/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210716.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, July 16, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 136
Headlines
20/20 HEARING: Faces Johnson Suit Over Data Breach in Fla. Cir. Ct.
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 9 Deadline
AMAZON.COM INC: Records Calls Without Consent, Scott Suit Says
ANGELA ROI: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ATHIRA PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 24 Deadline
ATHIRA PHARMA: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 24 Deadline
BEST NUTRITIONALS: Negrete Files Suit in S.D. California
BLACK ROSE: Faces Castro Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
BRAZZI BITES: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BUTTERFIELD HEALTH: Bryant Sues Over Illegal Biometrics Collection
CAMBRIA COUNTY, PA: Offers Refunds to Avert Overcharges Class Suit
CARUSO BUILDER: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Sullivan Suit
CASA GUADALAJARA: Horta Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Santiago Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
CERTIFIED TIRE: Cal. App. Affirms Judgment in Wage & Hour Suits
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Rodriguez Sues Over Condominium Building Collapse
CHRISTOPHER SKROUPA: Barlow Suit Moved from Supreme Ct. to S.D.N.Y.
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Thornton Law Firm Announces Class Action
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Simmons Sues Over Incorrect Amount of Wages
COHEN-ESREY COMMUNITIES: Miscalculates OT Pay, Velasquez Alleges
CRST EXPEDITED: Appeals Ruling in Montoya FLSA Suit to 1st Cir.
DIDI GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
DIDI GLOBAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DIDI GLOBAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DOUGLAS EMMETT: Winters Suit Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court
DRAFTKINGS INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of August 31 Deadline
DRUMMOND COMPANY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Set for August 20
EDEN SENIOR: Davis Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
FACEBOOK INC: Trump et al. Sue Over Impermissible Censorship
FASHION NOVA: Boulden Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces Steadman FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
FYRE FESTIVAL: Ticketholders May Get Less Payout After Bankruptcy
GAINFUL HEALTH: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GOGENICS LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HASPEL LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
I360 LLC: Tag Suit Removed From State Court to S.D. California
IRIS NOVA: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
J.M. SMUCKER: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JACK LILLY: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JIMMY JOHN'S: Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Set for Feb. 25, 2022
JOAN BERTOLI INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sierra Suit Claims
JOHN AND KIRA'S: Faces Duncan ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
JUST BAGELS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KROGER CO: Class Settlement in Hawkins Suit Preliminary Approval
LINCOLN LIFE: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Toss Nitkewicz Class Suit
MATCH GROUP: Corwin Law Files Suit in New York Over Deceptive Ads
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Huff Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
MIFAB INCORPORATED: Citizens Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
MOD SUPER FAST: Pratz Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
NUWBER INC: Poppenhouse Privacy Class Suit Removed to C.D. Ill.
OCCASIONALLY MADE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PANDRO SOKOLOW: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Pacheco Says
PEOPLEREADY INC: Faces McClurg Employment Suit in Calif. State Ct.
PHILIPS NA: Oldigs Sues Over Defective Ventilators
PHILIPS NORTH: Faces Schuckit Suit Over Defective PAP Machines
PLUM PBC: Faces Brown FDUTPA Suit in Northern Dist. of California
POWER OF PURE: Conner Claims Website not Blind-accessible
POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Faces Butler Employment Suit in Calif State Ct.
PREFERRED PHYSICIANS: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Due Dec. 17
PRETIUM RESOURCES: McMillan Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
REGINA CATERERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Segarra Claims
REKOR SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
RESTAURANTE PANADERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sevilla Claims
ROCKET COMPANIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
ROCKET COMPANIES: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
SAN DIEGO, CA: Montoya Suit Seeks Class Certification
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Ellsworth FCRA Suit Seeks Class Certification
SHIPMAN ASSOCIATES: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SHOE PALACE: Court Stays Young Suit Until Conclusion of Katt Suit
SK TELECOM: Faces Class Action Over 5G Service Quality
SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Includes Class Action Waiver in NDA Amid Suit
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Passengers Slam Deceptive Upgrade Option
STRADA SERVICES: Seeks July 26 Extension on Class Cert. Response
TAPESTRY INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Ornelas Suit Partly Granted
TKEES INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Rand Files Suit in District of Arizona
USAA LIFE: Settles Overcharges Class Action for $90 Million
VISTA OUTDOOR: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Appeals Italy Court Decision Ordering $236M Payment
VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Appeal Italian Court Ruling on Dieselgate Lawsuit
WING HOP: Faces Redick ADA Suit in Central District of California
WOODALLS INC: Akers Suit Seeks to Certify Class
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Sells Subsidiary Holding Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scapa Waycross Loses $16.67MM Mesothelioma Verdict
*********
20/20 HEARING: Faces Johnson Suit Over Data Breach in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUZANNE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. 20/20 HEARING CARE NETWORK, LLC, Case No. 129722532
(Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., June 29, 2021) is class action lawsuit to
address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members'
Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for
failing to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and
Class Members that their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what
specific type of information was accessed.
This class action arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and
data breach ("Data Breach") involving HCN, which held in its
possession certain protected information of the Plaintiff, who was
a member of Simply Healthcare-one of many insurance and healthcare
providers who are affiliated with HC and whose Private Information
is hosted on HC's servers and network. As a result of the alleged
Data Breach, Plaintiff and approximately 3,253,822 Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the imminent risk of
future harm from the theft of their Social Security numbers and
other private information, the loss of the benefit of their
bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
cyberattack.
In addition, Plaintiffs and Class Members' sensitive personal
information which was entrusted to Defendant- was compromised and
unlawfully accessed due to the alleged Data Breach. Information
compromised in the Data Breach includes names, dates of birth,
addresses, Social Security numbers, member identification numbers,
health insurance information, and other protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), and additional personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") that Defendant collected and maintained (collectively the
"Private Information"), says the suit.
20/20 Hearing Care is a provider established in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida specializing in audiologist.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASO LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonll.com
gklinger@masonllp.com
- and -
Julie Braman Kane, Esq,
COLSON HICKS EIDSON P.A.
255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 476-7400
Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
E-mail: ulie@colson.com
b.cancela@colson.com
eservice@colson.com
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ACRX), Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN), Tarena International,
Inc. (NASDAQ: TEDU), and DraftKings, Inc. (NASDAQ: DKNG).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRX)
Class Period: March 17, 2020 to February 12, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 9, 2021
AcelRx is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of
acute pain. The Company's lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a 30
mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment of
moderate-to-severe acute pain.
On November 2, 2018, AcelRx announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had approved DSUVIA for the management of
acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require an opioid
analgesic in certified medically supervised healthcare settings,
such as hospitals, surgical centers, and emergency departments.
On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that, on February 11, 2021,
the Company received a warning letter from the FDA concerning
promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, having "reviewed an
‘SDS Banner Ad' (banner) (PM-US-DSV-0018) and a tabletop display
(PM-US-DSV-0049) (display)," the FDA concluded that "[t]he
promotional communications, the banner and display, make false or
misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy
of DSUVIA," and "[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its
distribution violative." The warning letter "request[ed] that
AcelRx cease any violations of the FD&C Act" and "submit a written
response to th[e] letter within 15 days from the date of receipt."
On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%,
to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AcelRx had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA;
(ii) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading claims
and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in
certain advertisements and displays; (iii) the foregoing conduct
subjected the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the AcelRx class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ACRX
Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN)
Class Period: February 2, 2021 to June 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2021
On May 26, 2021, Ocugen announced that it planned to submit to the
FDA an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") application for COVAXIN,
a COVID-19 vaccine, in June 2021. On June 10, 2021, Ocugen
announced that it "will no longer pursue an Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) for COVAXIN," instead choosing to "pursue
submission of a biologics license application (BLA) for its
COVID-19 vaccine candidate, COVAXIN." Ocugen's Chairman and CEO
stated, "Although we were close to finalizing our EUA application
for submission, we received a recommendation from the FDA to pursue
a BLA path," and that "this will extend our timelines."
Shares of Ocugen fell by more than 24% in intraday trading on the
same day, based on this news.
On June 10, 2021, the Company said it would no longer pursue a EUA
for Covaxin and would instead aim to file for a full U.S. approval
of the shot.
On this news, the stock price plummeted and closed on June 11, 2021
at $6.69 per share, representing a 25.17% drop from the June 10,
2021 closing price of $9.31 per share.
The Ocugen class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) the information that Ocugen submitted to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was insufficient to
support an EUA; (ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA; and
(iii) as a result, Ocugen's financial statements, as well as
defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
For more information on the Ocugen class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/OCGN
Tarena International, Inc. (NASDAQ: TEDU)
Class Period: August 16, 2016 to November 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2021
On April 30, 2019, the Company filed a Form NT 20-F Notification of
inability to timely file a Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018 with the SEC. The Company stated the delay in
filing the Form 20-F was due, in part, to, "the independent audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors [. . .] conducting
a 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, the price of Tarena ADSs fell 1% to close at $5.02
per ADS on May 1, 2019, damaging investors.
Then on November 1, 2019, Tarena announced the results of its
independent investigation. Tarena revealed issues surrounding
revenue and expense inaccuracies, conflicts of interest and related
party transactions, and interference with the external audit
processes which meant that financial statements from 2014 through
2018 could not be relied upon and would have to be restated.
On this news, the price of Tarena ADSs dropped 9% to open on
November 4, 2019, the next trading day, at $0.76, further damaging
investors.
It is alleged in this complaint, Tarena throughout the Class Period
made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain employees had interfered with external audits of
Tarena's financial statements for certain periods; (2) Tarena
suffered from expense and revenue inaccuracies; (3) Tarena engaged
in business transactions with organizations that were owned,
invested in or controlled by employees of Tarena or their family
members, in some instances were not properly disclosed by Tarena;
(4) Tarena's financial statements from 2014 through the end of
Class Period were not accurate, as a result of the foregoing; and
(5) Tarena's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and false and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, as a result. The lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages when the true details
entered the market.
For more information on the Tarena class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TEDU
DraftKings, Inc. (NASDAQ: DKNG)
Class Period: December 23, 2019 to June 15, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 31, 2021
DraftKings operates as a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company in the U.S. It operates through two segments,
Business-to-Consumer and Business-to-Business. The Company provides
users with daily sports, sports betting, and iGaming opportunities.
It is also involved in the design, development, and licensing of
sports betting and casino gaming platform software for online and
retail sportsbook, and casino gaming products. The Company
distributes its product offerings through various channels,
including traditional websites, direct app downloads, and
direct-to-consumer digital platforms.
DraftKings was incorporated in Nevada as DEAC NV Merger Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of its legal predecessor, DEAC, a special
purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. On April 23, 2020, DEAC
consummated transactions contemplated by a Business Combination
Agreement (the "Business Combination") dated December 22, 2019, as
amended on April 7, 2020, and, in connection therewith, (i) DEAC
merged with and into the Company, whereby the Company survived the
merger and became the successor issuer to DEAC, (ii) the Company
changed its name to "DraftKings Inc.," (iii) the Company acquired
DraftKings Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Old DK"), by way of a
merger, and (iv) the Company acquired all of the issued and
outstanding share capital of SBTech (Global) Limited ("SBTech").
Upon Case 1:21-cv-05739 Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 34 3
consummation of the preceding transactions, Old DK and SBTech
became wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company.
On June 15, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a
report addressing DraftKings, 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
SEC 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.
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 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.
For more information on the DraftKings class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/DKNG
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Records Calls Without Consent, Scott Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN SCOTT; DEMETRIA CLEMTSON; JOHN DANNELLY; and LESLIE TAYLOR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00883
(W.D. Wash., June 30, 2021) is an action alleging that the
Defendant's conduct in surreptitiously recording consumers has
violated federal and state wiretapping, privacy, and consumer
protection laws.
According to the complaint, Defendant Amazon is a multinational
technology company providing multiple technology products and
services, including its eponymous e-commerce marketplace,
video-on-demand services and, pertaining to this action, devices
and services that make use of its Alexa virtual assistant ("Alexa
Devices"). Sales of Amazon's Alexa Devices have exploded in the
past five years.
For years, Amazon represented that users "control Alexa with their
voice" and that those interactions with Alexa were "stream. . . to
the cloud" and were used to "respond to a user's requests and
improve Alexa's services." However, Alexa Devices record activity
even, in some cases, when not intentionally addressed with a "wake
word" and sends the recordings to Amazon, whose artificial
intelligence, employees and, upon information and belief, third
party contractors freely listen to and analyze their contents and
make use thereof for Amazon's business purposes. At the time
Plaintiffs and putative class members purchased their Alexa
Devices, Amazon failed to disclose its widespread creation,
storage, and use of those records for its own business purposes
that extend beyond improving or personalizing Alexa's services.
Instead, Amazon represented that Alexa sent audio to the cloud for
the sole purpose of generating an appropriate response, the suit
says.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products. The Company products include books, music, computers,
electronics and numerous other products. Amazon offers personalized
shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and direct
shipping to customers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-4416
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
kpowell@tousley.com
-and-
Caleb Marker, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
-and-
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Jason P. Johnston, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
jason.johnston@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
ANGELA ROI: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Angela Roi Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Angela
Roi Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03934 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Angela Roi -- https://www.angelaroi.com/ -- is a luxury designer
vegan handbag brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
ATHIRA PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ATHA), Home Point Capital, Inc. (NASDAQ: HMPT), Rocket Companies,
Inc. (NYSE: RKT), and Rekor Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: REKR).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA)
Class Period: September IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2021
On June 17, 2021, after the market closed, Athira announced that it
had placed its president and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Leen
Kawas ("Kawas"), on leave pending a review of actions stemming from
doctoral research she conducted while at Washington State
University ("WSU").
The same day, STAT published an article stating that WSU was
investigating claims that Dr. Kawas "published several papers
containing altered images while she was a graduate student." These
papers "are foundational to Athira's efforts to treat Alzheimer's"
because they "established that a particular molecule affects the
activity of HGF." Though Athira is developing a different molecule
than the one Kawas examined in the papers at issue, her "doctoral
work laid the biological groundwork that Athira continues to use in
their approach to treating Alzheimer's."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.09, or
approximately 39%, to close at $11.15 per share on June 18, 2021.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Research performed by Athira CEO and
President Leen Kawas was tainted by scientific misconduct. Kawas
allegedly engaged in the manipulation of key data in the research
through the manipulation of Western blot images. The tainted
research was of critical importance to the Company's efforts to
develop treatments for Alzheimer's. The Company's research and
development efforts were based on invalid data. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Athira, investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Athira class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ATHA
Home Point Capital, Inc. (NASDAQ: HMPT)
Class Period: January 29, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2021
On January 29, 2021, Home Point Capital launched its IPO, issuing
7.25 million shares of Home Point Capital's common stock to the
public at the offering price of $13.00 per share. Net proceeds of
the offering were approximately $88 million.
On May 6, 2021, Home Point Capital issued a press release
announcing Home Point Capital's financial results for the first
quarter of 2021. Among other results, Home Point Capital reported
revenue of $324.2 million, missing consensus estimates by $41.72
million. On this news, Home Point Capital's stock price fell nearly
18%, closing at $7.70 per share.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Home Point's aggressive expansion of its broker partners
would dramatically increase Home Point's expenses; (2) the mortgage
industry was anticipating industry-wide decreased gain-on-sale
margins as a result of rising interest rates in 2021 and Home Point
would be subject to the same competitive pressures; (3)
accordingly, Home Point had overstated its business and financial
prospects; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Home Point class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/HMPT
Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT)
Class Period: February 25, 2021 to May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
On May 5, 2021, Rocket Companies reported that it was on track to
achieve closed loan volume within a range of only $82.5 billion and
$87.5 billion and gain on sale margins within a range of only 2.65%
to 2.95% for the second quarter of 2021. At the mid-point, this
gain on sale margin estimate equated to a 239 basis point decline
year-over-year and a 94 basis point decline sequentially, which
represented Rocket Companies' lowest quarterly gain on sale margin
in two years. The stunning collapse in Rocket Companies' gain on
sale margin reflected the fact that the favorable market conditions
purportedly being experienced by Rocket Companies during the Class
Period had in fact reversed. During a conference call to explain
the results, Rocket Companies' Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, defendant Julie R. Booth, revealed that the sharp
decline in quarterly gain on sale margin was being caused by three
factors: (i) pressure on loan pricing; (ii) a product mix shift to
Rocket Companies' lower margin Partner Network segment; and (iii) a
compression in price spreads between the primary and secondary
mortgage markets. Defendant Booth also admitted that certain of
these trends began "at the end of Q1."
On this news, the price of Rocket Companies Class A common stock
fell by nearly 17% to close at $19.01 per share.
As the market continued to digest the news in the days that
followed, the price of Rocket Companies Class A common stock
continued to decline, falling to a low of just $16.48 per share by
May 11, 2021.
The Rocket Companies class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) Rocket Companies' gain on sale
margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a
result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an
unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating
segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and
secondary mortgage markets; (ii) Rocket Companies was engaged in a
price war and battle for market share with its primary competitors
in the wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in
Rocket Companies' Partner Network operating segment; (iii) the
adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result,
Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at
least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (iv) as a
result, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class
Period and allowed Rocket Companies to achieve historically high
gain on sale margins had vanished as Rocket Companies' gain on sale
margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of
2019; (v) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand,
Rocket Companies' company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen
materially below pre-pandemic averages; and (vi) consequently,
defendants' positive statements about Rocket Companies' business
operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
For more information on the Rocket class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RKT
Rekor Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: REKR)
Class Period: April 12, 2019 to May 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
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 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%.
Then, on May 26, 2021, private investor Western Edge published a
report addressing Rekor, entitled "Rekor Systems: Lackluster Growth
Runway And Exaggerated Insurance Scheme Raise Substantial Downside
Risk." The Western Edge report alleged, among other things, that
global competition was "miles ahead" of Rekor in ALPR development
and market establishment; that the Company's "realized results
suggest management's potential revenue guidance could be overstated
by up to 80%"; and that investors were at risk of facing a "massive
downside if [the Company's] growth doesn't show up." The Western
Edge report also noted that Rekor's predecessor in the Oklahoma
UVED partnership had exited it because "the program is not
economically feasible" given costs associated with the program and
because "there was typically no consequences for individuals that
simply ignored the fines/insurance requirements after they were
identified."
