/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210727.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 27, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 143 Headlines 360 DIGITECH: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline ATHIRA PHARMA: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 24 Deadline BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 17 Deadline CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Minimum Wage, OT Pay Class Action CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Freeze Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations CITY COMPASSIONATE: Faces TCPA Class Action in California CLASSIC AUTO: Underpays Detailers, Fernandez et al. Suit Claims CLIENT SERVICES: Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive," Bashirova Says CONOPCO INC: Goulart Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri COTY DTC HOLDINGS: Duran-Valero Suit Removed to S.D. Florida DAVITA INC: Faces Class Action Over "No-Poach" Agreements DRAFTKINGS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 31 Deadline DRAFTKINGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 31 Deadline ENHANCED RECOVERY: Stoner Sues Over Deceptive Collection Practices FILTERS FAST: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Suit FIRST FAMILY: Delacruz Seeks Insurance Salespersons' Unpaid OT FRANCE: Class Action Lawsuit Against Ethnic Profiling FULL TRUCK: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline GOLDMAN SACHS: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Hunts Sues Over Franchisees' PIP Requirements HOME POINT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 20 Deadline HOOSICK FALLS: $65M Settlement Reached in Class Action Lawsuit INSULET CORP: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Court Ruling INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Oct. 12 Settlement Approval Hearing Set JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Class Action Over "No-Poach" Culture JAMES RIVER: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline JAMES RIVER: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 7 Deadline JET LENDING: Faces Quinan Suit Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Benzene in Sunscreens JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over OGX Hair Care Products JUUL LABS: Faces Norman Schools Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Juda School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Mesa School District Says JUUL LABS: Monticello Suit Claims Deceptive E-Cigarette Advertising JUUL LABS: School District of Lodi Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth KANZHUN LIMITED: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline KANZHUN LIMITED: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline KANZHUN LIMITED: Robbins Geller Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline KEN REAL ESTATE: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Jones Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania MANPOWER US: Underpays Factory Workers, Crossley Suit Alleges MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Investor Receive Class Action Status MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing MOUNTAIN RUN: Faces Stoner Suit Over Deceptive Collection Calls OCUGEN INC: Liable to Investors Over Stock Price Drop, Diaz Says OCUGEN INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit PHH MORTGAGE: Abfall Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over CPAP Machines RENOVACARE INC: Faces Boller Suit Over 24.8% Drop of Stock Price RENOVACARE INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline RENOVACARE INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of September 14 Deadline RENOVACARE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 14 Deadline SD WHEEL: Fails to Pay Workers' Overtime, Espegard Suit Claims STABLE ROAD: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline STABLE ROAD: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims STABLE ROAD: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 13 Deadline STRADA CRUSH: Discusses Abusive Process of Delay in Seeking Re-Cert TALK OF THE TOWN: Clark Sues Over Dietary Managers' Unpaid Overtime TESLA INC: Car Owners Call for Class Action Upgrade Cost TOYOTA MOTOR: SUV Owners Object to RAV4 Fuel Tank Settlement TRADER JOE'S: 9th Cir. Affirms Labeling Class Action Dismissal TRANSUNION LLC: Brownstein Hyatt Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling TRANSUNION LLC: Harris Beach Attorney Discusses Court Ruling TROPICALE FOODS: Ferguson Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Palitas UBS GROUP: Seeks to Block GBP1BB Opt-Out Forex Rigging Class Suit UNISEA INC: Employee Files Wage Theft Class Action UNITED STATES: Black Employees' Suit Seeks Mental Health Fund UNITED STATES: Judge Halts Minority Farmer Debt Relief Program VBJ CONSULTING: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California VIRGINIA MASON: Settles Nurses' Class Action for $5.5 Million VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Estrada Suit Over Unpaid PZEV Repairs WALMART INC: Constangy Brooks Attorney Discusses BIPA Class Action [*] Alston & Bird Discusses Class Action Lawsuits Amid Pandemic [*] Maryland Borrower Files Suit Over Deceptive Mortgage Practices [*] Wilson Elser Attorney Discusses Product Recalls, Class Suits ********* 360 DIGITECH: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders of 360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN). Shareholders who purchased shares of QFIN 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/360-digitech-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17794&from=5 CLASS PERIOD: April 29, 2021 to July 7, 2021 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had been collecting personal information in violation of relevant People's Republic of China laws and regulations; (ii) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] ATHIRA PHARMA: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 24 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds investors that securities fraud class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) ("Athira") 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; and/or b) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2021 Website: https://www.ktmc.com/athira-pharma-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=athira Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435 Toll free (844) 887-9500 Athira is a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing small molecules to restore neuronal health and stop neurodegeneration. 