. Thereafter, on March 8, 2021, the Company reported its
fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020 financial results, disclosing
that at the time of its IPO, the Company's MAUs had already
declined 10% year-over-year during the fourth quarter. On this
news, ContextLogic's share price fell $1.83 -- more than 10% -- to
close at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021.
Finally, on May 12, 2021, ContextLogic reported its first quarter
2021 financial results, revealing that MAUs had declined another 7%
to just 101 million. This news sent shares plummeting $3.36 per
share -- approximately 29% -- to close at $8.11 per share on May
12, significantly below the IPO price of $24 per share.
Whistleblowers: Anyone with non-public information regarding
ContextLogic is encouraged to confidentially assist Berger
Montague's investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower
program. Under this program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent (30%)
of recoveries obtained by the SEC. For more information, contact
us.
Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., and San Diego, has been a pioneer in securities
class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague
has represented individual and institutional investors for over
five decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the
United States.
Contacts
Andrew Abramowitz, Senior Counsel
Berger Montague
(215) 875-3015
aabramowitz@bm.net
Donnell Much, Associate
Berger Montague
(215) 875-4667
dmuch@bm.net [GN]
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Class Action Over Misleading Statements Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rohail Saleem, writing for wccftech, reports that ContextLogic
(NASDAQ:WISH 11.14 1.27%), an American company behind the online
e-commerce platform Wish that sells cheap goods directly from
Chinese warehouses, has now turned into a quintessential meme
stock.
As an illustration, ContextLogic was the most discussed stock on
Reddit, featuring over 3.5K mentions as per a tabulation by
r/market_sentiment. Even though the stock's popularity remains
unfazed for now, the sentiment around ContextLogic shares is indeed
moderating after a 17 percent drop over the past couple of days,
with bullish mentions cratering from 46 percent to just 4.4
percent.
So, what factors are responsible for this brutal plunge in the
stock's bullish sentiment? Well, an eroding path to profitability
and a pending class-action lawsuit seem to be playing an important
role in moderating the euphoria around this stock. Let's delve
deeper.
As a refresher, ContextLogic's Wish is essentially a digital
marketplace for cheap, unbranded goods sourced directly from
Chinese warehouses. The products featured on the platform are often
knockoffs with questionable quality. Moreover, the marketplace
lacks a strong customer support service. Basically, Wish is
emblematic of all that is associated -- correctly or wrongly --
with the Chinese way of doing business, and the company has proudly
flaunted this business model. This approach did yield dividends
during the pandemic when much of the world entered haphazard
lockdowns and disposable incomes took a hit. For instance, the
company claimed ahead of its IPO late last year that its platform
featured 108 million Monthly Active Users (MAUs). However, as the
global economy began to recover, Wish's MAUs began to shrink.
Incidentally, it is this factor that constitutes the basis of a
class-action lawsuit.
On the 3rd of July 2021, the law firm Hagens Berman issued a press
statement that called on eligible investors to become part of a
class-action lawsuit. The complaint alleges that ContextLogic
"materially overstated the company's business metrics and financial
prospects" ahead of its public flotation. For instance, by the time
of its IPO in December 2020, Wish's MAUs had declined materially.
Yet, the company failed to disclose this information in a timely
fashion. It was only in March 2021 that the company declared that
its MAUs had already "declined 10% YoY during Q4 to 104 million."
Please note that this information was released around three months
after its IPO. Thereafter, in May, ContextLogic disclosed another
decline in Wish's MAUs to 101 million while also slashing the
guidance for Q2 2021.
One of the most important functions of the stock market is to
incorporate future information and prospects in the share price.
Here too, ContextLogic fails to impress. The company can't grow its
MAUs without a gigantic marketing budget. In Q1 2021, sales and
marketing expenses ate up the entirety of ContextLogic's gross
profit, amounting to $470 million vs. a gross profit of just $437
million. Given the razor-thin margins involved and a declining
trend for Wish's MAUs, I find it quite hard to figure out a path to
sustainable profits for the e-commerce platform.
Of course, nowadays, it has become a trend to pump anything with a
high Short Interest (SI). As per the tabulation by MarketBeat,
ContextLogic's SI currently stands at around 5.38 percent, which is
not that high. Moreover, its days to cover ratio is just 0.4. In
light of these figures, I am extremely skeptical of a miraculous
short squeeze.
Everything looks like a nail to a hammer. A generation of Reddit
investors is now being trained to view anything with a material SI
as a potential short squeeze. Such investors fail to take into
account that often, a sizable SI is a function of markets working
efficiently. Perhaps these investors would realize their folly when
this current fad ends in tears. Until then, keep pumping! [GN]
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholder of Contextlogic Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the date
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
Contextlogic Inc. (NASDAQ:WISH)
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased WISH pursuant
or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with ContextLogic's December 16, 2020 initial public
stock offering or between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021.
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Contextlogic Inc. In the registration statement and prospectus used
to conduct the initial public offering and throughout the class
period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements
about the strength of ContextLogic's business operations and
financial prospects by overstating its then-present monthly active
users ("MAUs") and MAU growth trends.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/contextlogic-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17538&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]
CROW VOTE: Ward RICO Suit Removed From State Court to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Bridget Ward, et al. v. Crow
Vote LLC, et al., Case No. 30-02021-01196152-CU-BT-CXC, was removed
from the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division -
Santa Ana) on June 24, 2021.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:21-cv-01110-JVS-DFM to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James V.
Selna.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey N. Wilens, Esq.
Macy Lauren Wilens, Esq.
LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
18340 Yorba Linda Boulevard Suite 107-610
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Telephone: (714) 854-7205
Facsimile: (714) 854-7206
E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org
macy@lakeshorelaw.org
- and -
Jeffrey P Spencer, Esq.
THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
2 Venture Plaza Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 240-8595
Facsimile: (949) 377-3272
E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Simren Kaur Gill, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
120 Broadway Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Telephone: (310) 576-2100
Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
E-mail: simren.gill@bclplaw.com
DAVIS HEALTH: Newman Suit Removed from Circuit Court to N.D. W.Va.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LIONELL NEWMAN individually
and all others similarly situated v. DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a
West Virginia corporation and NEC NETWORKS, LLC, a Texas
corporation, Case No. 21-C-31 (Filed May 28, 2021) was removed the
Circuit Court of Upshur County, West Virginia to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Elkins
Division on July 2, 2021.
The Northern District of West Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:21-cv-00019-TSK to the proceeding.
Mr. Newman filed this putative class action complaint against the
Defendants in the Circuit Court of Upshur County, West Virginia to
obtain class relief, damages, restitution, and equitable relief for
herself [sic] and all others similarly situated.
Newman's complaint arises from an alleged data security incident
that occurred when third-parties illegally accessed certain
CaptureRx data on or around February 6, 2021.
Newman seeks to represent a broad, nationwide putative class in
pursuing his complaint, defined as follows:
"All persons whose sensitive information in the possession of
Defendants was compromised as a result of a security breach
which occurred on or around February 6, 2021."
Davis Health provides healthcare services. The Company offers
cardiology, cancer, pain management, imaging and radiology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Tiano, Esq.
Tony L. O'Dell, Esq.
Cheryl A. Fisher, Esq.
TIAN O'DELL, PLLC
Post Office Box 11830
Charleston, WV 25339
E-mail: wtiano@tolawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robby J. Aliff, Esq.
Candice M. Harlow, Esq.
JACKSON KELLY PLLC
500 Lee Street East, Suite 1600
Charleston, WV 25301
E-mail: raliff@jacksonkelly.com
charlow@jacksonkelly.com
DIDI GLOBAL: Kahn Swick Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
DiDi Global Inc. (DIDI)
Class Period: 6/30/2021 - 7/2/2021, or purchase of shares issued
either in or after the June 2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 7, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-didi/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
DIDI GLOBAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
securities fraud class action lawsuits have been filed in both the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York
and the Central District of California against DiDi Global Inc.
(NYSE: DIDI) ("DiDi") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
DiDi: (a) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") 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 (b)
securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired DiDi ADSs
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO and/or DiDi securities during the Class
Period may, no later than September 7, 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/didi-global-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=didi.
DiDi is a mobility technology platform, providing ride hailing and
other services in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), Brazil,
Mexico, and internationally. It offers ride hailing, taxi hailing,
chauffeur, hitch, and other forms of shared mobility services, as
well as enterprise business ride solutions; auto solutions
comprising leasing, refueling, and maintenance and repair services;
electric vehicle leasing services; bike and e-bike sharing,
intra-city freight, food delivery, and financial services. DiDi was
formerly known as Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc. and changed its name to DiDi
Global Inc. in June 2021. DiDi is often called "the Uber of
China."
On June 30, 2021, DiDi filed its prospectus on a Form 424B4, which
forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, DiDi sold
approximately 316,800,000 shares at a price of $14.00 per share.
Four ADSs represent one Class A ordinary share.
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 share price fell $0.87, or
approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July 2, 2021.
After the Class Period, 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." 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 share, or 19.6%, to close at
$12.49 per share on July 6, 2021.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state 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 CAC; (3) the CAC had warned DiDi to delay its IPO
to conduct a self-examination of its network security; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be
taken down from app stores in PRC, which would have an adverse
effect on its financial results and operations; and (5) as a result
of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about DiDi's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
DiDi investors may, no later than September 7, 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. [GN]
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Overman Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN OVERMAN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. STOKES & FOLKS d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA and CLYDE P. STOKES,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00550 (M.D.N.C., July 2, 2021 is a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act seeking to recover unpaid
minimum wages owed to situated delivery drivers employed by the
Defendants at their Domino's Pizza stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores in
and around this District. The Defendants employ delivery drivers
who use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food
items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery
drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of
their vehicles, Defendants allegedly use a flawed method to
determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably
low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they
incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to
fall below the federal and state minimum wage during some or all
workweeks.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants since May 2020 as
a delivery driver for Defendants' Domino's Pizza store located at
1837 S Church Street, Burlington, North Carolina.
The Defendants own and operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores. The Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores employ delivery
drivers who all have the same primary job duty: to deliver pizzas
and other food items to customers' homes or workplaces, the
Plaintiff says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J Modla, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR
115 Elk Ave.
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Telephone: (803) 328-0898
E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com
- and -
Meredith Black Mathews, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE
400 N. St. Paul St. Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
DOORDASH INC: Faces Campbell Business Tort Suit in Cal. State Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LANIKA CAMPBELL AND
SOPHIA BARRERA, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, vs. DOORDASH, INC. ET AL., Case No. CGC21589694 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., June 25, 2021).
The suit arises from alleged business tort claims.
A case management conference will be held on July 14, 2021.
DoorDash operates an online food ordering and food delivery
platform.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1100 15th St NW, Fl4
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Holecek, Esq.
Joshua S. Jlipshutz, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
333 S Grand Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1512
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
E-mail: mholecek@gibsondunn.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on July 6 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of DraftKings Inc. ("DraftKings" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: DKNG) from December 23, 2019 through June 15, 2021. The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleges violations of the Exchange Act of
1934.
If you purchased DraftKings securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit DraftKings
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr.
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SBTech (Global) Limited
("SBTech") had a history of unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly,
DraftKings' merger with SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in
black-market gaming; (iii) the foregoing increase the Company's
regulatory and criminal risks with respect to these transactions;
(iv) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's revenues were,
in part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v)
accordingly the benefits of the business combination dated December
22, 2019 were overstated; and (vi) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On June 15, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report titled "DraftKings: A $21 Billion SPAC Betting
It Can Hide Its Black Market Operations." The report alleges that
one of the companies that was part of the three-way merger that
took DraftKings public, SBTech, exposed DraftKings and their
investors to black-market gaming, money laundering and organized
crime. Hindenburg Research claimed that it had "conversations with
multiple former employees, [. . .] review[ed] SEC & international
filings, and inspect[ed] back-end infrastructure at illicit
international gambling websites[.]" Based on this information, the
report concluded with the opinion that "DraftKings has
systematically skirted the law and taken elaborate steps to
obfuscate its black market operations."
On this news, DraftKings' stock price fell $2.11 per share, or
4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share on June 15, 2021.
If you purchased DraftKings securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/draftkingsinc-dkng-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-406/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
Seidman@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information
Joseph Seidman, Jr.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
Seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]
DRAFTKINGS INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of August 31 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on July 6 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against DraftKings Inc. (f/k/a Diamond Eagle
Acquisition Corp.) ("DEAC", "DraftKings", or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: DKNG) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired DraftKings publicly traded securities between December 23,
2019 and June 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
On April 23, 2020, DEAC completed certain transactions (the
"Business Combination") through which DraftKings became a public
company and acquired SBTech Global Limited ("SBTech").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SBTech had a history
of unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly, DraftKings' merger with
SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in black-market gaming;
(iii) the foregoing increased the Company's regulatory and criminal
risks with respect to these transactions; (iv) as a result of all
the foregoing, the Company's revenues were, in part, derived from
unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) accordingly, the
benefits of the Business Combination were overstated; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On June 15, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a
report alleging that the Company's merger with SBTech exposed
DraftKings to dealings in black-market gaming. Citing
"conversations with multiple former employees, a review of
Securities and Exchange Commission and international filings, and
inspection of back-end infrastructure at illicit international
gaming websites," Hindenburg alleged that "SBTech has a long and
ongoing record of operating in black markets," estimating that 50%
of SBTech's revenue is from markets where gambling is banned."
Following publication of the Hindenburg report, DraftKings' stock
price fell $2.11 per share, or 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share
on June 15, 2021.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of DraftKings
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the August
31, 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.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
DRAFTKINGS INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 31 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on July 6 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
DraftKings Inc. ("DraftKings" or the "Company") f/k/a Diamond Eagle
Acquisition Corp. ("DEAC") (NASDAQ: DKNG) securities between
December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). DraftKings investors have until August 31, 2021 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their DraftKings 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.
On April 23, 2020, DEAC completed certain transactions (the
"Business Combination") through which DraftKings Inc. became a
public company and acquired SBTech Global Limited ("SBTech").
On June 15, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report calling DraftKings "a $21 billion SPAC betting
it can hide its black-market operations." The report cited concerns
over its merger with SBTech, a Bulgaria-based gaming technology
company that allegedly deals in black market gaming, money
laundering, and organized crime. Hindenburg Research estimated that
50% of SBTech's revenue comes from markets where gambling is
banned.
On this news, DraftKings's stock price fell $2.11 per share, or
approximately 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share on June 15, 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) SBTech had a
history of unlawful operations; (2) accordingly, DraftKings' merger
with SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in black-market gaming;
(3) the foregoing increased the Company's regulatory and criminal
risks with respect to these transactions; (4) as a result of all
the foregoing, the Company's revenues were, in part, derived from
unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (5) accordingly, the
benefits of the Business Combination were overstated; and (6) 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 DraftKings 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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS: Faces Tapia-Rendon $9.9M Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Employer Solutions
Staffing Group II, LLC. The case is captioned as Tapia-Rendon v.
Employer Solutions Staffing Group II, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-03400 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2021).
The suit demands $9.9 million in damages. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.
The Defendants include Employer Solutions Staffing Group II, LLC;
and United Tape & Finishing Co., Inc.; and EasyWorkforce Software,
LLC.
Employer Solutions Staffing Group II, LLC is located in Edina,
Minnesota, and is part of the Staffing Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
NICK LARRY LAW LLC
8 S Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (773) 694-4669
E-mail: nick@nicklarry.law
FCA US: E.D. Michigan Narrows Claims in Reynolds Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLAIR REYNOLDS, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-11745 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's Motions to Dismiss.
In the consolidated putative class action, the Plaintiffs, eight
current and former Jeep Wrangler owners, bring claims under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et
seq., and several state warranty and consumer fraud statutes,
against Defendant, FCA, the designer and manufacturer of Jeep
vehicles. The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' complaints is that the
Defendant failed to warn prospective Jeep purchasers of a defect,
and has failed to cure the defect as required by its warranties.
The defect of which the Plaintiffs complain is commonly referred to
as the "Death Wobble." The Plaintiffs allege that "the 'Death
Wobble' makes affected vehicles unsafe to operate by impairing the
operator's ability to steer and control while presenting a safety
risk to the occupants and others on the road."
According to the Plaintiffs, the Death Wobble is caused by "a
defectively designed and/or manufactured solid front axle
suspension and damping system." Specifically, they contend that
the Defendant's four-link front suspension design "increases the
number of wear items (including bushings) within the suspension
system," requiring Jeep vehicles to have "high quality suspension
components," but that the affected "vehicles contain inadequate
rubber bushings that experience tearing, premature wear, and
failure."
The Defendant has acknowledged the existence of "such a random
issue" in model-year 2018 and 2019 Jeep Wranglers, however, it
maintains that any problem is remedied by proper installation of an
updated front suspension steering damper. To that end, in August
2019, the Defendant initiated Customer Satisfaction Notification
V41 ("CSN V41"), a campaign that offered model-year 2018 and 2019
Jeep Wrangler owners a free updated damper as well as reimbursement
for prior related repairs.
The Plaintiffs contend, however, that "a steering damper only
serves to temporarily mask the issue," and that CSN V41 fails to
prevent the Death Wobble from reoccurring. They also argue that
CSN V41 is but one episode in a saga of failed efforts to address
the Death Wobble going back over a decade.
The Defendant provides two warranties that are relevant here: a
three-year/36,000-mile Basic Limited Warranty, and a
five-year/60,000-mile Powertrain Limited Warranty. The Basic
Limited Warranty covers the cost of all parts and labor needed to
repair any item on the vehicle that is defective in material,
workmanship, or factory preparation as of the time it left the
manufacturing plant," while "the Powertrain Limited Warranty covers
the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair a powertrain
component that is defective in workmanship and materials." The
Plaintiffs contend that they presented their vehicles to an
authorized dealership for repair pursuant to the above warranties,
but that the Defendant was unable to prevent the Death Wobble from
reoccurring.
On Nov. 17, 2018, the NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation
("ODI") opened a Defect Petition (18-004) to investigate frame weld
issues in 2018 Jeep Wranglers. In September 2019, ODI concluded
that a Preliminary Evaluation was necessary based on its
investigation. It granted the Defect Petition (18-004) and opened
a Preliminary Evaluation (19-012) "to further assess the scope,
frequency, and potential safety-related consequences of alleged
weld quality deficiencies and steering related concerns on
model-year 2018 and 2019 Jeep Wranglers."
The two cases in the putative class action, Reynolds, et al. v. FCA
US LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-11745, and Martinez v. FCA US LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-11164, were consolidated on Oct. 27, 2020. Prior to
consolidation, the Defendant moved to dismiss both actions under
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The Court
heard arguments on March 30, 2021.
Analysis
I. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
A. The Scope of Plaintiffs' Proposed Class Will Be Addressed At
Class-Certification
The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue
on behalf of model-year 2020 vehicle owners because they have not
purchased any such vehicles. Its challenge is, at bottom, not so
much an attack on the Plaintiffs' standing, but an attack on the
scope of their proposed class.
Judge Tarnow holds that because the Plaintiffs have standing with
respect to their own vehicles, he defers consideration of the scope
of the proposed vehicle class until class-certification.
B. Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated a Case or Controversy in Spite of
Defendant's Repair Program
The Defendant next argues that because it has agreed to install a
new steering damper on all affected vehicles and offered to
reimburse vehicle owners for any costs associated with prior Death
Wobble repairs, Plaintiffs' claims are moot. It contends that to
rebut this factual attack on jurisdiction, the Plaintiff must go
beyond the pleadings and adduce evidence that the Defendant's
repair was ineffective.
Judge Tarrow holds that the Defendant is incorrect on both counts.
He says the Plaintiffs need not prove the ineffectiveness of the
Defendant's repair effort at this juncture, because the question of
whether its repair effectively cured the Death Wobble is deeply
entwined with the merits of the Plaintiffs' federal and state
claims. Accordingly, he finds that jurisdiction exists and deals
with the objection as a direct attack on the merits. And because
there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the effectiveness
of the repair, judgment would be premature.
II. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
A. General Warranty Arguments
1. The MMWA Claims
The Plaintiffs pleaded a nationwide MMWA claim in addition to
warranty claims under the laws of New Jersey, Tennessee, Colorado,
Minnesota, Georgia, North Carolina, and California. However, in
their Notice of Supplemental Authority, Jugde Tarrow finds that
they conceded that their nationwide MMWA claims should be
dismissed. Accordingly, Count 1 will be dismissed as to any state
for which a named Plaintiff does not assert a valid warranty
claim.
2. The Express Warranty Claims
The Defendant makes two general arguments regarding the Plaintiffs'
claims for breach of express warranty. First, it argues that the
Plaintiffs' claims are based on a design defect and that the
relevant warranties only cover defects in materials and
workmanship. Second, it argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to
allege a breach in light of the CSN V41 service effort.
Neither of these arguments have merit, Judge Tarrow finds. First,
even where a warranty is limited to defects in materials or
workmanship, "dismissal at the pleading stage is premature" where
"sufficient facts are alleged to assert both' a design and
manufacturing defect." Second, where a plaintiff plausibly alleges
that a defendant "has not adequately repaired their vehicle," the
fact that the defendant has attempted repair does not absolve it
from liability under its warranty. Accordingly, at this time,
although Hancock has plainly alleged an injury, she has not pleaded
sufficient facts to sustain a claim for breach of express warranty.
Count 15 will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
3. The Implied Warranty Claims
The Defendant next argues that the Plaintiffs' implied warranty
claims are all subject to dismissal because their vehicles are
still technically operable.
This argument fails, Judge Tarrow also finds. Martirano, Pineda,
and Martinez do not allege that they changed their driving
practices because of the Death Wobble. However, they do allege
that the Death Wobble persists in spite of the Defendants' repair
effort. And because they have plausibly alleged the continuing
presence of a serious safety defect, the fact that their individual
tolerance for risk may be different than that of other Plaintiffs
does not warrant dismissal of their implied warranty claims.