Also on May 26, 2021, Mariner Research Group ("Mariner") published
a report addressing Rekor, entitled "REKR – Government documents
do not support investor expectations." The Mariner report
"highlight[ed] government documentation which shows that REKR's
revenue opportunities are likely a fraction of what investors
expect[.]" Among other things, Mariner alleged that "Oklahoma
government budgets imply that REKR's much-vaunted UVED program is a
sub $2MM revenue opportunity—almost 96% less than the >$40MM
in revenue intimated by Rekor's CEO." The 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 the 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 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) 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.
For more information on the Rekor class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/REKR
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
ATHIRA PHARMA: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on July 7
disclosed that securities fraud class action lawsuits have been
filed against Athira Pharma, Inc. on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired Athira common stock: a) pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Athira's
September 2020 initial public offering ("IPO"); and/or b) between
September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Athira is a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company that
focuses on developing small molecules to restore neuronal health
and stop neurodegeneration. On September 18, 2020, Athira filed its
prospectus on a Form 424B4, which forms part of the Registration
Statement. In the IPO, Athira sold approximately 13,397,712 shares
of common stock at a price of $17.00 per share. Athira received
proceeds of approximately $208.5 million from the IPO, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions.
According to the complaints, on June 17, 2021, after the market
closed, Athira announced in a press release that it had placed its
president and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Leen Kawas, on leave
pending a review of actions stemming from doctoral research she
conducted while at Washington State University ("WSU"). According
to Athira's press release, Athira's Board "formed an independent
special committee to undertake this review."
The same day, the scientific publication STAT published an article
stating that WSU was investigating claims that Dr. Kawas "published
several papers containing altered images while she was a graduate
student." These papers "are foundational to Athira's efforts to
treat Alzheimer's" because they "established that a particular
molecule affects the activity of HGF." Though Athira is developing
a different molecule than the one Dr. Kawas examined in the papers
at issue, her "doctoral work laid the biological groundwork that
Athira continues to use in their approach to treating Alzheimer's."
Specifically, "[i]mages of Western blots, used to determine the
presence of specific proteins in biological samples, look as though
they've been altered from their original state." According to
experts cited in the article, "If the Western blots are inaccurate,
then the whole study must be redone."
Following this news, Athira's share price fell $7.09, or
approximately 39%, to close at $11.15 per share on June 18, 2021.
The complaints allege that in the Registration Statement and/or
throughout the Class Period the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements and omitted to state that: (1) Dr. Kawas
had published research papers containing improperly altered images
while she was a graduate student; (2) 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) as a result,
Athira's intellectual property and product development for the
treatment of Alzheimer's was based on invalid research; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements
about Athira's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Athira investors may, no later than August 24, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com
URL: http://www.ktmc.com[GN]
BEST NUTRITIONALS: Negrete Files Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Nutritionals
LLC. The case is styled as Luis Negrete, Side 2 Side, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Best Nutritionals
LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01258-JLS-AGS (S.D. Cal., July 13, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Product
Liability.
Best Nutritionals LLC is in the Pharmaceuticals business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael David Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (213) 401-4100
Fax: (213) 401-0311
Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
BLACK ROSE: Faces Castro Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO CASTRO, INOCENTE JOJ, LUIS LOPEZ, JOSE LUIS GORDILLO
JIMENEZ, MIGUEL ALEX QUIEJ LOPEZ, OLIVIO REYES, OSCAR GUTIERREZ,
and RAFAEL PASCUAL CHACAJ BATZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. BLACK ROSE HOSPITALITY LLC (D/B/A THE
GREENWICH SOCIAL), JAMES RICHARDS, DAVID RICHER, RUSSELL YAM, and
ERIC HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-05834 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2021)
seeks to recover for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs contend that they worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay them
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants
failed to pay them the required "spread of hours" pay for any day
in which he has had to work over 10 hours a day, Plaintiffs add.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants Black Rose
Hospitality LLC, James Richards, David Richer, Russell Yam, and
Eric Hernandez.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a food court, located at 74
5th Ave, New York, under the name "The Greenwich Social".[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BRAZZI BITES: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brazi Bites, LLC. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Brazi
Bites, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03940 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brazi Bites LLC -- https://brazibites.com/ -- produces bakery
products. The Company offers cheese breads for snacks and party
appetizers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BUTTERFIELD HEALTH: Bryant Sues Over Illegal Biometrics Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
SALINA BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BUTTERFIELD HEALTH CARE VII, LLC and THE BUTTERFIELD
HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2021L000715 (Ill. Cir., Dupage
Cty., June 28, 2021) is a class action complaint against the
Defendants seeking to put a stop to their unlawful collection, use,
and storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class members'
sensitive biometric data.
Meadowbrook operates Nursing Rehabilitation Facilities throughout
Illinois. When employees first begin their jobs at Meadowbrook
locations, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its
biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication,
instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards.
While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen
or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740
ILCS 14/1, et seq. (BIPA), specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens’ biometrics, such as
fingerprints.
Despite this law, Meadowbrook disregards their workers' statutorily
protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses
their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. Specifically,
Meadowbrook have violated (and continue to violate) the BIPA, the
Plaintiff contends.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
docketing@fishlawfirm.com
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 355-7590
Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
CAMBRIA COUNTY, PA: Offers Refunds to Avert Overcharges Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Griffith, writing for The Tribune-Democrat, reports that
local townships and boroughs are lining up to accept refunds for
court filing fees that will remove Cambria County from a
potentially expensive class action lawsuit over alleged
overcharges.
East Carroll, Croyle and Conemaugh townships are among the first to
approve an agreement to release the county from further liability
under the lawsuit, which was filed by two Delaware County school
districts.
The lawsuit stems from a little-known provision in state law that
limits civil court filing fees to $10 for municipalities. The
Cambria County prothonotary's office has traditionally charged
boroughs, townships, school districts and the City of Johnstown its
standard fees collected from the public, county Solicitor William
G. Barbin said.
Barbin's office sent letters to 35 taxing bodies that had
prothonotary fees in the past four years. The letters offer refunds
totaling $3,137.50 if the municipalities agree to release the
county from the class action suit.
"When the municipalities approve it, we'll send that list down to
Commonwealth Court and ask them to dismiss the suit against Cambria
County," Barbin said.
Cambria County commissioners will have to take a final vote before
refunds can be issued, Barbin said.
Refunds range from 50 cents for Geistown Borough and Cambria and
Washington townships to $807.50 for East Carroll Township. The City
of Johnstown would receive $85 under the proposal.
East Carroll Township Secretary Mary Jane Rowland had not reviewed
the situation but said property liens for sewer work and nuisance
properties were among the fees incurred.
Jackson Township Manager David Hirko said nuisance property actions
accounted for most of the fees behind his municipality's proposed
$330.50 refund, adding supervisors were expected to approve the
settlement at their meeting on July 8.
"We're not part of the lawsuit," Hirko said. "We'll just take the
refund."
In May, Barbin said some eastern Pennsylvania counties charge more
than $300 to file a complaint.
"In Cambria County, it costs $110 to $115, and $60 to $75 of our
$115 is fees that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court puts on," he said.
"That's out of our control. The prothonotary charges $40 to file a
complaint."
The county is not presenting the proposed settlement as a "take it
or leave it" offer, Barbin said.
"They could still receive input from the municipalities," he said.
[GN]
CARUSO BUILDER: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Sullivan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALDA SULLIVAN v. CARUSO BUILDER BELLE OAK, LLC,
Case No. 1909, Sept. Term 2019 (Md. Spec. App.), the Court of
Special Appeals of Maryland reverses the judgment of the Circuit
Court for Prince George's County granting Caruso's renewed motion
to dismiss.
When a purchaser buys residential real property in Prince George's
County, the seller must provide the purchaser with certain
disclosures regarding the deferred water and sewer assessment in
the initial sale contract under Section 14-117(a)(3)(i) of the Real
Property Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Deferred water
and sewer assessments are paid by purchasers and are used to
reimburse the entities or persons who installed water and sewer
lines on the residential real property.
Based upon the reading of the statute, the purpose of these
disclosures is to inform purchasers that the water and sewer
assessments exist and to inform them of the costs of paying the
assessments. Two of the required disclosures -- the "amount
remaining on the assessment, including interest" and the "estimated
payoff amount of the assessment" -- are at issue in the case.
While the disclosures are not defined by the statute, the "amount
remaining on the assessment, including interest" is the total cost
of paying the assessment over a certain number of years, which
includes interest. Purchasers, however, have the option of
prepaying the entire assessment or paying off the amount remaining
on the assessment in total satisfaction at any time -- this is the
"estimated payoff amount of the assessment."
Appellant Sullivan contends that Appellee Caruso did not comply
with the disclosure requirements under Section 14-117(a)(3)(i) in
her initial sale contract for residential real property in Prince
George's County and that she properly stated a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Caruso argues that it complied with the
disclosure requirements of Section 14-117(a)(3)(i).
Ms. Sullivan contracted with Caruso, a developer, to purchase a
newly constructed home on real property in Prince George's County.
The real property is located in a subdivision known as Belle Oak.
The parties entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale on July
17, 2015, and Ms. Sullivan closed on her property on Feb. 24, 2016.
The Purchase Agreement contains 13 addenda and is subject to a
Declaration for Deferred Water and Sewer Facilities Charges.
The Declaration states that the annual assessment "is for the
purpose of reimbursing the Utility Company for its cost of
providing Water and Sewer Facilities to the Lots." The disclosures
under Section 14-117(a)(3)(i) that Caruso provided to Ms. Sullivan
are listed in Addendum Number 1 to the Purchase Agreement.
Importantly, the disclosures for the "amount remaining on the
assessment, including interest" and the "estimated payoff amount of
the assessment" are both $20,700.
Ms. Sullivan filed a complaint ("Original Complaint") against
Caruso in the Circuit Court of Prince George's County on her own
behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons.
Caruso subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, alleging that Ms. Sullivan's Original Complaint presented
conflicting and inaccurate claims. Caruso argued that the Original
Complaint erroneously alleged that the Purchase Agreement failed to
disclose the "estimated payoff amount" of the water and sewer
assessment because the "estimated payoff amount" was disclosed
twice in the Purchase Agreement, in both Addendum Number 1 and
Addendum Number 11. Ms. Sullivan initialed and signed the Purchase
Agreement on the pages that contained the disclosures.
Ms. Sullivan subsequently filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint, adding supplemental factual allegations. She further
expanded upon the allegations in her single count for violation of
Real Property Section 14-117(a)(3)(i)(7).
In response, Caruso filed a renewed motion to dismiss,
incorporating the same arguments as its original motion to dismiss.
The circuit court held a motions hearing and subsequently
dismissed the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted as a matter of law. Specifically, the
circuit court determined that Section 14-117(a)(3)(i)(7) does not
mandate a specific formula to calculate the "estimated payoff
amount of the assessment" and that the section does not require a
present day value calculation. The court further found that
Caruso's disclosures complied with Section 14-117(a)(3)(i)(7). Ms.
Sullivan then noted the appeal.
Ms. Sullivan raises one question for the Court of Special Appeals'
review, which it rephrased and recast as two separate questions:
1. Does a seller of residential real property located in
Prince George's County comply with Real Property Section
14-117(a)(3)(i) when, in an initial sale contract, the disclosure
for the estimated payoff amount of the assessment is equal to the
disclosure for the amount remaining on the assessment, including
interest?
2. Did the circuit court err in granting Caruso's renewed
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?
Discussion
The Court of Special Appeals first conducts a statutory
construction analysis of Section 14-117(a)(3)(i). Based on that
analysis, it then determines whether the Amended Complaint stated a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
At issue is the proper interpretation of the "estimated payoff
amount of the assessment" under Section 14-117(a)(3)(i). Ms.
Sullivan contends that Caruso did not comply with the disclosure
requirement under this statutory provision because, according to
her statutory interpretation, the "estimated payoff amount of the
assessment" cannot be identical to the "amount remaining on the
assessment, including interest" and the "estimated payoff amount"
must be accurate. Conversely, Caruso argues that it provided the
proper disclosures as required by Section 14-117(a)(3)(i) because
the word "estimate" permits a variance and thus the disclosed
payoff amount need not be precise.
The Court of Special Appeals holds that under Real Property Section
14-117(a)(3)(i), the disclosure for the "estimated payoff amount of
the assessment" must reflect a good faith calculation that notifies
the purchaser that she has the option to save money by prepaying
the assessment in full at the time of settlement. Based on this
interpretation, it determines that Ms. Sullivan's Amended Complaint
sufficiently stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. It
therefore holds that the circuit court erred in granting Caruso's
renewed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Disposition
The Court of Special Appeals, therefore, reverses the judgment of
the circuit court and remands the case for further proceedings.
Costs will be paid by the Appellee.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/j7hefdhc from Leagle.com.
CASA GUADALAJARA: Horta Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Orquidea Horta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Casa Guadalajara, Inc. and Does 1 through
20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00028041 (Cal. Super.,
June 29, 2021), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for
Defendant's failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage
rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure
to authorize or permit required rest periods, failure to reimburse
necessary business expenses, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, unfair competition,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and interest pursuant to California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
Defendants provide restaurant services where Horta worked as a wait
staff. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas E. Geyman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS E. GEYMAN
750 B Street, Suite 2870
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 232-3533
Fax: (619) 232-3593
Email: douglas@geymanlaw.com
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Santiago Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA I. SANTIAGO, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. CAVALRY
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC; CAVALRY SPV I, LLC; JOHNDOES 1 to 10, Case
No. 2:15-cv-08332-KM-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The Country Fire Authority Act (CFA) Class:
a. All consumers with an address in the State of New Jersey;
b. Against whom Defendants filed a civil collection complaint
in the Superior Court of New Jersey; c. From July 21, 2009,
through and including the date this class is certified; d.
Seeking to collect a JC Penney store account that is not a
Visa, MasterCard, American Express or Discover card; and e.
Where the civil collection complaint was filed more than four
years after the date of the consumer’s first delinquency.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Subclass:
a. All consumers with an address in the State of New Jersey;
b. Against whom Defendants filed a civil collection complaint
in the Superior Court of New Jersey; c. From July 21, 2014,
through and including the date this subclass is certified; d.
Seeking to collect a JC Penney store account that is not a
Visa, MasterCard, American Express or Discover card; and e.
Where the civil collection complaint was filed more than four
years after the date of the consumer’s first delinquency.
Cavalry Portfolio is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UMcNMK
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel. & Fax (201) 273-7117
- and -
Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
1520 U.S. Highway 130 -- Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Telephone: (732) 545-7900
Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
CERTIFIED TIRE: Cal. App. Affirms Judgment in Wage & Hour Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CERTIFIED TIRE & SERVICE CENTERS WAGE & HOUR CASES,
Case No. D072265 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One, affirms the judgment of the trial
court in favor of Certified Tire entered on April 12, 2017.
The matter is an appeal in a certified wage and hour class action
following a judgment after a bench trial in favor of Defendants
Certified Tire and Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Plaintiffs
contend that Certified Tire violated the applicable minimum wage
and rest period requirements by implementing a compensation
program, which guaranteed its automotive technicians a specific
hourly wage above the minimum wage for all hours worked during each
pay period but also gave them the possibility of earning a higher
hourly wage for all hours worked during each pay period based on
certain productivity measures.
During the time period at issue in the appeal, Certified Tire was a
business that sold tires and performed automotive repairs for the
general public through its 40 stores in California. Certified Tire
employed automotive technicians to diagnose and repair customer
vehicles.
Throughout the relevant timeframe, technicians at Certified Tire
were compensated through the Technician Compensation Program (TCP).
Under the TCP, a technician was paid an hourly wage for all work
performed, but the hourly rate earned by a technician varied from
pay period to pay period.
The instant appeal is based on multiple wage and hour class action
lawsuits filed against Certified Tire and Barrett Business
Services, Inc. in the superior court in Riverside County and San
Diego County by Plaintiffs Oscar Gutierrez, Pascal Jeandebien, and
Michael Rehse. After the lawsuits were coordinated in San Diego
County Superior Court, a first amended coordinated complaint was
filed.
On Dec. 22, 2015, the trial court certified the class action with
respect to several defined classes, two of which are relevant here:
(1) "All technicians employed by Defendant from March 6, 2009, to
the present to whom Defendant failed to pay a separate minimum wage
for non-productive time"; and (2) "All technicians employed by
Defendant from March 6, 2009, to the present to whom Defendant
failed to pay for off duty rest periods." The trial court also
found that Gutierrez, Jeandebien, and Rehse (plaintiffs) would
adequately represent the class.
The trial court conducted a bench trial in December 2016. In their
joint trial readiness conference report, the parties agreed that
"the only issue for resolution in Phase I is the legality of the
TCP. Any other liability and injunctive/damages issues, if
necessary, are deferred until after a ruling on Phase I. The
parties identified the issue to be determined by the trial court
as: "Have Plaintiffs met their burden to show that Certified Tire's
TCP violates California law?"
The parties also entered into stipulations concerning the
applicable legal standards. They identified the applicable minimum
wage as "not less than $9 per ho r for all hours worked, effective
July 1, 2014, and not less than $10 per hour for all hours worked,
effective Jan. 1, 2016." In addition, the parties agreed that Wage
Order 4 provides for rest periods as follows: "Every employer will
authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which
insofar as practicable will be in the middle of each work period.
The authorized rest period time will be based on the total hours
worked daily at the rate of 10 minutes net rest time per four hours
or major fraction thereof. Authorized rest period time will be
counted as hours worked for which there will be no deduction from
wages."