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) Athira's president and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Leen 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 [GN] BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 17 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 19 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of BlueCity Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: BLCT) pursuant and/or traceable to BlueCity's July 8, 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for BlueCity investors under the federal securities laws. To join the BlueCity class action, go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2092.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants had overstated BlueCity's business and financial prospects; (2) BlueCity was ill-equipped to absorb the costs of becoming a publicly traded company, including IPO- and growth-related costs; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, Defendants had misrepresented BlueCity's capability for sustainable growth; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false 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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 17, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2092.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Minimum Wage, OT Pay Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that two plaintiffs, one a Texas and the other a California resident, have filed suit against employer Charter Communications LLC for state labor law violations. In the complaint, filed in the Central District of California, the former employees allege that time they worked "on-call" was compensable, yet was remunerated at less than $2.00 per hour, a rate far below the minimum wage and overtime rates required by the Texas and California labor codes. The filing describes St. Louis, Missouri-based Charter Communications as a telecommunications and mass media company that provides cable, internet, and communications products and services countrywide. It explains that the plaintiffs worked in Texas and California for Charter as "Maintenance Techs." Allegedly and among other job responsibilities, the plaintiffs were required to respond to emergency outages in cable, internet, and communication services infrastructure, requiring them to be on-call 128 per week in addition to their 40-hour workweek during on-call shifts. In addition to the overtime hours, Charter reportedly imposed onerous restrictions on maintenance techs during on-call periods. Per company policy, the plaintiffs and putative class members would have to make themselves available 24 hours per day, be geographically proximate to potential call-outs, and park and keep company "Bucket Trucks," vehicles equipped with "a crane-like, mechanized aerial lift platform," at their residences. If a maintenance tech strayed more than a few minutes from their bucket truck's parking location, they could not comply with reporting time and outage resolution obligations, the plaintiffs explain. In turn, the former workers allege that the company's "flat-rate" policy resulted in gross undercompensation. They seek damages and to certify a class of Texas and California maintenance techs who worked for Charter during the applicable limitations period, are not subject to Charter's arbitration program, were assigned a Charter-owned bucket truck, and who worked one or more on-call shifts. The plaintiffs are represented by Ferguson Case Orr Paterson LLP and Strauss & Strauss APC. [GN] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Freeze Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES LEE FREEZE and GARY PFLASTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-01212 (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Texas Labor Code and the California Labor Code including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay overtime/double-time wages, failure to pay timely pay wages due, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair competition. Mr. Freeze and Mr. Pflaster were employed by the Defendant as maintenance technicians in Texas and California, respectively. Charter Communications, LLC is a telecommunications and mass media company, with its principal place of business located at 12405 Powerscourt Drive, St. Louis, St. Louis County, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Velthoen, Esq. Leslie A. McAdam, Esq. Max R. Engelhardt, Esq. FERGUSON CASE ORR PATERSON LLP 1050 S. Kimball Road Ventura, CA 93004 Telephone: (805) 659-6800 Facsimile: (805) 659-6818 E-mail: mvelthoen@fcoplaw.com lmcadam@fcoplaw.com mengelhardt@fcoplaw.com - and – Michael A. Strauss, Esq. Aris E. Karakalos, Esq. STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC 226 W. Ojai Ave. #101-325 Ojai, CA 93023 Telephone: (805) 641-6600 Facsimile: (805) 641-6607 E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com aris@strausslawyers.com CITY COMPASSIONATE: Faces TCPA Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that City Compassionate Caregivers Inc., a California cannabis dispensary was hit with a proposed class action in federal court on July 19, accused of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages to thousands of people to promote business. [GN] CLASSIC AUTO: Underpays Detailers, Fernandez et al. Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES FERNANDEZ and RAMON ANTONIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLASSIC AUTO DETAILING INC., and ANGEL VELASQUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-06068 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2021) bring this complaint seeking for equitable and legal relief against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as detailers. Fernandez has worked for the Defendants from on or around May 20, 2016 until on or around November 20, 2020, while Gonzalez was from in or around October 2018 until in or around March 2021. The Plaintiffs claim that although they regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all the hours they had worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, they were only paid at a fixed hourly rate for all hours worked, including those over 40 per week. In addition, the Defendants did not maintain and keep records of the number of hours the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated detailers have worked. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide them a notice containing their rates of pay at the time they were hired or at any time thereafter, and failed to provide them with wage statement with each wage payment, the suit alleges. Classic Auto Detailing Inc. provides automobile detailing services to the auto dealerships throughout New York and Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicola Ciliotta, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 460-0047 Fax: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com CLIENT SERVICES: Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive," Bashirova Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- NILIYA BASHIROVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04028-DG-JRC (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a misleading and deceptive collection letter to the Plaintiff for her alleged debt to Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. The Defendant's letter contains deceptive accounting of the debt. The balance itemization is mathematically impossible. If there were additional interest and other charges since charge-off, the current balance should be higher than the balance due at charge-off. Furthermore, as to the added interest and other fees since charge-off, the Defendant has no basis for these charges in the underlying agreement between the Plaintiff and the original creditor. The Plaintiff has been misled as to what the accurate balance is and whether additional interest and fees will be added so that her balance continues to increase, says the suit. Client Services, Inc. is a debt collector with its principal place of business in Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8700 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 CONOPCO INC: Goulart Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brandi Goulart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conopco, Inc. doing business as: Unilever, Does 1 - 10 was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on July 22, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00888 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other Fraud for Transfer Related Claims and Causes of Action. Conopco, Inc. doing business as: Unilever -- http://www.unilever.com/-- is a British multinational consumer goods company headquartered in London, England.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: James Muehlberger, Esq. SHOOK HARDY LLP - Kansas City 2555 Grand Blvd., 19th Floor Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 474-6550 Fax: (816) 421-5547 Email: jmuehlberger@shb.com COTY DTC HOLDINGS: Duran-Valero Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Joselyn Duran-Valero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coty DTC Holdings, LLC, Case No. 21-013648-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 22, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-22618-MGC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other Contract. Coty -- https://www.coty.com/ -- is a global beauty company making cosmetic, skin, fragrance & hair brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Ave 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Bezalel Adin Stern, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 3050 K Street, NW Washington Harbour, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 342-8422 Fax: (202) 342-8451 Email: bstern@kelleydrye.com DAVITA INC: Faces Class Action Over "No-Poach" Agreements --------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a former senior DaVita employee has sued the dialysis giant and its two biggest outpatient medical care facility operator rivals in Illinois federal court, piggybacking on a U.S. Department of Justice "no-poach" criminal indictment against Davita and a former CEO announced one day earlier. Alberto Pena's proposed class action complaint on July 16 borrows liberally from the DOJ's two indictments so far accusing health care companies of colluding with competitors on agreements not to recruit one another's senior level employees. [GN] DRAFTKINGS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 31 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming August 31, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired DraftKings Inc. ("DraftKings" or the "Company") f/k/a Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp. securities between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your DraftKings investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/draftkings-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On April 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 or otherwise acquired DraftKings securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 31, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. [GN] DRAFTKINGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 31 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of DraftKings Inc. f/k/a Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: DKNG) between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 31, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased DraftKings securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the DraftKings class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2109.