B. State-Specific Warranty Arguments
1. Privity
The Defendant next argues that the implied warranty claims under
California, Georgia, and North Carolina law must be dismissed for
lack of privity.
Judge Tarrow holds that (i) because Martinez has plausibly alleged
that she is a third-party beneficiary to a contract that gives rise
to the implied warranty of merchantability, she may assert a claim
for the implied warranty's breach; (ii) because Hancock purchased
her second-hand vehicle directly from a dealership as opposed to an
original purchaser, the fact that her vehicle was used is
irrelevant, so her implied warranty claim will not be dismissed on
this basis; (iii) Schafer abandons this claim by not responding to
the Defendant's argument, so Count 20 will be dismissed without
prejudice.
2. Notice
The Defendant next argues that the warranty claims under Georgia,
North Carolina, Minnesota, and Tennessee law must be dismissed for
lack of notice.
Judge Tarrow finds that Hancock's implied warranty claim, Schafer's
warrranty claims, and Laing's warranty claims. With respect to the
warranty claim under Tennessee law, even though Pineda sought out
repair five or more times, his express warranty claim must be
dismissed, because he has not alleged that he notified the
Defendant that its repeated failures to remedy the Death Wobble
amounted to a breach. Hence, Count 6 will be dismissed without
prejudice.
C. General Fraud Arguments
1. All Plaintiffs But Schafer Satisfy FED. R. CIV. P. 9(B)
The Plaintiffs' allegations under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act, the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the
Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Georgia's Fair Business Practices
Act, Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California's unfair competition
law, all "sound in fraud," and are therefore subject to the
heightened pleading requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b).
Judge Tarrow holds that all the Plaintiffs but Schafer have alleged
with adequate specificity the "who" (Defendant), the "what"
(knowing about, but failing to disclose, the possibility of violent
shaking in the steering wheel when encountering common road
conditions), the "when" (from the time the Class Vehicles were put
on the market until the present), the "where" (the various venues
through which Defendant sold its vehicles, including the
dealerships where Plaintiffs obtained their vehicles), and the
"how" (Plaintiffs would not have purchased or leased their vehicles
or would have paid less for them had they been told of the Class
Vehicles' susceptibility to the Death Wobble). Unlike the other
Plaintiffs, Schafer did not purchase from one of the Defendant's
dealerships, and fails to articulate how it bears responsibility
for the alleged omission. Accordingly, Count 21, violation of the
North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("NCUDTPA"), will be dismissed without prejudice.
2. Statute-Specific Issues
a. Class Action Prohibitions
The Defendant next argues that Pineda's claim under the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Hancock's claim under the
Georgia Fair Business Practices Act ("GFBPA") are subject to
dismissal due to those statutes' respective bars on class actions.
Judge Tarrow finds more persuasive the decisions holding that class
action prohibitions in certain state consumer protection statutes
are procedural. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims under the
GFBPA and TCPA will not be dismissed for their respective class
action bars.
b. Statute of Limitations
The Defendant next argues that Pineda's TCPA claim is subject to
dismissal on statute of limitations grounds.
The Judge holds that although Pineda alleges that he first
experienced the Death Wobble in August 2018, he was told by his
local dealership on numerous occasions that there was no issue with
his vehicle. Accordingly, dismissal is premature. The particular
date on which he became aware of the tortious nature of the alleged
injury is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
c. Statutory Notice
The Defendant next argues that Hancock's GFBPA claim is subject to
dismissal because the Plaintiff failed to send "a written demand
for relief" at least 30 days before filing suit. It does not argue
that the exception is inapplicable but only that Hancock failed to
affirmatively plead that the notice requirement does not apply.
Judge Tarrow explains that the RAC states that the Defendant is a
Delaware LLC with a principal place of business in Michigan.
Although these allegations, without more, may be insufficient at
the summary judgment stage to prove that pre-suit notice was not
required, they satisfy Hancock's burden at the pleading stage.
Accordingly, Hancock's GFBPA claim will not be dismissed for lack
of pre-suit notice.
d. Prohibition on Monetary Relief
The Defendant next argues that Powers's claim under the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), Hancock's claim under the Georgia
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("GUDTPA"), and Laing's claim
under the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("MUDTPA") must be dismissed, because Powers, Hancock, and Laing
have failed to allege a continuing harm that could be remedied by
injunctive relief.
As an initial matter, the Judge agrees that money damages are
unavailable under the GUDTPA and MUDTPA. Accordingly, to survive
dismissal, Hancock and Laing must allege an ongoing deceptive trade
practice that could be remedied by injunctive relief. Hancock and
Laing do not allege that they are likely to be misled by the
Defendant moving forward. Accordingly, Counts 14 and 18 will be
dismissed without prejudice.
With respect to the CCPA, Powers cites In re OnStar Contract
Litig., 600 F.Supp.2d 861 (E.D. Mich. 2009), for the proposition
that actual damages may be available under Colorado law and that
the Court should delay ruling on the issue until further briefing
is submitted. But Powers' CCPA claim can proceed only if based
upon a viable claim for injunctive relief. Like Hancock and Laing,
Powers has not made this showing. Accordingly, Count 7 will also
be dismissed without prejudice.
e. Ascertainable Loss
The Defendant next argues that Reynolds and Martirano's claim under
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA") should be dismissed due
to their alleged failure to plead an ascertainable loss. Defendant
is correct that under New Jersey law, "defects that arise and are
addressed by warranty, at no cost to the consumer, do not provide
the predicate loss that the NJCFA expressly requires."
However, both Reynolds and Martirano plausibly allege that the
Defendant's repair effort has failed to address the Death Wobble.
Accordingly, they have adequately pleaded an ascertainable loss
under the NJCFA.
f. Unlawful or Unfair Business Act or Practice
Lastly, the Defendant argues that Martinez's claim under
California's unfair competition law ("UCL") must be dismissed
because she has failed to allege an "unlawful" or "unfair" business
act or practice.
As Judge Tarrow holds, Martinez plausibly alleges violations of
state warranty laws, the MMWA, and the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act. Accordingly, she may also proceed on her claim under
the UCL.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Judge Tarrow grants in part and denies in
part the Defendant's Motions to Dismiss.
The following claims are dismissed without prejudice: Pineda's
claim for breach of express warranty (RAC Count 6), Powers' claim
for violation of the CCPA (RAC Count 7), Laing's claim for
violation of the MUDTPA (RAC Count 14), Hancock's claims for breach
of express warranty and violation of the GUDTPA (RAC Counts 15 and
18), and Schafer's claims for breach of implied warranty and
violation of the NCUDTPA (RAC Counts 20 and 21).
The Plaintiffs' MMWA claims (RAC Count 1 and MC Count 1), are
dismissed as to any state for which a named Plaintiff does not
assert a valid warranty claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5ypxtwf9 from Leagle.com.
FLINT, MI: Discusses Fairness Hearings on Water Crisis Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Sweet at abc12.com reports that a look ahead to an important
week for people in Flint recovering from the city's water crisis.
Individuals and people involved in class action suits will share
their perspective on a $641-million settlement.
We've been following this story since the deal was first proposed
last year.
Since registration has come and gone. Now it's time for a Judge to
determine whether or not the proposed agreement is fair and
reasonable.
ABC 12 spoke directly with attorneys who will be at the hearings
along with the former Mayor Karen Weaver, who will be speaking up
during the hearing.
"The people of Flint deserve. We deserve much more than what is in
that settlement," said Weaver.
"One of the things we have been waiting for is, you know, for those
of us that had objections, a chance to really put them on the
record. And even though they're on the record because we filed the
objections, it will be nice to have the opportunity to be able to
talk with the judge, and let the judge hear our objections."
Weaver feels the settlement that has been presented is not fair and
that Flint residents deserve much more.
Another topic that'll come up is the attorney fees which Attorney
Frank Bednarz with the Center for Class Action Fairness says is a
significant chunk of the proposed settlement.
"That's where our clients objected, we didn't object to the
settlement itself just for the basically $202-million fee requests
that we contend is too high," he said.
Attorney Valdemar Washington will object to the settlement on
behalf of his clients.
He says if its approved the way it is there is no guarantee there
is going to be anything for the future, the settlement is what you
get.
"What happens to the family members who had to contend with the
result of the poisoning, you know, the parents, the moms, the dads
who had to take the children," said Washington.
"In terms of the impact that it's had on their neurological
systems. I mean, that kind of injury also needs to be considered
and compensated and in my view it's not in the current setup."
Washington says the decision is ultimately up to the judge.
"She can give it approval in its current format, in which case
there will probably be direct appeals to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Or she can say, I'm not going to approve it, and go back
to the drawing board."
Those hearings start July 12.
U.S. District Court Judge Judith Levy will host the first soon.
The Court will hear from unrepresented objectors several community
members, activists, and city council members have signed up to
speak.
The Court will hear arguments on attorney fees.
All of these hearings will be broadcast on YouTube. [GN]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Howard Smith Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ)
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - March 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 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: (1) that Frequency's Phase 2a study
did not yield positive results to support the commercialization of
FX-322; and (2) that, 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.
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRX)
Class Period: March 17, 2020 - February 12, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 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) 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.
RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE: RLX)
IPO: January 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 9, 2021
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.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
FULL TRUCK: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of September 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States Supreme Court for the County of New York
on behalf of investors that purchased Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd.
(NYSE: YMM) securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering, which commenced on or about January 23,
2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). Investors have until September 6th,
2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
Based in China, defendant Full Truck Alliance claims to operate the
world's largest online platform for commercial trucking and freight
services. The Company claims to "have transformed China's road
transportation industry by pioneering a digital, standardized and
smart logistics infrastructure across the value chain." The
Company's proprietary platform connects shippers with truckers to
facilitate shipments across distance ranges, cargo weights and
types.
Full Truck Alliance uses its online platform and mobile phone app
to generate revenues in a variety of ways. These include charging
membership fees to frequent shippers which allow paying shippers to
post more shipping orders to the Company's digital platform. The
Company also offers freight brokerage services, whereby the Company
provides end-to-end freight matching services between shippers and
truckers in exchange for a fee. The Company also charges online
transaction service fees on certain transactions and offers a range
of add-on services such as, inter alia, credit services, insurance
solutions and transportation management. For fiscal 2019, over 70%
of Full Truck Alliance's revenues came from its freight matching
services.
In the lead up to the IPO, Full Truck Alliance claimed to have
experienced tremendous growth. A key metric followed by investors
was the Company's active shippers in a given month, known as
"shipper MAUs." The Company claimed to have tripled its monthly
average shipper MAUs from 410,000 in the quarter ended March 31,
2019 to 1.22 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2021. The
Company's net revenues had purportedly increased in tandem from RMB
549.2 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2019 to RMB 867.2
million (approximately US$132.9 million) for the quarter ended
March 31, 2021.
Full Truck Alliance's ability to continue to grow its user platform
was of paramount importance to investors in the IPO. In addition,
because of the Company's reliance on the Internet and mobile
platforms and the acquisition of vast amounts of user data for its
business, it was critical to investors that Full Truck Alliance
comply with all rules and regulations applicable to its operations
for the gathering and use of customer data and that its platform
maintain appropriate cybersecurity safeguards.
On July 5, 2021, Full Truck Alliance issued a press release
confirming that it was subject to a review of its data collection
and maintenance practices by the Cyberspace Administration of China
and that it had been ordered to suspend all new user registrations
during the review period to "prevent the expansion of potential
risks." In addition, the Company stated that it was "conducting a
comprehensive self-examination of any potential cybersecurity risks
and will continue to improve its cybersecurity systems and
technology capabilities," which confirmed that the Company's
existing practices were materially deficient and in need of
improvement.
On July 6, 2021, Full Truck Alliance's ADSs fell to a low of only
$14.89 per ADS, 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.
If you purchased Full Truck Alliance securities pursuant or
traceable to the IPO, 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 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
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. 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]
FULL TRUCK: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Full Truck Alliance
Co. Ltd. ("FTA" or the "Company") (NYSE: YMM) investors concerning
the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal
securities laws.
If you suffered a loss on your FTA 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/full-truck-alliance-co-ltd/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On or about June 22, 2021, FTA sold about 82.5 million American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") in its initial public
offering (the "IPO") for $19 per share, raising nearly $1.6 billion
in new capital.
On July 5, 2021, FTA reported that the Company was subject to a
review by the Cyberspace Administration of China and that "FTA's
Yunmanman apps and Huochebang apps . . . are required to suspend
new user registration in China during the review period."
On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $1.27 per share, or
6.67%, to close at $17.75 per share on July 6, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
FTA should consider their options to aid the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.
About GPM
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
GEICO CASUALTY: Unfairly Profits From COVID-19 Pandemic, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK PULIDO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-02444-MSN-atc
(W.D. Tenn., July 2, 2021) is a class action complaint about
GEICO's practice of unfairly profiting from the global COVID-19
pandemic.
As of the date of this filing, the United States has confirmed well
over 30 million coronavirus cases, and nearly 600,000 deaths. The
state of Tennessee alone has over 849,000 confirmed cases and more
than 12,000 deaths.
Beginning in March 2020, states across the country, including
Tennessee, began to enforce strict social distancing measures to
slow the spread of COVID-19. This included closing schools and
businesses and instituting strict "stay-at-home" orders that
prevented most individuals from leaving their homes for extended
periods of time.
While many companies, industries, and individuals have suffered
because of the COVID-19 pandemic, auto insurers like GEICO have
scored a windfall. Not surprisingly, due to state-wide social
distancing and stay-at-home measures, there has been a dramatic
reduction in driving, and an attendant reduction in driving-related
accidents, the suit says.
As a result of this decrease in driving and accidents, the premiums
charged by auto insurance companies during the COVID-19 pandemic,
including GEICO, are unconscionably excessive, alleges the suit.
One published report calculates, very conservatively, that at least
a 30% average refund of paid premiums would be required to make up
for the excess amounts paid by consumers for just the period
between mid-March 2020 and the end of April 2020.
Despite full knowledge of these facts, GEICO has allegedly
continued to charge and collect excessive premiums, and has failed
to issue adequate refunds. The company's "GEICO Giveback" program
is woefully inadequate to compensate for the excessive premiums
that customers have paid as a result of COVID-19. The program
applies a 15% discount or credit on new and renewal auto insurance
policies only.
To remedy the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff brings
this class action alleging violations of Tennessee state law.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and disgorgement of the
ill-gotten gains obtained by GEICO to the detriment of its
customers.
GEICO Casualty Company operates as an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Luke Sanderson, Esq.
WAMPLER, CARROLL, WILSON & SANDERSON, P.C.
208 Adams Ave.
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 523-1844
Facsimile: (901) 523-1857
GEICO GENERAL: Court Holds Ruling on Class Cert Bid in Abeyance
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 4:19-cv-03768-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. entered an order that:
1. The Court will hold a ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in abeyance up to and including July
26, 2021; and
2. The Parties' deadline to submit supplemental briefing is
hereby extended up to and including August 2, 2021.
3. The Court will not consider any further requests for
extensions related to the Motion for Class Certification.
Geico General Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company offers vehicle, property, motorcycle, boat, and
homeowners.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36yVDod at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
Alexander Fuchs, Esq.
Ian S. Shelton, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40 th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 389-5000
Facsimile: (212) 389-5099
E-mail: kymkochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
alexfuchs@eversheds-sutherland.com
ianshelton@eversheds-sutherland.com
- and -
Joseph R. Ashby, Esq.
ASHBY LAW FIRM P.C.
1055 West Seventh Street, 33rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 393-6235
E-mail: joseph@ashbylawfirm.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Duane Morris Discusses Securities Class Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Neil Gray, Esq., and David T. McTaggart, Esq., of Duane Morris
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that for the case to be
certified for class treatment, plaintiffs needed to persuade the
district court that common questions of fact and law predominate
among the proposed class members.
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a
securities class action opinion that clarified the types of proof
-- and who bears the burden of proof -- necessary to support
certification of a class action alleging that a company's generic
statements sustained an artificially inflated stock price. In
Goldman Sachs Group v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Justice
Amy Coney Barrett wrote for a unanimous Court in holding that a
district court can, and should, consider an alleged
misrepresentation's generic nature in assessing whether common
issues of reliance warrant class certification. The Court also held
-- on a vote of 6-3, over a partial dissent from Justice Neil
Gorsuch -- that, at the class certification stage, the defendant
bears the burden of persuading the district court that the generic
nature of its representations rebuts a presumption of classwide
reliance.
Goldman v. Arkansas Proceedings
The Goldman plaintiffs allege that Goldman Sachs sustained an
artificially inflated stock price for its shares by making generic
public statements about its strong internal conflict-of-interest
compliance programs. The allegedly offending statements included:
"We have extensive procedures and controls that are designed to
identify and address conflicts of interest"; "Our clients'
interests always come first"; and "Integrity and honesty are at the
heart or our business." According to plaintiffs, the eventual
public disclosure of poor compliance programs at Goldman Sachs
revealed the falsity of the foregoing statements and led to a drop
in Goldman Sachs's stock price, damaging members of the proposed
class who had purchased the stock at the allegedly inflated price.
For the case to be certified for class treatment, plaintiffs needed
to persuade the district court that common questions of fact and
law predominate among the proposed class members. For a securities
fraud claim under Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, this
required plaintiffs to demonstrate, among other things, reliance on
the alleged misrepresentations. Under the so-called fraud on the
market theory established by Supreme Court precedent in Basic v.
Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), a rebuttable presumption of common
reliance is established by facts showing that the stock at issue
trades in an efficient market and that the materially false
statements were known in that market. The district court determined
that the plaintiffs met their burden to support class
certification, and the Second Circuit affirmed.
Two Issues Before Supreme Court
Goldman Sachs asked the Supreme Court to make two separate
determinations concerning the rebuttable presumption of classwide
reliance. First, it asked the Court to hold that the district court
should have considered the generic nature of the alleged
misrepresentations in determining whether Goldman Sachs rebutted
the presumption of reliance. Second, Goldman Sachs asked the Court
to hold that, despite the rebuttable presumption of reliance,
plaintiffs still bear the ultimate burden of persuasion on reliance
to support class certification. The Court answered the first
question in the affirmative and the second in the negative.
Issue One: Evidence of Generalities at Class Certification Stage
As to the first question -- what types of evidence should a
district court consider to determine class certification -- the
Goldman Court answered, "All of it." To determine whether common
issues of fact or law predominate, judges "should be open to all
probative evidence on that question -- qualitative as well as
quantitative -- aided by a good dose of common sense." The Court
rejected a rigid distinction between certification questions and
merits questions. To be sure, courts typically do not consider
questions of materiality at the class certification stage, and
questions of a generic statement's impact sound of materiality, yet
the Goldman Court held that there can be no per se bar to such
evidence at the certification stage. What matters is that the
evidence is probative to the question of common reliance. Where a
plaintiff alleges that a class of investors relied on pricing
artificially sustained by generic statements, then a defendant
should be entitled to offer facts showing the statements were too
general to have a price impact.
Issue Two: Class Defendant Bears Burden of Persuasion Under Basic
v. Levinson
The second question before the Goldman Court focused on how a
defendant must rebut the efficient market presumption under Basic
v. Levinson. The Court concluded that once a plaintiff satisfies
its burden that the efficient market presumption applies, the
burden of persuasion shifts to the defendant. The burden is not
just to present evidence that could disprove price impact -- the
defendant must persuade the district court that there is no price
impact and the presumption does not apply. The Goldman Court
reasoned that allowing a defendant to rebut the presumption merely
by presenting evidence, regardless of its quality, would weaken the
presumption announced in Basic v. Levinson.
The Court acknowledged that this rule is at odds with Rule 301 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides that a presumption is
rebutted by the production of alternative evidence, not the
persuasiveness of it. But the Court concluded that it had the
authority to impose a different burden of proof for securities
class actions and, indeed, that its prior precedents already did
so. The majority opinion concluded that its decision "is unlikely
to make much difference on the ground." A district court will
always balance all the evidence to determine whether the
presumption of reliance is supportable -- only where there is a
true 50/50 toss-up will the different allocations come into play.
Justice Gorsuch found the majority's reasoning unpersuasive. In a
thoughtful and analytical dissent joined by Justices Clarence
Thomas and Samuel Alito, Justice Gorsuch argued that, consistent
with Rule 301, the burden of persuasion "remains on the party who
had it originally." The dissent also challenged the majority's
interpretation of prior precedent. "The hard truth is that in the
30-plus years since Basic this court has never (before) suggested
that plaintiffs are relieved from carrying the burden of persuasion
on any aspect of their own causes of action."
Takeaways
So where does the Court's Goldman decision leave us? It seems
unlikely to alter federal securities class action law in a way that
will deter future plaintiffs from pursuing actions. On the one
hand, Goldman Sachs obtained clarity on the scope of evidence that
a district court may examine at the class certification stage, but
any daylight between the parties on that issues had all but
disappeared by the time the parties stood (virtually) before the
Supreme Court. The trade-off for that evidentiary clarity is
further clarity that class-action defendants now bear the burden of
persuasion in order to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance. The
soundness of the majority's prediction that its holding will not
make much difference "on the ground" remains to be seen, but we
suspect that many securities class action defendants would have
been content with the way it was.
For More Information
If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact C. Neil
Gray, David T. McTaggart, any of the attorneys in our Securities
Litigation Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are
regularly in contact. [GN]
HEALTHY HALO: Court Enters Initial Scheduling Order on Melgren Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MELGREN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HEALTHY HALO
INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00104-TOR (E.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice entered a limited initial scheduling
order as follows:
1. Mediation
If parties elect to proceed to mediation, it should be
completed as early as possible to avoid the unnecessary
expenditure of judicial resources.
2. Rule 26(a)(1) Exchange
If not already accomplished, the parties shall disclose
their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) material forth with.
3. Motions to Amend Pleadings or Add Parties
Any motion to amend the pleadings or add parties shall be
filed no later than September 2, 2021.
4. Rule 26(a)(2) Expert Identification and Reports
The Parties are cautioned that failure to timely identify
experts or provide reports in accordance with Rule 26 and
this scheduling order may result in exclusion of such
testimony absent good reason.