The trial court held a bench trial at which several witnesses
testified, including the plaintiffs, other former or current
technicians at Certified Tire, supervisors from Certified Tire, a
Certified Tire employee in charge of payroll, and Certified Tire's
president. The evidence regarding the details of the TCP was
largely undisputed, and it was also undisputed that technicians at
Certified Tire were required to clock in for all hours while at
work, and they took their required rest breaks while clocked in
during the workday.
The trial court issued a statement of decision in favor of
Certified Tire. After extensively setting forth the testimony and
evidence presented at trial and the governing case law, the trial
court explained that the Plaintiffs had not established any
violation of the wage and hour laws.
The trial court entered judgment in favor of Certified Tire on
April 12, 2017. On May 9, 2017, a notice of appeal was filed. The
Court of Appeals previously issued an opinion affirming the
judgment. The Supreme Court granted review and later transferred
the matter to the Court of Appeals with directions to vacate the
latter's Sept. 18, 2018 opinion and to reconsider in light of Oman
v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762. The Court of
Appeals vacates its Sept. 18, 2018 opinion and proceeds to
reconsider the Plaintiffs' appeal.
Discussion
The Plaintiffs state that the evidence is undisputed concerning the
details and application of the TCP. However, they contend that the
trial court erred in concluding, based on those undisputed facts,
that the TCP does not violate the requirement that Certified Tire
pay the minimum wage and provide paid rest periods as set forth in
Wage Order 4.
A. Applicable Case Law Regarding Plaintiffs' Minimum Wage and Rest
Period Argument
The Court of Appeals opines that Oman clarifies that an employer
upholds its legal obligation to pay the minimum wage for each hour
worked when it pays its employees according to its contractual
promise, and it pays at least the statutory minimum wage for each
hour worked. It says impermissible wage borrowing occurs only when
an employer takes away some of an employee's contractually promised
compensation to cover periods or tasks that are required of the
employee but are not compensated at all or are compensated at a
rate below the minimum wage.
B. Based on Certified Tire's Contractual Commitment to the
Technicians, It Did Not Engage in Wage Borrowing
The Plaintiffs contend that Certified Tire's TCP violated
California's minimum wage and rest period requirements because it
engaged in the prohibited practice of wage borrowing as described
in Oman.
The Court of Appeals holds that Certified Tire made payments to its
technicians on an hourly basis at an hourly rate that exceeded the
minimum wage for all hours worked, and it provided paid rest
periods on the clock as required by law. Further, Certified Tire
did so without borrowing from wages that were promised under the
applicable compensation agreement, as prohibited by Oman. Thus,
based on the undisputed facts regarding the manner in which
technicians were compensated under Certified Tire's TCP, the
Plaintiffs have not established that Certified Tire violated the
minimum wage requirement and rest period requirement in Wage Order
4.
Disposition
The opinion issued by the Court of Appeals on Sept. 18, 2018 is
vacated as directed by the Supreme Court. Upon reconsideration,
the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yn9zutz6 from Leagle.com.
Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, Kevin T. Barnes, Greg Lander --
Lander@kbarnes.com; Righetti Glugoski, Matthew Righetti, John
Glugoski, Michael C. Righetti; Scott Cole & Associates, Scott Cole
-- info@scalaw.com -- and Jeremy A. Graham for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger, CDF Labor Law, Timothy M.
Freudenberger -- tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com -- Robin E. Largent --
rlargent@cdflaborlaw.com -- and Garrett V. Jensen --
gjensen@cdflaborlaw.com -- for Defendants and Respondents.
Kring & Chung, Kyle D. Kring and Kerri N. Polizzi for California
Professional Association of Specialty Contractors as Amicus Curiae
on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Rodriguez Sues Over Condominium Building Collapse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYSA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CHAMPLAIN TOWERS SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Case No. 129670243 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., June 28, 2021) sues
Champlain Towers for the tragic collapse of a Condominium
Building.
Raysa Rodriguez is the owner and resident of Unit 907 of the
Champlain Towers South Condominium building, located at 8777
Collins Avenue, Surfside, Florida 33154 (the Champlain Towers
South"). She moved to Champlain Towers South in 2003, as it was her
dream to retire on the beach, and to ride her bike and spend time
with her community. As of June 24, 2021, she had finally nearly
paid off her mortgage on her unit. On the night of the Champlain
Towers South collapse, she was asleep in Unit 907.
The Plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent are all people
who were located, residing or owning property in Champlain Towers
South, during the Champlain Towers South's catastrophic collapse
during the early morning hours of June 24, 2021. This Complaint
seeks certification of the class and/or subclasses for the purpose
of determining Defendant's liability to Plaintiff and class members
and is brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220,
including, as appropriate, Rules 1.220(a), (b)(1), (b)(3), and
(d)(4).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
howard@moskowitz-law.com
Adams@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
William F. "Chip" Merlin, Jr., Esq.
Shane S. Smith, Esq.
MERLIN LAW GROUP
777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229-1000
Facsimile: (813) 229-3692
E-mail: cmerlin@MerlinLawGroup.com
ssmith@MerlinLawGroup.com
- and -
John Scarola, Esq.
Mariano Garcia, Esq.
David P. Vitale, Jr., Esq.
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Telephone: (561) 686-6300
Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com
mxg@searcylaw.com
dvitale@searcylaw.com
CHRISTOPHER SKROUPA: Barlow Suit Moved from Supreme Ct. to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Barlow et al v. Christopher
Skroupa et al. Case No. 651739/2020, was removed from the New York
Supreme Court, County of New York to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on June 30, 2021.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-05684-LGS to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield.[BN]
Plaintiffs Heather Barlow, Value Extraction Services LLC, Phillip
Lofaso, Jake Hendrickson, Makeeda Perkins, Maura Murphy, Marina
Pushkina, and Jen Dobies are represented by:
Carla Kerr Kerr Stearns, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CARLA KERR STEARNS
29 East 93rd Street
New York, NY 10128
Telephone: (347) 216-0922
Facsimile: (212) 579-1959
E-mail: kerrstearns@me.com
Defendants Christopher Skroupa, John Stephen Wilson, Paula Luff,
David Katz and Inspire Summits LLC d/b/a Skytop Strategies are
represented by:
Adam E. Engel, Esq.
THE ENGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 705
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 665-8095
Facsimile: (888) 364-3564
E-mail: aee@elgpllc.com
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming
August 30, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Churchill Capital
Corporation IV ("Churchill" or the "Company") (NYSE: CCIV)
securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
On January 11, 2021, Bloomberg News reported that Lucid Motors Inc.
("Lucid"), an American automotive company specializing in electric
cars, is in talks to go public via merger with one of Michael
Klein's special purpose acquisition companies, including
Churchill.
Over the next several weeks, Lucid's Chief Executive Officer Peter
Rawlinson made media appearances during which he stated that Lucid
was aiming for a spring delivery for its first vehicles.
On February 22, 2021, the merger between Churchill and Lucid was
announced with transaction equity value estimated at $11.75
billion. Churchill's share price closed at $57.37.
The same day, after the market closed, Bloomberg News reported that
production of Lucid's debut car would be delayed until at least the
second half of 2021 with no definite date for the actual delivery
of vehicles. Details of the merger also disclosed that Lucid was
projecting the production of only 557 vehicles in 2021, instead of
the 6,000 it had been touting in the run-up to the merger
announcement.
On February 23, 2021, Churchill's stock fell $22.16, or 38%, to
close at $35.21 per share on February 23, 2021.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) Lucid was not prepared to deliver vehicles by spring
of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a production of 557 vehicles in
2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles touted in the run-up to the
merger with Churchill; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Churchill securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 30,
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 Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz,
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067
at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our
website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Thornton Law Firm Announces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Churchill Capital Corp IV
(NYSE: CCIV). Investors who purchased CCIV stock or other
securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021 may
contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by
visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Churchill for more information.
Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Churchill
The complaint alleges that on February 22, 2021, a merger agreement
was announced between Churchill, a special purpose acquisition
company and Lucid, an American automotive company specializing in
electric cars. The transaction equity value was estimated at $11.75
billion. Churchill's share price closed at $57.37. It is alleged
that Lucid announced the production of its debut car would be
delayed until at least the second half of 2021, with no definite
date set for delivery of an actual vehicle. It is also alleged that
Lucid was projecting the production of only 557 vehicles in 2021,
rather than the 6,000 it had been touting before the merger
announcement.
The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. A lead plaintiff
acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the
class action. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order
to be a class member. If investors choose to take no action, they
can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been
certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not
represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is not currently
representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is investigating
the case on behalf of investors interested in being a lead
plaintiff.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Churchill
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Churchill [GN]
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Simmons Sues Over Incorrect Amount of Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; and DOE
1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 21STCV24965 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed
to provide compliant wage statements, failed to timely pay wages,
failed to pay minimum wages, and failed to provide meal breaks and
rest breaks pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
Labor Code.
According to the complaint the Defendants employed the Plaintiff
for many years. However, in 2019, Defendants suffered from payroll
issues which resulted in payment of the incorrect amount of wages.
The issues persisted for many months before and after the
company-wide payroll issue. Plaintiff was not paid for all hours
worked and was not paid for all overtime hours worked at the
correct rate, says the suit.
The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational beverage
corporation incorporated under Delaware's General Corporation Law
and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. The Coca-Cola Company has
interests in the manufacturing, retailing, and marketing of
nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
Priya Mohan, Esq.
Min Ji Gal, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
Glendale CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
pmohan@harrisandruble. com
mgal@harrisandruble.com
COHEN-ESREY COMMUNITIES: Miscalculates OT Pay, Velasquez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARIONA VELASQUEZ, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. COHEN-ESREY COMMUNITIES, LLC, Case No. (Tex. Dist.,
Dallas Cty., June 28, 2021) is a civil action brought by the
Plaintiff pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act, and Texas State Law for
Defendant's failure to include all remuneration in calculating
Plaintiff' s overtime rate of pay and overtime wages owed.
The Plaintiff alleges that bonus pay was not included in the
regular rate of pay in calculating the overtime wages owed. That
miscalculation was due to the payroll company utilized by Defendant
erroneously, and temporarily, not including the bonus pay in the
regular rate of pay, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff further asserts that she was not paid all wages owed
relative to her employment with Defendant due to bonus pay not
being included in her regular rate of pay when her overtime wages
were calculated. She contends that the approximate 282 putative
class members were also not paid all wages owed relative to their
employment with Defendant due to bonus pay not being included in
their respective regular rates of pay when overtime wages were
calculated.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant who worked for Defendant
as a leasing agent in Dallas County, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught
VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (972) 707-7816
Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
CRST EXPEDITED: Appeals Ruling in Montoya FLSA Suit to 1st Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants CRST EXPEDITED, INC. and CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC. filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JUAN
CARLOS MONTOYA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., and CRST
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10095-PBS, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Juan
Carlos Montoya alleges that Defendants CRST Expedited, Inc., and
CRST International, Inc. (CRST), underpaid their long-haul truck
drivers, misled them regarding the costs of driver training, and
imposed excessive charges to recoup those costs in violation of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Iowa law.
The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Order dated May 27,
2021 that assented to a motion for final settlement approval filed
by Plaintiff Juan Carlos Montoya.
The appellate case is captioned as Montoya, et al. v. CRST
Expedited, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-1482, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 29, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form were
due July 13, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JUAN CARLOS MONTOYA, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated; MAURICE SMITH, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated; JEAN PAUL BRICAULT, JR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; JOSE TORRES
ROSADO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;
AUSTIN CODDINGTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; KEVIN HAMILTON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; LARRY WIMBISH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; and RINEL TERTILUS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Peter Mancuso, Esq.
Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Esq.
ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC
97 India St., 2nd Flr.
Portland, ME 04101
Telephone: (207) 619-0884
E-mail: peter@maineworkerjustice.com
- and -
Hillary A. Schwab, Esq.
Rachel J. Smit, Esq.
FAIR WORK PC
192 South St., Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
rachel@fairworklaw.com
Defendants-Appellants CRST EXPEDITED, INC. and CRST INTERNATIONAL,
INC. are represented by:
Wesley S. Chused, Esq.
Daniel R. Sonneborn, Esq.
PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
60 State St., Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 226-3853
E-mail: wchused@preti.com
dsonneborn@preti.com
- and -
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Olivier, Esq.
Randall B. Weill, Esq.
PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
1 City Center, PO Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112-9546
Telephone: (207) 791-3232
E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
eolivier@preti.com
rweill@preti.com
- and -
James Harold Hanson, Esq.
SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC
10 W Market St., Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 492-9205
E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com
Interested Party CURTIS MARKSON is represented by:
William F. McGonigle, III, Esq.
ARROWOOD LLP
10 Post Office Sq., 7th Flr. South
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 849-6208
E-mail: wmcgonigle@arrowoodllp.com
DIDI GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy, Prongay and Murray LLP ("GPM"), on July 7 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Espinal v.
DiDi Global Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-05807) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi
Global Inc. ("DiDi" or the "Company") (NYSE: DIDI): (a) American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
June 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or
(b) securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your DiDi investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https%3A%2F%2Fwww.glancylaw.com%2Fcases%2Fdidi-global-inc%2F. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
DiDi purports to be the world's largest mobility technology
platform. The Company claims to be the "go-to brand in China for
shared mobility," offering a range of services including ride
hailing, taxi hailing, chauffeur, and hitch.
On or about June 30, 2021, DiDi sold about 316.8 million ADSs in
its IPO for $14 per share, raising nearly $4.5 billion in new
capital.
On July 2, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC")
stated that it had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect
national security and the public interest. It also reported that it
had asked DiDi to stop new user registrations during the course of
the investigation.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.87, or
approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July 2, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on Sunday, July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered
smartphone app stores to stop offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app
because it "collect[ed] personal information in violation of
relevant PRC laws and regulations." Though users who previously
downloaded the app could continue to use it, DiDi stated that "the
app takedown may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China."
On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had
asked the Company as early as three months prior to the IPO to
postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to
"conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.04 per share, or
19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $12.06 per share, a nearly 14% decline from the $14 per
share IPO price.
The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations
governing privacy protection and the collection of personal
information; (2) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace Administration of
China; (3) that the CAC had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to
conduct a self-examination of its network security; (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be
taken down from app stores in China, which would have an adverse
effect on its financial results and operations; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi ADSs pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO and/or securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles
Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
DIDI GLOBAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on July 7 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi" or the "Company") (NYSE: DIDI): (a)
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering"); and/or (b) securities between June 30, 2021 and July
2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). DiDi investors have until
September 7, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their DiDi 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.
DiDi purports to be the world's largest mobility technology
platform. The Company claims to be the "go-to brand in China for
shared mobility," offering a range of services including ride
hailing, taxi hailing, chauffeur, and hitch.
On or about June 30, 2021, DiDi sold about 316.8 million ADSs in
its IPO for $14 per share, raising nearly $4.5 billion in new
capital.
On July 2, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC")
stated that it had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect
national security and the public interest. It also reported that it
had asked DiDi to stop new user registrations during the course of
the investigation.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.87, or
approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July 2, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on Sunday, July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered
smartphone app stores to stop offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app
because it "collect[ed] personal information in violation of
relevant PRC laws and regulations." Though users who previously
downloaded the app could continue to use it, DiDi stated that "the
app takedown may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China."
On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had
asked the Company as early as three months prior to the IPO to
postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to
"conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.04 per share, or
19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $12.06 per share, a nearly 14% decline from the $14 per
share IPO price.
The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations
governing privacy protection and the collection of personal
information; (2) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace Administration of
China; (3) that the CAC had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to
conduct a self-examination of its network security; (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be
taken down from app stores in China, which would have an adverse
effect on its financial results and operations; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased DiDi 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]
DIDI GLOBAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 7 disclosed that
purchasers of DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) 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 DiDi securities between June 30,
2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until
September 7, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the DiDi
class action lawsuit. The DiDi Global Inc. class action lawsuit
charges DiDi and other defendants with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 and/or Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The DiDi class
action lawsuit was commenced on July 6, 2021 in the Southern
District of New York and is captioned Espinal v. DiDi Global Inc.
f/k/a Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc., No. 21-cv-05807. A similar lawsuit,
captioned Franklin v. DiDi Global Inc., No. 21-cv-05486, is pending
in the Central District of California.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the DiDi class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the DiDi class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September
7, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: DiDi claims to be the "go-to brand in China for
shared mobility," offering a range of services including ride
hailing, taxi hailing, chauffeur, and hitch. Through its IPO, DiDi
sold approximately 316 million shares at a price of $14.00 per
share, with four ADSs representing one Class A ordinary DiDi
share.
The DiDi class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable
laws and regulations governing privacy protection and the
collection of personal information; (ii) as a result, DiDi was
reasonably likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace
Administration of China; (iii) the Cyberspace Administration of
China had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to conduct a
self-examination of its network security; (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be taken down from
app stores in China, which would have an adverse effect on its
financial results and operations; and (v) as a result, defendants'
positive statements about DiDi's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
On July 2, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China revealed
that it had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect national
security and the public interest. The Cyberspace Administration of
China also reported that it had asked DiDi to stop new user
registrations during the course of the investigation. On this news,
DiDi's share price fell more than 5%.
Then, on Sunday, July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the Cyberspace
Administration of China ordered smartphone app stores to stop
offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app because it "collect[ed] personal
information in violation of relevant [People's Republic of China]
laws and regulations." Though users who previously downloaded the
app could continue to use it, DiDi stated that "the app takedown
may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China." Finally, on
July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Cyberspace
Administration of China 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." On this news, DiDi's stock price fell almost
20%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased DiDi ADSs
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with DiDi's IPO and/or DiDi securities during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the DiDi class
action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the
greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative
class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the DiDi class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the DiDi class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the DiDi action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving
as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron
Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion
for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by
any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be
performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 • 619-231-1058
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
DOUGLAS EMMETT: Winters Suit Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California remands the case, ERNEST WINTERS, Plaintiff
v. DOUGLAS EMMETT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 21-4052
DSF (SPx) (C.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Mr. Winters is a former employee of Douglas Emmett. The remaining
Defendants are related entities. Winters and Douglas Emmett
entered into a dispute resolution agreement that requires
arbitration of disputes arising out of or relating to the
employment relationship. Additionally, Winters completed and
signed an employment application that authorized Douglas Emmett to
obtain a consumer report on Winters.