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 31, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SBTech (Global) Limited ("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, DraftKings' revenues were derived, in part, from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (5) accordingly, the benefits of the business combination were overstated; and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the DraftKings class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2109.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ENHANCED RECOVERY: Stoner Sues Over Deceptive Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ MITCHELL STONER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01031-UNA (D. Del., July 15, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Verizon, who contracted with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about December 22, 2020, the Defendant and the Plaintiff had agreed that the alleged debt would be resolved for a one-time payment of $58.48. However, the Defendant charged the Plaintiff an additional $9.95 fee for assessment that was not permitted by the agreement creating the debt nor was it permitted by law. The Defendant misled and deceived the Plaintiff into falsely believing that the Plaintiff owed the additional fee, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, litigation costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antraig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy, Suite 22 Wilmington, DE 19805 Tel: (302) 722-6885 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com FILTERS FAST: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- A North Carolina federal judge denied Filters Fast LLC's motion to dismiss a proposed data breach class action, ruling that the plaintiffs demonstrated adequate harm to satisfy Article III standing. The class action stems from a data breach that occurred between July 2019 and July 2020 through Filters Fast's shopping website. Plaintiffs claim that the breach occurred as a result of Filters Fast's negligence. Filters Fast moved to dismiss the proposed class action, arguing that the customers could not establish standing to sue in federal court because they did not assert any concrete harm. However, the court agreed with the plaintiffs who had alleged misuse of their payment cards as a result of the breach. While the plaintiffs did not allege an economic injury as a result of this breach, the plaintiffs did show misuse of their personal data, the court said in its decision. The court wrote, "These allegations of actual misuse bring the ‘actual and threatened harm' alleged by Plaintiffs ‘out of the realm of speculation and into the realm of sufficiently imminent and particularized harm.'" This is a lower standard than some other data breach class action cases currently being litigated so we will watch to see how the case proceeds. In addition to facing this proposed class action, Filters Fast entered into a $200,000 settlement agreement with the New York Attorney General as a result of an investigation by the state related to the same breach. [GN] FIRST FAMILY: Delacruz Seeks Insurance Salespersons' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST FAMILY INSURANCE, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00535 (M.D. Fla., July 15, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime compensation to its insurance salespersons in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt insurance salesperson from October 12, 2019 until October 17, 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that he worked more than 40 hours per week during nearly every week of his employment with the Defendant. However, the Defendant failed to pay him overtime compensation at the federally mandated overtime rate for the overtime hours he has worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and all other similarly situated insurance salespersons seeking to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid overtime compensation, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. First Family Insurance, Inc. provides quotes for personalized and affordable health insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 617-6017 Fax: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com FRANCE: Class Action Lawsuit Against Ethnic Profiling ----------------------------------------------------- hrw.org reports that France has failed to take necessary steps to prevent and remedy ethnic profiling by the police during identity checks, a form of systemic discrimination, six French and international human rights organizations said in filing a class action lawsuit against the French state. Antoine Lyon-Caen, a lawyer before France's Council of State and Court of Cassation, took the case to the Council of State, the highest administrative court in France, on behalf of the Maison Communautaire pour un Developement Solidaire (Community House for Solidarity Development - MCDS), Pazapas, Reseau Egalite, Antidiscrimination, Justice Interdisciplinaire (Equality, Anti-discrimination, Interdisciplinary Justice Network - Reaji), Amnesty International France, Human Rights Watch, and Open Society Justice Initiative. The organizations began the procedure in January 2021 when they sent a letter of formal notice to the prime minister, the minister of the interior, and the minister of justice to press for structural reforms and concrete measures to put an end to discriminatory police practices, a problem that has been recognized by the president of the republic. The authorities did not respond in the four-month period provided for under the class action procedure. Their silence is particularly painful for the daily victims of these discriminatory practices, the organizations said. The class action is an innovative procedure under French law that allows civil society groups to ask the court to order the authorities to take measures to put an end to the widespread illegal practice