A. Plaintiff -- Initial Expert Disclosures
Plaintiff shall identify its experts relating to class
certification and serve those experts' Rule 26(a)(2)
reports on all other parties no later than December 8,
2021. Plaintiff shall also provide dates for which
those experts can be available for deposition.
B. Defendant -- Initial Expert Disclosure
Defendant shall identify its experts relating to class
certification and serve those experts' Rule 26(a)(2)
reports on all other parties no later than January 12,
2022.
5. Protective Orders
Any stipulation or motion for a confidentiality agreement
or protective order must be timely filed so as not to
delay the discovery process or the Court's deadlines.
6. Motions to Compel
To avoid wasted time and expense, Counsel may contact
chambers to schedule a telephonic conference to obtain an
expedited ruling on discovery disputes.
7. Motion Practice
A. Notice of Hearing
Parties are to comply with LCivR 7(i) when noting
motions for hearing. If oral argument is sought by a
party, counsel shall first confer and determine a
mutually convenient hearing date and time, and then
contact chambers to determine the Court's availability
for the agreed upon hearing date and time. All
non-dispositive motion hearings shall be conducted
telephonically, unless in-person argument is approved
by the Court. Counsel shall not use cellular or speaker
phones during any telephonic hearing. Dispositive
motion hearings in which oral argument has been
requested will be set for in-person appearance.
B. Motions to Expedite
If there is a need to have a motion heard on an
expedited basis, the party must file a Motion for
Expedited Hearing and an accompanying memorandum (or
declaration) establishing the need for an expedited
hearing. The Motion for Expedited Hearing shall be
noted for hearing, without oral argument, no earlier
than two (2) days after the filing of the motion,
absent good cause shown.
8. Class Certification Briefing
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on or
before January 28, 2022. Defendant's response to the
motion for class certification is due on or before
February 28, 2022. Plaintiff's reply in support of his
motion for class certification is due on or before March
14, 2022. The motion for class certification will be heard
on March 21, 2022 without oral argument, unless either
party requests oral argument pursuant to the procedures
set forth in LCivR 7(i)(3) no later than March 14, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hxMgvt at no extra charge.[CC]
INFORMATION RESOURCES: Renewal of Conditional Cert. Bid Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL SANTIAGO and
SCARLETT OSORIO, individually and on behalf similarly situated
female employees, v. INFORMATION RESOURCES INC., and JEFF NEUMAN,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07688-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres
entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' request to renew their motion for
conditional certification and equitable tolling is
granted;
2. By July 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs shall file their motion;
3. By August 6, 2021, the Defendants shall file their
opposition papers; and
4. By August 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs shall file their reply
papers, if any.
IRI is a data analytics and market research company, headquartered
in the U.S. which provides clients with consumer, shopper, and
retail market intelligence and analysis focused on the consumer
packaged goods, retail, and healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xHKhdO at no extra charge.[CC]
J'S ACE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goins Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
UNIQUA GOINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J'S ACE, INC. dba EMPIRE GENTLEMAN'S CLUB;
ROBIN MCCLAIN LLC dba EMPIRE GENTLEMAN'S CLUB; AHMAD RAHIMINEJAD;
ROBIN MCCLAIN; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 3; and DOES 4 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:21-cv-00889-AMM (N.D. Ala., June 29,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Goins was employed by the Defendants as exotic dancer.
J'S ACE, INC. dba EMPIRE GENTLEMAN'S CLUB owns and operates a strip
club located at Birmingham, Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Tortorici, Esq.
SCHILLECI & TORTORICI, P.C.
100 Centerview Drive, Suite 205
Birmingham, AL 35233
Telephone: (205) 978-4211
E-mail: jpt@schillecitortoricilaw.com
-and-
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
-and-
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: New Jersey Judge Dismisses Test Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that if there was any
momentum for securities class action critics who are pushing to
allow corporations to force investors into arbitration, it was
halted on July 2.
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp of Trenton, New Jersey, dismissed
a test case against Johnson & Johnson in which Harvard Law School
professor emeritus Hal Scott sought to clarify the legality of
mandatory shareholder arbitration under state and federal law.
Scott, a longtime shareholder class action critic, brought the test
case after unsuccessfully pushing J&J to include a mandatory
arbitration proposal in its 2019 proxy materials.
Shipp ruled in an unpublished opinion that the case was not ripe
because Scott did not resubmit the mandatory arbitration proposal
after J&J blocked it in 2019. Scott and his counsel, Jonathan
Mitchell of Mitchell Law and Walter Zimolong of Zimolong Law, had
argued that Scott needed a declaratory judgment that such a
proposal was legal because J&J shareholders would otherwise rely on
the company's previous arguments against requiring investors to
arbitrate federal securities claims.
The New Jersey judge said Scott's assertion was "speculative and
conclusory." His suit, Shipp ruled, effectively asked for an
advisory opinion on whether federal and New Jersey law permits
mandatory shareholder arbitration – and because federal courts
don't issue advisory opinions, the case had to be dismissed.
The judge did grant Scott and his lawyers until July 14 to file an
amended complaint. Scott and Mitchell did not respond to my email
query.
The backstory on the litigation is quite complex. For years, as you
probably recall, securities class action detractors like Scott have
argued that individual shareholder arbitration is an efficient
alternative to expensive, inefficient shareholder suits. Few
companies have publicly joined this activist push for shareholder
arbitration, although the private equity firm The Carlyle Group
floated the idea ahead of its 2012 IPO. The Securities and Exchange
Commission, a longtime opponent of mandatory shareholder
arbitration, squelched Carlyle's plan. The SEC also backed Pfizer
Inc and Gannett Co Inc when they wanted to block arbitration
proposals from going before shareholders.
But shareholder arbitration proponents were encouraged in the early
years of the Trump administration by pro-arbitration comments from
an SEC commissioner in 2017 and by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis, which held that the Federal
Arbitration Act can displace the right to sue under other federal
laws.
So in late 2018, Scott, as trustee for the Doris Behr 2012
Irrevocable Trust, asked Johnson & Johnson to allow shareholders to
vote on a proposal that the company change its bylaws to require
investors to arbitrate their federal securities claims. Johnson &
Johnson opposed Scott's proposal, which the company considered a
violation of the anti-waiver provisions in federal securities laws.
J&J's lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom asked the SEC
in December 2018 if the company was permitted to exclude the
mandatory arbitration proposal from the proxy materials it sent to
shareholders in advance of the 2019 annual meeting.
As I've been saying since 2018, the posture of the case is a bit
mind-bending: The company has been, in essence, defending its
investors' right to bring shareholder class actions against an
attempt by an investor -- the Behr trust -- to persuade fellow
shareholders to give up that right.
While J&J's request was before the SEC, New Jersey's then attorney
general, Gurbir Grewal, told the commission that Scott's proposal
would be illegal under New Jersey law, citing a 2018 Delaware
Chancery Court ruling that invalidated corporate charter provisions
mandating a forum for federal Securities Act claims. (J&J is based
in New Jersey.) The SEC, in turn, relied on Grewal's "legally
authoritative" statement in its February 2019 determination that
J&J could exclude the Scott proposal.
Scott then sued J&J in New Jersey federal court. He originally
demanded an injunction to force J&J to include his proposal in 2019
proxy materials. When the injunction was denied, he sought a
declaration on the legality of his shareholder arbitration
proposal.
The Delaware Supreme Court, meanwhile, was reviewing the Chancery
Court decision underlying the SEC's 2019 determination. In 2020,
Delaware's justices ruled in Salzburg v. Sciabacucchi that
companies can specify a forum for shareholders' Securities Act
claims.
Scott filed an amended complaint against J&J in New Jersey federal
court. In an unexpected twist, J&J said that if he resubmitted his
proposal for a shareholder vote on mandatory arbitration, the
company would include the proposal in its proxy materials.
Scott nevertheless did not submit a mandatory arbitration proposal
ahead of J&J's 2020 or 2021 meetings, contending that the proposal
would have been doomed without a court ruling on its legality,
given J&J's previous opposition. J&J said that was no excuse,
arguing that Scott's case did not meet constitutional requirements
for a suit in federal court because there was no live controversy.
(J&J counsel from Skadden did not respond to my query.)
Shipp's decision to dismiss the suit means that the fierce debate
over the legality of mandatory shareholder arbitration remains
unresolved. As far as I'm aware, there's no other case that even
raises the issue.
Some of the heat around mandatory shareholder arbitration seems to
have dissipated even before the dismissal of Scott's J&J case. The
SEC's most outspoken supporter of shareholder arbitration, Michael
Piwowar, is no longer a commissioner, and the Biden administration
seems unlikely to back restrictions on investors' right to sue. In
fact, the New Jersey AG whose letter was instrumental in the J&J
case will soon take over as the SEC's enforcement director.
Nor are shareholders in a rush to arbitrate. Last year, for
instance, Scott brought a mandatory arbitration proposal to a vote
by Intuit shareholders. They soundly defeated the proposal.
Scott blamed legal uncertainty, but there's also an argument to be
made that the rise of mass arbitration compromises whatever
efficiencies companies might have realized from restricting
investors' right to sue. Corporations like J&J hate securities
class actions, but they also know how to defend (or settle!)
investors claims when those claims are lumped together in a single
suit. Millions of individual arbitrations might not be a bargain at
all. [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sunscreen Products Causes Cancer, Jimenez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA JIMENEZ; and CATALINA OCAMPO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-13113 (D.N.J., June 29,
2021) alleges that the Neutrogena-branded sunscreen products of the
Defendant contains dangerous high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic
impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers
(hereinafter, the "Product" or "Products").
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells,
markets, and distributes several over-the-counter Sunscreen
Products under its brand name "Neutrogena." Several of Defendant's
Neutrogena sunscreen products have been independently tested and
shown to be adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen. The
presence of benzene in the Defendant's Neutrogena Sunscreen
Products was not disclosed in the products' label, in violation of
state and federal law, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful and highly
deceptive conduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class have been and
continue to be harmed by purchasing a product under false
pretenses.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research
and development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Hwy. E. 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
KANZHUN LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 6
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of Kanzhun Limited (NASDAQ: BZ) resulting
from allegations that Kanzhun may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Kanzhun securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2115.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On July 5, 2021, Kanzhun issued a press release
entitled "KANZHUN LIMITED Announces Cybersecurity Review in China"
which announced that "pursuant to the announcement posted by the
Cyberspace Administration of China on July 5, 2021, the Company is
subject to cybersecurity review by the authority. During the review
period, ‘BOSS Zhipin' app is required to suspend new user
registration in China to facilitate the process."
On this news, the Company's ADS price fell sharply during intraday
trading on July 6, 2021, the next trading day.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
KELLOGG SALES: September 7 Claim Submission Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following notice is being issued by the Court approved Class
Administrator and has been authorized by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, in Hadley et al. v.
Kellogg Sales Co., Case No. 16-cv-4955-LHK.
A proposed settlement has been reached against Kellogg Sales Co.
("Kellogg") alleging that certain health and wellness
representations on Kellogg cereals were misleading in light of
their high added sugar content, or otherwise unlawful. Kellogg
denies the allegations.
This is only a summary of the key settlement terms. A full copy of
the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice is available at
www.CerealClaims.com, or by calling (844) 907-1160.
Who is Included?
The Settlement Class includes all persons in the United States who,
between August 29, 2012 and May 1, 2020 (the "Class Period"),
purchased in the United States, for household use and not for
resale or distribution, certain Raisin Bran, Smart Start, and
Frosted Mini-Wheats cereals. See the Settlement Website,
www.CerealClaims.com, for the specific cereals included in the
Settlement.
What Does the Settlement Provide?
The proposed settlement will provide the Class with $13,000,000 in
monetary benefits (the "Settlement Fund"); and with injunctive
relief in the form of labeling changes Kellogg has agreed to make.
Who Can Receive a Payment?
Class Members who timely submit a valid approved claim are entitled
to compensation. Each timely, valid claimant will receive a payment
based on the type and estimated amount of Class Products purchased
during the Class Period. The amount of the Cash Award any
individual receives will depend on both the number of claims made,
and each claimant's purchase history.
Claim Forms and more information about the claims process are
available on the Settlement Website, www.CerealClaims.com. The
deadline for submitting a claim is September 7, 2021.
What are Class Members' Other Options?
Class Members may opt out of this Settlement. A Class Member who
opts out will retain rights to sue Kellogg separately, but will not
be eligible to receive any compensation under the Settlement. To
opt out, a Class Member must submit an Opt-Out Form on the
Settlement Website, www.CerealClaims.com. Alternatively, Opt-Out
Forms can be downloaded, filled out, and mailed to the Class
Administrator at: Postlethwaite & Netterville, P.O. Box 5098, Baton
Rouge, LA 70821-5098. Opt-Out Forms must be submitted online or
postmarked on or before September 7, 2021.
Class Members may also object to any part of this Settlement by
mailing an Objection to the Class Administrator at Postlethwaite &
Netterville, P.O. Box 5098, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-5098.
Alternatively, Class Members may file an Objection with the Court.
Further details regarding the procedures for objecting are
available at www.CerealClaims.com. Objections must be postmarked or
filed on or before September 7, 2021.
Has the Court Approved the Settlement?
The Court has not yet approved the Settlement, but has set a Final
Approval Hearing for November 18, 2021, to determine whether the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for the Class. The
Court will also consider during that hearing whether and in what
amount to award attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel, and
service awards to the Class Representatives, which shall come from
the Settlement Fund, along with Notice and Administration expenses
currently estimated at $630,045. Prior to making that
determination, the Court will set a deadline for Class Counsel to
make a motion, the motion will be posted on the Settlement Website,
www.CerealClaims.com, and Class Members will have an opportunity to
respond and object.
As described further on the Settlement Website, Class Counsel
intend to seek an award of fees of up to thirty percent of the
Settlement Fund (or $3.9 million), and reimbursement of case
expenses of approximately $1,180,923, along with incentive awards
for Class Representatives in the amount of $10,000 for Class
Representative Stephen Hadley, and $5,000 each for Class
Representatives Melody DiGregorio, Eric Fishon, Kerry Austin, and
Nafeesha Madyun.
You do not need to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, but you
may come at your own expense. The Court has appointed The Law
Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, and Jackson & Foster LLC as Class
Counsel. The lawyers representing you will be paid, only with the
Court's approval, from the Settlement Fund. If you want to be
represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own
expense. For more information, or to view the motion for attorneys'
fees, expenses, and service awards after it is filed on or before
August 3, 2021 please visit the Settlement Website,
www.CerealClaims.com.
PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.
[GN]
KENTUCKY: Appeals Court Upholds Rationing of Hepatitis C Treatment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that the Kentucky Department of
Corrections can deny a life-saving but expensive hepatitis C
medication to inmates, a federal appeals court ruled in a split
decision. The dissenting judge in the 2-1 ruling at the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals said the majority's opinion will condemn
hundreds of prisoners to long-term organ damage and suffering, The
Courier-Journal reported.
Hepatitis C is the leading cause of liver transplantation and
serious liver disease, including cirrhosis and liver cancer, and
Kentucky has the highest infection rate in the United States. Newer
treatments can cure nearly 100% of patients but cost $13,000 to
$32,000. Because they cost so much, the Kentucky Department of
Corrections has restricted use of the treatment to inmates with
advanced liver scarring, or fibrosis.
The majority found that denying treatment to most of Kentucky's
1,200 inmates with hepatitis C does not violate the Eighth
Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Lisa Lamb, a spokeswoman for the Corrections Department, said its
policy aligns with the practices of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and
two courts have now found the department is not violating the
constitutional rights of prisoners.
Louisville attorney Greg Belzley, who represents prisoners in the
class-action lawsuit, called the decision "horrendous" and said
they would ask for a rehearing with the full court or petition the
U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. "Basically the majority . . .
ruled that Kentucky prison officials don't have to do anything to
treat an inmate's infection except sit around and watch it get
worse," he told the paper in an email.
Belzley said the department doesn't treat any infected inmates
until their liver has already become cirrhotic, and while hepatitis
C is curable, cirrhosis is not. He said as of August 2019, the most
recently available figures, the department had identified 1,670
prisoners as HCV-positive. Only 159 had received any treatment.
Belzley said it would cost taxpayers less to treat infected inmates
in prison than to wait until they are released. Meanwhile, they are
likely infect others before finally receiving treatment.
In a sharply worded dissenting opinion, Judge Jane Stranch said
Kentucky's rationing plan "shocks the conscience" and is
fundamentally unfair. She noted the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the
Department of Veterans Affairs and even Kentucky's own Medicaid
system recommend treatment with direct acting antivirals, or DAAs,
regardless of the degree of fibrosis.
"Yet according to defendants themselves, they chose not to
administer DAAs to all inmates because of the cost of the drugs, a
decision that exposed inmates to ongoing suffering and long-term
organ damage."
The majority opinion upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District
Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of Lexington, who found the
department's monitoring of inmates with hepatitis C constituted
treatment, and the department's treatment plan was adequate.
Citing the Merriam-Webster definition -- "the action of treating a
patient or condition medically or surgically" -- Stranch wrote in
her dissent that "testing how far HCV has advanced in harming an
inmate's body is not treatment."
The case was first filed on behalf of four inmates who contracted
the virus -- Brian Woodcock, Keath Bramblett, Ruben Rios Salinas
and Jessica Lawrence. While the first two have been cured, Salinas
was denied treatment and Lawrence has not received it yet,
according to court documents.
The department previously denied treatment to anyone who did not
have a clean conduct record for 12 months beforehand, but after the
lawsuit was filed it amended the rule to cover only infractions
that might compromise treatment. [GN]
KIEWIT CORPORATION: Avila Has Until June 16 to File Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN AVILA,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KIEWIT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01295-SK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order setting initial pretrial deadlines
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) pursuant to
parties' joint stipulation as follows:
1. Initial disclosures: April 15, 2022.
2. Rebuttal disclosures: May 16, 2022.
3. Discovery cut-off date for non-expert class certification
related discovery: May 16, 2022.
4. Deadline for private mediation (although earlier mediation
is encouraged), with status report to be filed within
three business days after mediation: June 10, 2022.
5. Expert discovery cut-off: if Plaintiff offers an expert
with his class certification brief, Defendant may depose
that expert prior to serving its opposition brief; if
Defendant offers an expert with its opposition to class
certification, Plaintiff may depose that expert prior to
serving his reply brief. The final expert discovery cut-
off for class certification purposes shall be August 15,
2022.
6. Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class
Certification: June 16, 2022.
7. Defendant's deadline to file an Opposition to Motion for
Class Certification: July 17, 2022.
8. Plaintiff's deadline to file a Reply to Opposition to
Motion for Class Certification: August 15, 2022.
9. Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification:
September 9, 2022 at 10 a.m.
Kiewit is an American privately held construction company based in
Omaha, Nebraska founded in 1884. It ranked 307th place in Fortune
500 for United States. Privately held, it is one of the largest
construction and engineering organizations in North America. It is
an employee-owned company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AWjpso at no extra charge.[CC]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Griffin Suit Over Defective Ventilators
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA LINETTE GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-11077 (D. Mass., June 29, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants manufacture and sell defective Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure ("CPAP") and Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure
("BiPAP") machines, which are commonly used to treat sleep apnea,
and ventilators, which treat respiratory failure.
According to the complaint, on June 14, 2021, Philips announced a
recall of many of its CPAP/BiPAP machines and its ventilators.
These products contain polyester-based polyurethane ("PE-PUR") foam
for sound abatement. Philips announced that the foam may break down
and be inhaled or ingested, and the foam may emit volatile organic
compounds ("VOCs") that may be inhaled, result in adverse effects
to organs, and cause cancer. Philips explained in an announcement
to doctors that these hazards could result in "serious injury which
can be life-threatening or cause permanent impairment."
The Plaintiff purchased a device that Philips has now recalled. She
asserts that she would not have purchased the device at the price
that she paid if she had known that the device had foam that could
cause serious health problems.
Koninklijke Philips NV is a health technology company focused on
improving people's health across the health continuum from healthy
living and prevention, to diagnosis, treatment, and home care. The
Company offers products and services in diagnostic imaging,
image-guided therapy, patient monitoring and health informatics, as
well as in consumer health and home care. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com
-and-
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Tom Watts, Esq.
Makenna Cox, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California St. Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (866) 981-4800
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
tomw@girardsharp.com
mcox@girardsharp.com
LEADERS LIFE: Legg Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Legg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Leaders Life Insurance Company, Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-00655 (W.D. Okla., June 25, 2021), seeks an award of
compensatory, statutory, nominal and punitive damages, equitable
relief requiring restitution and disgorgement of the revenues
wrongfully retained, an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and litigation expenses as allowable by law, and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence, invasion of privacy,
breach of fiduciary duty and for violation of Maryland's Consumer
Protection Act Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices, Maryland's
Personal Information Privacy Act.
Leaders Life is a national life insurance company based in Oklahoma
that operates in 11 states across the country. Legg is a resident
of Fallston, Maryland and has been a customer of Leaders Life for
approximately twenty years.
Between November 25 and November 27, 2020, Leaders Life was the
target of an attack by a third-party who accessed and removed
certain folders from Leaders Life computer systems containing
highly sensitive personal data of its clients. Legg claims that it
took seven months for Leaders Life from date of the data breach to
send a letter to Legg informing him of the breach, thus denying him
time to initiate the necessary counter-measures against identity
theft. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Molly E. Brantley, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
Email wbf@federmanlaw.com
meb@federmanlaw.com
tjb@federmanlaw.com
MDL 2924: Bid to Dismiss Zantac Products Liability Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Omnibus Rule 12
Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Amended Master Personal Injury
Complaint. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on June 3,
2021.
I. Background
The case concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its generic
forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric treatments.
The molecule in question -- ranitidine -- is the active ingredient
in both Zantac and its generic forms.
Zantac has been sold since the early 1980s, first by prescription
and later as an over-the-counter ("OTC") medication. In 1983, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the sale of
prescription Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") first developed and
patented Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster -- the first
prescription drug in history to reach $1 billion in sales.