On March 18, 2021, Winters filed the putative class action in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. His complaint alleged claims for
relief under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and
California Private Attorneys General Act. Douglas Emmett removed
the case on May 14, 2021, alleging the Court had federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because two of Winters'
three claims are federal claims arising under the FCRA.
Mr. Winters moves for remand. The Defendants oppose and move to
compel arbitration.
Discussion
A. Motion to Remand
Winters argues the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
because his FCRA claims do not assert he has suffered an "injury in
fact" that would satisfy Article III's case and controversy
requirement. In his Complaint, Winters alleges Douglas Emmett
failed to make proper disclosures and failed to obtain proper
authorization in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A).
Pursuant to section 1681b(b)(2)(A), persons may not procure a
consumer report unless they disclose in writing to the consumer in
a document that consists solely of the disclosure that a report may
be obtained for employment purposes. Winters alleges Douglas
Emmett's disclosure violates this requirement because it did not
consist solely of the disclosure.
Judge Fischer holds that because Winters does not allege or permit
the inference he was confused by the extraneous information in the
disclosure form, or otherwise allege any concrete injury, Winters'
case "is merely one to vindicate procedural violations of
applicable credit reporting laws," and therefore the alleged harm
does not establish Article III standing. Accordingly, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action and must remand
it to the California Superior Court in Los Angeles.
B. Motion to Compel Arbitration
Because he grants the motion to remand and remands the action to
the superior court, Judge Fischer does not reach Douglas Emmett's
motion to compel arbitration. He will deny the motion as moot.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Judge Fischer grants Winters' motion to
remand, and remands the action to Los Angeles Superior Court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Judge denies as moot
Douglas Emmett's motion to compel arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4yx3scda from Leagle.com.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of August 31 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on July 7 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired 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.
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 during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than August 31, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased 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 Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
DRUMMOND COMPANY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Set for August 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jerue v. Drummond Company,
Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-00587 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Thomas P.
Barber entered an order granting the "Joint Motion for Extensions
of Class Certification Briefing Deadlines Under Case Management and
Scheduling Order":
-- The deadline to file the motion for class certification is
extended to and includes August 20, 2021.
-- The deadline to respond in opposition is extended to and
includes October 8, 2021.
-- The deadline to file a reply is extended to and includes
October 29, 2021.
The Court notes, however, that it is not inclined to grant further
extensions of the class certification deadlines.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Torts to Land.
Drummond Company is a privately owned company based in Birmingham,
Alabama, involved in the mining and processing of coal and coal
products as well as oil and real estate.[CC]
EDEN SENIOR: Davis Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE DAVIS and CINDY COLLINS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. EDEN SENIOR CARE LLC and PARKVIEW
NURSING AND REHAB, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00823-WED (E.D. Wisc.,
July 7, 2021) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid regular and agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any
such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.
The Defendants allegedly operated (and continue to operate) an
unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
the Plaintiffs and all other current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each
workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time (via
electronic timeclock rounding) from said employees' weekly
timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work
performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of
Defendants, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; (2) failing to
compensate said employees for meal periods during which they were
not completely relieved of duty or free from work for at least 30
consecutive minutes in duration, in violation of the WWPCL, which
resulted in overtime violations of the FLSA; (3) failing to
compensate said employees for "off the clock" hours worked and work
performed each work day and each workweek at Defendants' direction,
on Defendants' behalf, for Defendants' benefit, and/or with
Defendants' knowledge, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and (4)
failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation,
such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards
and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime
calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL.
Eden Senior Care is a portfolio of skilled nursing and Senior
living communities in the Midwest.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
FACEBOOK INC: Trump et al. Sue Over Impermissible Censorship
------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth President of the United States,
ELIZABETH ALBERT, KIYAN AND BOBBY MICHAEL, AND JENNIFER HORTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS, v. FACEBOOK, INC., and
MARK ZUCKERBERG, Case No. 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 7,
2021) is a class action complaint for injunctive and declaratory
relief declaring that Section 230 on its face is an
unconstitutional delegation of authority, that the Defendants'
actions directed at the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
are a prior restraint on their First Amendment right to free
speech, to order the the Defendants to restore the Facebook account
of Plaintiff, as well as those deplatformed Putative Class Members,
and to prohibit Defendants from exercising censorship, editorial
control or prior restraint in its many forms over the posts of
President Trump, and Putative Class Members.
As stated in its Community Standards, Defendant Facebook promotes
itself as a service for people "to talk openly about the issues
that matter to them, even if some may disagree or find them
objectionable." Defendant Facebook's power and influence are
immense. It currently boasts close to three billion registered
Users worldwide and over 124 million Users in the United States.
Defendant Facebook had $86.0 billion in total revenue, for a net
profit margin of 33.9%, in fiscal year 2020.
Allegedly, Defendant Facebook has increasingly engaged in
impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative
action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the Communications
Act , 47 U.S.C. section 230, and willful participation in joint
activity with federal actors. Defendant Facebook's status thus
rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor. As
such, Defendant is constrained by the First Amendment right to free
speech in the censorship decisions it makes regarding its Users,
says the suit.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, a sitting President of
the United States, was banned by the Defendants, as were Putative
Class Members, using non-existent or broad, vague, and
ever-shifting standards. While Facebook's ban and prior restraint
of Plaintiff are well-documented, the untold stories of Putative
Class Members are now stirring the public conscience. Using
unconstitutional authority delegated to them by Congress, the
Defendants have also mounted an aggressive campaign of censorship
against a multitude of Putative Class Members through censorship
(flagging, shadow banning, etc.) resulting from legislative
coercion. The Defendants deplatformed Plaintiff at the behest of,
with cooperation from, and the approval of, Democrat lawmakers, the
suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew L. Baldwin, Esq.
VARGAS GONZALEZ
BALDWIN DELOMBARD, LLP
815 Ponce De Leon Blvd.,
Third Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 631-2528
E-mail: Matthew@VargasGonzalez.com
E-service: Service8@VargasGonzalez.com
- and -
John P. Coale, Esq.
FRANK C. DUDENHEFER, JR.
THE DUDENHEFER LAW FIRM L.L.C
2901 Fessenden St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20008
Telephone: (202) 255-2096
E-mail: johnpcoale@aol.com
fcdlaw@aol.com
- and -
John Q. Kelly, Esq.
Michael J. Jones, Esq.
Roland A. Paul, Esq.
Ryan S. Tougias, Esq.
Sean M. Hamill, ESQ.
IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA
170 Mason Street
Greenwich, CT 06830
Telephone: (203) 661-6000
Facsimile: (203) 661-9462
E-mail: jqkelly@ibolaw.com
mjones@ibolaw.com
rpaul@ibolaw.com
rtougias@ibolaw.com
shamill@ibolaw.com
FASHION NOVA: Boulden Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Nova, Inc.
The case is styled as Janysha Boulden, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Fashion Nova, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01748 (D. Md., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Fashion Nova -- https://www.fashionnova.com/ -- is the top online
fashion store for women. Shop sexy club dresses, jeans, shoes,
bodysuits, skirts and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrea Rifka Gold, Esq.
TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Fax: (202) 973-0950
Email: agold@tzlegal.com
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces Steadman FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is captioned as Steadman v. Firstsource
Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-22377-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 29,
2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles.
FirstSource is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq.
Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.
LOAN LAWYERS, LLC.
2150 South Andrews Avenue, 2nd Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 523-4357
Facsimile: (954) 581-2786
E-mail: matis@fight13.com
matthew@fight13.com
- and -
Michael Lewis Greenwald, Esq.
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
FYRE FESTIVAL: Ticketholders May Get Less Payout After Bankruptcy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Griffit, writing for Dailymail.com, reports that
ticketholders for the disastrous Fyre Festival could suffer one
final insult, after bankruptcy proceedings that suggest they will
not get the $7,220 payouts they won in a class-action lawsuit
against the organizers.
Fyre Festival's bankruptcy trustee, Gregory Messer, told a
bankruptcy judge that he's collected just $1.4 million, of which
$1.1 million will go to attorneys and accountants, according to
court documents first reported by the New York Post.
That leaves a paltry $300,000 to divvy up among creditors seeking
more than $7 million, including the ticketholders who won a $2
million judgement earlier this year.
Messer's proposal, which has yet to be approved by a judge, is to
pay out a total of $78,391.73 to the 277 ticketholders, which would
equate to roughly $280 per person.
Tickets to the disastrous 2017 festival in the Bahamas were sold
for $1,200 each, with package deals that cost up to $100,000,
according to court documents.
Organizer Billy McFarland and rapper Ja Rule drew millions in
investments with the promise of putting on a first-of-its-kind,
luxury music festival event in The Bahamas with models, DJs, luxury
dwellings and extravagant meals.
They paid models like Kendal Jenner to promote the event on
Instagram and blasted seduction promo videos and pictures to lure
people into buying tickets that were sold at thousands of dollars
each.
But the event was a disaster, with people arriving on the island of
Great Exuma to find a scene more closely resembling a disaster
relief camp than a luxury festival.
Court filings documents described the scene met by concert goers
upon their arrival as 'total disorganization and chaos.' The
'luxury accommodations' were FEMA disaster relief tents, the
'gourmet food' was barely passable cheese sandwiches served in
Styrofoam containers and the 'hottest musical acts' nowhere to be
seen.
The festival sold a total of around 8,000 tickets for two weekends.
With attendees having spent between $1,000 to $12,000 on ticket to
the festival, it was cancelled on its opening day, leaving people
stuck on the island without many basic amnesties
Two documentaries, one on Netflix and another on Hulu, were made
detailing the event's organisation and ensuing chaos.
McFarland was arrested in June 2017 and pleaded guilty to numerous
fraud charges relating to both the Fyre Festival and his company
NYC CIP Access, which also sold fake tickets to events such as the
Met Gala.
He was sentenced to six years in prison in October 2018 and ordered
to pay $5 million to two North Carolina residents who spent about
$13,000 each of VIP packages to the Fyre Festival. Ja Rule was
cleared of any wrongdoing a year later.
Numerous lawsuits were also filed against the pair, and McFarland
apologised.
'I cannot emphasize enough how sorry I am that we fell short of our
goal,' McFarland said in a statement in 2017, but he declined to
comment on specific allegations.
'I'm committed to, and working actively to, find a way to make this
right, not just for investors but for those who planned to
attend.'
The organizers attributed the event's cancellation to a number of
factors, including the weather. But some employees of the Fyre
company said its bosses has invented features of the event -- such
as $400,000 accommodation called the 'Artist's Palace ticket
package -- just to see if people would by them.
'Billy went to jail, ticket holders can get some money back, and
some very entertaining documentaries were made,' Ben Meiselas, a
partner at Geragos & Geragos and the lead lawyer representing the
ticket holders told the New York Times in an email. 'Now that's
justice.'
Mark Geragos, another lawyer representing the ticket buyers in the
July 6 settlement, filed the initial $100 million class-action
lawsuit days after the event.
That lawsuit stated that Ja Rule and McFarland knew for months that
the festival 'was dangerously underequipped and posed a serious
danger to anyone in attendance.'
A second class action lawsuit was filed against them two days
later.
Earlier this year, McFarland spoke out from prison to claim he'd
have been able to arrange the event he promised investors if he had
a 'more realistic timeline'.
McFarland is not expected to be released from prison until August
2023.
Last year, the Bureau of Prisons rejected his request for early
release due to COVID-19 and punished him for bringing a personal
recording device into the prison that was hidden in a pen.
His team told DailyMail.com that he has been held in solitary
confinement for 138 days as punishment for taking part in
interviews. The Bureau of Prisons has not confirmed if he is in
solitary or if so why.
In an interview with podcaster Jordan Harbinger (of the Jordan
Harbinger Show) that is featured as part of ABC's The Con in March,
he admitted he defrauded investors, but says his problem was
thinking he'd be able to put the festival together in just six
months.
'The biggest mistake before I went awry was setting a realistic
timeline. Had we given it a year or two, we would gave been in a
better place. What the f*** was I thinking? It applies to so many
people and decisions that I made.
'I knowingly lied to raise money for the festival, yes,' he said.
[GN]
GAINFUL HEALTH: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gainful Health Inc.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Gainful
Health Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03941 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gainful -- https://www.gainful.com/ -- is a subscription service
that provides personalized protein powder blends based on specific
needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
GOGENICS LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GoGenics LLC. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. GoGenics
LLC doing business as: focl, Case No. 1:21-cv-03933 (E.D.N.Y., July
13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
GoGenics doing business as focl -- https://focl.com/ --
manufactures CBD products and wellness brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
HASPEL LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haspel, L.L.C. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Haspel,
L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-03942 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Haspel, L.L.C. -- https://www.haspel.com/ -- is located in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana and is part of the Apparel Accessories
Manufacturing Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
I360 LLC: Tag Suit Removed From State Court to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER TAG v. i360, LLC; GC
STRATEGIES, LLC; JOSEPH LEVENTHAL; and DOES 1-1000, Case No.
37-2021-00023265-CU-CR-CTL (Filed May 27, 2021), was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the United
States District for the Southern District of California on June 29,
2021.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-01184-L-MDD to the proceeding.
In the federal complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Defendants
wrongfully purchased, sold, and/or distributed the confidential
voter registration information of California voters, including
Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought to certify (1) a Class of
California voters whose information was allegedly distributed or
sold by GC or i360, and (2) a Sub-Class comprised of members of the
Class who, like Plaintiff, obtained confidential voter status
pursuant to California Election Code section 2166.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserted four causes of
action against Defendants for (1) Negligence, (2) Public Disclosure
of Private Facts, (3) Invasion of Privacy, Cal. Const. Art. 1,
section 1, and (4) Violations of California Unfair Competition
Laws, Cal. Bus & Prof. Code sedctions 17200.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin D. Rising, Esq.
Eric J. Beste, Esq.
Garrett S. Llewellyn, Esq.
Jonathan Boustani, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 321-5000
Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
E-mail: kevin.rising@btlaw.com
Eric.Beste@btlaw.com
garrett.llewellyn@btlaw.com
jboustani@btlaw.com
IRIS NOVA: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iris Nova Ltd., et
al. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Iris
Nova Ltd., Dirty Lemon Beverages LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03945
(E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Iris Nova Ltd. -- https://www.irisnova.com/ -- is a beverage
startup that sells directly to consumers via text messages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
J.M. SMUCKER: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The J.M. Smucker
Company. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The
J.M. Smucker Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-03946 (E.D.N.Y., July 13,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The J. M. Smucker Company, also known as Smucker and Smucker's --
https://www.jmsmucker.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of jam,
peanut butter, jelly, fruit syrups, beverages, shortening, ice
cream toppings, and other food products in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
JACK LILLY: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jack Lilly LLC. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Jack
Lilly LLC doing business as: Comrad Socks, Case No. 1:21-cv-03937
(E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jack Lilly doing business as Comrad Socks --
https://www.comradsocks.com/ -- offers energizing compression socks
for women and men.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
JIMMY JOHN'S: Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Set for Feb. 25, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Jimmy John's,
LLC, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00415 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Roseann Ketchmark entered an order:
-- the deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is Feb. 25, 2022;
-- Defendants' opposition deadline is April 80, 2022; and
-- Plaintiff's reply deadline is April 6, 2022.
The nature of suit states Contract - Contract Product Liability.
Jimmy John's Franchise operates and franchises restaurants.[CC]
JOAN BERTOLI INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sierra Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARDINO SIERRA; and REGINO SOLIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOAN BERTOLI INC. d/b/a
EHRLICH'S WINES & SPIRITS; 1996 CORP. d/b/a INTERNATIONAL WINES;
JOAN BERTOLI; KATIA PHILLIPS; and PATRICK PHILLIPS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05687 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.
JOAN BERTOLI INC. d/b/a EHRLICH'S WINES & SPIRITS markets and
supplies a wide range of wines. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
JOHN AND KIRA'S: Faces Duncan ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John And Kira's, LLC.
The case is captioned as Duncan v. John And Kira's, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03689-DG-MMH (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Diane Gujarati.
John and Kira's features gourmet chocolate gifts and artisan
chocolates for all occasions, including holiday gifts, birthday
gifts and custom business gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Telephone: (646) 770-3775
Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
E-mail: brad@markslawfirm.net
JUST BAGELS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Just Bagels
Manufacturing, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Just Bagels Manufacturing, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03943 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Just Bagels -- https://justbagels.com/ -- manufactures superior
quality 100% all natural kettle water boiled-hearth oven baked real
NY bagels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
KROGER CO: Class Settlement in Hawkins Suit Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAVONDA HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 15cv2320 JM (AHG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
conditionally grants Hawkins' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.
The Plaintiff purchased Kroger breadcrumbs in San Diego about six
times per year from 2000 to July of 2015. Beginning in 2008, the
front label of the breadcrumbs read "0g Trans Fat." On the back of
the breadcrumbs, the nutrition fact label read "Trans Fat 0g" and
included partially hydrogenated vegetable oil ("PHO") as an
ingredient. Because the breadcrumbs contained PHO, they contained
"trace amounts" of trans fat.
On Oct. 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
alleging violations of California's False Advertising Law, Unfair
Competition Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She also
brought claims for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability and breach of express warranty.
On March 17, 2016, the Court granted Kroger's first motion to
dismiss. On Nov. 16, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded
the case. On Feb. 8, 2019, Kroger filed a second motion to dismiss
which the Court denied.