of ethnic profiling. The groups are asking the Council of State to find the French state at fault for failing to prevent widespread use of ethnic profiling by the police and to order the authorities to adopt necessary reforms, including: Modify identity check powers to explicitly prohibit discrimination in identity checks, abolish preventive identity checks, and circumscribe police authority to ensure that all identity checks, including those based on a prosecutor's orders, are based on objective and individual grounds; Adopt specific regulations and instructions for stops targeting children; Create a system to record and evaluate data on identity checks and provide those stopped with a record of the stop; Create an effective, independent complaints mechanism; and Change the institutional objectives, guidelines, and training of the police, including with respect to interactions with the public. The landmark lawsuit comes after years of inaction by French authorities, who have allowed the unlawful practices to continue, affecting a significant number of people. The case rests on significant evidence that police engage in widespread ethnic profiling based on physical characteristics associated with a real or presumed ethnic or racial origin. The absence of a strict legal framework that respects legal nondiscrimination standards allows the police to use overly broad powers to conduct identity checks in a discriminatory manner. Quantitative studies have demonstrated that men and boys perceived to be Black or Arab are disproportionately targeted for stop-and-frisk actions, while qualitative reports have documented the devastating impact of discriminatory policing, including on children as young as 12. The legal complaint filed on July 22 demonstrates how ethnic profiling by the French police constitutes systemic discrimination – defined by the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights as "legal rules, policies, practices or predominant cultural attitudes in the public sector. . . . which create relative disadvantages for some groups, and privileges for other groups"– and details the French state's inadequate response to date to put an end to it. Measures adopted that have proved insufficient include the use of body cameras and the obligation on police officers to wear badge numbers. The authorities have consistently rejected all attempts to record identity checks and provide those stopped with some kind of record of the procedure. On June 28, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights singled out France for discriminatory police stops in her report on the "Promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Africans and of people of African descent against excessive use of force and other human rights violations by law enforcement officers." In the past other UN and European authorities have called on French authorities to end discriminatory identity checks. On June 8, the Paris Court of Appeals once again condemned the French state for "gross misconduct" for the discriminatory stop of three students in a Paris train station in 2017 as they were returning from a class trip. The Defender of Rights has repeatedly criticized discriminatory identity checks and called for reform. In 2016, the Court of Cassation ruled that police stops of three young men in 2011 constituted discrimination and "gross misconduct that engages the responsibility of the state." The Council of State has the authority to order the state to end these stigmatizing, humiliating, and degrading practices, the organizations said. [GN] FULL TRUCK: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. ("FTA" or "the Company") (NYSE: YMM) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired FTA securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with FTA's June 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ymm. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933. The complaint alleges the Registration Statement featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) FTA's apps Yunmanman and Huochebang would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the CAC; (2) the CAC would require FTA to suspend new user registration; (3) FTA needed to conduct a "comprehensive self-examination of any cybersecurity risks"; (4) FTA needed to "continue to improve its cybersecurity systems and technology capabilities"; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared. 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/ymm 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 FTA you have until September 10, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] GOLDMAN SACHS: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul J. Walsen, Esq., Amy J. Eldridge, Esq., Nicole C. Mueller, Esq., and Michael W. Fakhoury, Esq., of K&L Gates, in an article for The National Law Review, report that on June 21, 2021, in a narrow ruling, the Supreme Court held that courts may consider the generic nature of an alleged misrepresentation as evidence of a lack of price impact where defendants seek to rebut the presumption of reliance -- established under Basic Inc. v. Levinson1 -- at the class certification stage.2 A court must consider this evidence even though it may also bear on the materiality of a statement, an issue which is reserved for the merits phase of the action. The Supreme Court also clarified the burden that defendants must discharge in order to rebut the Basic presumption at class certification: Defendants bear the burden of persuasion to show a lack of price impact by a preponderance of the evidence. On balance, the decision favors securities defendants seeking to defeat class certification. In cases where there is a mismatch between the generality of the misrepresentation and the specificity of the corrective disclosure, "it is less likely that the specific disclosure actually corrected the generic misrepresentation, which means that there is less reason to infer front-end price inflation—that is, price impact—from the back-end price drop."3 BACKGROUND AND THE BASIC PRESUMPTION