GSK entered into a joint venture with Warner-Lambert in 1993 to
develop an OTC form of Zantac. Beginning in 1995, the FDA approved
the sale of various forms of OTC Zantac. The joint venture between
GSK and Warner-Lambert ended in 1998, with Warner-Lambert retaining
control over the sale of OTC Zantac in the United States and GSK
retaining control over the sale of prescription Zantac in the
United States.
Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert in 2000 and took control of the sale
of OTC Zantac in the United States. The right to sell OTC Zantac
in the United States later passed to Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals and then to Sanofi. When the patents on
prescription and OTC Zantac expired, numerous generic drug
manufacturers began to produce generic ranitidine products in
prescription and OTC forms.
Scientific studies have demonstrated that ranitidine can transform
into a cancer-causing molecule called N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), which is part of a carcinogenic group of compounds called
N-nitrosamines. Studies have shown that these compounds increase
the risk of cancer in humans and animals. The FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer consider NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen.
The FDA has set the acceptable daily intake level for NDMA at 96
nanograms.
Valisure LLC and ValisureRX LLC, a pharmacy and testing laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, calling for the recall
of all ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA in the
products. The FDA issued a statement on September 13 warning that
some ranitidine products may contain NDMA. On Nov. 1, the FDA
announced that testing had revealed the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine products. It recommended that drug manufacturers recall
ranitidine products with NDMA levels above the acceptable daily
intake level. Five months later, on April 1, 2020, the FDA
requested the voluntary withdrawal of all ranitidine products from
the market.
After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA,
plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On Feb. 6, 2020, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created
the multi-district litigation ("MDL") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1407 for all pretrial purposes and ordered federal lawsuits for
personal injury and economic damages from the purchase and/or use
of ranitidine products to be transferred to the undersigned. Since
that time, approximately 1,400 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in,
or had their lawsuits transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.
The Plaintiffs filed their first Master Complaints on June 22,
2020. In those Master Complaints, the Plaintiffs contended that
the ranitidine molecule is unstable, breaks down into NDMA, and has
caused thousands of consumers of ranitidine products to develop
various forms of cancer. They alleged that "a single pill of
ranitidine can contain quantities of NDMA that are hundreds of
times higher" than the FDA's allowable limit. They pursued federal
claims and state claims under the laws of all 50 U.S. states,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
The Court has entered numerous Pretrial Orders to assist in the
management of the MDL. In Pretrial Order # 36, the Court set a
schedule for the filing and briefing of the first round of motions
to dismiss under Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The
various Defendants filed motions to dismiss.
On Dec. 31, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and dismissed the Master Complaints without prejudice and
with leave to amend. It also struck all allegations of physical
injury and medical monitoring from the Consolidated Consumer Class
Action Complaint, while permitting the Plaintiffs to seek leave of
Court for an alternative pleading to allege their class physical
injury and/or medical monitoring claims.
Following an amendment to Pretrial Order # 36, the Plaintiffs filed
the AMPIC on Feb. 8, 2021. After the Court granted a two-week
extension of time, the Plaintiffs filed the MMC and the ELC on Feb.
22, 2021. In Pretrial Order # 61, the Court set a schedule for the
filing and briefing of the second round of motions to dismiss under
Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The Defendants filed
the Motion to Dismiss currently addressed pursuant to that
schedule.
II. The Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint
All individuals who filed a Short Form Complaint adopt the AMPIC.
The Plaintiffs allege that they developed cancers from taking the
Defendants' ranitidine products. The AMPIC "sets forth allegations
of fact and law common to the personal-injury claims" within the
MDL. Each Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and all other available remedies.
The Defendants "are entities that designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, labeled, packaged, handled, stored, and/or sold
ranitidine." They are categorized into four groups: (1) Brand
Manufacturer Defendants; (2) Generic Manufacturer Defendants; (3)
Distributor Defendants; and (4) Retailer Defendants. Within each
category, the AMPIC combines distinct corporate entities, including
parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, into single named
Defendants.
The AMPIC contains 17 counts and numerous state-specific
sub-counts: Strict Products Liability - Failure to Warn Through
Warnings and Precautions (Count I, 46 sub-counts); Negligence -
Failure to Warn Through Warnings and Precautions (Count II, 48
sub-counts); Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn Through
Proper Expiration Dates (Count III, 46 sub-counts); Negligence -
Failure to Warn Through Proper Expiration Dates (Count IV, 48
sub-counts); Failure to Warn Through the FDA (Count V, 15
sub-counts); Strict Products Liability—Design Defect Due to
Warnings and Precautions (Count VI, 46 sub-counts); Strict Products
Liability-Design Defect Due to Improper Expiration Dates (Count
VII, 46 sub-counts); Negligent Failure to Test (Count VIII, 2
sub-counts); Negligent Product Containers (Count IX, 52
sub-counts); Negligent Storage and Transportation Outside the
Labeled Range (Count X, 52 sub-counts); Negligent Storage and
Transportation (Count XI, 52 sub-counts); Negligent
Misrepresentation (Count XII); Reckless Misrepresentation (Count
XIII); Unjust Enrichment (Count XIV, 52 sub-counts); Loss of
Consortium (Count XV, 52 sub-counts); Survival Actions (Count XVI,
52 sub-counts); and Wrongful Death (Count XVII, 52 sub-counts).
Counts I, II, VI, XII, and XIII are brought against every Brand
Manufacturer Defendant. Counts III, IV, V, VII, VIII, and XI are
brought against every Brand and Generic Manufacturer Defendant.
Count IX is brought against every Brand and Generic Manufacturer
Defendant that manufactured and sold ranitidine-containing pills.
Count X is brought against every Retailer and Distributer
Defendant. Counts XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII are brought against every
Defendant.
III. Summary of the Parties' Arguments and the Court's Rulings
The Defendants seek to have the AMPIC dismissed and/or stricken.
They contend that the AMPIC remains an impermissible shotgun
pleading and that the Plaintiffs have not cured the deficiencies
that the Court identified in its prior Order dismissing the Master
Personal Injury Complaint ("MPIC"). In addition, the Defendants
argue that the AMPIC fails to plausibly plead several of the claims
raised.
In response, the Plaintiffs argue that the AMPIC is not a shotgun
pleading and that they have fully complied with the Court's prior
Order of dismissal. Additionally, the Plaintiffs provide specific
citations to the allegations in the AMPIC that, according to them,
satisfy federal pleading standards on plausibility.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Rosenberg concludes that the AMPIC complies with federal
pleading standards and complies with the Court's prior order of
dismissal. The AMPIC contains enough factual content that,
accepted as true, renders the Plaintiffs' claims plausible.
Therefore, the Judge denies the Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ed7fjt95 from Leagle.com.
MDL 2924: Claims in Zantac Class Suit v. Branded Defendants Trimmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida grants in part and denies in part the Branded Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
The matter is before the Court on Branded Defendants' Rule 12
Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Three Master Complaints as
Preempted by Federal Law. The Court held a hearing on the Motion
on June 4, 2021.
I. Background
The case concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its generic
forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric treatments.
The molecule in question -- ranitidine -- is the active ingredient
in both Zantac and its generic forms.
Zantac has been sold since the early 1980s, first by prescription
and later as an over-the-counter ("OTC") medication. In 1983, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the sale of
prescription Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") first developed and
patented Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster -- the first
prescription drug in history to reach $1 billion in sales.
GSK entered into a joint venture with Warner-Lambert in 1993 to
develop an OTC form of Zantac. Beginning in 1995, the FDA approved
the sale of various forms of OTC Zantac. The joint venture between
GSK and Warner-Lambert ended in 1998, with Warner-Lambert retaining
control over the sale of OTC Zantac in the United States and GSK
retaining control over the sale of prescription Zantac in the
United States.
Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert in 2000 and took control of the sale
of OTC Zantac in the United States. The right to sell OTC Zantac
in the United States later passed to Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals and then to Sanofi. When the patents on
prescription and OTC Zantac expired, numerous generic drug
manufacturers began to produce generic ranitidine products in
prescription and OTC forms.
Scientific studies have demonstrated that ranitidine can transform
into a cancer-causing molecule called N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), which is part of a carcinogenic group of compounds called
N-nitrosamines. Studies have shown that these compounds increase
the risk of cancer in humans and animals. The FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer consider NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen.
The FDA has set the acceptable daily intake level for NDMA at 96
nanograms.
Valisure LLC and ValisureRX LLC, a pharmacy and testing laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, calling for the recall
of all ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA in the
products. The FDA issued a statement on September 13 warning that
some ranitidine products may contain NDMA. On Nov. 1, the FDA
announced that testing had revealed the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine products. It recommended that drug manufacturers recall
ranitidine products with NDMA levels above the acceptable daily
intake level. Five months later, on April 1, 2020, the FDA
requested the voluntary withdrawal of all ranitidine products from
the market.
After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA,
plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On Feb. 6, 2020, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created
the multi-district litigation ("MDL") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1407 for all pretrial purposes and ordered federal lawsuits for
personal injury and economic damages from the purchase and/or use
of ranitidine products to be transferred to the undersigned. Since
that time, approximately 1,400 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in,
or had their lawsuits transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.
The Plaintiffs filed their first Master Complaints on June 22,
2020. In those Master Complaints, the Plaintiffs contended that
the ranitidine molecule is unstable, breaks down into NDMA, and has
caused thousands of consumers of ranitidine products to develop
various forms of cancer. They alleged that "a single pill of
ranitidine can contain quantities of NDMA that are hundreds of
times higher" than the FDA's allowable limit. They pursued federal
claims and state claims under the laws of all 50 U.S. states,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
The Court has entered numerous Pretrial Orders to assist in the
management of the MDL. In Pretrial Order # 36, the Court set a
schedule for the filing and briefing of the first round of motions
to dismiss under Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The
various Defendants filed motions to dismiss.
On Dec. 31, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and dismissed the Master Complaints without prejudice and
with leave to amend. It also struck all allegations of physical
injury and medical monitoring from the Consolidated Consumer Class
Action Complaint, while permitting the Plaintiffs to seek leave of
Court for an alternative pleading to allege their class physical
injury and/or medical monitoring claims.
Following an amendment to Pretrial Order # 36, the Plaintiffs filed
the AMPIC on Feb. 8, 2021. After the Court granted a two-week
extension of time, the Plaintiffs filed the MMC and the ELC on Feb.
22, 2021. In Pretrial Order # 61, the Court set a schedule for the
filing and briefing of the second round of motions to dismiss under
Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The Defendants filed
the Motion to Dismiss currently addressed pursuant to that
schedule.
II. The Master Complaints
A. The Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint
All individuals who filed a Short Form Complaint adopt the AMPIC.
The Plaintiffs allege that they developed cancers from taking
Defendants' ranitidine products. The AMPIC "sets forth allegations
of fact and law common to the personal-injury claims" within the
MDL. Each Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and all other available remedies.
The Defendants "are entities that designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, labeled, packaged, handled, stored, and/or sold
ranitidine." They are categorized into four groups: (1) Brand
Manufacturer Defendants; (2) Generic Manufacturer Defendants; (3)
Distributor Defendants; and (4) Retailer Defendants. Within each
category, the AMPIC combines distinct corporate entities, including
parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, into single named
Defendants.
The AMPIC contains 17 counts and numerous state-specific
sub-counts: Strict Products Liability - Failure to Warn Through
Warnings and Precautions (Count I, 46 sub-counts); Negligence -
Failure to Warn Through Warnings and Precautions (Count II, 48
sub-counts); Strict Products Liability - Failure to Warn Through
Proper Expiration Dates (Count III, 46 sub-counts); Negligence -
Failure to Warn Through Proper Expiration Dates (Count IV, 48
sub-counts); Failure to Warn Through the FDA (Count V, 15
sub-counts); Strict Products Liability - Design Defect Due to
Warnings and Precautions (Count VI, 46 sub-counts); Strict Products
Liability - Design Defect Due to Improper Expiration Dates (Count
VII, 46 sub-counts); Negligent Failure to Test (Count VIII, 2
sub-counts); Negligent Product Containers (Count IX, 52
sub-counts); Negligent Storage and Transportation Outside the
Labeled Range (Count X, 52 sub-counts); Negligent Storage and
Transportation (Count XI, 52 sub-counts); Negligent
Misrepresentation (Count XII); Reckless Misrepresentation (Count
XIII); Unjust Enrichment (Count XIV, 52 sub-counts); Loss of
Consortium (Count XV, 52 sub-counts); Survival Actions (Count XVI,
52 sub-counts); and Wrongful Death (Count XVII, 52 sub-counts).
Counts I, II, VI, XII, and XIII are brought against every Brand
Manufacturer Defendant. Counts III, IV, V, VII, VIII, and XI are
brought against every Brand and Generic Manufacturer Defendant.
Count IX is brought against every Brand and Generic Manufacturer
Defendant who manufactured and sold ranitidine-containing pills.
Count X is brought against every Retailer and Distributer
Defendant. Counts XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII are brought against every
Defendant.
B. The Consolidated Amended Consumer Economic Loss Class Action
Complaint
One hundred and eighty named Plaintiffs bring the ELC on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated. Each Plaintiff
asserts that he or she purchased and/or used a ranitidine product
during an approximate timeframe.
The Plaintiffs bring the action in their individual capacities and
on behalf of numerous classes pursuant to Rule 23. They bring
state class actions under various state laws stemming from the
Defendants' sale of prescription-strength ranitidine for
approximately forty states. Additionally, the Plaintiffs bring
state class actions under approximately forty-three states' laws
for the Defendants' sale of OTC ranitidine.
The Defendants named in the ELC are entities that "designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, labeled, packaged, handled,
stored and/or sold Zantac or generic Ranitidine-Containing
Products." The Defendants are categorized into three groups: (1)
Brand Manufacturer Defendants (Prescription and OTC); (2) Generic
Prescription Manufacturer and/or Store-Brand Manufacturer
Defendants; and (3) Store-Brand Defendants.
The ELC alleges 1,675 counts against the Defendants. The
Plaintiffs bring claims for violation of various state consumer
protection statutes, common-law unjust enrichment, common-law
breach of quasi-contract, and breach of implied warranty.
C. The Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint
Fifty-two named Plaintiffs bring the MMC on behalf of themselves
and the various classes established in the MMC. The Plaintiffs
purchased and used ranitidine products in fourteen jurisdictions.
Each Plaintiff alleges that he or she purchased and used ranitidine
products during an approximate timeframe.
There are five categories of classes: (1) Brand Manufacturer
Prescription Medical Monitoring Classes; (2) Brand Manufacturer OTC
Medical Monitoring Classes; (3) Generic Prescription Medical
Monitoring Classes; (4) Store-Brand Medical Monitoring Classes; and
(5) Store-Brand Manufacturer Medical Monitoring Classes. Within
each category, there are state — and Defendant-specific classes.
For example, within the third category (Generic Prescription
Medical Monitoring Classes), several named Plaintiffs bring claims
against Defendant Amneal on behalf of themselves and eleven
state-specific "Amneal Prescription Medical Monitoring Classes."
Within the fourth category (Store-Brand Medical Monitoring
Classes), five named Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendant CVS
on behalf of themselves and four state-specific "CVS Medical
Monitoring Classes." The various classes are comprised of
individuals who purchased and used one of the Defendants'
ranitidine products while residing in a particular state, and who
have not been diagnosed with a Subject Cancer.
The Defendants named in the MMC are "entities that designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, labeled, packaged, handled,
stored, and/or sold Zantac or generic Ranitidine-Containing
Products." The Plaintiffs categorized the Defendants into three
groups: (1) Brand Manufacturer Defendants (Prescription and OTC);
(2) Generic Prescription Manufacturer Defendants and/or Store-Brand
Manufacturer Defendants; and (3) Store-Brand Defendants.
The MMC alleges 638 counts against the various Defendants.8 Each
count falls within one of five general causes of action: (1)
Failure to Warn through Warnings and Precautions; (2) Failure to
Warn through Proper Expiration Dates; (3) Failure to Warn Consumers
through the FDA; (4) Negligent Product Containers; and (5)
Negligent Storage and Transportation.
III. Summary of the Parties' Arguments and the Court's Rulings
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims premised upon the
sale of OTC ranitidine are pre-empted pursuant to the express
pre-emption provision in 21 U.S.C. Section 379r(a), and that the
Plaintiffs' claims for failure to warn through the FDA are
pre-empted under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee, 531
U.S. 341 (2001). The Plaintiffs respond that their OTC claims are
parallel to federal law (and are therefore not pre-empted) because
they have alleged that ranitidine was a misbranded drug under
federal law. As for their claims for failure to warn through the
FDA, the Plaintiffs argue that the Court should adopt the position
held by some Circuit Courts of Appeals that Buckman does not
preclude the claims.
Judge Rosenberg concludes that because the Plaintiffs have
adequately pled that ranitidine was a federally misbranded drug,
the Plaintiffs have alleged state-law claims that parallel federal
law and are therefore not pre-empted. As for the Plaintiffs'
claims for failure to warn through the FDA, the Judge concludes
that Mink v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 860 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2017),
compels the conclusion that Buckman pre-empts the claims.
Therefore, he grants in part and denies in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rosenberg grants in part and
denies in part the Brand Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Every
OTC-count in the ELC that is not premised upon a false or
misleading label is dismissed with prejudice. AMPIC Count V and
MMC Counts 3, 16, 21, 26, 35, 40, 53, 58, 63, 68, 81, 86, 91, 108,
121, 126, 131, 140, 161, 174, 179, and 184 are dismissed with
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/535byujz from Leagle.com.
MDL 2924: Claims in Zantac Suit v. Brand-Name Manufacturers Trimmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida grants in part and denies in part the Brand-Name
Manufacturer Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The matter is before the Court on the Brand-Name Manufacturer
Defendants' Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Innovator-Liability Claims. The Court held a hearing on the Motion
on June 3, 2021.
I. Background
The case concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its generic
forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric treatments.
The molecule in question -- ranitidine -- is the active ingredient
in both Zantac and its generic forms.
Zantac has been sold since the early 1980s, first by prescription
and later as an over-the-counter ("OTC") medication. In 1983, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the sale of
prescription Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") first developed and
patented Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster -- the first
prescription drug in history to reach $1 billion in sales.
GSK entered into a joint venture with Warner-Lambert in 1993 to
develop an OTC form of Zantac. Beginning in 1995, the FDA approved
the sale of various forms of OTC Zantac. The joint venture between
GSK and Warner-Lambert ended in 1998, with Warner-Lambert retaining
control over the sale of OTC Zantac in the United States and GSK
retaining control over the sale of prescription Zantac in the
United States.
Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert in 2000 and took control of the sale
of OTC Zantac in the United States. The right to sell OTC Zantac
in the United States later passed to Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals and then to Sanofi. When the patents on
prescription and OTC Zantac expired, numerous generic drug
manufacturers began to produce generic ranitidine products in
prescription and OTC forms.
Scientific studies have demonstrated that ranitidine can transform
into a cancer-causing molecule called N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), which is part of a carcinogenic group of compounds called
N-nitrosamines. Studies have shown that these compounds increase
the risk of cancer in humans and animals. The FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer consider NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen.
The FDA has set the acceptable daily intake level for NDMA at 96
nanograms.
Valisure LLC and ValisureRX LLC, a pharmacy and testing laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, calling for the recall
of all ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA in the
products. The FDA issued a statement on September 13 warning that
some ranitidine products may contain NDMA. On Nov. 1, the FDA
announced that testing had revealed the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine products. It recommended that drug manufacturers recall
ranitidine products with NDMA levels above the acceptable daily
intake level. Five months later, on April 1, 2020, the FDA
requested the voluntary withdrawal of all ranitidine products from
the market.
After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA,
plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On Feb. 6, 2020, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created
the multi-district litigation ("MDL") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1407 for all pretrial purposes and ordered federal lawsuits for
personal injury and economic damages from the purchase and/or use
of ranitidine products to be transferred to the undersigned. Since
that time, approximately 1,400 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in,
or had their lawsuits transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.
The Plaintiffs filed their first Master Complaints on June 22,
2020. In those Master Complaints, the Plaintiffs contended that
the ranitidine molecule is unstable, breaks down into NDMA, and has
caused thousands of consumers of ranitidine products to develop
various forms of cancer. They alleged that "a single pill of
ranitidine can contain quantities of NDMA that are hundreds of
times higher" than the FDA's allowable limit. They pursued federal
claims and state claims under the laws of all 50 U.S. states,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
The Court has entered numerous Pretrial Orders to assist in the
management of the MDL. In Pretrial Order # 36, the Court set a
schedule for the filing and briefing of the first round of motions
to dismiss under Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The
various Defendants filed motions to dismiss.
On Dec. 31, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and dismissed the Master Complaints without prejudice and
with leave to amend. It also struck all allegations of physical
injury and medical monitoring from the Consolidated Consumer Class
Action Complaint, while permitting the Plaintiffs to seek leave of
Court for an alternative pleading to allege their class physical
injury and/or medical monitoring claims.
Following an amendment to Pretrial Order # 36, the Plaintiffs filed
the AMPIC on Feb. 8, 2021. After the Court granted a two-week
extension of time, the Plaintiffs filed the MMC and the ELC on Feb.
22, 2021. In Pretrial Order # 61, the Court set a schedule for the
filing and briefing of the second round of motions to dismiss under
Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The Defendants filed
the Motion to Dismiss currently addressed pursuant to that
schedule.
II. The Master Complaints
The Plaintiffs assert that Counts XII and XIII against the
Defendants under the innovator-liability theory. Count XII is a
claim for negligent misrepresentation brought by generic ranitidine
product consumers residing in California. The California
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants owe a duty of care to all
generic consumers of ranitidine products and that the Defendants
made false representations regarding the safety of ranitidine
products, thereby breaching their duty.