On Jan. 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On Nov. 9, 2020, the Court certified the following
class: All citizens of California who purchased, between Jan. 1,
2010 and Dec. 31, 2015, Kroger Bread Crumb containing partially
hydrogenated oil and the front label claim 0g Trans Fat.
On Dec. 29, 2020, the Court denied Kroger's motion to reconsider
the court's class certification order. On Jan. 13, 2021, Kroger
filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's class
certification order to the Ninth Circuit which was denied.
On Nov. 20, 2020, the Parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. On Jan. 11, 2021, the Court issued an order
granting-in-part and denying-in-part the Parties' motions.
Specifically, it: (1) granted Kroger's motion as to the Plaintiff's
use claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL; (2) denied Kroger's
motion as to the Plaintiff's use claim under the unfair prong of
the UCL; (3) denied Kroger's motions as to the Plaintiff's labeling
claims; and (4) denied Kroger's motion as to the Plaintiff's
express and implied warranty claims.
On Feb. 12, 2021, the Parties attended a Mandatory Settlement
Conference before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. Following
the conference, Judge Goddard issued a Mediator's Proposal, which
the Parties accepted on Feb. 26, 2021.
On April 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement. The Parties have
submitted a proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement with
approximately sixteen pages of substantive terms and proposed
short-form and long-form Class Notices.
The Settlement Agreement requires Kroger to fund a $780,000 cash
settlement fund. $79,635 of this fund will be allocated to notice
and administrative expenses, consisting of: (1) $49,635 to be paid
to the Class Action Administrator after preliminary approval to
cover expenses associated with the class notice and claims
processing and (2) $30,000 to be paid after final approval for
costs associated with postage and check printing.
The Agreement estimates class members will be entitled to a
recovery of: (1) $17.50 for undocumented claims; or (2) up to $100
for claims documented by receipts. Each class member's share will
be increased or reduced on a pro rata basis based on whether the
combined monetary value of valid claims exceeds the settlement fund
after administrative expenses are deducted. Although not made
explicitly clear in the Agreement, based on the Parties'
representations, none of the settlement fund will revert to Kroger;
instead, any funds remaining after distribution are to be paid by
the Class Action Administrator in a cy pres payment to the American
Heart Association. Within 90 days from final approval, Kroger is
required to make a separate one-time cy pres payment to the
American Heart Association in the amount of $21,000.
In exchange for their pro rata share, all class members are deemed
to release Kroger from any claims relating to the "manufacturing,
formulation, preparation, handling, distribution, advertising,
marketing, packaging, sale, labeling, promotion, and ingredients of
Kroger Bread Crumbs." The release does not extend to personal
injury claims "resulting from a defect in Kroger Bread Crumbs or
packaging."
Additionally, the Agreement permits the named Plaintiff to move the
court for an incentive award of up to $7,000 and for the Class
Counsel to move for up to $400,000 in fees and costs. Kroger
agrees not to oppose this application or take any steps to
encourage objectors provided these limits are not exceeded. The
settlement is structured such that attorneys' fees and the class
award will be paid separate from the common fund.
Judge Miller conditionally grants the Plaintiff's Preliminary
Approval Motion.
The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e), subject to the following revisions: " a. Paragraph
2, Section 4 of the Agreement will be amended as follows: If valid
claims exceed the total amount to be paid from the $780,000
settlement fund less the settlement administrative expenses, the
payments will be reduced on a pro rata basis. If valid claims are
below the total amount of the fund, the payments will be increased
pro-rata such that the fund is exhausted. Any funds remaining after
the distribution, such as checks that are returned for incorrect
addresses, or that are not cashed within 90 days, will not revert
to Kroger, but will be paid by the Class Administrator as a cy pres
payment to the American Heart Association, 9404 Genesee Ave., #240,
San Diego, CA 92037."
The Judge preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class:
"All citizens of California who purchased, between January 1, 2010
and December 31, 2015, Kroger Bread Crumbs containing partially
hydrogenated oil and the front label claim "0g Trans Fat."
He preliminary confirms its appointment of Plaintiff Hawkins as the
class representative and The Weston Firm as the Class Counsel.
The Judge appoints Classaura LLC as the Settlement Administrator.
The Settlement Administrator will supervise and carry out the
settlement administration procedures set forth in the Agreement,
including but not limited to, distributing and providing the class
notice, processing and approving claims, and preparing and issuing
disbursements.
In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1715, and as set forth in the Agreement, the Defendant, itself or
through its designee, is ordered to serve written notice of the
proposed settlement on the U.S. Attorney General and the
appropriate California state official, unless such notice has
already been served.
The proposed Class Notices filed with the Court is preliminarily
approved. The Parties will submit a Revised Notice Plan meeting
the requirements of this Order on or before July 21, 2021. The
Judge conditions the preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement on its approval of the Parties' Revised Notice Plan.
No later than Aug. 2, 2021, the Class Counsel will file an
application for attorneys' fees, costs, and the class
representative service award. The Class Counsel will provide
documentation detailing the number of hours incurred by attorneys
in litigating the action, supported by detailed time records, as
well as hourly compensation to which those attorneys are reasonably
entitled.
Members of the Settlement Claim who wish to participate in the
settlement will complete and submit a valid claim form by Sept. 20,
2021.
Members of the Settlement Class who elect not to participate in the
settlement (i.e., "opt-out") must submit a written Request for
Exclusion to the Class Administrator that is postmarked no later
than Sept. 20, 2021.
Each Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to the settlement
will comply with the following procedures:
a. To object, a member of the Settlement Class, individually
or through counsel, must file a written objection with the Court,
with a copy delivered to Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel at
the addresses set forth: Gregory S. Weston THE WESTON FIRM 1405
Morena Blvd., Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Email:
greg@westonfirm.com Class Counsel Jacob M. Harper DAVIS WRIGHT
TREMAINE, LLP 865 South Figueroa St., Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA
90017 Email: jharper@dwt.com Counsel for Defendant
b. The written objection must state: (a) the name and number
of the lawsuit (Hawkins v. Kroger Co., No. 3:15-cv-2320-JM-AHG);
(b) the objector's legal name, address, telephone number, and email
address (and the objector's lawyer's name, business address,
telephone number and email address if objecting through counsel);
(c) a statement describing the objector's membership in the
settlement class, including a verification under oath as to the
time and place of the objector's purchase, and name of the retailer
from whom he or she purchased Kroger Bread Crumbs; (d) a written
statement of all grounds for the objection, accompanied by any
legal support for such objection; (e) copies of any papers, briefs,
or other documents upon which the objection is based; (f) a
statement indicating whether the objector intends to appear at the
fairness hearing, and if objecting through counsel, a statement
providing the identity of all attorneys who will appear at the
hearing on the objector's behalf; (g) a list of any other
objections the objector and the objector's counsel have made in the
prior two years; and (h) the objector's signature.
c. Any member of the class who files and serves a timely
written objection in accordance with this order may also appear at
the fairness hearing, either pro se or through an attorney hired at
the objector's expense, to object to the fairness, reasonableness,
or adequacy of the proposed settlement.
d. Any such objections will be timely only if postmarked no
later than Sept. 20, 2021.
No later than Oct. 4, 2021, the Parties will file a Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, including any responses
to any filed objections.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Nov. 15, 2021 at
10:00 a.m.
The Parties may further modify the Agreement prior to the Final
Approval Hearing so long as such modifications do not materially
change the terms of the Settlement provided thereunder. The Court
may approve the Settlement Agreement with such modifications as may
be agreed to by the parties, if appropriate, without further notice
to the Settlement Class.
Pending the final determination of the fairness, reasonableness,
and adequacy of the proposed settlement, no class representative
will prosecute, institute, commence, or continue any lawsuit
(individual action or class action) with respect to any claims
released against the Defendant.
If the Agreement is not finally approved for any reason, then the
Order will be vacated, the Agreement will have no force and effect,
and the Parties' rights and defenses will be restored, without
prejudice, to their respective positions as if the Agreement had
never been executed and the Order never entered, subject to the
Court's discretion.
The Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the
action to consider all further matters arising out of or connected
with the settlement, including the administration and
implementation of the Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/jpfpjmrr from Leagle.com.
LINCOLN LIFE: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Toss Nitkewicz Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW NITKEWICZ, AS TRUSTEE OF THE JOAN C. LUPE
FAMILY TRUST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LINCOLN LIFE & ANNUITY COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 6805 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P.
Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants Lincoln NY's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff Nitkewicz as successor trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Family
Trust, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
brings the putative class action for breach of contract arising
from a universal life insurance policy issued by Defendant Lincoln
NY. The Plaintiff paid a "Planned Premium" on May 7, 2018, which,
pursuant to the Policy, largely went into an interest-bearing
account associated with the Policy. Monthly deductions were made
from that account to cover the cost of insurance and administrative
charges. The Plaintiff argues that New York law requires Lincoln
NY to refund a portion of that Planned Premium to cover a period
that followed the insured's death on Oct. 6, 2018.
Lincoln NY paid the Specified Amount but declined to refund any
portion of the Planned Premium on the basis that "annual planned
premiums paid increased the policy value, earned interest, were
accessible for a policy loan, withdrawal or cash surrender, and
could have been used to cover future policy expenses," and
therefore "there was no 'unearned premium' and no refund of premium
was payable." The Plaintiff contends that Lincoln NY's refusal to
issue a proportionate refund of the Planned Premium to cover the
period from November 2018 (i.e., the month after Ms. Lupe's death)
through May 7, 2019 violated New York Insurance Law.
On Aug. 24, 2020, the Plaintiff commenced the action, bringing a
single claim of breach of contract. The case was originally
assigned to the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe, but was reassigned to
Judge Cronan on Sept. 29, 2020. On Nov. 13, 2020, Lincoln NY moved
to dismiss the Complaint. It also has requested that the Court
takes judicial notice of publicly available Product Outlines from
the New York State Department of Financial Services ("NYDFS"),
which Lincoln NY argues support its reading of New York Insurance
Law.
Discussion
The issue before the Court is whether Lincoln NY breached its
obligations under the Policy because New York law requires it to
refund a portion of the Planned Premium following the insured's
death. Judge Cronan begins with the text of section 3203(a) of the
New York Insurance Law. "If the text is unambiguous, the Court's
task is at an end unless the text produces a manifestly absurd
result, an exceptionally rare occurrence."
Under section 3203(a)(2), all insurance policies "delivered or
issued for delivery in this state, will contain in substance" a
provision requiring that: (1) "if the death of the insured occurs
within the grace period provided in the policy, the insurer may
deduct from the policy proceeds the portion of any unpaid premium
applicable to the period ending with the last day of the policy
month in which such death occurred," and (2) "if the death of the
insured occurs during a period for which the premium has been paid,
the insurer will add to the policy proceeds a refund of any premium
actually paid for any period beyond the end of the policy month in
which such death occurred." The latter provision forms the basis
of the claims in the case. "Where a policy provision is less
favorable to the insured than the provision required by New York
Insurance Law, the statutory provision controls."
Both parties seem to agree, at least for the purposes of the
instant motion, that the Planned Premium paid on May 7, 2018 was a
"premium" under section 3203(a). They differ, however, on whether
the other requirements of the statute were met. The Plaintiff
argues that Lincoln NY must refund a prorated portion of the
"annual planned premium" that the Plaintiff paid on May 7, 2018,
covering the period of time starting in the month after Ms. Lupe's
death. Therefore, it appears that the Plaintiff seeks a prorated
refund of the $53,877.72 Planned Premium to cover November 2018
through May 2019. In moving to dismiss, Lincoln NY argues that
this Planned Premium was not, under the terms of the Policy,
"actually paid for any period," and thus was not covered by section
3203(a).
A. "For Any Period"
Judge Cronan first looks to the import of section 3203(a)'s
language, "for any period." Lincoln NY argues that the Plaintiff's
Annual Planned Premium was not actually paid for "any period"
because the Planned Premium itself did not extend the insured's
coverage. Motion to Dismiss at 11-13. Instead, Lincoln NY argues
that "only the monthly cost of insurance ("COI") deduction pays for
insurance coverage for any period. These monthly COI deductions
were drawn from the Policy Account. The Plaintiff responds that
"premiums" and "deductions" are distinct, and that the law and the
Policy, on their plain terms, mandate that insurers refund any
overpaid "premiums."
Judge Cronan holds that while the Plaintiff could have elected the
Option II death benefit, pursuant to which Lincoln NY would have
paid out both the Policy Account and the Specified Amount upon Ms.
Lupe's death, Policy at 10, the Plaintiff chose not to do so.
Instead, the Plaintiff elected the Option I benefit, pursuant to
which the Policy Account -- and any Planned Premiums deposited into
that account -- would not be refunded if that Policy Account (times
the applicable tax multiplier) were lower than the Specified
Amount. The Judge will not now invalidate the Plaintiff's
election. New York law does not prohibit this type of plan, and
the law does not mandate that Lincoln NY refund any portion of the
Planned Premiums.
B. "Actually Paid"
Judge Cronan next turns to the meaning of the phrase "actually
paid." Whereas Lincoln NY contends that the "statute's emphatic
use of 'actually' distinguishes statements of intent and funds to
which the Owner retains some rights from premium payments that
become revenue to the insurer," the Plaintiff argues that "the use
of the word 'actually' presumably distinguishes a premium that was
due but not paid."
The Judge holds that although the Plaintiff contends that the
Planned Premiums are revenue to Lincoln NY "insofar as Lincoln NY
claims to use these premium payments to offset the death benefits
paid to policyholders" and because Lincoln NY deducts the so-called
load charge, the fact that Lincoln NY may be able to benefit from
the Planned Premium does not mean these funds "actually pay" for
any period of insurance.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Judge Cronan need not consider Lincoln
NY's policy arguments -- or, for that matter, the Plaintiff's
policy arguments. He says it is not a court's job to "rewrite a
statute because it might deem its effects susceptible of
improvement." Instead, the court's job is to interpret the
statutory language. Having reviewed the plain text and the
surrounding statutory provisions, the Judge determines that the
Planned Premium here was not a "premium actually paid for any
period beyond the end of the policy month" in which the insured
died, such that it would be covered under the statute.
The Judge, therefore, also does not address (1) Lincoln NY's
alternative argument that the Plaintiff has "already received the
Policy Account value, including any value attributable to the
Plaintiff's last Planned Premium deposit," meaning there is "no
premium to be refunded," or (2) Lincoln NY's argument that the
Plaintiff's class allegations suffer fundamental standing defects.
In addition, because he finds that the statute does not require
Lincoln NY to refund the Planned Premiums, the Judge denies Lincoln
NY's request for judicial notice of the NYDFS Product Outlines as
moot.
For the aforementioned reasons, Judge Cronan grants Lincoln NY's
motion to dismiss with prejudice and denies as moot its request for
judicial notice of the NYDFS Product Outlines. The Clerk of the
Court is respectfully directed to terminate all motions and close
the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/r3fs6kfz from Leagle.com.
MATCH GROUP: Corwin Law Files Suit in New York Over Deceptive Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corwin Law, a consumer advocacy law firm based in Boca Raton, has
filed a class action lawsuit against Match Group ("Match") on
behalf of subscribers to the popular dating website Match.com.
Match is accused of using fake love interest ads and other
allegedly deceptive and unfair practices to trick consumers into
paying for costly Match.com subscriptions.
In the multi-count lawsuit, captioned Neal D'Alessio, et al. v.
Match Group, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-0576, filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, the class
representatives describe being bombarded with profiles of users who
were allegedly "interested" in them. Upon subscribing and
attempting to contact the very same "interested" users, the class
representatives learned that the users had either been inactive for
some time or fake profiles. In other cases, the class
representatives did connect with other users, but realized in short
order they were being targeted by scammers, including romance
scams, fishing scams, fraudulent advertising, and extortion scams.
Consumers who purchased Match.com subscriptions were generally
unaware that a high percentage of Match.com members who registered
each day were fake or online solely to perpetuate scams, a practice
known to Match.
Many Match users subscribed to the service for six months based on
a "Find Love Guarantee" that promised them six additional months
for free if they could not "find love" during the initial six-month
period. After engaging with the Match service regularly and
diligently during the paid subscription with no success, they were
told that they had failed to abide by one or more obscure terms of
the "Find Love Guarantee" and that they did not qualify for the
additional free six months. Finally, class representatives complain
of attempting to cancel their subscriptions to Match.com, only to
have charges continue to accumulate, and then having to navigate a
confusing, adversarial, and unsuccessful refund process.
"Consumers thought they were getting the best chance at love only
to discover that they had been deceived in a deliberate,
opportunistic manner," noted attorney Marcus W. Corwin.
In 2019, The Federal Trade Commission sued Match in Texas on
similar grounds. The FTC alleged that hundreds of thousands of
consumers were conned by Match's alleged deceptive trade practices
and unfairly exposed consumers to the risk of fraud.
Corwin Law has been seeking justice for their clients since 1986.
Please visit www.corwinlawfirm.com for more information.
THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION SEEKING CLASS MEMBERS TO JOIN THE
LAWSUIT. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL
A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY UNLESS
YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. [GN]
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Huff Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Ronald Huff, Individually
and on Behalf of all others Similarly Situated v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:21-cv-00284-CVE-CDL (N.D. Okla., July
13, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
MetLife -- https://www.metlife.com/ -- is among the largest global
providers of insurance, annuities, and employee benefit programs,
with 90 million customers in over 60 countries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Allen Martin, Esq.
JEFF MARTIN & ASSOC PC
1611 S UTICA STE 173
TULSA, OK 74104
Phone: (918) 583-4165
Fax: (918) 583-4166
Email: JM8069337@aol.com
MIFAB INCORPORATED: Citizens Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MIFAB Incorporated,
et al. The case is styled as Citizens Insurance Company of America,
Hanover Insurance Company v. MIFAB Incorporated, Torrion Brown,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03704 (N.D. Ill., July 13, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Declaratory
Judgement.