The case arises from a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act.4 Plaintiff shareholders alleged that Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Goldman) and three of its former executives committed securities fraud by making misrepresentations that caused Goldman's stock price to remain inflated by preventing preexisting inflation from dissipating from the stock price.5 In particular, "Plaintiffs allege[d] that between 2006 and 2010, Goldman maintained an inflated stock price by making repeated misrepresentations about its conflict-of-interest policies and business practices."6 The alleged misstatements included generic statements about Goldman's ability to manage conflicts—for example, "[w]e have extensive procedures and controls that are designed to identify and address conflicts of interest"; "[o]ur clients' interests always come first"; and "[i]ntegrity and honesty are at the heart of our business."7 Plaintiffs alleged that these generic statements were false or misleading in light of several undisclosed conflicts of interest, and Goldman's stock price dropped and shareholders suffered losses once the supposed truth about Goldman's conflicts was revealed.8 Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of Goldman shareholders by invoking the presumption endorsed by the Supreme Court in Basic.9 The Basic presumption is premised on the theory that investors rely on the market price of a company's security, which in an efficient market incorporates all of the company's public misrepresentations. To invoke the presumption, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the alleged misrepresentation was publicly known, (2) it was material, (3) the stock traded in an efficient market, and (4) the plaintiff traded the stock between the time the misrepresentation was made and when the truth was revealed.10 A class action plaintiff must prove the Basic prerequisites before class certification, with one exception: The Supreme Court previously determined that materiality should be left to the merits phase because it does not bear on the question considered at class certification, namely, whether common questions predominate.11 In this case, plaintiffs posited that Goldman shareholders relied on the "inflation maintenance" or "price maintenance" theory, in which the defendants' generic purported misstatements regarding Goldman's conflicts processes artificially maintained an already inflated stock price. The Basic presumption, however, can be rebutted. In Halliburton, the Supreme Court held that a defendant can overcome the Basic presumption at the class certification stage by showing "that an alleged misrepresentation did not actually affect the market price of the stock."12 If a misrepresentation had no price impact, then Basic's fundamental premise "completely collapses, rendering class certification inappropriate."13 Defendants sought to rebut the Basic presumption and defeat class certification through evidence that the alleged misrepresentations were too general to have any impact on Goldman's stock price.14 The district court certified the class, a decision that was initially vacated by the 2nd Circuit on the ground that defendants bear the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact by a preponderance of the evidence, and the district court had erred by holding defendants to a higher burden of proof and by refusing to consider some of its price-impact evidence.15 Following remand of the case, the district court certified the class again under the standard set forth by the 2nd Circuit. The 2nd Circuit subsequently affirmed the decision in a divided opinion, holding that considering the generic nature of a statement at the class certification stage was inappropriate because it spoke to a statement's materiality and is unrelated to the issue of whether common questions predominate over individual issues.16 However, in a dissent, Judge Sullivan noted his colleagues "miss[ed] the forests for the trees"17 and "the majority tiptoe[d] around the fact"18 that no reasonable investor would have attached any significance to the generic nature of defendants' statements.19 Defendants sought review by the Supreme Court, arguing that the 2nd Circuit erred in two ways: first, by holding that the generic nature of the alleged misrepresentations is irrelevant to the price-impact inquiry; and second, by assigning Defendants the burden of persuasion—rather than the lesser burden of production—to prove a lack of price impact.20 THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court on 21 June 2021, which was joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Sonia Sotomayor joined in part. Justice Sotomayor also filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, and Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. The Supreme Court held that "all probative evidence" in assessing price impact at class certification should be considered, "regardless [of] whether the evidence is also relevant to a merits question like materiality."21 The Supreme Court noted that "[t]he generic nature of a misrepresentation often will be important evidence of a lack of price impact, particularly in cases proceeding under the inflation-maintenance theory."22 The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the 2nd Circuit because it concluded that the 2nd Circuit's opinion left sufficient doubt as to whether it had properly considered the generic nature of the alleged misrepresentations. In addressing the burden that defendants must carry in order to rebut the Basic presumption, the Supreme Court provided additional clarity: Defendants bear the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact by a preponderance of the evidence at class certification.23 In short, a defendant must do more than meet the burden of production by offering some evidence relevant to price impact; the defendant must carry the burden of persuasion by "sever[ing] the link between the alleged misrepresentation and . . . the price received (or paid)" by the plaintiff.24 The Supreme