Count XIII is a claim for reckless misrepresentation brought by
generic ranitidine product consumers residing in Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts Plaintiffs allege that Defendants owe a duty of
care to all generic consumers of ranitidine products, that
Defendants made false representations regarding the safety of
ranitidine products, and that the Defendants' conduct demonstrated
a "conscious disregard, or indifference to, a significant
possibility of causing serious injury" to any consumer of
ranitidine products. Additionally, Counts XV-XVII are derivative
claims and include: loss of consortium, survival actions, and
wrongful death.
It is undisputed that Counts XII and XIII are based on a theory of
liability that is currently recognized under only California and
Massachusetts law. Under this theory of liability, the consumers
of a generic product may hold a brand-name manufacturer liable for
failing to warn of a defect in the product—a product that the
brand-name manufacturer did not itself make, sell, or distribute.
In the case, the California and the Massachusetts Plaintiffs have
pled that the Defendants are liable for their alleged negligent and
reckless misrepresentations concerning the safety of ingesting
brand-name ranitidine products; according to the Plaintiffs, this
created the market for generic ranitidine products, foreseeably led
to the ingestion of generic ranitidine products, and, in turn,
foreseeably led to generic consumers' injuries.
III. Summary of the Parties' Arguments and the Court's Rulings
The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss seeking the dismissal
with prejudice of Counts XII and XIII of the AMPIC. Their Motion
to Dismiss has three primary arguments. First, the Plaintiffs have
again failed to allege a prima facie case of specific personal
jurisdiction in California and Massachusetts. Second, the
Plaintiffs' claims fail even in those states in which the
Defendants are subject to general personal jurisdiction because the
Due Process Clause constrains those states from applying the law of
California or Massachusetts to the Plaintiffs' claims. Lastly, the
Plaintiffs' claims against Patheon Manufacturing Services, LLC, the
only Defendant named in the AMPIC that may be subject to general
jurisdiction in a state that recognizes the innovator-liability
theory, fail as a matter of law because the Plaintiffs do not
allege that Patheon had any responsibility for labeling.
In response, the Plaintiffs argue that, in light of the Supreme
Court's recent decision in Ford Motor Co., they have pled a prima
facie case of specific jurisdiction in California and
Massachusetts. It follows that those states in which the
Defendants are subject to general personal jurisdiction may
constitutionally apply California and Massachusetts law to the
Plaintiffs' claims. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' claims against
Patheon survive at the motion-to-dismiss stage because the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Patheon, as part of the
Sanofi entity, controlled the labeling for branded Zantac and, as a
result, for the generic ranitidine product as well.
First, Judge Rosenberg concludes that the Plaintiffs failed to
allege a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction as to
any Defendant in California or Massachusetts. Second, the Judge
concludes that the issue of legislative jurisdiction is not ripe
for ruling at this stage of the litigation. Lastly, he concludes
that the Plaintiffs have stated a claim against Patheon.
Therefore, the Judge grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Counts XII and XIII are dismissed
without prejudice and with leave to amend to plead a prima facie
case of personal jurisdiction in California and Massachusetts.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rosenberg grants in part and
denies in part Brand-Name Manufacturer Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.
Count XII of the AMPIC brought against the Defendants in California
courts fails for lack of personal jurisdiction and is dismissed
without prejudice and with leave to amend consistent with the
Order. Count XIII of the AMPIC brought against the Defendants,
with the exception of Patheon in Massachusetts courts fails for
lack of personal jurisdiction and is dismissed without prejudice
and with leave to amend consistent with the Order. Count XIII of
the AMPIC may proceed against Patheon.
Leave to amend is granted as to the AMPIC. The Court will further
address the Plaintiffs' leave to amend and describe the process for
that amendment in a future order.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yaaanhjn from Leagle.com.
MDL 2924: Claims v. Retailers, Pharmacies and Distributors Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida grants the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
The matter is before the Court on the Retailers and Pharmacy
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Master Personal Injury
Complaint and the Defendant Distributors' Motion to Dismiss Amended
Master Personal Injury Complaint. The Court held a hearing on the
Motion on June 4, 2021.
I. Background
The case concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its generic
forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric treatments.
The molecule in question -- ranitidine -- is the active ingredient
in both Zantac and its generic forms.
Zantac has been sold since the early 1980s, first by prescription
and later as an over-the-counter ("OTC") medication. In 1983, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the sale of
prescription Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") first developed and
patented Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster -- the first
prescription drug in history to reach $1 billion in sales.
GSK entered into a joint venture with Warner-Lambert in 1993 to
develop an OTC form of Zantac. Beginning in 1995, the FDA approved
the sale of various forms of OTC Zantac. The joint venture between
GSK and Warner-Lambert ended in 1998, with Warner-Lambert retaining
control over the sale of OTC Zantac in the United States and GSK
retaining control over the sale of prescription Zantac in the
United States.
Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert in 2000 and took control of the sale
of OTC Zantac in the United States. The right to sell OTC Zantac
in the United States later passed to Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals and then to Sanofi. When the patents on
prescription and OTC Zantac expired, numerous generic drug
manufacturers began to produce generic ranitidine products in
prescription and OTC forms.
Scientific studies have demonstrated that ranitidine can transform
into a cancer-causing molecule called N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), which is part of a carcinogenic group of compounds called
N-nitrosamines. Studies have shown that these compounds increase
the risk of cancer in humans and animals. The FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer consider NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen.
The FDA has set the acceptable daily intake level for NDMA at 96
nanograms.
Valisure LLC and ValisureRX LLC, a pharmacy and testing laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, calling for the recall
of all ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA in the
products. The FDA issued a statement on September 13 warning that
some ranitidine products may contain NDMA. On Nov. 1, the FDA
announced that testing had revealed the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine products. It recommended that drug manufacturers recall
ranitidine products with NDMA levels above the acceptable daily
intake level. Five months later, on April 1, 2020, the FDA
requested the voluntary withdrawal of all ranitidine products from
the market.
After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA,
plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On Feb. 6, 2020, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created
the multi-district litigation ("MDL") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1407 for all pretrial purposes and ordered federal lawsuits for
personal injury and economic damages from the purchase and/or use
of ranitidine products to be transferred to the undersigned. Since
that time, approximately 1,400 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in,
or had their lawsuits transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.
The Plaintiffs filed their first Master Complaints on June 22,
2020. In those Master Complaints, the Plaintiffs contended that
the ranitidine molecule is unstable, breaks down into NDMA, and has
caused thousands of consumers of ranitidine products to develop
various forms of cancer. They alleged that "a single pill of
ranitidine can contain quantities of NDMA that are hundreds of
times higher" than the FDA's allowable limit. They pursued federal
claims and state claims under the laws of all 50 U.S. states,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
The Court has entered numerous Pretrial Orders to assist in the
management of the MDL. In Pretrial Order # 36, the Court set a
schedule for the filing and briefing of the first round of motions
to dismiss under Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The
various Defendants filed motions to dismiss.
On Dec. 31, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and dismissed the Master Complaints without prejudice and
with leave to amend. It also struck all allegations of physical
injury and medical monitoring from the Consolidated Consumer Class
Action Complaint, while permitting the Plaintiffs to seek leave of
Court for an alternative pleading to allege their class physical
injury and/or medical monitoring claims.
Following an amendment to Pretrial Order # 36, the Plaintiffs filed
the AMPIC on Feb. 8, 2021. After the Court granted a two-week
extension of time, the Plaintiffs filed the MMC and the ELC on Feb.
22, 2021. In Pretrial Order # 61, the Court set a schedule for the
filing and briefing of the second round of motions to dismiss under
Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The Defendants filed
the Motion to Dismiss currently addressed pursuant to that
schedule.
II. The Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint (AMPIC)
All individuals who filed a Short Form Complaint adopt the AMPIC.
The Plaintiffs allege that they developed cancers from taking the
Defendants' ranitidine products. The AMPIC "sets forth allegations
of fact and law common to the personal-injury claims" within the
MDL. Each Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and all other available remedies.
The Defendants "are entities that designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, labeled, packaged, handled, stored, and/or sold
ranitidine." They are categorized into four groups: (1) Brand
Manufacturer Defendants; (2) Generic Manufacturer Defendants; (3)
Distributor Defendants; and (4) Retailer Defendants. Within each
category, the AMPIC combines distinct corporate entities, including
parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, into single named
Defendants.
The AMPIC contains 17 counts and numerous state-specific
sub-counts: Strict Products Liability-Failure to Warn Through
Warnings and Precautions (Count I, 46 sub-counts); Negligence -
Failure to Warn Through Warnings and Precautions (Count II, 48
sub-counts); Strict Products Liability - Failure to Warn Through
Proper Expiration Dates (Count III, 46 sub-counts); Negligence -
Failure to Warn Through Proper Expiration Dates (Count IV, 48
sub-counts); Failure to Warn Through the FDA (Count V, 15
sub-counts); Strict Products Liability-Design Defect Due to
Warnings and Precautions (Count VI, 46 sub-counts); Strict Products
Liability-Design Defect Due to Improper Expiration Dates (Count
VII, 46 sub-counts); Negligent Failure to Test (Count VIII, 2
sub-counts); Negligent Product Containers (Count IX, 52
sub-counts); Negligent Storage and Transportation Outside the
Labeled Range (Count X, 52 sub-counts); Negligent Storage and
Transportation (Count XI, 52 sub-counts); Negligent
Misrepresentation (Count XII); Reckless Misrepresentation (Count
XIII); Unjust Enrichment (Count XIV, 52 sub-counts); Loss of
Consortium (Count XV, 52 sub-counts); Survival Actions (Count XVI,
52 sub-counts); and Wrongful Death (Count XVII, 52 sub-counts).
Counts I, II, VI, XII, and XIII are brought against every Brand
Manufacturer Defendant. Counts III, IV, V, VII, VIII, and XI are
brought against every Brand and Generic Manufacturer Defendant.
Count IX is brought against every Brand and Generic Manufacturer
Defendant that manufactured and sold ranitidine-containing pills.
Count X is brought against every Retailer and Distributer
Defendant. Counts XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII are brought against every
Defendant.
III. Summary of the Parties' Arguments and the Court's Rulings
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' negligence claim, Count
X, is implausibly pled and pre-empted under federal law. They
further contend that because the Plaintiffs' negligence claim
fails, all other claims against them necessarily fail as well. The
Plaintiffs respond by contending that they have plausibly pled
negligence and that none of their claims are pre-empted; they
further contend that because their negligence claim survives, all
other claims against the Defendants survive as well.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Rosenberg concludes that the Plaintiffs' negligence claim is
implausibly pled and is, therefore, dismissed. As a result of that
dismissal, the Plaintiffs' remaining claims against the Defendants
are also dismissed. The Judge does not address the Defendants'
pre-emption arguments because it is not necessary for the Court to
do so.
For these reasons, the Retailer Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at
docket entry 3112 is granted and the Distributor Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss at docket entry 3107 is granted. All of the Plaintiffs'
claims against the Retailer and the Distributor Defendants are
dismissed without leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4u2vh6xm from Leagle.com.
MDL 2924: Court Narrows Claims in Zantac Products Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Omnibus
Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Consolidated Medical Monitoring
Class Action Complaint and Consolidated Amended Consumer Class
Action Complaint.
I. Background
The case concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its generic
forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric treatments.
The molecule in question -- ranitidine -- is the active ingredient
in both Zantac and its generic forms.
Zantac has been sold since the early 1980s, first by prescription
and later as an over-the-counter ("OTC") medication. In 1983, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the sale of
prescription Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") first developed and
patented Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster -- the first
prescription drug in history to reach $1 billion in sales.
GSK entered into a joint venture with Warner-Lambert in 1993 to
develop an OTC form of Zantac. Beginning in 1995, the FDA approved
the sale of various forms of OTC Zantac. The joint venture between
GSK and Warner-Lambert ended in 1998, with Warner-Lambert retaining
control over the sale of OTC Zantac in the United States and GSK
retaining control over the sale of prescription Zantac in the
United States.
Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert in 2000 and took control of the sale
of OTC Zantac in the United States. The right to sell OTC Zantac
in the United States later passed to Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals and then to Sanofi. When the patents on
prescription and OTC Zantac expired, numerous generic drug
manufacturers began to produce generic ranitidine products in
prescription and OTC forms.
Scientific studies have demonstrated that ranitidine can transform
into a cancer-causing molecule called N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), which is part of a carcinogenic group of compounds called
N-nitrosamines. Studies have shown that these compounds increase
the risk of cancer in humans and animals. The FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer consider NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen.
The FDA has set the acceptable daily intake level for NDMA at 96
nanograms.
Valisure LLC and ValisureRX LLC, a pharmacy and testing laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, calling for the recall
of all ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA in the
products. The FDA issued a statement on September 13 warning that
some ranitidine products may contain NDMA. On Nov. 1, the FDA
announced that testing had revealed the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine products. It recommended that drug manufacturers recall
ranitidine products with NDMA levels above the acceptable daily
intake level. Five months later, on April 1, 2020, the FDA
requested the voluntary withdrawal of all ranitidine products from
the market.
After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA,
plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On Feb. 6, 2020, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created
the multi-district litigation ("MDL") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1407 for all pretrial purposes and ordered federal lawsuits for
personal injury and economic damages from the purchase and/or use
of ranitidine products to be transferred to the undersigned. Since
that time, approximately 1,400 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in,
or had their lawsuits transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.
The Plaintiffs filed their first Master Complaints on June 22,
2020. In those Master Complaints, the Plaintiffs contended that
the ranitidine molecule is unstable, breaks down into NDMA, and has
caused thousands of consumers of ranitidine products to develop
various forms of cancer. They alleged that "a single pill of
ranitidine can contain quantities of NDMA that are hundreds of
times higher" than the FDA's allowable limit. They pursued federal
claims and state claims under the laws of all 50 U.S. states,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
The Court has entered numerous Pretrial Orders to assist in the
management of the MDL. In Pretrial Order # 36, the Court set a
schedule for the filing and briefing of the first round of motions
to dismiss under Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The
various Defendants filed motions to dismiss.
On Dec. 31, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and dismissed the Master Complaints without prejudice and
with leave to amend. It also struck all allegations of physical
injury and medical monitoring from the Consolidated Consumer Class
Action Complaint, while permitting the Plaintiffs to seek leave of
Court for an alternative pleading to allege their class physical
injury and/or medical monitoring claims.
Following an amendment to Pretrial Order # 36, the Plaintiffs filed
the AMPIC on Feb. 8, 2021. After the Court granted a two-week
extension of time, the Plaintiffs filed the MMC and the ELC on Feb.
22, 2021. In Pretrial Order # 61, the Court set a schedule for the
filing and briefing of the second round of motions to dismiss under
Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The Defendants filed
the Motion to Dismiss currently addressed pursuant to that
schedule.
II. The Master Complaints
A. The Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint
Fifty-two named Plaintiffs bring the MMC on behalf of themselves
and the various classes established in the MMC. The Plaintiffs
purchased and used ranitidine products in fourteen jurisdictions.
Each Plaintiff alleges that he or she purchased and used ranitidine
products during an approximate timeframe.
There are five categories of classes: (1) Brand Manufacturer
Prescription Medical Monitoring Classes; (2) Brand Manufacturer OTC
Medical Monitoring Classes; (3) Generic Prescription Medical
Monitoring Classes; (4) Store-Brand Medical Monitoring Classes; and
(5) Store-Brand Manufacturer Medical Monitoring Classes. Within
each category, there are state- and Defendant-specific classes.
For example, within the third category (Generic Prescription
Medical Monitoring Classes), several named Plaintiffs bring claims
against Defendant Amneal on behalf of themselves and eleven
state-specific "Amneal Prescription Medical Monitoring Classes."
Within the fourth category (Store-Brand Medical Monitoring
Classes), five named Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendant CVS
on behalf of themselves and four state-specific "CVS Medical
Monitoring Classes." The various classes are comprised of
individuals who purchased and used one of the Defendants'
ranitidine products while residing in a particular state, and who
have not been diagnosed with a Subject Cancer.
The Defendants named in the MMC are "entities that designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, labeled, packaged, handled,
stored, and/or sold Zantac or generic Ranitidine-Containing
Products." The Plaintiffs categorized the Defendants into three
groups: (1) Brand Manufacturer Defendants (Prescription and OTC);
(2) Generic Prescription Manufacturer Defendants and/or Store-Brand
Manufacturer Defendants; and (3) Store-Brand Defendants. The MMC
alleges 638 counts against the various Defendants. Each count
falls within one of five general causes of action: (1) Failure to
Warn through Warnings and Precautions; (2) Failure to Warn through
Proper Expiration Dates; (3) Failure to Warn Consumers through the
FDA; (4) Negligent Product Containers; and (5) Negligent Storage
and Transportation.
B. The Consolidated Amended Consumer Economic Loss Class Action
Complaint
One hundred and eighty named Plaintiffs bring the ELC on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated. Each Plaintiff
asserts that he or she purchased and/or used a ranitidine product
during an approximate timeframe.
The Plaintiffs bring the action in their individual capacities and
on behalf of numerous classes pursuant to Rule 23. They bring
state class actions under various state laws stemming from the
Defendants' sale of prescription-strength ranitidine for
approximately forty states. Additionally, the Plaintiffs bring
state class actions under approximately forty-three states' laws
for the Defendants' sale of OTC ranitidine.
The Defendants named in the ELC are entities that "designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, labeled, packaged, handled,
stored and/or sold Zantac or generic Ranitidine-Containing
Products." The Defendants are categorized into three groups: (1)
Brand Manufacturer Defendants (Prescription and OTC); (2) Generic
Prescription Manufacturer and/or Store-Brand Manufacturer
Defendants; and (3) Store-Brand Defendants. The ELC alleges 1,675
counts against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs bring claims for
violation of various state consumer protection statutes, common-law
unjust enrichment, common-law breach of quasi-contract, and breach
of implied warranty.
III. Summary of the Parties' Arguments and the Court's Rulings
A. The Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint
The Defendants move to dismiss and/or strike the MMC. They contend
that Indiana and Montana do not recognize medical monitoring
claims, and additionally, that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly
plead several required elements for medical monitoring that are
common across jurisdictions. The Defendants also contend that the
Plaintiffs fail to plead their claims of negligence and strict
liability. Finally, they argue that the MMC violates the Eleventh
Circuit's rule against claim splitting.
The Plaintiffs respond that medical monitoring is an available
remedy in Indiana and a cause of action in Montana. Additionally,
they cite allegations in the MMC that, in their view, plausibly
demonstrate each medical monitoring element that the Defendants
challenge. The Plaintiffs also cite allegations in the MMC to
demonstrate that they plausibly plead their negligence and strict
liability claims. Lastly, they respond that the MMC does not
constitute claim splitting, since they complied with the Court's
order (and the Defendants' request) that they allege their class
physical injury and/or medical monitoring claims in an alternative
pleading.
Judge Rosenberg concludes that the Indiana Supreme Court would
recognize medical monitoring as an available remedy, but that the
Montana Supreme Court would not recognize medical monitoring as a
cause of action. Separately, the Plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly plead required elements for medical monitoring. The
Plaintiffs have plausibly pled some of their negligence and strict
liability claims, but the Court need not address every claim, as
certain claims are dismissed with prejudice on grounds of
pre-emption through other orders. Finally, the Defendants' claim
splitting argument is premature. Given the foregoing, the Judge
dismisses the Plaintiffs' Montana medical monitoring claims (Counts
134-137) with prejudice, and dismisses all remaining Counts in the
MMC without prejudice and with leave to amend consistent with his
Order.
B. The Consolidated Amended Consumer Economic Loss Class Action
Complaint
The Defendants argue that the ELC remains a shotgun pleading, and
that the Plaintiffs still lack Article III standing because they
have not alleged an injury-in-fact. Additionally, the Plaintiffs'
claims related to prescription ranitidine should be dismissed under
the learned intermediary doctrine. Furthermore, many of the ELC's
state-law claims are barred pursuant to state consumer protection
safe harbors, or relatedly, because the Defendants' FDA-approved
labels were presumptively valid. Finally, the Plaintiffs fail to
state claims for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs respond that the ELC is not a shotgun pleading
because the Plaintiffs addressed the shotgun deficiencies that the
Court identified in the prior version of the ELC. They also have
Article III standing because they suffered economic injury-in-fact.
The Court should not dismiss the Plaintiffs' prescription-based
claims pursuant to the learned intermediary doctrine, in part
because it is premature to determine the doctrine's applicability.
Further, the Defendants' safe-harbor and FDA labeling arguments
lack specificity and are inapplicable because the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants' product labels violated both state and federal
law. Finally, the Plaintiffs have stated a claim for unjust
enrichment, since they allege that they conferred a benefit on the
Defendants due to misrepresentations.
Judge Rosenberg concludes that the ELC is not a shotgun pleading,
and the Plaintiffs have Article III standing because they allege
that they suffered economic injury. The Plaintiffs'
prescription-based claims lack allegations that are relevant to the
learned intermediary doctrine. The Defendants' arguments related
to state safe harbors, FDA labeling, and unjust enrichment are
inadequately briefed for the Court to reach a conclusion at this
juncture. Given the foregoing, the Judge dismisses the Plaintiffs'
prescription-based claims (Counts 2-71 and 409-1062) without
prejudice and with leave to amend consistent with the Order.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rosenberg grants in part and
denies in part the Defendants' Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and/or
Strike Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint and
Consolidated Amended Consumer Class Action Complaint.
In the MMC, the Judge dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
Montana medical monitoring Counts. The remaining Counts in the MMC
are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend consistent
with the Order.
In the ELC, Counts 2-71 and 409-1062 are dismissed without
prejudice and with leave to amend consistent with the Order.
Leave to amend is granted as to the MMC and the ELC. The Court
will further address the Plaintiffs' leave to amend and describe
the process for that amendment in a future order.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/m2szt7rp from Leagle.com.
MDL 2990: Court Denies Centralization of Eight '730 Patent Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the patent infringement litigation, "In Re: Palbociclib ('730)
Patent Litigation (No. II)," MDL No. 2990, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
denied Plaintiff's request to centralize a litigation in the
District of Delaware, which litigation consists of eight actions --
seven in the District of Delaware and one in the Northern District
of West Virginia.