MIFAB Incorporated -- https://www.mifab.com/ -- is a manufacturer
of commercial plumbing products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
550 W. Adams St., Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Phone: (312) 345-1718
Email: kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com
MOD SUPER FAST: Pratz Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA MARIE PRATZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA, LLC d/b/a
MOD PIZZA, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00757 (S.D. Ill., June 30,
2021) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiffs and the Class with a written, publicly available policy
identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying employees' biometric data when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining their biometrics is no longer relevant, as
required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Defendant allegedly failed to inform its employees of the
complete purposes for which it collects their sensitive biometric
data or to whom the data is disclosed, if at all, and failed to
obtain their knowing consent to use their biometric data.
MOD Super Fast Pizza Holdings, LLC owns and operates chain of
restaurants. The Company offers wide range of food products, such
as pizza, salads, sides, and beverages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin J. Whiting, Esq.
Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-5220
E-mail: ben.whiting@kellerlenkner.com
ajd@kellerlenkner.com
NUWBER INC: Poppenhouse Privacy Class Suit Removed to C.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned James Poppenhouse and Crystal Lee, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Nuwber, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-03144, (Ill. Cir., April
13, 2021) has been removed to the United States District Court for
the Central District of Illinois.
Plaintiffs allege that Nuwber misappropriated their identities by
displaying their names and other identifying information in an
advertisement on an internet website. Plaintiffs assert a single
cause of action arising from this central allegation for violations
of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act.
The case was removed to the Central District of Illinois Court for
the reason that there is diversity of citizenship. Plaintiffs are
citizens of Illinois and Nuwber is a citizen of Virginia, and that
the amount in controversy for the class exceeds $5,000,000.00,
exclusive of interest and costs. [BN]
Nuwber is represented by:
Brian M. Roth, Esq.
Benjamin R. Kinney, Esq.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
One North Franklin Street, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: (312) 565-1400
Email: broth@grsm.com
bkinney@grsm.com
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon M. Wise. Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC
818 Latayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Tel: (314) 833-4825
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Jonathan T. Nessler, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK W. NESSLER & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
536 N. Bruns Lane, Suite 1
Springteld, IL 62702
Tel: (217) 698-0202
Email: jtnessler@nesslerlaw.com
OCCASIONALLY MADE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Occasionally Made
LLC. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Occasionally Made LLC doing business as: Swig Life, Case No.
1:21-cv-03944 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Occasionally Made doing business as: Swig Life --
https://www.swiglife.com/ -- designs insulated drinkware and
coolers made for all the ways you live life.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
PANDRO SOKOLOW: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Pacheco Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CORNELIO PACHECO v. PANDRO SOKOLOW CONSTRUCTION, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV24001 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 28, 2021) alleges that the Defendants violated
the California Private Attorneys’ General Act, Labor Code due to
their failure to pay the Plaintiff and and other current and former
employees minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal
periods, and failure to provide rest periods.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from 2006 through July
2020 at the Defendant's Santa Monica, California location.
Throughout his employment, the Defendant controlled Plaintiff's
schedule and directed his duties each day, preventing Plaintiff
from exercising any reasonable degree of discretion or independent
judgment, the complaint says.
Defendant Pandro Sokolow Construction is a California corporation
offering construction services throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
PEOPLEREADY INC: Faces McClurg Employment Suit in Calif. State Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peopleready, Inc. The
case is captioned as Zachary McClurg vs. Peopleready, Inc., a
Washington Corporation, Case No. 34-2021-00303328-CU-OE-GDS (Calif.
Super., Sacramento Cty., June 28, 2021).
The suit arises from employment-related issues.
The Defendants include Does 1-10; Peopleready, Inc., a Washington
Corporation; and Pepsi-Cola Sales and Distribution, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation.
PeopleReady provides employment services. The Company offers
temporary and permanent staffing services for construction,
hospitality, and manufacturing businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Dr Ste 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
PHILIPS NA: Oldigs Sues Over Defective Ventilators
--------------------------------------------------
Carlos Oldigs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Philips North America LLC, Koninklijke
Philips Electronics N.V. and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-11078 (D. Mass., June 29, 2021), seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, compensatory, actual, statutory, consequential,
punitive and/or any other form of damages, restitution,
disgorgement and/or other equitable relief, costs of this action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, and, where applicable, expert
fees, prejudgment and post judgment interest, award of such other
and further relief resulting from breach of implied warranty and
for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Philips recalled its Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure, Continuous
Positive Airway Pressure and mechanical ventilator devices
involving an estimated 3 million to 4 million devices globally.
Said products contained polyester based polyurethane foam that
degrades and can be inhaled by the users, causing health risks,
including respiratory issues and cancer, asserts the complaint.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Glen DeValerio, Esq.
Daryl Andrews, Esq.
ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
Chestnut Hill MA 02467
Telephone: (617) 999-6473
Email: daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com
glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
- and -
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone (310) 432-8492
Email: jllurie@pomlaw.com
abasser@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165-0006
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
PHILIPS NORTH: Faces Schuckit Suit Over Defective PAP Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT J. SCHUCKIT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, PHILIPS
HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS, INC., RESPIRONICS, INC., and KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V., Case No. (June 30, 2021) is a class
action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and a
class of purchasers of Philips Continuous Positive Airway Pressure,
Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure and mechanical ventilator devices
(PAP Machines) developed, manufactured, and distributed by
Defendants with a defective foam component that can degrade and
emit harmful chemicals resulting in serious health risks to
consumers, including the risks of developing Type 2 Diabetes, heart
problems and cancer.
According to the complint, the Defendants have long known that the
polyester-based polyurethane ("PE- PUR") sound abatement foam in
the PAP Machines had a propensity to degrade and emit harmful
chemicals (the "Defect"), yet it chose to withhold that information
from millions of consumers who rely on the PAP Machines to treat
their serious sleep disorders.
Not only did Defendants allegedly fail to disclose this known
Defect and the health risks it posed to Plaintiff and class
members, but they also actively concealed the Defect from consumers
-- while continuing to manufacture, market and distribute the PAP
Machines, to the detriment of millions of consumers. Then, long
after learning of the Defect, Defendants first chose to update
their shareholders of the serious health consequences posed by the
PAP Machines, and only months later, to issue a recall of the
machines. Even then, Defendants have yet to issue notice directly
to the millions of consumers who rely on the machines to treat
their serious medical condition, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged Defect and considerable costs associated
with finding substitute treatment for Plaintiff's and members'
sleep disorders -- indeed, Defendants have made clear it will take
"some time" to offer any repair or replacement -- Plaintiff and
class members have suffered injury in fact, incurred damages, and
otherwise been harmed by Defendants' conduct. The Defendants'
conduct violates the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, and
constitutes a breach of express and implied warranties, the
Plaintiff alleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Roddy, Esq.
Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 439-6730
E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com
eryan@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Natalie Lyons, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone; (317) 636-6481
E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
nlyons@cohenandmalad.com
PLUM PBC: Faces Brown FDUTPA Suit in Northern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plum, PBC. The case
is captioned as Brown v. Plum, PBC, Case No. 3:21-cv-04953-MMC
(N.D. Cal., June 28, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act demanding $5 million in damages. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney.
Plum is located in Emeryville, California, and is part of the food
wholesalers industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
Allison W. Parr, Esq.
Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
aparr@tzlegal.com
hzavareei@tzlegal.com
- and -
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
Rachel Lynn Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: byagman@milberg.com
rsoffin@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel K. Asiedu, Esq.
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Michael Harrison Pearson, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
E-mail: dasiedu@pswlaw.com
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
mweiner@pswlaw.com
mpearson@pswlaw.com
- and -
Rebecca K. Timmons, Esq.
LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY LLP
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7140
Facsimile: (850) 436-6066
E-mail: btimmons@levinlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Rebecca Anne Peterson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
Minneaoplis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
POWER OF PURE: Conner Claims Website not Blind-accessible
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. The Power of Pure, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-03640 (E.D. N.Y., June 29, 2021), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights
Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
The Power of Pure operates as "Branch Basics," which provides
non-toxic home cleaning products and related products through its
website Branchbasics.com. Conner is legally blind and claims that
said website does not contains accessibility options for those who
are vision impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel. (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Faces Butler Employment Suit in Calif State Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Powerschool Group
LLC. The case is captioned as Bethany A. Butler v. Powerschool
Group LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
34-2021-00303458-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 30,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged employment violations.
PowerSchool provides K-12 education technology solutions. The
Company offers platform that assists schools and districts to
manage instruction, learning, grading, attendance, assessment,
analytics, state reporting, special education, student
registration, talent, finance, and HR.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rosemary Carol Khoury, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 C St Ste 200, San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 595-3001
Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
E-mail: rkhoury@ckslaw.com
PREFERRED PHYSICIANS: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Due Dec. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sharfman v. Preferred
Physicians Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-00580 (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn K. Mizelle entered an order granting
motion for extension of time.
The class certification deadline is now December 17, 2021. All
other deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling Order remain
intact, says Judge Mizelle.
The suit involves Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.
Preferred Physicians (PPIA) is a full service brokerage firm
offering solutions for all your insurance needs.[CC]
PRETIUM RESOURCES: McMillan Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Brown-Okruhlik (Toronto), Esq., and Samantha Gordon
(Ottawa), Esq., of McMillan LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report
that Part XXIII.1 of Ontario's Securities Act (the "Act") creates a
statutory cause of action for investors who suffer losses in the
secondary market in connection with misrepresentations or omissions
by a company, its management or certain other actors. This
liability regime is designed to accommodate class actions for
secondary market losses. Plaintiffs must obtain leave from the
Court in order to bring such an action under the Act. The
evidentiary threshold at the leave motion is low. Ontario courts
have cautioned in the past that motion judges do not need to
resolve significant credibility issues at the leave motion stage or
engage in a mini-trial process where evidence is contentious. The
recent decision in Wong v Pretium Resources Inc. illustrates the
differences between the evidentiary thresholds and legal tests that
apply to leave and summary judgment motions, respectively, in
secondary market securities class actions.
In Wong, the plaintiff brought a claim for misrepresentation under
Part XXIII.1 of the Act. Justice Belobaba initially granted leave
for the action to proceed. The action was later certified to
proceed as a class action under Ontario's Class Proceedings Act.
However, on a recent summary judgment motion, Justice Belobaba
dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the basis that there had been no
misrepresentation. In the alternative, he held that the defendant
could rely on a 'reasonable investigation' defence provided for in
the Act.
The Facts
The plaintiff in Wong alleged that Pretium Resources Inc.
("Pretium"), a mineral exploration company listed on the TSX, and
Pretium's former CEO failed to disclose concerns raised in 2013 by
one of its mining consultants, Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd.
("Strathcona"), regarding the validity of a resource estimate
prepared by another consultant, Snowden Mining Industry Consultants
Pty Ltd. ("Snowden"). Pretium reviewed Strathcona's concerns with
its internal technical team as well as with Snowden. Pretium's
board concluded that Strathcona's opinions were premature and
unreliable and that it would be misleading to disclose them to the
public. A few months later, Strathcona resigned from its engagement
with Pretium. Shortly thereafter, Pretium publicly disclosed that
the reason for Strathcona's resignation was Pretium's refusal to
renounce Snowden's resource estimates, which Strathcona believed to
overestimate the amount of gold in the area of Pretium's
prospective mine. The plaintiff alleged that Pretium's stock value
fell as a result of this disclosure, which constituted a corrective
disclosure of a material misrepresentation that gave rise to
liability for investor losses. He claimed against Pretium for
common law misrepresentation and statutory misrepresentation under
Part XXIII.1 of the Act.
Pretium's bulk sample program ultimately validated Snowden's
resource estimate. Since that time, Pretium's stock has more than
doubled in value. The question before the Court in Wong was whether
investors could recover damages for the temporary decline in
Pretium's stock price that followed the disclosure of Strathcona's
reasons for resigning.
Leave Motion
In 2017, Justice Belobaba granted the plaintiff leave to bring a
secondary market misrepresentation action, concluding that there
was a reasonable possibility he would prevail at trial. In his
leave decision, Justice Belobaba accepted that Pretium believed
Strathcona's concerns were unreliable, but held that "by any
objective measure, reasonable investors would have considered it
material that two respected mining consultancies retained by
Pretium - Snowden and Strathcona -- fundamentally disagreed" about
the potential size of Pretium's gold deposit. Citing the low
evidentiary threshold that applies on a leave motion, he found that
there "exists a reasonable possibility that the plaintiff's
submission -- that Strathcona's concerns were material and should
have been disclosed -- will succeed at trial".
The Divisional Court refused leave to appeal the decision and the
action was subsequently certified as a class proceeding on
consent.
Summary Judgment Motion
Following document production, Pretium moved for summary judgment.
The plaintiff responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment in
his favour. The motions proceeded in December of 2020 before
Justice Belobaba, who found that summary judgment was appropriate.
Almost all the relevant evidence was documentary in nature, and
there were no credibility issues, so there was no genuine issue
requiring trial.
Justice Belobaba began by explaining that, while he granted leave
on the basis of the "reasonable possibility" test, he was now
obliged to consider all of the evidence on the "balance of
probabilities" standard.4 With the benefit of additional evidence
(including affidavits from Pretium's senior executives at the
relevant time and three of Snowden's experts who were involved in
the resource estimate), he concluded that there was no material
misrepresentation. Moreover, he held that the 'reasonable
investigation' defence provided under section 138.4(6) of the Act
would apply in the alternative to relieve the company of
liability.
No Omission of Any Material Fact
Justice Belobaba held that Pretium was under no obligation to
disclose Strathcona's concerns. He found that the concerns were
"inexpert, premature and unreliable" opinions that did not
constitute material facts and would have been misleading to
investors.5 In these circumstances, he found it proper for
Pretium's board to withhold Strathcona's concerns and to advise in
its public disclosures that the results of the bulk sample program
would be disclosed once the entire sample was assessed.
Reasonable Investigation Defence
Even if Strathcona's concerns could be considered sufficiently
reliable to require disclosure, Justice Belobaba was satisfied that
Pretium could rely on a statutory defence to secondary securities
market liability under the Act. Section 138.4(6) of the Act
provides that an individual or company is not liable for a
misrepresentation under section 138.3 of the Act if they (i)
conducted or caused to be conducted a reasonable investigation
before the document containing the misrepresentation was released,
and (ii) at the time of the document's release, had no reasonable
grounds to believe that the document contained the
misrepresentation.6
Justice Belobaba had previously found in the leave decision that
"Pretium took Strathcona's concerns seriously and discussed them
both internally and with Snowden",7 which satisfied the first part
of the reasonable investigation defence. However, he granted leave
for the action to proceed because he believed there was a
reasonable possibility that Pretium had grounds to believe
Strathcona's concern constituted "a material fact that a reasonable
investor would find important and would reasonably want to know."8
Justice Belobaba ultimately confirmed in his summary judgment
decision that the reasonable investigation defence applied based on
the additional evidence adduced on the summary judgment motions,
particularly the objective evidence of Snowden's experts who were
involved in the resource estimation.9
Conclusion
Wong illustrates the different considerations involved in motions
for leave to bring secondary market actions and the ultimate
determination of a case's merits on a summary judgment motion, and
their potentially differing results. In his leave decision, Justice
Belobaba gave a strong indication that Pretium's withholding of the
relevant information could be found to be objectively unreasonable.
He reassessed these statements in the summary judgment decision,
explaining that the fuller body of evidence before him gave
objective support to Pretium's decision not to disclose
Strathcona's concerns as they arose. [GN]
REGINA CATERERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Segarra Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS SEGARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGINA CATERERS, INC.; and FOZAN PIRZADA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03694 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 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 Segarra was employed by the Defendant as kitchen staff.
REGINA CATERERS, INC. is a catering company. The company provides
meal programs to institutions including charter schools, daycare
centers and non for profit organizations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
REKOR SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on July 7 disclosed that on June 29, 2021, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland (Northern Division) against Rekor
Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: REKR; NVMM).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is April 12, 2019 through May 25, 2021.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-rekor-systems-inc-f-k-a-novume-solutions-inc/
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Rekor
Systems, Inc. investors who purchased common stock during the Class
Period. You may move the Court no later than Monday,
August 30, 2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this litigation, or should you have any questions
regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please
contact: Priscilla Scoggins at pms@federmanlaw.com or visit the
firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com.
Contacts:
Priscilla Scoggins
pms@federmanlaw.com [GN]
RESTAURANTE PANADERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sevilla Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MERLENY SEVILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESTAURANTE PANADERIA GUATE LINDA INC.;
MARIA LETICIA; and PORFIRIO SAY TZUL, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03698 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 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 Sevilla was employed by the Defendant as kitchen staff.
RESTAURANTE PANADERIA GUATE LINDA INC. owns and operates a
restaurant located in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
ROCKET COMPANIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Companies, Inc.
('Rocket' or 'the Company') (NYSE:RKT) and certain of its directors
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
Rocketsecurities between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/rkt.
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) Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins were
contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of
increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift
toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and
compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary
mortgage markets; (2) Rocket Companies was engaged in a price war
and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the
wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket
Companies' Partner Network operating segment; (3) the adverse
trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket
Companies' gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least
140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (4) as a result,
the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period
and allowed Rocket Companies to achieve historically high gain on
sale margins had vanished as Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins
had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019;
(5) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket
Companies' company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially
below pre-pandemic averages; and (6) consequently, defendants'
positive statements about Rocket Companies' business operations and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
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/rkt 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 Rocket 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]
ROCKET COMPANIES: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Rocket Companies,
Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares of RKT during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17460&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: February 25, 2021 to May 5, 2021
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Rocket's gain on sale margins
were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of
increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift
toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and
compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary
mortgage markets; (b) Rocket was engaged in a price war and battle
for market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale
market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's Partner
Network operating segment; (c) the adverse trends identified above
were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins
were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six
months of 2021; (d) as a result of the above, the favorable market
conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to
achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as the
Company's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen
since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than remaining elevated
due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide gain-on-sale margins
had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and (f) as
a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business operations and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
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]
SAN DIEGO, CA: Montoya Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX MONTOYA, REX SHIRLEY,
PHILIP PRESSEL, and WYLENE HINKLE, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a public
entity; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:19-cv-00054-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
Motion for Class Certification:
"Persons with visual and/or mobility disabilities residing in
the City of San Diego, who on or after January 1, 2018 have
used the pedestrian rights-of-way located in the Central
Areas of the City and whose access, due to their
disabilities, is allegedly negatively impacted by the City’s
challenged policies and practices regarding the presence of
dockless vehicles on these pedestrian rights-of-way."