Pfizer Inc., Warner-Lambert Company LLC, and PF PRISM IMB B.V.
("Pfizer plaintiffs") filed these actions after the defendant
pharmaceutical companies submitted Abbreviated New Drug
Applications seeking approval by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to manufacture and sell generic versions of Ibrance
(Palbociclib) capsules. All actions are Hatch-Waxman patent
infringement suits in which the Pfizer alleges that defendants have
infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,723,730.
The Pfizer plaintiffs previously filed a series of Hatch-Waxman
actions against the defendants named in seven of the present
actions, alleging that their submission of ANDAs infringed one or
more of three IBRANCE patents. Those actions were centralized in
the District of Delaware in 2019 as MDL No. 2912, and assigned to
Judge Colm F. Connolly.
Pfizer argued that the actions on the motion involve common
questions of fact and that centralization before Judge Connolly, as
the judge presiding over MDL No. 2912, would best serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses. There are substantial
similarities between the actions now before the Court and those in
the existing MDL. In fact, seven of the eight actions are pending
in the District of Delaware and have been related to MDL No. 2912.
During briefing of this matter, the Clerk of the Panel directed the
parties to submit supplemental briefs on whether the single action
pending in the Northern District of West Virginia should be
transferred to the District of Delaware for inclusion in MDL No.
2912. Among the defendants, only Mylan in the Northern District of
West Virginia action responded to the order, stating that it does
not oppose transfer to MDL No. 2912. The Pfizer plaintiffs are
opposed. They argued that the '730 Patent cases differ
substantially in both substance and procedural posture from the MDL
No. 2912 actions and therefore should be centralized in a separate
MDL.
The Panel concluded that the actions on the motion involve common
questions of fact with the actions centralized in MDL No. 2912, and
that creation of a separate MDL involving only the '730 Patent
cases is not necessary to serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. These eight actions, like those in MDL No. 2912,
involve claims that defendants infringed one or more IBRANCE
patents by seeking FDA approval to market generic Palbociclib drugs
in the United States. Nearly all defendants and ANDAs in the
litigation also are involved in MDL No. 2912. Seven of the actions
on the motion are pending in the District of Delaware, where they
have been assigned to Judge Connolly and related to the actions in
MDL No. 2912. In these circumstances, pretrial proceedings in the
'730 Patent actions can proceed most efficiently in the existing
MDL. The Panel held that Pfizer plaintiffs' concerns about any
differences between the '730 Patent actions and earlier-filed
actions may be raised with Judge Connolly, who is free to establish
separate tracks for discovery and motion practice, as he deems
appropriate.
Accordingly, the Panel denied the motion for centralization of the
eight actions. The action titled PFIZER INC., ET AL. v. MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20−00244 is transferred
to the District of Delaware and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Colm F. Connolly for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in
MDL No. 2912.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 4, 2021 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2TQezw4
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Financial Adviser Class Action Over Race Bias
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Merrill Lynch
and its parent company Bank of America N.A. paid African American
financial advisers less and promoted them less frequently than
their White colleagues, according to a potential class action
lawsuit filed in federal court in Michigan.
The companies maintain intentional and systematic discriminatory
policies and practices, which include minimum threshold production
credit requirements, lack of support, and inequitable teaming
opportunities, former employees Ravynne Gilmore and Lucinda Council
argue in a complaint filed July 2 at the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.
COURT: E.D. Mich.
DOCKET NO: No. 2:21-cv-11553
COMPANY INFO: Bank of America NA [GN]
MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Tosses Sandoval Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGINA C. SANDOVAL, and
TODD M. NORTH, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
AND JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. 2:18-cv-09396-SDW-AME (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Midland Funding is a debt buyer located in San Diego, California.
Midland Funding is a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36tefpQ at no extra charge.[CC]
NAVIENT CORP: Faces Borrower Class Lawsuit Over Payment Allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Godoy at Reuters reports that a federal judge in New Jersey
said student borrowers can pursue a lawsuit alleging Navient Corp
fraudulently misallocated payments to increase the life of
potentially millions of student loans.
U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton denied Navient's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, saying the borrowers who filed the proposed
class action last year had valid claims under New Jersey's
anti-fraud statute and the consumer protection laws of Florida, New
York and New Jersey.
Lisa Simonetti of Greenberg Truarig, who represents Navient, and
Xavier Bailliard of Kranjac Tripodi & Partners, who represents the
proposed class, did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.
The lawsuit was filed in June 2020 by nine borrowers whose loans
were serviced by Navient. They allege the company
disproportionately applied payments to interest rather than
principal, incorrectly capitalized interest and steered payments to
lower interest rate loans.
Navient's website and the fact that the company does not give
borrowers an amortization schedule hinders borrowers' ability to
understand or address those issues, they said.
The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of a proposed class of all
those in the U.S. who have ever borrowed from or had loans serviced
by Navient.
The company moved for dismissal in December, calling the complaint
devoid of any alleged misrepresentation in connection with the way
payments were allocated and lacking particular facts about how its
procedures affected the plaintiffs.
The lender said the class allegation should be dismissed because
the claims would be affected by the terms of each individual loan.
Navient also said the borrowers' claims for breach of fiduciary
duty could not stand because courts have found loan servicers are
not fiduciaries.
In her ruling on Wigenton said that the specific allegations
including date and dollar amount of the allegedly misapplied
payments were enough to state claims for fraud and violation of the
consumer protection laws.
It was too early to consider whether the lawsuit can proceed as a
class action, she said.
However, the judge agreed that Navient owed no fiduciary duty to
the borrowers.
The case is Manetta et al. v. Navient Corp et al., U.S. District
Court, District of New Jersey, No. 20-cv-07712.
For the borrowers: Xavier Bailliard, James Van Splinter and Joseph
Tripodi of Kranjac Tripodi & Partners.
For Navient: Lisa Simonetti and Rebecca Zisek of Greenberg Traurig.
[GN]
NURTURE INC: Food Products Tainted With Toxic Metals, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK LAWRENCE, RACHEL M. FRANTZ, and MARIE MEZILE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NURTURE, INC., Case
No. 1:21-cv-05748 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021) is a class action suit
for damages and injunctive relief for purchasers of Baby Food
Products that Nurture marketed and sold without disclosing that
they were tainted with arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury ("Toxic
Heavy Metals") at levels above what is considered safe for babies.
On February 4, 2021, the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer
Policy of the U.S. House of Representatives released a Report 1
concluding that baby food manufacturers, including Nurture, sold
Baby Food Products containing concentrations of inorganic arsenic,
lead, cadmium, and mercury at levels above what is considered safe
for babies.
Allegeldy, Nurture does not disclose the Toxic Heavy Metal content
of its foods on its labels or in its marketing materials, nor does
it warn consumers that its Baby Food Products may contain
potentially dangerous levels of Toxic Heavy Metals.
The Plaintiffs and the Class members purchased Baby Food Products
manufactured and sold by Nurture, unaware that Nurture's products
potentially contain Toxic Heavy Metals at levels well above what is
considered safe for babies. Had Nurture disclosed the Toxic Heavy
Metal content on its product labels, or otherwise warned that its
products could contain levels of Toxic Heavy Metals considered
unsafe, neither Plaintiffs nor any other reasonable consumer would
have purchased Nurture's products, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on their own behalf and on
behalf of other purchasers of Nurture's' Baby Food Products, to
seek refunds and all other economic losses suffered as a result of
their purchases of Nurture's Baby Food Products, as well as
injunctive relief.
Plaintiff Lawrence is a resident of the State of Georgia. Mr.
Lawrence purchased Baby Food Products made by Defendant Nurture.
Plaintiff Frantz is a resident of the State of Michigan. Ms. Frantz
purchased Baby Food Products made by Defendant Nurture.
Plaintiff Mezile is a resident of the State of New York. Ms. Mezile
purchased Baby Food Products made by Defendant Nurture.
Nurture does business as "HappyFamily Organics" and sells Baby Food
Products under the HappyBABY brand. Nurture's baby food products
are sold and purchased throughout the United State.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zahra R. Dean, Esq.
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
Aarthi Manohar, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
E-mail: zdean@kohnswift.com
dabrahams@kohnswift.com
whoese@kohnswift.com
chillwig@kohnswift.com
amanohar@kohnswift.com
- and -
David H. Fink, Esq.
Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Ave; Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 971-2500
E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com
nfink@finkbressack.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Karen Halbert, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
20 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
Telephone: (501) 821-5575
E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us
PELHAM TRANSPORTATION: Dismissal of Hilderbrand Suit Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEWIS A. HILDERBRAND and MORRIS WRAY DAVIS, JR., on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs v. PELHAM TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, THEODORE J.
DEJOURNETTE, JR., and BARBARA J. DEJOURNETTE, Defendants, Case No.
1:20CV1020 (M.D.N.C.), Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
recommended that:
(i) the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss be granted;
and
(ii) the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint
be denied as futile.
Plaintiffs Hilderbrand and Davis, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals, initiated the action on Nov. 12,
2020 against their former employer, Pelham, and its
owner-operators, Mr. Dejournette and Ms. Dejournette. Later that
same day, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint correcting a
technical error in the heading of the original complaint. With the
consent of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on Jan. 6, 2021 to "correct some other scrivener's
errors."
Pursuant to the operative second amended complaint ("complaint"),
Plaintiff Hilderbrand raises claims against the Defendants for
wrongful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq.), 42 U.S.C. Section
1981, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a, and the public policy of North
Carolina declared in N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143-422.2(a). In
addition, both named Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
("NCWHA").
Plaintiffs Hilderbrand and Wray seek to represent similarly
situated current and former Pelham employees by having the case
certified as both a FLSA collective action and a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
On Feb. 8, 2021, the Defendants filed the foregoing partial motion
to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
In their original motion, they sought to dismiss: 1) Plaintiff
Hilderbrand's Title VII and Section 1981 claims to the extent they
were asserted against Mr. and Ms. Dejournette ("the Dejournettes");
2) Plaintiff's Hilderbrand's state law wrongful discharge claim to
the extent it was asserted against the Dejournettes; and 3)
Plaintiffs' alternative NCWHA overtime claim in its entirety.
In their response brief in opposition to the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, the Plaintiffs do not contest dismissal of the Title VII
claim against the Dejournettes, nor do they contest dismissal of
their alternative NCWHA overtime claim. Thus, Magistrate Judge
Webster recommends deeming those claims abandoned and recommends
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to those claims
without further discussion.
Therefore, the only two issues remaining for the Court to resolve
are: 1) whether the Plaintiffs' complaint states a viable Section
1981 claim against the Dejournettes; and 2) whether the complaint
states a viable common law claim for wrongful discharge against the
Dejournettes. In their reply, Defendants argue that these two
remaining claims should be dismissed as to the Dejournettes because
the Plaintiff's complaint "contains no factual allegations that the
Dejournettes authorized, or were involved in, the alleged
discriminatory action against Hilderbrand."
In response, the Plaintiff's filed the foregoing motion seeking
leave to amend their complaint. They assert that their complaint
already contains "express, well-pled factual allegations"
concerning the Dejournette's involvement in the alleged
discriminatory action against Plaintiff Hilderbrand, but that their
proposed amendments to the complaint will resolve any doubts on
this issue. The Defendants filed a response in opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion to amend and the Plaintiffs filed a reply.
Discussion
A. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 1981 and
wrongful discharge claims against the Dejournettes pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
1. Plaintiff Hilderbrand's Section 1981 claim against the
Dejournettes
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's Section 1981 should be
dismissed because the Plaintiffs' complaint "does not allege facts
indicating that the Dejournettes directed or had any personal
involvement in the alleged discriminatory action of which
Hilderbrand complains." In support of this argument, the
Defendants point out that neither of the Dejournettes attended the
June 4, 2020 meeting when the alleged discriminatory statements
were made by Mr. Johnson, nor were they aware of that meeting or
the disciplinary action that occurred during it.
In response, the Plaintiffs argue that the complaint alleges that
the Dejournettes "had and exercised the authority to terminate Mr.
Hilderbrand." They point out that Ms. Dejournette excused the
Plaintiff from work the weekend of May 29, 2020, "which was the
immediate pretext for the discriminatory actions by Terry Johnson."
Finally, they argue that the Dejournettes "directed and
participated in" the June 12, 2020 call between Plaintiff
Hilderbrand and Mr. Johnson and by doing so, ratified Mr. Johnson's
refusal to apologize for or retract his discriminatory statements.
Judge Webster agrees with the Plaintiffs that allegations in the
complaint sufficiently establish that the Dejournettes, as
owner-operators and corporate officers of Pelham, had the inherent
authority to terminate the Plaintiff's employment with the company.
However, he finds that the complaint does not indicate that their
exercise of such authority caused the Plaintiff's termination or
that they had any direct involvement in Mr. Johnson's decision to
terminate Plaintiff Hilderbrand's on June 4, 2020. The
Dejournettes were not present at that meeting and, according to the
Plaintiff's response brief, only became aware of Mr. Johnson's
actions a few days later when they were contacted by Plaintiff
Hilderbrand's NAACP representative. Beyond this, the complaint
does not contain allegations that the Dejournettes themselves acted
with discriminatory animus towards Plaintiff at any point. For
these reasons, the Judge recommends granting the Defendants' motion
to dismiss as to Plaintiff Hilderbrand's Section 1981 claim against
the Dejournettes.
2. Plaintiff Hilderbrand's wrongful discharge claim against the
Dejournettes
Plaintiff Hilderbrand alleges that the Defendants terminated his
employment "in violation of the public policy of the State of North
Carolina under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143-422.2 which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race and color by any employer who
employs more than 15 persons." The Defendants argue that this
claim should be dismissed as to the Dejournettes because a common
law wrongful discharge claim brought pursuant to an alleged
violation of the NCEEPA can be asserted only against an employer
and not against the Dejournettes in their individual capacities.
Judge Webster finds that the Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the
Dejournette's individual liability are without merit because the
allegations are clearly distinguishable from the facts present in
Alexander v. Diversified Ace Servs. II, AJV, No. 1:11CV725, 2014 WL
502496, at *20 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 7, 2014), that allowed for the
possibility of individual liability. He therefore recommends that
the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted as to Plaintiff
Hilderbrand's wrongful discharge claim insofar as it is raised
against the Dejournette Defendants as individuals.
B. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend
In response to the issues raised by the Defendants in their motion
to dismiss regarding the Dejournettes' individual liability, the
Plaintiffs seek the Court's permission to amend their complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). In their brief
in support of their motion to amend, the Plaintiffs refer back to
the Defendants' primary argument in their motion to dismiss
briefings that the operative complaint in the case does not contain
factual allegations that the Dejournettes authorized, or were
involved in, the alleged discriminatory actions against Plaintiff
Hilderbrand.
In opposition, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' proposed
amendments are futile because they do not cure the pleading defects
identified in their motion to dismiss briefing. They contend that
the proposed amendments still fail to show that the Dejournettes
directed, authorized, or participated in the termination of
Plaintiff Hilderbrand because of his race or color.
Judge Webster agrees with the Defendants that the proposed
amendments in the Plaintiffs' proposed Third Amended Complaint
still fail to state a claim for individual liability against the
Dejournettes. He finds that even in light of the Plaintiffs'
proposed amendments, their Section 1981 and wrongful discharge
claims against the Dejournettes as individuals fail to state a
claim for relief. He thus recommends that the Plaintiffs' motion
to amend be denied as futile.
Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge Webster recommended that the
partial motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants be granted in its
entirety. The Plaintiffs' Title VII claim against the Dejournettes
and the Plaintiffs' alternative NCWHA overtime claim against all
the Defendants should be dismissed as uncontested. The Plaintiffs'
Section 1981 and wrongful discharge claims against the Dejournettes
should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Judge Webster recommended that the Plaintiff's motion to amend be
denied as futile.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/7ddvvx43 from
Leagle.com.
PROVENTION BIO: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on July 6 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVB) ("Provention" or the
"Company"). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Provention between November 2, 2020 - April 8, 2021 both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later
than July 20, 2021.
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the teplizumab Biologics License Application ("BLA") was deficient
in its submitted form and would require additional data to secure
U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval; (ii) accordingly, the
teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led
investors to believe it possessed; (iii) the Company had thus
overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the
commercialization timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Provention class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Provention class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.
If you are a Provention shareholder and have losses and are
interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please
contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If
emailing, please include a phone number.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com
http://www.johnsonfistel.com[GN]
PROVENTION BIO: Klein Law Reminds Investors of July 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PRVB) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: November 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in PRVB:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17546&from=5
Provention Bio, Inc. NEWS - PRVB NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Provention Bio, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the teplizumab
Biologics License Application ("BLA") was deficient in its
submitted form and would require additional data to secure U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approval; (ii) accordingly, the
teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led
investors to believe it possessed; (iii) the Company had thus
overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the
commercialization timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Provention Bio you have until July 20, 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 Provention Bio 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 PRVB lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click https://bit.ly/2T7Lxrl.
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]
QAD INC: Faces Nantahala Suit Over Merger Deal With Thoma Bravo
---------------------------------------------------------------
NANTAHALA CAPITAL PARTNERS II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of QAD INC.,
v. QAD INC., PAMELA M. LOPKER, ANTON CHILTON, SCOTT J. ADELSON,
KATHLEEN M. CRUSCO, PETER R. VAN CUYLENBURG, THOMA BRAVO, LLC,
THOMA BRAVO, LP, PROJECT QUICK ULTIMATE PARENT, LP, PROJECT QUICK
PARENT, LLC, and PROJECT QUICK MERGER SUB INC.,Case No. 2021-0573
(Del. Ch., July 2, 2021) is a verified stockholder class action
complaint against the Defendants for breach of contract, breaches
of fiduciary duty, and for aiding and abetting such breaches of
fiduciary duty.
This action challenges the attempt by QAD to consummate a merger
with Thoma Bravo and its affiliates in violation of the Company's
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and for an unfair
price.
QAD has two classes of common shares: (i) Class A shares with 1/20
of one vote per share; and (ii) Class B shares with one vote per
share. Pamela Lopker, who is the Company's founder and President,
controls QAD through her ownership of 77% of the Company's Class B
shares.
QAD's Charter explicitly forbids preferential treatment of Class B
stockholders in the event of a merger, requiring that any holder of
Class A shares receive consideration that is no less favorable, in
amount or form, than the consideration received by any holder of
Class B shares (the "Equal Treatment Provision").
On June 27, 2021, QAD entered into an agreement that provides for
the acquisition of QAD by Thoma Bravo for $87.50 for most Class A
and B shares (the "Merger"). Despite the Equal Treatment Provision,
however, Lopker entered into a side agreement that will allow her
to exchange over 40% of her QAD shares for equity in the post-close
Company. The Company's public stockholders will not receive any
equity in the post-close Company. The Merger therefore plainly
violates the Charter's Equal Treatment Provision by providing more
favorable consideration to Lopker, a Class B stockholder, than to
the holders of Class A shares, the complaint says.
The Plaintiff brings this action to enjoin the closing of the
Merger unless or until Defendants comply with the Equal Treatment
Provision of the Charter.
Plaintiff Nantahala Capital Partners II Limited Partnership has
been a QAD stockholder continuously since 2013 and is currently one
of the Company's largest stockholders.
QAD is a Delaware corporation headquartered in California. The
Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Schwartz, Esq.
David MacIsaac, Esq.
John Vielandi, Esq.
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
REKOR SYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 30 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a
Novume Solutions, Inc. ("Rekor" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REKR;
NVMM) and certain of its directors on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Rekor securities between April 12,
2019 and May 25, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/rekr.
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) Rekor's ALPR technology and UVED-related
business is outclassed by global competitors with an established,
dominant market share; (2) it was unlikely that states would pass
legislation authorizing deals similar to Rekor's Oklahoma UVED
partnership because of, inter alia, state and local privacy laws
and related public concerns; (3) Rekor's UVED partnership was not
as profitable as Defendants had led investors to believe because of
known impediments to enrollment rates and costs associated with the
partnership; (4) accordingly, Rekor had overstated its potential
revenues, profitability, and overall ALPR- and UVED-related
business prospects; and (5) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading 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/rekr 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 Rekor
you have until August 30, 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.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
REKOR SYSTEMS: Faces Miller Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT KEITH MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REKOR SYSTEMS, INC. f/k/a NOVUME
SOLUTIONS, INC.; ROBERT A. BERMAN; EYAL HEN; RIAZ LATIFULLAH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01604-GLR (D. Md., June 29, 2021) is a
securities class action by the Plaintiff and the Class who
purchased or otherwise acquired Rekor securities between April 12,
2019 and May 25, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Rekor's ALPR
technology and UVED-related business is outclassed by global
competitors with an established, dominant market share; (ii) it was
unlikely that states would pass legislation authorizing deals
similar to Rekor's Oklahoma UVED partnership because of, inter
alia, state and local privacy laws and related public concerns;
(iii) Rekor's UVED partnership was not as profitable as Defendants
had led investors to believe because of known impediments to
enrollment rates and costs associated with the partnership; (iv)
accordingly, Rekor had overstated its potential revenues,
profitability, and overall ALPR- and UVED-related business
prospects; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 10, 2021, a bill authorizing the establishment of a state
UVED program was excluded from the Texas Legislature's Daily House
Calendar and left pending in a state committee. Because May 10,
2021 was the deadline for the Texas UVED bill to move from the
committee, news sources reported significant market speculation
that the bill was dead. Further, on a post-market earnings call
that same day to discuss Rekor's first quarter 2021 financial
results, Defendant Berman also indicated that Rekor may not secure
a UVED agreement with Texas.
On news of the Texas UVED bill's exclusion from the Texas
Legislature's Daily House Calendar, Rekor's stock price fell $5.20
per share, or 27.5%, to close at $13.71 per share on May 10, 2021.
Then, following the Defendants' post-market conference call with
investors the same day, Rekor's stock price fell an additional
$2.45 per share, or 17.87%, to close at $11.26 per share on May 11,
2021—representing a two-day total decline of $7.65 per share, or
40.45%, says the suit.
On May 26, 2021, Mariner Research Group ("Mariner") published a
report addressing Rekor, entitled "REKR – Government documents do
not support investor expectations." The Mariner report likewise
echoed the issues disclosed in the Western Edge report, including,
inter alia, those that had caused Rekor's predecessor in the
Oklahoma UVED partnership to exit the program.
Following publication of the Western Edge and Mariner reports,
Rekor's stock price fell $0.44 per share, or 3.93%, to close at
$10.77 per share on May 26, 2021, the suit further asserts.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Rekor Systems, Inc. provides license plate recognition and security
solutions. The Company offers solutions for surveillance,
electronic toll collection, parking operations, and traffic
management. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
dbunch@cohenmilstein.com
-and-
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
RLX Technology Inc. (RLX)
Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the January 2021
initial public stock offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 9, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-rlx/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of investors that purchased RLX Technology Inc. American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") pursuant or traceable to RLX's January
2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO").
All investors who purchased the ADR's of RLX Technology 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 ADR's of RLX Technology Inc.,
you may, no later than August 9, 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 ADR's of RLX Technology Inc.
RLX claims to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in China,"
which it also claims is its "largest potential market." On January
19, 2021, RLX filed its final amendment to a Form F-1 registration
statement (the "Registration Statement"), which registered
133,975,000 RLX ADR for public sale. On January 22, 2021, the
defendants priced the IPO at $12 per ADR and filed the final
prospectus for the IPO, which forms part of the Registration
Statement. Through the IPO, the defendants issued and sold
approximately 116,500,000 RLX ADR, all pursuant to the Registration
Statement, for gross proceeds of nearly $1.4 billion.
The filed complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
misrepresented and omitted, among other things, RLX's exposure to
China's then-existing campaign to establish a national standard for
e-cigarettes that would bring them into line with regular cigarette
regulations.
The truth was revealed when draft regulations were posted by the
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, before the market
opened on March 22, 2021, eight weeks after RLX's IPO, which
confirmed e-cigarettes and new tobacco products would be regulated
similar to traditional tobacco offerings.
Following this news, the price of RLX's shares suffered an enormous
decline. On March 22, 2021, RLX's ADR closed at $10.15 per ADR,
down nearly 48% from its previous close of $19.46 per ADR on March
19, 2021, the previous trading day.
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.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
URL: http://www.whafh.com.
Contact Information:
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]
ROCKET COMPANIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
Rocket Companies, Inc. (RKT)
Class Period: 2/25/2021 - 5/5/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 30, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-rkt/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
SONY INTERACTIVE: Neumark Sues Over PlayStation Games Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN NEUMARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC; and SONY
GROUP CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05031 (N.D. Cal.,
June 29, 2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that on April 1, 2019, Sony
eliminated retailers' ability to sell download codes for digital
PlayStation games. Because delivering digital content to
PlayStation consoles requires access to Sony's PlayStation Network,
the new policy established the PlayStation Store as the only source
from which consumers can purchase digital PlayStation games, and
the only source to which video game publishers can sell digital
PlayStation games. Sony also requires publishers who sell digital
games on the PlayStation Store to relinquish full control over the
retail price. As a result, the policy swiftly and effectively
foreclosed any and all price competition in the retail market for
digital PlayStation games, says the suit.
Allegedly, Sony's new restrictions established a monopoly over the
sale of digital PlayStation games. Sony's monopoly allows it to
charge supracompetitive prices for digital PlayStation games, which
are significantly higher than their physical counterparts sold in a
competitive retail market, and significantly higher than they would
be in a competitive retail market for digital games.
Sony's ability to maintain supracompetitive prices on the
PlayStation Store while consumers continue to switch from disks to
digital game in ever increasing numbers, along with Sony's
skyrocketing revenues from digital games, demonstrate that prices
for digital games on the PlayStation store are not responsive to
changes in prices for PlayStation games on disk, the suit asserts.
As a direct and proximate result of Sony's alleged unlawful
acquisition and maintenance of a monopoly over the sale of digital
PlayStation games, Plaintiff and Class members have paid and will
continue to pay significantly more for digital games than they
would have absent Sony's monopoly.
Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. develops and distributes
electronic products. The Company produces hardwares, softwares, and
other products. Sony Computer Entertainment also provides network
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Suite PH
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (917) 471-1894
Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
E-mail: astraus@milberg.com
-and-
Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
Elizabeth McKenna, Esq.
Blake Yagman, Esq.
Michael Acciavatti, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 868-1229
Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
E-mail: pwedgworth@milberg.com
emckenna@milberg.com
byagman@milberg.com
macciavatti@milberg.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Ticket Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Ulrich at WFTV.com reports that many central Florida travelers
are still feeling the financial fallout from COVID-19.
An Ormond Beach woman says she's been fighting for a refund from
the airline for a flight she never took.
"This is a travesty, a travesty what they're doing to people,"
Marsha Moskowitz said.
Moskowitz has been asking Southwest Airlines for a refund for a
very long time.
"I've tried now since over a year," Moskowitz said.
She paid over $500 for two tickets to Baltimore last January, right
before COVID-19, for a wedding that was supposed to take place in
May of 2020.
"We were on lockdown, cancelled trip, cancelled everything, the
wedding took place on Zoom," Moskowitz said.
Southwest gave Moskowitz credits for future tickets that expire
later next year. Moskowitz says she has no reason to travel,
doesn't feel safe, and doesn't think it's fair for the airlines to
hold on to her cash.
"I'm on limited income, Social Security. I would like to have my
$500 back in my pocket," Moskowitz said.
Recently, a federal judge gave the green light to a class-action
lawsuit against Southwest Airlines, filed on behalf of consumers
seeking COVID-19 travel refunds.
The class-action, filed in Pennsylvania, claims breach of contract,
and accuses Southwest of not following DOT's enforcement notice
that advised airlines to give customers full refunds if flights
were cancelled due to COVID-19.
"These vouchers and credits are frankly, just not good enough,"
Jacob Van Cleef said.
Van Cleef is with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and has
monitored a wave of passenger complaints over the past year.
"Years past when the consumer is not at fault, the consumer is not
the one that has to deal with a voucher or credit, it's the
airlines who gives the refunds," Van Cleef said.
Action 9 contacted Southwest Airlines and that same week, they told
Moskowitz she would be getting her money back.
So far, Southwest has no additional comment.
"I think Southwest should open their eyes and see that there are a
lot of disgruntled people and they should do something about it
without us having to do a class-action suit," Moskowitz said.
Several other airlines are also facing legal challenges over
COVID-19 refunds. If you are still battling for your money, make
sure to file a complaint with the U.S. Department Of
Transportation. [GN]
SPROUT FOODS: Kimca Hits Non-disclosure of Toxins in Baby Food
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irida Kimca and Derrick Sampson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sprout Foods, Inc. and
Sprout Nutrition, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-12977 (D. N.J., June
25, 2021), seeks injunctive relief resulting from negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express
warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and for violation of
New Jersey Consumer Fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act.
Defendants package, label, market, advertise, formulate,
manufacture and distribute infant food throughout the United
States.
This action derives its claim from a recent report by the U.S.
House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer
Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform revealing that certain
brands of commercial baby food (including Gerber products made with
ingredients such as rice flour, sweet potatoes, certain juices,
certain juice concentrates, and carrots, among other ingredients)
are tainted with significant and dangerous levels of toxic heavy
metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury saying that
exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ and
endangers neurological development and long-term brain function,
among numerous other deleterious alarming conditions and problems.
Plaintiff seeks full disclosure of all such substances and
ingredients in Defendants' marketing, advertising and labeling;
requiring testing of all ingredients and final products for such
substances. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
Adam M. Slater, Esq.
Julia S. Slater, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 228-0391
Email: mrm@mazieslater.com
aslater@mazieslater.com
jslater@mazieslater.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E., 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 772-7200
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8297
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
David C. Magagna Jr.
Charles E. Schaffer
LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 191060
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chestnut Ridge Road
Montvale, NJ 07645
Phone: (845) 356-2570
Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
memert@kgglaw.com
STALLION OILFIELD: Class Cert. Bid Extension Deadlines Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESLEY FELTS, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated persons, v. STALLION OILFIELD
SERVICES LTD., a Texas corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-03153-RM-NYW
(D. Colo.) the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending
the discovery and certification motions deadlines through and
including August 27, 2021.
July 13, 2021 is both the discovery deadline and the deadline for
Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties have made
significant progress towards settlement and, to allow time to
complete those negotiations, wish to extend the deadlines by 45
days, through and including August 27, 2021. This is the parties'
first request for an extension of these deadlines.
The extension is not sought for purposes of delay and the progress
of the case will not be unduly impacted by the extension. As
required by local rule, Plaintiff and Defendant have been served
with a copy of this Motion.
Stallion Oilfield provides wellsite support, production and
logistics services.
A copy of the Parties motion dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i3PDJB at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF
BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Telephone: (970) 214-0562
E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com
- and -
The Defendant is represented by:
Cole A. Wist, Esq.
Matthew C. Cooper, Esq.
Darin J. Smith, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4900
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 830-1776
Facsimile: (303) 894-9239
E-mail: cole.wist@squirepb.com
matthew.cooper@squirepb.com
darin.smith@squirepb.com
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Class Action Over IEI Fire in W. Va. Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Parkersburg News and Sentinel reports that a Harrison County
circuit judge has once again certified as a class action a lawsuit
resulting from the October 2017 IEI fire in Parkersburg.
Judge Thomas Bedell issued an order on June 17 granting the class
certification in Snider v. Surnaik Holdings of WV LLC, originally
filed in Wood County Circuit Court.
Bedell was appointed to preside over the case after the three Wood
County Circuit Court judges recused themselves.
The state Supreme Court previously rejected the circuit judge's
certification of the class in the lawsuit because the judge failed
to conduct an appropriate and thorough analysis of the requirements
for certifying the class.
The case was filed in the wake of the fire that destroyed the
former Ames shovel plant off Camden Avenue just outside the city
limits of Parkersburg.
The facility was used as a warehouse for various plastics and other
materials by International Export and Import Plastics, part of the
Naik family of companies, which includes Surnaik Holdings.
No cause has been determined for the fire, which began in the early
morning hours of Oct. 21, 2017, and burned for more than a week,
sending a noxious plume of black smoke into the air.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Parkersburg resident Paul Snider
and others before the fire was completely extinguished. It alleges
the owners of the facility failed to provide an adequate fire
protection system and the resulting fire led to respiratory
ailments, exacerbation of existing medical conditions, property
damage and loss of enjoyment of property.
In the 40-page order regranting certification, the order states
there was a potential 57,000 residents and additional businesses in
the area surrounding the warehouse fire which are alleged to have
suffered damages as a result of the of the incident.
In the findings of fact, the order said the fire emitted a plume of
smoke consisting primarily of particulate matter and gases that the
plaintiff alleges adversely impacted neighboring residents,
businesses and government agencies for days. The most obvious and
immediate adverse impact to everyone in the Class was annoyance
resulting from the smoke itself, which is irritating to the nose
and throat.
Previously, attorneys for Surnaik Holdings argued that
approximately 90 percent of the estimated 57,000 potential class
members within 8.5 square miles of the warehouse suffered no health
injury and the lead plaintiff did not suffer property damage or
loss of revenue, which were listed as potential impacts on others
in the class.
The order cited Snider's previous testimony that during the eight
days the fire lasted, his house was full of smoke and he and his
wife acquired breathing masks and were not able to take them off
for the duration of the fire.
The order said the issue of negligence in failing to maintain a
fire suppression system or that they would profit from the
facility's destruction through an insurance claim and other
questions will be tried in a unitary trial for all class members.
Attorney Alex McLaughlin, representing the class, could not be
reached for comment. Attorney Ryan Donovan, who represents Surnaik,
also could not be reached for comment. [GN]
TALISMAN ENERGY: Judge Finalizes $24MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has signed an order distributing over $24 million
to royalty owners and the lawyers that represented them in a
six-year battle over improperly paid oil and gas royalties.
Judge Keith P. Ellison in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, signed the final motion and
distribution order on July 2.
Judge Ellison approved the settlement in May during a fairness
hearing, confirming a 100 percent payout to class members and $9
million in attorney fees. The hearing was the final step in a
settlement process with Repsol Oil and Gas USA, LLC (formerly
Talisman Energy USA), for claims that the company improperly
allocated production volumes and underpaid owners for wells
operated in the Eagle Ford Shale basin in South Texas.
"We are one step closer to making things right for over 2,700
individual royalty owners systematically underpaid for over three
years," said Provost Umphrey Law Firm attorney Bryan Blevins. "It
has been a long battle but one that needed to be fought."
Along with Mr. Blevins, Provost Umphrey attorney Michael Hamilton
represents plaintiffs Rayanne Regmund Chesser, Gloria Janssen and
others in the lawsuit, which includes royalty owners in Texas and
across the nation. According to the lawsuit, the company failed to
report, account and make royalty payments based on the terms of
their lease agreements from Jan. 1, 2013, to June 1, 2016. In
addition, the company altered production volumes by as much as 30
percent and paid royalties based on estimated sales instead of the
actual volume of oil or gas sold, according to the claims.
Talisman entered the Texas oil and gas market in a joint venture
with Statoil (now Equinor) in 2010. In July 2013, a revised
agreement split the well operations between the two companies.
Royalty owners immediately noticed a significant difference in
reported production volumes from Talisman compared to Statoil.
Repsol Oil and Gas USA, LLC is a subsidiary of Repsol, SA, an
energy and petrochemical company based in Madrid, Spain. Repsol
acquired Talisman Energy USA in 2015.
The case is Rayanne Regmund Chesser, et al. v. Talisman Energy USA
INC., Class Action No. 4:16-cv-02960 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.
About Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP
For over 50 years, our firm's mission has remained to seek justice
for those in need. Our attorneys fight for clients nationwide with
offices in Beaumont, Texas, and Nashville, Tennessee. We continue
to be one of the most successful trial law firms in the nation by
remaining Hard-Working Lawyers for Hard-Working People. To learn
more, visit http://www.provostumphrey.com.[GN]
TAPESTRY INC: July 29 Reset Date for Class Cert. Hearing Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ORNELAS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC.,
a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
cv-06453-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate to and request that
the Court reset the hearing date on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification to July 29, 2021 at 8:00 a.m.
As required, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification
on April 16, 2021 and set the hearing for July 15, 2021 at 8:00
a.m. On July 1, 2021, due to the Court's unavailability, the Clerk
issued a Notice continuing the hearing date on Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification to July 17 20, 2021 at 8:00 a.m.
Due to a preplanned vacation, lead counsel for the Plaintiff is out
of town on July 20, 2021 and therefore unavailable to argue the
Motion for Class Certification, as previously anticipated. After
meeting and conferring, and in consultation with the Court's
scheduling notes, the Parties are available to argue the hearing on
the pending Motion for Class Certification on Thursday, July 29,
2021.
Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company. It is based in New York City and is the parent company of
three major brands: Coach New York, Kate Spade New York and Stuart
Weitzman. Originally named Coach, Inc., the business changed its
name to Tapestry on October 31, 2017.
A copy of the Parties motion dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VpZQZ5 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiff John Ornelas, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are:
Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
Heather M. Zermeno, Esq.
BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 547-5300
Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com
armand@boyamianlaw.com
heather@boyamianlaw.com
- and -
Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 547-5200
Facsimile: (818) 500-9307
E-mail thomaswfalvey@gmail.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant Tapestry, Inc., are:
Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
Jonathan S. Christie, Esq.
Victor A. Salcedo, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
Telephone: (310) 229-1000
Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
christiej@akingump.com
vsalcedo@akingump.com
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 23, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tarena International, Inc. ("Tarena" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: TEDU) securities between August 16, 2016 and
November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Tarena 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/tarena-international-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
On April 30, 2019, Tarena revealed that it could not timely file
its fiscal 2018 annual report due to an ongoing "review of certain
issues identified during the course of the audit of the
registrant's financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2018, including issues related to the registrant's revenue
recognition."
On this news, Tarena's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") price
fell 1.2%, to close at $5.02 per ADS on May 1, 2019, thereby
damaging investors.
On May 17, 2019, the Company disclosed that it was notified Tarena
was not in compliance with NASDAQ listing rules due to the failure
to timely file its 2018 annual report.
On this news, Tarena's ADSs fell 4.8%, to close at $3.73 per ADS on
May 20, 2019, thereby damaging investors.
On July 24, 2019, Tarena disclosed that it expected that fiscal
2017 and prior periods "may need to be restated and should not be
relied upon, pending the completion of the Independent Audit
Committee Review."
On this news, Tarena's ADSs fell 4.7%, to close at $1.63 per ADS on
July 25, 2019, thereby damaging investors.
Finally, on November 1, 2019, Tarena announced the results of its
investigation, including a list of revenue inaccuracies for fiscal
years 2014 through 2018, expense inaccuracies and irregularities,
and undisclosed related party transactions. Tarena further
disclosed that it "anticipates that the total amount of revenue
misstatement between fiscal years 2014 through 2018 to be less than
RMB900 million, representing approximately 11.5% of the total
revenue previously reported by the Company for such period."
On this news, Tarena's ADSs dropped 9.4%, to open on November 4,
2019, the next trading day, at $0.76, thereby damaging investors
further.
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) certain
employees were interfering with external audits of Tarena's
financial statements for certain periods; (2) Tarena suffered from
revenue and expense inaccuracies; (3) Tarena engaged in business
transactions with organizations owned, invested in or controlled by
Tarena employees or their family members, which in some instances
were not properly disclosed by Tarena; (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Tarena's financial statements from 2014 through the end
of Class Period were not accurate; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Tarena securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 23, 2021
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Tarena International, Inc.
(NASDAQ:TEDU) between August 16, 2016 and November 1, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 23, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Tarena securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Tarena class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2094.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 23, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain employees were
interfering with external audits of Tarena's financial statements
for certain periods; (2) Tarena suffered from revenue and expense
inaccuracies; (3) Tarena engaged in business transactions with
organizations owned, invested in or controlled by Tarena employees
or their family members, which in some instances were not properly
disclosed by Tarena; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Tarena's
financial statements from 2014 through the end of Class Period were
not accurate; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
To join the Tarena class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2094.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: Jones Day Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meir Feder, Esq., Richard Grabowski, Esq., Rebekah Byers Kcehowski,
Esq.,, Daniel McLoon, Esq., Elizabeth McRee, Esq., John Vogt, Esq.,
and Margaret Adema Maloy, Esq., of Jones Day, in an article for
Mondaq, report that the U.S. Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC
v. Ramirez, vacating a class-action judgment and holding that much
of the class lacked Article III standing to seek damages for
statutory violations.
Its Significance: The decision places new restrictions on lawsuits,
particularly class-action lawsuits, in cases in which plaintiffs
allege statutory violations that have not resulted in real-world
harm to them. The Court strengthened limits on Congress's power to
define what constitutes an Article III injury; curtailed the
ability of plaintiffs to seek damages over violations that create
only a risk of harm; and limited the ability to sue over
"informational injuries."
Looking Ahead: Defendants in federal-court lawsuits will have new
opportunities to seek dismissal of claims in cases involving
alleged violations of statutory rights that do not cause real-world
harm. Such arguments can be particularly important in class-action
lawsuits brought under statutes like the Fair Credit Reporting Act
that provide for statutory damages.
On June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 20-297, vacating a class-action judgment and holding that
plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages for a private
defendant's statutory violations unless plaintiffs can show an
actual -- and not merely potential -- real-world injury.
In Ramirez, a class of 8,185 individuals sued TransUnion under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for failing to use reasonable
procedures to ensure the accuracy of their credit files. The class
members received reports from TransUnion erroneously indicating
that their names "potential[ly] match[ed]" a name on the U.S.
Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list
of terrorists, drug traffickers, and other serious criminals. But
only 1,853 of the class members were shown to have had this
information shared by TransUnion with third parties. The plaintiffs
also complained that the format of certain mailings sent to them by
TransUnion violated the FCRA's disclosure and summary-of-rights
requirements, which allow consumers to learn of and correct
inaccuracies in their credit files before they are disseminated to
third parties. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit held that all
8,185 class members had standing on each of their statutory
claims.
The Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 opinion. Writing for the
majority, Justice Kavanaugh reaffirmed that, to establish the
concrete harm required for Article III standing, the asserted harm
must have "a 'close relationship' to a harm traditionally
recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts --
such as physical harm, monetary harm, or various intangible harms
including (as relevant here) reputational harm."
The Court cautioned against excessive deference to Congress's
recognition of an injury in fashioning a cause of action,
explaining that Congress "may not simply enact an injury into
existence, using its lawmaking power to transform something that is
not remotely harmful into something that is." In other words,
Congress can create "an injury in law," but Article III demands
plaintiffs also show "an injury in fact." Requiring a traditionally
recognized, real-world harm -- and not one merely deemed a harm by
Congress -- prevents a "regime where Congress could freely
authorize unharmed plaintiffs to sue defendants who violate federal
law," which "not only would violate Article III but also would
infringe on the Executive Branch's Article II authority" to choose
"how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions
against defendants who violate the law."
Applying these principles to plaintiffs' reasonable-procedures
claim under 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b), the Court held that only the
1,853 class members whose reports were disseminated to third-party
businesses suffered a concrete harm sufficiently similar to the
traditional "harm from a false and defamatory statement." The
remaining 6,332 class members did not have standing to sue under
§1681e(b), for two reasons. First, the mere existence of
misleading OFAC information, absent distribution, cannot constitute
concrete injury because defamation -- the only "historical or
common-law analog" to the harm alleged -- requires publication.
Second, and contrary to the suggestion of some prior case law, a
mere risk of future concrete harm -- here, future publication of
the misleading OFAC alert -- cannot alone establish standing in a
suit for damages. In other words, risk of future harm cannot
support a suit for backward-looking damages where hindsight can
show whether the risk actually materialized and does not alone
amount to Article III harm.