"Persons with mobility disabilities" are those who have
disabilities affecting mobility as recognized by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and who use
wheelchairs, scooters, crutches, walkers, canes, and/or
similar devices for navigation due to their disabilities
or have prosthetic limbs or other medical conditions that
make walking, and safely and independently avoiding,
removing, or circumventing obstacles on sidewalks more
difficult than for persons without disabilities. "Persons
with visual disabilities" are those who have disabilities
affecting vision as recognized by the ADA and use canes or
services animals for navigation due to their disabilities,
and whose disabilities make safely and independently
identifying, avoiding, removing or circumventing obstacles
on sidewalks more difficult than for persons without
disabilities.
"Central Areas of the City of San Diego" consist of these
ten major communities in the City of San Diego and all of
the sub-communities within them: (1) Downtown; (2) Greater
Golden Hill; (3) North Park; (4) Uptown; (5) Balboa Park;
(6) Pacific Beach; (7) Mission Beach; (8) Mission Bay
Park; (9) Ocean Beach; (10) Old Town San Diego.
"Pedestrian rights-of-way" consist of sidewalks,
crosswalks, curb ramps, and transit stops under the
jurisdiction of the City of San Diego located in Central
Areas of San Diego."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VL2PM1
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert W. Frank, SBN 95392
Matthew R. Souther, SBN 227910
NEIL, DYMOTT, FRANK, McCABE & HUDSON
110 West A Street, Suite 1200
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1712
Facsimile: (619) 238-1562
E-mail: rfrank@neildymott.com
msouther@neildymott.com
- and -
Ann E. Menasche, Esq.
Autumn Elliott, Esq.
Ben Conway, Esq.
Aisha C. Novasky, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
530 B Street, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-7861
Facsimile: (619) 239-7906
E-mail: Ann.menasche@disabilityrightsca.org
Autumn.Elliott@disabilityrightsca.org
Ben.conway@disabilityrightsca.org
Aisha.Novasky@disabilityrightsca.org
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Ellsworth FCRA Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARRELL ELLSWORTH, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. SCHNEIDER
NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01699-SB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed
class defined as follows:
California Labor Code Class:
"All California-based drivers employed by the Defendant
Schneider National Carriers, Inc. at any time from May 29,
2016 through the date this class is certified ("California
Labor Code Class Members")."
California Labor Code Subclass:
"All California-based drivers employed by Defendant and
engaged in short-haul operations as defined by 49 C.F.R.
section 395.1(e) at any time from May 29, 2016 through the
date this class is certified ("California Labor Code
Subclass Members")."
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Class:
All persons residing in the United States who applied for a
position with Defendant described by 15 U.S.C. section
1681b(b)(2)(C) from May 29, 2015 through the date this class
is certified and on whom Defendant procured one or more
consumer reports ("FCRA Class Members").
Members of the California Labor Code Class and Subclass and the
FCRA Class are referred to collectively herein as "class members"
or simply "drivers."
In addition, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court
appoint him as class representative and appoint CounselOne, PC as
class counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ielcR8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Oorshansky, Esq.
Alexandria R. Kachadoorian, Esq.
Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
COUNSELONE, P.C.
9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 277-9945
Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
alexandria@counselonegroup.com
justin@counselonegroup.com
SHIPMAN ASSOCIATES: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shipman Associates,
LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Shipman
Associates, LLC doing business as: TheBalm Cosmetics, Case No.
1:21-cv-03939 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shipman Associates doing business as TheBalm Cosmetics --
https://thebalm.com/ -- is a makeup company is based in San
Francisco, California and launched in early 2004.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SHOE PALACE: Court Stays Young Suit Until Conclusion of Katt Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH YOUNG, Plaintiff v. SHOE PALACE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 21CV559-GPC(MSB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P.
Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California grants the Defendant's motion to stay the case pending
conclusion of the lawsuit by David Katt.
The lawsuit titled Katt v. Shoe Palace Corporation, Case No.
1:19cv3676-RBJ, D. Colo. (filed Dec. 26, 2019), is a case pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff Young filed a putative class action
complaint against Defendant Shoe Palace or violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section
12181, and violations of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
("UCRA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's retail stores
provide the public with important goods and services and its
website provides consumers access to "the ultimate experience when
it comes to shoe and apparel shopping."
The Defendant's website provides information about new product
arrivals as well as footwear, apparel and accessories for men,
women and children, exclusive collections, sale items, store
locations and personalized accounts as well as information about
shipping, returns, exchanges, the Defendant's story, social medica
webpages, contact info and newsletter.
The Plaintiff is a blind and visually impaired woman and requires
screen reader software to access the internet and read website
content. While she is proficient in using screen reading software,
Defendant's website is not fully or equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired customers, and consequently, she has been denied
full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered
to the public on the Defendant's website.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of "all legally
blind individuals who have attempted to access Defendant's website
by the use of a screen reading software during the applicable
limitations period up to and including final judgment in this
action." She also seeks to certify a California class of "all
legally blind individuals in the State of California who have
attempted to access Defendant's website by the use of a screen
reading software during the applicable limitations period up to and
including final judgment in this action."
Fifteen months earlier, on Dec. 26, 2019, David Katt filed a
putative class action complaint against the Defendant for
violations of the ADA and sought declaratory relief in the District
of Colorado, Katt v. Shoe Palace Corporation, Case No.
1:19cv3676-RBJ, D. Colo. In Katt, the plaintiff is blind and
visually impaired and uses screen reading software to read website
content and claims that when he visited Defendant's website, he
encountered multiple access barriers which denied him full and
equal access to its facilities.
Katt seeks to certify a nationwide class of "all legally blind
individuals in the United States who have attempted to access
Defendant's Website and as a result have been denied access to the
equal enjoyment of goods and services, during the relevant
statutory period."
Discussion
A. Landis Stay
The Defendant moves to stay the action pending the conclusion of
the Katt matter pursuant to the Court's inherent authority as
articulated in Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
While the Plaintiff does not dispute that the same website, same
ADA violations and same nationwide class under the ADA are alleged
in both cases, she argues a stay will hinder her and the class
members' ability to recover monetary relief under California's
UCRA.
Judge Curiel holds that while a delay in obtaining monetary relief
does not justify a denial of a stay, her claim that she may not be
able to obtain monetary relief is without merit. In the event the
ADA claim becomes moot in this Court and it declines supplemental
jurisdiction over the UCRA claim, the Plaintiff may file a
complaint in state court under the UCRA "on two alternate theories:
(1) a violation of the ADA or (2) denial of access to a business
establishment based on intentional discrimination." Moreover, any
ruling on the ADA claim by the District of Colorado against
Defendant may be used to support her UCRA claim in state court
potentially under a theory of claim or issue preclusion.
Therefore, the Judge disagrees that her UCRA claim is in jeopardy
if a stay is granted. Thus, he concludes that the Plaintiff will
not be subject to irreparable harm by a stay.
The Judge also agrees with the Defendant that defending two
separate cases involving the same legal and factual issues would be
unduly burdensome and a hardship on the Defendant . Moreover, it
could be subject to two different rulings by separate courts. On
the other hand, if a stay were imposed on the case, any settlement
or ruling by the Katt court would simplify the ADA issues in the
case. Therefore, the Defendant would endure hardship if it were
required to defend its website in two different courts.
Lastly, the Judge holds that because the ADA issue will be
addressed in the District of Colorado, it will narrow factual and
legal issues before the Court. Therefore, in the interest of
efficiency and judicial economy, a stay is warranted.
The Judge concludes that the hardships on the Defendant in
proceeding with the case, and judicial efficiency and the avoidance
of inconsistent rulings outweigh any prejudice to the Plaintiff and
the putative class members. Thus, he grants the Defendant's motion
to stay until resolution of the Katt case.
B. First-to-File Rule
Alternatively, the case should be stayed under the first-to-file
rule. While the Defendant sought to stay the case under Landis,
the Plaintiff responds to the Defendant's motion solely by
addressing the first-to-file rule.
Judge Curiel finds that (i) the Katt case came first in chronology;
(ii) the "first-to-file rule does not require the exact identity of
the parties" but requires "only substantial similarity of parties";
and (iii) the Plaintiff does not allege any exceptions to the
first-to-file rule such as bad faith, anticipatory suits, and forum
shopping should apply. Because all the three first-to-file factors
support a stay, Judge Curiel alternatively grants the Defendant's
motion to stay.
Conclusion
Based on his reasoning, Judge Curial grants the Defendant's motion
to stay until conclusion of the case in Katt. The hearing set on
July 9, 2021 will be vacated.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3rctradd from Leagle.com.
SK TELECOM: Faces Class Action Over 5G Service Quality
------------------------------------------------------
Yang Sung-jin, writing for Korea Herald, reports that a class
action lawsuit against SK Telecom, filed by a group of 5G mobile
service users in South Korea, formally started July 8, amid
conflicting claims about the quality of the mobile service.
In the lawsuit, 237 people who signed up for SK Telecom's 5G
service presented their case at the Seoul Central District Court
through local law firm Serim. In February, the law firm recruited
Korean 5G users who experienced problems with the service and
wanted to join the class action suit.
On July 8, the law firm representing the group of 5G users argued
in court that SK Telecom advertised 5G as a service that was 20
times faster than LTE, but did not notify them of potential
problems with speed or areas where service would be unavailable.
Serim claimed that SK Telecom failed to fully explain such
possibilities in the contract and was already aware of the matter.
SK Telecom, however, denied liability, alleging that it had
notified users of possible problems with its 5G service in advance.
The mobile carrier said it is providing related information in
accordance with the law and has notified users about areas where
subscribers cannot use 5G service.
The case will resume on July 26, as Serim is preparing to file
additional class action suits against KT and LG U+ in the coming
months.
Separately, 526 users who claimed to also have experienced issues
with 5G networks joined forces via a joint lawsuit platform and
filed a suit with the Seoul Central District Court on June 30,
seeking compensation from SK Telecom, KT and LG U+.
The final result of the lawsuits is expected to affect those who
have experienced similar quality issues.
Korean mobile carriers kicked off the 5G service in April 2019, but
subscribers who signed up for the pricey 5G plans continued to
point out the "poor" quality, with questions remaining about 5G's
advantage over the existing 4G Long Term Evolution in terms of
price and reliability.
Shortly after 5G services were made available in Korea, the three
mobile carriers launched 5G subscription plans that were more
expensive than the LTE options. At the time, the carriers only sold
brand-new smartphone models with 5G subscription plans. This forced
those who wanted to keep 4G plans for the latest smartphone from
Samsung Electronics to sign up for the pricey 5G plan or purchase
the phone directly from Samsung's website, giving up on the
conventional discounts offered by the carriers.
In the following two years, the country's three mobile carriers
built up more 5G relay stations and tackled service quality issues,
but subscribers still struggled with a slew of service problems,
with their phones often switching to the 4G LTE network as 5G
service was unavailable.
One of the key issues is the number of relay stations set up by
mobile carriers. While there are about 800,000 4G Long Term
Evolution relay stations, the figure for 5G is estimated at around
170,000. The gap suggests there are many regions and cities that
lack relay stations, resulting in a slowdown in mobile data
services.
Furthermore, most mobile users already consider LTE fast enough for
using video streaming services such as YouTube, Netflix and Watcha,
while also being more reliable.
The lack of 5G-only services is another reason why many Korean
users still prefer LTE plans. The mobile industry expects a
full-fledged 5G network to spur the spread of the metaverse and
more innovative cloud technology, but related services are still in
the early stages.
Pricing is another contentious issue. Even though the carriers have
rolled out more diverse 5G service plans after users complained
about the dearth of affordable subscription plans, their unlimited
data options still start from 80,000-90,000 won, while comparable
LTE plans are priced at less than 70,000 won. For users, instead of
the problem-laden 5G, unlimited LTE plans with better service
coverage are more attractive, as they also come with cheaper or
free data-sharing options for other mobile devices.
Amid continued dispute over service quality, Korea's three mobile
carriers earlier said they would invest a total of 25 trillion won
($21.8 billion) for 5G services between 2020 and 2022. [GN]
SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Includes Class Action Waiver in NDA Amid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bradford, writing for mmorpg, reports that Kingdoms of
Elyria's Alpha NDA has started going out to backers and some
eagle-eyed users have spotted something that, while is pretty
standard, feels offputting: a class action lawsuit waiver.
In case you missed it, Chronicles of Elyria's stand-alone kingdom
sim Kingdoms of Elyria should be in testing now with the alpha
going out to Elyria backers. As part of the test, players will need
to sign an NDA for access as the test will not be publicly
available. However, the backdrop to all of this is the fact that
Soulbound Studios, the studio behind Chronicles of Elyria, is
currently facing a class action lawsuit by backers as a result of
the fallout from last year when CEO Jeromy Walsh closed the studio
and briefly halted development on the MMO after raising around $8
million dollars of crowdfunded money.
As part of the NDA, however, backers have noted that the language
includes a waiver to the right to file a class action lawsuit
against SBS in the future should backers sign the agreement. This
was pointed out by the Class Action lawsuit Discord channel, which
is urging backers not to sign the NDA or even download Kingdoms of
Elyria- period.
It is important to note that these types of waivers are pretty
standard in agreements like this, so it's not anything out of the
ordinary per se. However, with the current class action lawsuit
against Soulbound Studios and Xsolla currently in play, asking
players to then sign away their right to file a lawsuit feels
especially targeted to give leverage to the defense in the ongoing
lawsuit. Additionally, the language of the NDA makes it clear that
SBS is under "no obligation to release the Game or any similar
product."
CoE Class Action Lawsuit Discord
Via the CoE Class Action Lawsuit Discord
The NDA is posted in full on the Discord, which you can download
here. The NDA language shields Chronicles of Elyria's developer
from future Class Action lawsuits being brought, as well as get
around the pesky language where backers actually expect a product
for their investment by getting alpha testers to agree that SBS is
under no obligation to release anything in the end. In the Class
Action Discord it's being recommended that if you have plans to be
a part of the lawsuit moving forward, you shouldn't sign the
agreement. [GN]
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Passengers Slam Deceptive Upgrade Option
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Pochiro and Barbara Kuhns, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-61343 (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2021), seeks
disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, economic and compensatory
damages, actual damages sustained, punitive or exemplary damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of all costs for the prosecution of this action
pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
and such other and further relief.
Spirit is a discount airline that offers its customers low fares.
Spirit encouraged customers to upgrade by representing to its
customers that purchasing the upgrade allowed customers priority
boarding for a fee of $11.98. During the COVID-19 pandemic,
however, Spirit knew that due to state and federal health
regulations, it would be unable to allow the early boarding
privileges it advertised. However, nine months into the pandemic,
Spirit continued to market and sell the upgrade packages and
collect money for services that it knew that it could not and would
not provide, notes the complaint.
Pochiro and Kuhns purchased Spirit's "Shortcut Boarding" option for
$11.98 when booking their flights from Fort Lauderdale, FL to
Cleveland, OH. However, Mr. Pochiro and Ms. Kuhns were told by
Spirit employees that they would not be allowed priority boarding
because of COVID-19 safety measures. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road
Davie, FL 33314
Tel: (954) 889-3359
Fax: (954) 889-5913
Email: Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com
JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
- and -
Jay R. Carson, Esq.
WEGMAN HESSLER
6055 Rockside Woods Blvd., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44131
Tel: (216) 642-3342
Fax: (216) 642-8826
Email: JRCarson@WegmanLaw.com
STRADA SERVICES: Seeks July 26 Extension on Class Cert. Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD REYES,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
STRADA SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Strada Electric and Security, Case No.
8:21-cv-00976-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion and setting the date for his
response to Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Conditional
Certification & Court Supervised Issuance to July 26, 2021.
This Court issued its FLSA Scheduling Order on May 18, 2021. In
that Order, the Parties were ordered to conduct mediation by a date
certain. The date set for the Parties mediation is July 16, 2021.
On July 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Order of
Conditional Certification & Court Supervised Issuance.
Due to the timing, this would make Defendant's response to
Plaintiff’s Motion due prior to the date set for Mediation. In
the interest of conserving resources of the Parties and of the
Court, Counsel for the Defendant reached out to Counsel for
Plaintiff and asked for an extension of time to file its response,
in particular, for an extension of 10 days from the date of the
Parties mediation. Counsel for Plaintiff agreed and does not
opposed the extension of time to file a response.
Strada Services is located in Sanford, Florida and is part of the
Electrical Contractors Industry.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 9, 2021 is available
afrom PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ifv64P at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul L. Sutherland, Esq.
Nathan A. McCoy, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 0676101
WILSON MCCOY, P.A.
100 E. Sybelia Ave., Suite 205
Maitland, FL 32751
Telephone: (407) 803-5400
Facsimile: (407) 803-4617
E-mail: psutherland@wilsonmccoylaw.com
nmccoy@wilsonmccoylaw.com
pleadings@wilsonmccoylaw.com
TAPESTRY INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Ornelas Suit Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN ORNELAS, Plaintiff v. TAPESTRY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. C 18-06453 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for partial
summary judgment.
Defendant Tapestry is a multinational luxury fashion holding
company and the parent company of Coach New York, Kate Spade New
York, and Stuart Weitzman. Plaintiff Ornelas is a former
non-exempt, hourly employee at Defendant's Stuart Weitzman retail
stores in Canoga Park and Beverly Hills, California. He worked as
a full-time sales associate from April 2016 to June 2018.
In September 2018, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. The
Defendant removed the action here. The first amended complaint
asserts eight claims alleging that the Defendant: (1) failed to pay
employees' compensation for all hours worked, in violation of
Sections 216 and 1194 of the California Labor Code; (2) failed to
pay minimum wages, in violation of Section 1194 of the California
Labor Code; (3) failed to pay overtime compensation, in violation
of Sections 510 and 1194 of the California Labor Code; (4) failed
to provide employees with sufficient rest and meal breaks, in
violation of Sections 226.7 and 512 of the California Labor Code;
(5) provided employees with inaccurate written wage statements, in
violation of Section 226 of the California Labor Code; (6) failed
to pay accrued wages and other compensation due immediately to an
employee upon termination, in violation of Sections 201-203 of the
California Labor Code; (7) engaged in unfair and unlawful business
practices, in violation of Sections 17200, et seq., of the
California Business and Professions Code; and (8) owes civil
penalties and attorney's fees for these violations under the
California Labor Code's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").
The Plaintiff brings these claims based on the Defendant's
theft-prevention policy that required all sales employees to have
their bags and coats searched by another employee prior to leaving
the store for breaks or after shifts. Even if employees did not
bring coats or bags to work, they needed to obtain visual
acknowledgment from a coworker or manager before leaving the store
for a break. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant told its
employees to clock out before undergoing the security screening,
and sometimes the screening resulted in employees spending
substantial periods of time under the Defendant's control while not
being paid. The Plaintiff further testified that the security
screening would prevent employees from receiving legally compliant
rest and meal breaks.
The Defendant now moves for partial summary judgment for claims one
and two as they pertain to liquidated damages, claims four through
seven in their entirety, and claim eight as it relates to
rest-and-meal-break violations.
Analysis
I. Claim Four - Rest-and-Meal-Break Violations
The Plaintiff contends in his opposition that the Defendant
committed rest-and-meal-break violations because sometimes he had
to work through his breaks when the store was busy or understaffed.
He made no such allegations, however, in his first amended
complaint, the operative pleading; the first amended complaint only
alleged that the security screenings caused rest and meal breaks to
be shorter than the legally required time. The Plaintiff agreed in
his deposition that the claims he asserts "concern the company's
practices regarding security checks." As such, only those alleged
violations related to the security screening are evaluated.
Because the Plaintiff cannot show the Defendant prevented or
discouraged him from taking a full 30-minute meal break when the
security screening went long, Judge Alsup holds that the Plaintiff
cannot establish that he experienced a meal-break violation due to
the security screening; the Plaintiff cannot show a genuine issue
of material fact in support of his claim that the Defendant failed
to provide legally compliant meal breaks. This alone is
dispositive. Additionally, the Judge holds that if the Plaintiff
did experience meal-break violations due to the security screening,
the Plaintiff has already received break premiums for the
violations. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, summary judgment as
to the meal-break portion of the fourth claim is granted.
As to the requirement that the break be in the middle of the shift,
Judge Alsup finds that the Plaintiff never asserts that the
security screening prevented him from taking a rest break in the
middle of the work period. The Plaintiff alleged in his
declaration that he sometimes missed rest breaks when the store was
busy or understaffed. However, the first amended complaint did not
allege break violations unrelated to the security screening and
therefore the Plaintiff cannot move the goal posts, now.
Accordingly, summary judgment as to the rest-break violation
portion of the fourth claim is granted.
II. Claims Five & Six - Derivative Wage Statement & Waiting Time
Penalties
The Plaintiff's fifth claim for relief seeks penalties for failure
to furnish accurate wage and hour statements pursuant to California
Labor Code Section 226, and his sixth claim seeks waiting time
penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 201-203. The
Plaintiff alleges that he should receive waiting time and
inaccurate wage statement penalties since he was not compensated
for his time in the security screening, he is owed break premiums
for the shortened breaks, and this compensation was not reflected
in his wage statements.
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is not owed penalties to
the extent his break violation claims fail and that he cannot meet
the heightened culpability standards required by the two derivative
penalty statutes. In the alternative, it argues that there was a
good faith dispute as to whether defendant had to compensate the
Plaintiff for his time during the security screening, or, even if
the time during the security screening was compensable, defendant
could disregard it as de minimis.
Since Judge Alsup holds that the Plaintiff did not suffer break
violations, he says the Plaintiff cannot receive derivative
penalties to the extent they are predicated on rest-and-meal-break
violations. The Judge finds that despite the fact that it was
potentially predictable that the time in an unavoidable security
screening would eventually be found compensable, there was no clear
ruling on the matter during the Plaintiff's employment. It was
unclear whether the time spent in the security line was compensable
and whether the de minimis standard was applicable during the
Plaintiff's employment.
Therefore, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff is precluded from
recovering penalties under Sections 203 and 226 since the Defendant
has raised a good faith dispute as to whether it acted "willfully"
or was "knowing and intentional" in its alleged failure to
adequately compensate the Plaintiff in a timely manner and provide
accurate wage statements. Thus, the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment as to the Plaintiff's fifth and sixth claims is granted.
III. Claims One & Two - Liquidated Damages Under Section 1194.2
As part of the Plaintiff's claims for unpaid wages and failure to
pay minimum wage, the Plaintiff is seeking liquidated damages for
the alleged violations pursuant to California Labor Code Section
1194.2. Section 1194.2(b) provides that "if the employer
demonstrates that the act or omission giving rise to the action was
in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for
believing that the act or omission was not a violation of any
provision of the Labor Code relating to minimum wage, or an order
of the commission, the court may, as a matter of discretion, refuse
to award liquidated damages."
Judge Alsup has established that the law concerning the Defendant's
obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for time in the security
screening was unsettled during the Plaintiff's employment. Thus,
the Defendant's omission was due to a good faith belief based on
reasonable grounds that it did not need to compensate the
Plaintiff. While this means that the Court has discretion to
refuse an award of liquidated damages, the Judge declines to make
such a determination at the summary judgment phase. Thus, the
Defendant's partial summary judgment motion as to claims one and
two as they pertain to liquidated damages is denied.
IV. Claims Seven - Section 17200
California's Unfair Competition Law prohibits unfair competition,
broadly defined as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act
or practice." By proscribing any unlawful business practice,
section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as
unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes
independently actionable. The remedies available to a private
plaintiff under Section 17200, as opposed to a district attorney or
city or county counsel, "are generally limited to injunctive relief
and restitution."
Judge Alsup finds that the Defendant has deprived the Plaintiff of
neither money nor property since the Plaintiff is not owed break
premiums. He says the Plaintiff has also conceded that he cannot
pursue Section 17200 claims should the applicable underlying claims
be summarily adjudicated. Since the underlying rest-and-meal-break
violation claim fails, so must the Plaintiff's seventh cause of
action for violations of the Business and Professions Code Sections
17200, et seq., as it pertains to rest-and-meal-break violations.
Therefore, the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as
to plaintiff's seventh claim is granted.
V. Claim Eight - PAGA Violations
The Plaintiff asserts that even if his substantive claim concerning
rest-and-meal-break violations fail, he can still bring a PAGA
claim under California Labor Code Section 2698 for such violations
on behalf of all other employees. Judge Alsup finds that the
Plaintiff originally filed this suit in state court, and the
Plaintiff has failed to show injury due to rest- or meal-break
violations. Thus, the Judge says the Plaintiff lacks Article III
standing to bring the PAGA claims in federal court.
The Plaintiff has argued that if he lacks standing to bring the
claim in federal court, in light of the recent ruling, then the
PAGA claim should be remanded to state court. Judge Alsup holds
that several claims still remain unadjudicated. The Plaintiff has
cited no authority that a single claim in a controversy can be
remanded while the other claims remain in federal court. Since the
Plaintiff could bring this claim in state court, the Judge will
hold it in abeyance. Thus, the Defendant's motion for partial
summary judgment on the Plaintiff's eighth claim as it pertains to
rest-and-meal-break violations is denied, for after the other
claims have been fully adjudicated, this claim will be remanded to
the Superior Court of California, Alameda County.
Conclusion
To the foregoing extent, Judge Alsup holds that the Defendant's
motion for partial summary judgment for claim seven, as it relates
to rest-and-meal-break violations, and the entirety of claims four
through six is granted. Summary judgment is not appropriate on the
issue of liquidated damages at this time, so the motion as to
claims one and two is denied. As to the eighth claim, the motion
is denied, for the claim, as it applies to rest-and-meal-break
violations, is to be held in abeyance.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ye2tyc7d from Leagle.com.
TKEES INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tkees Inc. The case
is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Tkees
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03949 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TKEES -- https://tkees.com/ -- is a destination for simple and
elegant footwear and apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
UNITED STATES: Rand Files Suit in District of Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Executive Branch of
the United States. The case is styled as Shirlean Fant Rand v.
Executive Branch of the United States; Donald J. Trump, in his
individual capacity; Unknown Parties named as Jointly and
Severally, John Does 1-10 et al on behalf of Themselves and a Class
of all others similarly situated; Case No. 2:21-cv-01220-DLR (D.
Ariz., July 13, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury for the
Federal Tort Claims Act.
The executive branch -- https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
-- carries out and enforces laws.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
USAA LIFE: Settles Overcharges Class Action for $90 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Danner, writing for Express News, reports that USAA Life
Insurance Co. has agreed to pay $90 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit alleging it overcharged thousands of policy
owners.
The settlement, which is subject to final approval from a federal
judge, will end nearly four years of litigation.
The class involves anyone who owns or owned one of about 122,000
universal life insurance policies that have been in force since
March 1, 1999. [GN]
VISTA OUTDOOR: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vista Outdoor Inc.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Vista
Outdoor Inc. doing business as: Venor, Case No. 1:21-cv-03947
(E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vista Outdoor Inc. -- https://vistaoutdoor.com/ -- is an American
designer, manufacturer, and marketer of outdoor sports and
recreation products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Appeals Italy Court Decision Ordering $236M Payment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elisa Anzolin at insurancejournal.com reports that Volkswagen said
it would appeal against a decision by an Italian court ordering the
German group to refund consumers participating in a class action
lawsuit over the carmaker's rigging of diesel emissions tests.
Italian consumer group Altroconsumo said a court ordered Volkswagen
to pay 3,300 euros ($3,900), plus interest, to each of the more
than 63,000 consumers who joined the class action, for a total
amount of over 200 million euros ($236 million).
Altroconsumo said Volkswagen was found liable for an unfair
commercial practice after installing banned software on EA189
engines in order to lower NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions during
tests.
A spokesperson for Volkswagen said the German automaker considered
Altroconsumo's class action inadmissible and that its allegations
were without merit.
"Volkswagen will seek to have the judgment overturned by the second
instance court in Venice," the spokesperson told Reuters in an
emailed statement.
"Class members have not suffered any economic loss because of the
NOx issue since all vehicles are technically safe and roadworthy,
and no loss in their trade value resulted in the Italian market
because of the NOx issue," the person added.
Altroconsumo started legal action against Volkswagen in 2017,
together with its sister organizations in Belgium (Test
Aankoop/Test Achats), Spain (OCU) and Portugal (Deco), as part of a
Euroconsumers coordinated class action. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Appeal Italian Court Ruling on Dieselgate Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Elisa Anzolin and Christoph Steitz, writing for Reuters, report
that Volkswagen said on July 8 it would appeal against a decision
by an Italian court ordering the German group to refund consumers
participating in a class action lawsuit over the carmaker's rigging
of diesel emissions tests.
Italian consumer group Altroconsumo said a court ordered Volkswagen
to pay 3,300 euros ($3,900), plus interest, to each of the more
than 63,000 consumers who joined the class action, for a total
amount of over 200 million euros ($236 million).
Altroconsumo said Volkswagen was found liable for an unfair
commercial practice after installing banned software on EA189
engines in order to lower NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions during
tests.
A spokesperson for Volkswagen said the German automaker considered
Altroconsumo's class action inadmissible and that its allegations
were without merit.
"Volkswagen will seek to have the judgement overturned by the
second instance court in Venice", the spokesperson told Reuters in
an emailed statement.
"Class members have not suffered any economic loss because of the
NOx issue since all vehicles are technically safe and roadworthy,
and no loss in their trade value resulted in the Italian market
because of the NOx issue", the person added.
Altroconsumo started legal action against Volkswagen in 2017,
together with its sister organisations in Belgium (Test
Aankoop/Test Achats), Spain (OCU) and Portugal (Deco), as part of a
Euroconsumers coordinated class action. [GN]
WING HOP: Faces Redick ADA Suit in Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wing Hop Fung
Ginseng, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Crystal Redick v.
Wing Hop Fung Ginseng, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-05267-FLA-AFM
(C.D. Cal., June 29, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha.
Wing Hop Fung Ginseng was founded in 1985. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of a range of canned foods and
dry goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail:jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
WOODALLS INC: Akers Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martha Akers, Ray Jordan,
Dyan Matheson, Nancy Oliver, and Dawn Pease, on behalf of
themselves, the class of current, and former mobile homeowners in
the Park and all others similarly situated, v. Timothy Newby, Todd
Newby, Barry Campbell, Neil Brown,
Woodalls, Inc. and Newby Communities, Inc., d/b/a Newby Management,
Case No. 8:21-cv-00140-MSS-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3):
"All persons who are or were mobile homeowners in the
Woodalls Mobile Home Village from 2009 to the present and who
were required to pay overbilled ad valorem tax pass-ons."
The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges Defendants Timothy Newby,
Todd Newby, Barry Campbell, Neil Brown, Woodalls, Inc., and Newby
Communities, Inc., violated Federal law by fraudulent and
conspiratorial acts to illegally manipulate the lot rental
agreement in a Chapter 723, Fla. Stat., mobile home park requiring
the mobile homeowners to pay illegal fees or charges and pay
unreasonably higher lot rent including fraudulently over-billed ad
valorem tax pass-ons.
The named plaintiffs: Martha Akers, Ray Jordan, Dyan Matheson,
Nancy Oliver, and Dawn Pease are individual Plaintiffs who reside
in Florida and are or were bona fide mobile homeowners who lease or
leased the lot underneath their mobile home for residential use
within the Woodalls Mobile Home Village and purchased their homes
in the Woodalls Mobile Home Park subject to the fees and ad valorem
tax pass-ons required by the Defendants. They have suffered a
concrete and personalized injury by the Defendants in the form of
payments of the illegal fees and fraudulently over-billed ad
valorem tax pass-ons.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kk7Cy2
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel W. Perry, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL W. PERRY
4767 New Broad St., No. 1007
Orlando, FL 32814-6405
Telephone: (407) 894-9003
E-mail: dan@danielperry.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Sells Subsidiary Holding Asbestos Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Wack, writing for Marketwatch.com, reports that ITT Inc. has
sold InTelCo Management LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary that holds
long-term liabilities including asbestos liabilities and related
insurance assets, to Delticus HoldCo L.P., a corporate liability
consolidation vehicle and portfolio company of Warburg Pincus LLC.
ITT said the estimated impact of the divesture will be a one-time
after-tax loss of $27 million to be recorded in the second quarter
of 2021 and excluded from adjusted earnings per share.
Delticus bought 100% of the equity of InTelCo, which indemnifies
ITT for all legacy asbestos liabilities. At closing, ITT
contributed approximately $398 million in cash to InTelCo. As a
result, ITT removed all asbestos obligations, related insurance
assets and associated deferred tax assets from its consolidated
balance sheet.
Delticus will assume the operational management of InTelCo,
including the administration of all the asbestos claims and
collection of existing insurance policy reimbursements.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scapa Waycross Loses $16.67MM Mesothelioma Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reports that
justice came too late for a Washington state man who died in 2019
after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, but a King
County Superior Court jury awarded his widow $16.67 million in
compensation for his early death and her loss. Though the jury
heard over one month of testimony, it took them less than one day
to decide that Scapa Waycross Inc. had been negligent and its
products unsafe.
The $16.67 million verdict awarded to the family of mesothelioma
victim Kevan Holdsworth came after the jury heard extensive details
about his exposure to dryer felts manufactured by Scapa Waycross.
Holdsworth was a lifelong Washington state resident who began
working at the paper mill in Camas, Washington shortly after
graduating from high school in 1964. Between 1970 and 1976 he was
part of the mill's paper machine clean-up crew, which cleaned
Scapa's asbestos-contaminated dryer felts with compressed air.
Testimony provided at trial demonstrated that the cleaning process
spread asbestos fibers into the air, which Holdsworth then inhaled
and which caused his mesothelioma. The jury also learned that Scapa
had received notice of asbestos’ dangers but had never tested
their products to determine whether asbestos was released and had
never issued any type of warning regarding its use or its dangers.
Though many asbestos companies accept responsibility for their role
in mesothelioma deaths and are willing to work with families to
compensate them for their loss, Mr. Holdsworth's representative
explained that Scapa is an exception. "Scapa manufactured and sold
dangerous asbestos-containing products for many years, and it has
now adopted a 'no settlement' litigation strategy, meaning costly
litigation is the only way to get accountability. If Scapa had
exerted the same sort of effort to investigate the dangers of its
products that it now spends fighting lawsuits, Kevan Holdsworth
might still be alive. We're grateful the Holdsworths insisted on
seeing this case through, and we think the verdict constitutes a
clear statement that they were wronged."
Kevan met his widow Sherrie in 7th grade, and though they dated in
high school they did not marry until they were in their 30s.
Speaking of her loss, Sherrie said, "Kevan was an incredible man
who spent his life putting others before himself. Those who knew
him knew his generosity and sense of humor and deep love for the
Seahawks – and countless other things that I miss every single
day."
*********
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 ***