Regarding plaintiffs' claims that the TransUnion mailings deprived
them of their right to receive information in the format required
by the statute, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate that they suffered any harm at all. For example, the
class members failed to present evidence that they opened the
mailings or detrimentally relied on the information therein. Even
if they had, the harm was not one traditionally recognized by
American courts.
The Court also held that the plaintiffs had not shown a concrete
"informational injury" as recognized in Federal Election Comm'n v.
Akins, 524 U.S.11 (1998) and Public Citizen v. Department of
Justice, 491 U. S. 440 (1989). First, because plaintiffs alleged
only that the information was incorrectly formatted, they had not
actually failed to receive any required information. Second, Akins
and Public Citizen are distinguishable because they involved
public-disclosure or sunshine laws entitling all members of the
public to certain information. Third, the Ramirez plaintiffs did
not identify any downstream consequence, like a hindered ability to
correct erroneous information, flowing from their failure to obtain
certain information. "An 'asserted informational injury that causes
no adverse effects cannot satisfy Article III.'" The Court thus
rejected the argument, often made by plaintiffs, that informational
injury creates standing without a showing that the alleged
deprivation of information resulted in some harm.
Justice Thomas, joined by three others, dissented. In his view,
Congress can create legal rights of private persons enforceable in
federal court, and "injury in law to a private right [is] enough to
create a case or controversy." The dissent criticized the majority
for, in the name of separation of powers, limiting cognizable harms
to those the Court views as similar to those recognized at common
law, particularly here where "Congress, the President, the jury,
the District Court, the Ninth Circuit, and four Members of this
Court" "think that a person is harmed when he requests and is sent
an incomplete credit report, or is sent a suspicious notice
informing him that he may be a designated drug trafficker or
terrorist, or is not sent anything informing him of how to remove
this inaccurate red flag." Justice Kagan also dissented separately,
joined by two others, to further clarify that she would not do away
with the requirement for "a concrete injury," but would defer to
Congress's view of a concrete injury, only "overriding an
authorization to sue … when Congress could not reasonably have
thought that a suit will contribute to compensating or preventing
the harm at issue."
Four Key Takeaways
1. After Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2015), some courts
faced with the question of Article III injury weakened the
injury-in-fact requirement by holding that courts should defer to
Congress's decision to authorize lawsuits for the types of injury
at issue. Ramirez emphasized that Article III limits Congress's
power, and that courts must determine whether a real-world injury
exists without excessive deference to Congress.
2. Ramirez rules out mere risk of harm as Article III injury in
damages actions, thereby eliminating a class of cases in which
plaintiffs have argued that violations that merely placed
plaintiffs at risk of harm were sufficient to create standing to
sue.
3. The decision also made clear that "informational injuries" are
not an exception to injury-in-fact requirements, but rather
ordinarily satisfy Article III only if they produce some actual
adverse effect.
4. The Court expressly held that a federal court in a class action
only has jurisdiction to award damages to class members who
suffered Article III injury. The potential need to make that
determination on an individual basis may increase the obstacles to
class certification in appropriate cases. [GN]
UBIQUITI INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on July 6 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE: UI) ("Ubiquiti") between January 11, 2021 and
March 20, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ubiquiti-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17415&wire=5
Allegations against UI include that the Company 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.
If you suffered a loss in Ubiquiti you have until July 19, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
UNITED STATES: Court Grants Bid to Amend Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEXICAN GULF FISHING
COMPANY, et al. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-02312-SM-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Suzie Morgan
entered an order granting the unopposed motion to amend or alter
class certification and to confirm class counsel.
The Court said that this action may be maintained as class action
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
in as much as Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds
that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief
or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the
class as a whole. Mr. A. Gregory Grimsal from Gordon, Arata,
Montgomery, Barret, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, LLC and Mr. John
J. Vecchione from the New Civil Liberties Alliance shall act as
class counsel in this case.
The United States Department of Commerce is an executive department
of the U.S. federal government concerned with promoting economic
growth. Among its tasks are gathering economic and demographic data
for business and government decision making, and helping to set
industrial standards.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yUewOu at no extra charge.[CC]
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Virgin Galactic
Holdings, Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:SPCE)
Investors Affected: October 26, 2019 - April 30, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) for accounting purposes, Social
Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.'s ("SCH") warrants were required
to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (ii) Virgin
Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting; (iii) as a result, the
Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding
at the time of the business combination; 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/virgin-galactic-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17538&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]
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Klein Law Reminds of July 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc.
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:SPCE)
Class Period: October 26, 2019 - April 30, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2021
According to the complaint, Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc.
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) for accounting purposes, Social
Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.'s ("SCH") warrants were required
to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (ii) Virgin
Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting; (iii) as a result, the
Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding
at the time of the business combination; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in SPCE:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/virgin-galactic-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17543&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
WARRIOR MET: Claims in First Amended Angel Class Complaint Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA J. ANGEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WARRIOR MET COAL INC.,
APOLLO MANAGEMENT LLC, ARES MANAGEMENT LLC, CASPIAN CAPITAL LP,
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, FRANKLIN MUTUAL ADVISORS LLC, GSO CAPITAL
PARTNERS LP, and KKR CREDIT ADVISORS (US) LLC, Defendants, C.A. No.
2019-0235-SG (Del. Ch.), Judge Sam Glasscock, III, of the Court of
Chancery of Delaware granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Angel is a former owner of 9.50% senior secured notes due
2019 of non-party Walter Energy, Inc., the Debtor, and a lender
under the Debtor's credit agreement dated April 1, 2011 ("Term
Loan").
Defendant Warrior Met Coal Inc. ("Warrior, Inc.") is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Alabama. It is
the successor entity to Warrior Met Coal, LLC ("Warrior LLC").
Warrior LLC was formed under the name Coal Acquisition LLC, for the
express purpose of acquiring Debtor's assets via a credit bid; it
changed its name from Coal Acquisition to Warrior LLC, on March 4,
2016. Warrior LLC converted into a corporation, Defendant Warrior
Inc., on April 12, 2017.
The remaining Defendants -- Apollo Global Management LLC, Ares
Management LLC, Caspian Capital LP, Fidelity Investments, Franklin
Mutual Advisers LLC, GSO Capital Partners LP, and KKR Credit
Advisors (US) LLC ("Steering Committee Defendants") -- were all
holders of First Lien Debt. These defendants later together
created an ad hoc steering committee in connection with the
Debtor's bankruptcy proceedings. The Complaint does not allege
that the Steering Committee was formed pursuant to any Bankruptcy
Court order, or that it operated pursuant to any governing contract
or agreement.
The Plaintiff received a right to acquire equity in a Delaware
limited liability company via a bankruptcy court order. He failed
to file paperwork required by the LLC to receive the equity; his
right was forfeited accordingly. Per the Plaintiff, he did not
receive notice sufficient to the exercise of his rights. He now
brings a litany of claims against some, but not all, of the parties
involved in implementing the bankruptcy court order; with these
claims, he seeks to frame his loss as a remediable impoverishment.
The matter involves the bankruptcy of a coal company, the Debtor.
The Plaintiff was a holder ("Lienholder") of the Debtor's first
lien debt. An ad hoc steering committee composed of other such
Lienholders -- including all the Defendantse, with the exception of
Warrior Inc. -- proposed a purchase of the Debtor's assets in
return for a release of debt, including the Lienholders' debt.
Angel was not a member of the Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee's proposal involved the Debtor's assets
being transferred to a purpose-created Delaware entity, Coal
Acquisition, later renamed Warrior LLC. In exchange, the Debtor's
creditors would receive equity in Warrior LLC ("Distribution").
Additionally, Lienholders would be permitted to participate in a
rights offering ("RO"), intended to raise sufficient capital to
ensure Warrior LLC equity would continue to have value. The RO
permitted Lienholders to acquire Warrior LLC equity at what Angel
perceives as a favorable price. This acquisition was ultimately
approved by order of the Bankruptcy Court dated Jan. 8, 2016 ("BC
Order"). Angel did not object to the proposal in the Bankruptcy
Court.
The BC Order required that the Distribution and the RO comply with
securities law. To facilitate that provision, the Steering
Committee and trustees for both the unsecured creditors and the
Lienholders negotiated procedures for the Distribution, under which
the Lienholders would be required to demonstrate entitlement to the
Distribution -- and, therefore, receive Warrior LLC equity -- by
submitting eligibility documents by a date certain, December 31,
2016.
After that date, the Lienholders' rights to distribution of equity
were forfeited to Warrior LLC. The documentation was required to
establish, among other things, that each equity claimant was an
accredited investor in compliance with SEC regulations. Notice of
this condition was sent to Lienholders by Warrior LLC's agent,
Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC ("KCC"). In Angel's case, the
notice was sent to his designated agent, UBS Financial Services
Inc. ("UBS"). Angel did not respond and did not receive equity in
the distribution.
With respect to the RO, Angel alleges that he agreed to purchase
Warrior LLC equity. The RO, however, required payment in cash.
Angel failed to pay for the equity, and Warrior LLC did not
distribute any equity to him under the RO.
Angel filed his Verified Class Action Complaint for Breach of
Fiduciary Duties and Breach of Contract on March 27, 2019.
Following motion practice, he filed a First Amended Complaint in
July of 2020. That complaint contains five counts: (I) Declaratory
Judgment; (II) Conversion; (III) Breach of Contract related to the
RO; (IV) Unjust Enrichment; and (V) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
In his First Amended Complaint ("Complaint"), Angel avers that he
did not receive notice of any duty to submit eligibility documents
in connection with the Distribution, and that, in any event, he had
a vested right to receive equity in the Distribution, without
condition. With respect to the RO, he alleges that he submitted
sufficient instructions for the ultimate payment of the
subscription amount such that he should be deemed to have purchased
equity under the RO.
In vindication of his rights, the Plaintiff serves up a dog's
breakfast of claims: breach of contract against Defendant Warrior,
Inc. and the members of the Steering Committee; breach of fiduciary
duty against members of the Steering Committee; the tort of
conversion; unjust enrichment; and declaratory judgment.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment only a day apart. They have moved to dismiss all
counts and for summary judgment with relation to the breach of
contract claim. The two motions were briefed in tandem and heard
together on March 16, 2021.
Analysis
The Defendants seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). At this stage,
Judge Glasscock must take as true all well-pled allegations and
draw inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs.
A. Count III (breach of contract)
In Count III, the Plaintiff alleges that a contract exists between
the Defendants -- that is, the Steering Committee Defendants who
are fellow Lienholders and Warrior, Inc. -- and Angel, the
Plaintiff Lienholder, because the Defendants used Angel's portion
of the first lien debt to obtain the BC Order implementing the
Distribution and RO. This supposed contract allegedly
"contractually entitled" Angel both "to receive adequate notice of
the Rights Offering and the distributions emanating therefrom" and
to receive Warrior LLC equity via the Distribution.
Although the parties do dispute whether and when Angel received
actual notice, Judge Glasscock accepts, for purposes of the instant
motion, the allegation that the notice was sent to an ineffective
email address for Angel's agent, and that he never received that
notice. Angel alleges the Defendants breached a contractual duty
to ensure that he received both notice of the RO60 and his pro rata
share of Warrior LLC equity, in light of the fact that his lien
against Debtor was cancelled. The problem is, Angel is unable to
identify the contract. The indemnification agreement between the
Lienholders and the Debtor does not bind Warrior LLC. The BC Order
is a court order, not a contract. And nothing in the LLC Operating
Agreement provides for distribution without documentation.
In addition, Angel does point out that the BC Order provides that
Lienholders "shall receive" equity in Warrior LLC. But, again,
that assertion is not an allegation of breach of contract, but
rather a claim that the BC Order was breached. Finally, to the
extent Angel makes a contractual argument as to the RO, the
Complaint fails to allege that Angel's failure to pay -- the fatal
flaw to his participation in the RO -- was related to the
inadequate notice. An gel returned the requisite paperwork to
participate in the RO in a timely fashion. The Complaint does not
explain why, or even assert that, the allegedly inadequate notice,
sufficient for his return of the requisite paperwork, was
insufficient to allow him to pay for his participation in the RO.
B. Count V (breach of fiduciary duty)
As with his breach of contract claim, Angel has failed to perfect
this claim for the most basic of reasons: A failure to establish
fiduciary duty. Count V appears to allege that the Steering
Committee Defendants owed the Plaintiff fiduciary duties because
the Plaintiff was entitled to become an owner of Warrior LLC Class
A units and the Steering Committee Defendants were controlling
equityholders of Warrior LLC. Angel also alleges that he "reposed
a special trust in the Steering Committee to act in his best
interest because the Steering Committee was privy to non-public and
highly detailed information concerning" the Debtor -- a special
trust that "likewise gave rise to fiduciary duties."
None of these allegations suffice to establish fiduciary duties,
Judge Glasscock holds. The Complaint utterly fails to show that
the Steering Committee Defendants, acting as a group, exerted their
control to force Warrior LLC to act concerning the Distribution.
Even assuming the Steering Committee Defendants seized control of
Warrior LLC with regard to the Distribution, the Complaint is
silent as to what duty may have been breached, other than failing
to ensure that Angel received proper notice. Angel alleges that
the Steering Committee Defendants owe him fiduciary duties apart
from their role as supposed Warrior LLC fiduciaries.
Finally, Angel complains that, under the BC Order, he was entitled
to Warrior LLC equity; he criticizes the documentation requirement
as unwarranted, but his real complaint is that he failed to receive
actual notice because that attempted notice -- with which he could
easily have complied -- was sent to the wrong email address. That
harm, according to the Judge, is not one that sounds in breach of
fiduciary duty under the facts pled, and Count V must be
dismissed.
C. Count II (conversion)
Count II of the Complaint alleges that the Defendants wrongfully
exerted dominion over the Plaintiff's "Warrior Class A and Class B
Equity, Warrior Common, and their pro rata share of the cash
dividend paid in connection with the IPO." In other words, Count
II alleges that the Defendants converted not only the Plaintiff's
share of the First Lien Debt, but also (a) the Warrior LLC equity
that his share of the debt entitled him to under the Distribution;
(b) whatever the Plaintiff would have bought in the RO if he had,
in fact, perfected his participation; and (c) any benefits accruing
from his resulting ownership of Warrior LLC equity.
Judge Glasscock opines that the tort of conversion applies to goods
held by another in which the plaintiff has a present right of
possession. In order to state a claim for conversion, then, Angel
must establish that he had a present right of possession in either
the Class A equity he would have received from the Distribution, or
the Class B equity he would have received from participating in the
RO. He has failed to establish a present right of possession of
either.
As to the Distribution, the Class A units were held by Warrior LLC;
they were not disbursed to Angel. There was no property of Angel
in hand that had been converted by Warrior LLC (now Warrior, Inc.).
If Angel's forfeiture of the right to attain the equity was
wrongful, the relief is not in conversion, therefore.
As to the RO, again, the stakeholder representatives agreed that
certain documentation and payment must be received by a date
certain-- March 29, 2016. Angel provided the documents, but did
not make payment. Because he did not comply with the RO's
participation requirements, he does not have a present right of
possession of the Warrior LLC Class B equity that he would have
purchased had he tendered payment. Accordingly, Angel has failed
to state a claim for conversion.
D. Count IV (unjust enrichment)
Unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy, applicable where, as in
the case, a court cannot identify a remedy at law. It further
requires enrichment, a related impoverishment, and the absence of
justification.
This claim, alone, is well-pled, according to Judge Glasscock. He
states that the note that the unjust enrichment claim can only
apply to the Distribution, and not to the RO, because, as noted,
the Complaint makes no allegation that inadequate notice led to
Angel's failure to participate in the RO -- i.e., his failure to
pay.
E. Count I (declaratory judgment)
Finally, Angel makes a claim for a declaratory judgment that the
Steering Committee Defendants owed fiduciary duties to Angel, that
those fiduciary duties were breached, and that the Defendants
impermissibly conditioned eligibility to participate in the RO on
receipt of the Distribution CBEL.
Judge Glasscock has already determined, under the facts pled, that
he cannot conclude that the Steering Committee Defendants breached
fiduciary duties to Angel. The declaratory-judgment analog of that
claim is moot. The final request for declaratory judgment is
entirely duplicative of the unjust enrichment claim, and resolution
of that claim will moot the declaratory judgment claim.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's count for declaratory judgment must be
dismissed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is granted as to
Counts I, II, III, and V; it is denied as to Count IV. The parties
should submit an appropriate form of order.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4wu32nnc from Leagle.com.
Julia B. Klein -- klein@kleinllc.com -- of KLEIN LLC, in
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiff Joshua J. Angel.
Matthew F. Davis -- mdavis@potteranderson.com -- and Justin T.
Hymes -- jhymes@potteranderson.com -- of POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Stephen M. Baldini --
sbaldini@akingump.com -- Brian Carney, and Stephanie Lindemuth --
slindemuth@akingump.com -- of AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP,
in New York City, Attorneys for Defendants Warrior Met Coal, Inc.,
Apollo Management LLC, Ares Management LLC, Caspian Capital LP,
Fidelity Investments, Franklin Mutual Advisors LLC, GSO Capital
Partners LP, and KKR Credit Advisors (US) LLC.
WASHINGTON PRIME: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Washington Prime
Group, Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during
the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
Washington Prime Group, Inc. (NYSE:WPG)
Investors Affected: November 5, 2020 - March 4, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Washington Prime Group, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) WPG's financial condition was
deteriorating substantially; (2) as a result, there was substantial
uncertainty about the Company's ability to meet its capital
structure obligations as they became due; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/washington-prime-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17538&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]
WRIGHT PATT: Ohio App. Affirms Arbitration Order in Rudolph Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Greene County,
affirmed the trial court's judgment ordering to arbitration the
case, VINCENT RUDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WRIGHT PATT CREDIT
UNION, Defendant-Appellee, Appellate Case No. 2020-CA-50 (Ohio
App.).
Defendant-Appellee, Wright Patt Credit Union ("WPCU") is a
not-for-profit cooperative and financial institution which provides
its members with account and loan services. Its assets are owned
by its members, who democratically control it.
In August 2017, Plaintiff-Appellant Rudolph became a WPCU member.
At the time, Rudolph's account was governed by the 2015 WPCU
Membership and Account Agreement. The Agreement noted that it was
a legally binding document. The 2015 agreement contained 25
sections outlining various matters such as account ownership,
deposit requirements, overdrafts, and so forth. The 2015
membership agreement did not contain any arbitration provisions.
Instead, it stated that "any action to enforce this Agreement will
be commenced in the Common Pleas Court of Greene County, Ohio."
In addition to the membership provisions, the 2015 agreement also
contained a section called "Electronic Fund Transfers Disclosure,"
which outlined a member's rights and responsibilities. Effective
in January 2018, WPCU amended the membership agreement. This
amended agreement stated that "By opening or maintaining your
Credit Union account on or after the effective date of this
Agreement, you agree that the terms and conditions contained in
this Agreement will govern your account and any services related to
your account." WPCU changed how the sections were organized and
numbered and also added an arbitration provision. However, the
agreement did not contain a Dispute Resolution section.
WPCU did not mail or email the January 2018 agreement to its
members. Instead, WPCU communicated with its members as a whole by
posting documents on its website.
On Dec. 4, 2018, Rudolph registered for online banking. WPCU again
amended its member agreement in February 2019. I n 2019, WPCU
issued two versions of the membership agreement. They are
identical other than an irrelevant part dealing with how WPCU
handles personal information. These versions added additional
information about arbitration. Concerning arbitration, the 2019
agreement again required arbitration, but added that the process
was "further detailed in Section 8.25 Dispute Resolution and
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies below."
On March 25, 2020, Rudolph filed a class action complaint against
WPCU in Greene County Common Pleas Court. The complaint sought
money damages and declaratory relief from WPCU based on its alleged
unfair collection of overdraft fees that were not actually
withdrawn. According to the Complaint, WPCU had no justification
for these practices, other than to maximize revenue.
WPCU then filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively for a stay
pending arbitration. On Oct. 30, 2020, Rudolph filed a response
opposing the motion to dismiss, and WPCU filed its reply on Nov.
23, 2020. Subsequently, the trial court filed a decision and entry
staying the matter until arbitration concluded. Rudolph timely
appealed from the trial court's order.
Rudolph appeals from a judgment ordering the case to arbitration.
According to Rudolph, the trial court erred in ordering arbitration
because he and WPCU, never entered into an agreement to arbitrate,
and WPCU was not permitted to add arbitration provisions to its
existing membership agreements. In addition, Rudolph contends that
he did not have actual or constructive notice of any modifications.
Rudolph further argues that a February 2019 membership agreement
contained only a stray reference to a non-existent dispute
resolution section, which rendered it vague and unenforceable. And
finally, Rudolph contends that an arbitration provision in a July
2019 membership agreement was both procedurally and substantively
unconscionable.
The Court of Appeals disagrees and finds no error by the trial
court. It states that when Rudolph entered into the original
membership agreement with WPCU, he agreed to comply with any
amendments to the WPCU membership agreement and further agreed that
WPCU could change the terms of the agreement and other account
documents at any time. Rudolph also accepted the arbitration terms
by continuing his membership in WPCU. Furthermore, Rudolph had
notice of changes to the agreement, as they were posted on WPCU's
website, which Rudolph accessed. And finally, the arbitration
provisions were neither vague nor unconscionable.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals overruled Rudolph's
assignment of error and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4td6wssh from Leagle.com.
ROBB S. STOKAR, Atty. Reg. No. 0091330, 2712 Observatory Avenue, in
Cincinnati, Ohio 45208, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant.
DANIEL C. GIBSON -- dgibson@bricker.com -- Atty. Reg. No. 0080129,
100 South Third Street, in Columbus, Ohio 43215, and JAMES R.
BRANIT -- Branit@LitchfieldCavo.com -- pro hac vice, 303 West
Madison Street, Suite 300, in Chicago, Illinois 60606, Attorneys
for Defendant-Appellee.
*********
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 ***