Court observed that to hold otherwise—and allow the burden to shift back to plaintiffs upon the mustering of any competent evidence regarding lack of price impact (such as the generic nature of the alleged misrepresentations) would negate "in almost every case" the Supreme Court's prior holdings that plaintiffs need not directly prove price impact to invoke the Basic presumption.25 Goldman provides a tempered victory for defendants seeking to defeat class certification, particularly in price maintenance cases. In cases where there is a mismatch between the generality of the misrepresentation and the specificity of the corrective disclosure, a door has been opened for defendants to present arguments previously unlikely to gain traction at the class certification stage of the proceedings. [GN] HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Hunts Sues Over Franchisees' PIP Requirements ------------------------------------------------------------------ A HUNTS MILLS ASSOCIATES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC, SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC. d/b/a INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP and IHG OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-13726 (D.N.J., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, accounting, and violations of New Jersey Franchise Practices Act and the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent, and anticompetitive practices of requiring their franchisees to use certain mandated vendors and suppliers for the purchase of virtually all goods and services necessary to maintain and to run a hotel. The Defendants' forced exclusive use of certain chosen vendors and suppliers imposes well above-market procurement costs on Holiday Hospitality Franchising (HHF) franchisees which include, but are not limited to, those associated with its onerous and exorbitant Property Improvement Plan (PIP). Franchisees are forced to frequently undertake expensive renovations, remodeling and construction as part of the PIP, and in so doing manipulates and shortens the warranty periods on mandated products the franchisees must purchase, then the Defendants disingenuously use this to justify PIP requirements as purportedly necessary to meet brand standards when, in reality, the Defendants' sole purpose is to maximize their kickbacks and unjustifiably run up costs on their franchisees in bad faith, says the suit. A Hunts Mills Associates LLC is a franchisee that owns and operates a HHF-brand hotel located at 111 West Main Street in Clinton, New Jersey. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC is a franchising affiliate of Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG), headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Six Continents Hotels, Inc., doing business as Intercontinental Hotels Group, is a hotel company, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. IHG Owners Association, Inc. is an association that represents the owners and operators of IHG, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Klein, Esq. MARKS & KLEIN, LLP 63 Riverside Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 747-7100 Facsimile: (732) 219-0625 E-mail: justin@marksklein.com - and – Andrew P. Bleiman, Esq. Mark Fishbein, Esq. MARKS & KLEIN, LLP 1363 Shermer Road, Suite 318 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (312) 206-5162 Facsimile: (732) 219-0625 E-mail: andrew@marksklein.com mark@ marksklein.com - and – Justin E. Proper, Esq. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395 Telephone: (215) 864-7165 E-mail: properj@whiteandwilliams.com HOME POINT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 20 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on July 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Point Capital Inc. ("Home Point" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:HMPT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and docketed under 21-cv-11457, is on behalf of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021, initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") (the "Class"). The claims in this action arise from Home Point's materially misleading Offering Documents (defined below) issued in connection with the IPO. If you are a shareholder who purchased Home Point common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021, initial public offering, you have until August 20, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Home Point, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a residential mortgage originator and service provider. The Company operates through two segments, Origination and Servicing. The Origination segment sources loans through direct, wholesale, and correspondent channels. The Servicing segment offers collecting loan payments; remitting principal and interest payments to investors; managing escrow funds for the payment of mortgage-related expenses, such as taxes and insurance; and performing loss mitigation activities on behalf of investors and administering mortgage loans. From 2018 to 2020, Home Point undertook an aggressive expansion of its Broker Partner network, increasing the network from 1,623 as of December 31, 2018 to nearly 5,000 as of September 30, 2020, which represents an annualized growth rate of 88%. In the fourth quarter of 2020, mortgage lenders industry-wide began predicting decreased gain-on-sale margins, the difference between the retail and wholesale cost of a mortgage, for the succeeding three months. According to the Fannie Mae Q4 2020 Mortgage Lender Sentiment Survey, only 19% of lenders foresaw a spike in profit margins compared to 48% in the prior quarter, 33% believed profits would hold steady, while 48% expected a decrease in profits. On January 8, 2021, Home Point filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after amendment, was declared effective on January 28, 2021 (the "Registration Statement"). On January 29, 2021, Home Point conducted the IPO, issuing 7.25 million shares of the Company's common stock to the public at the Offering price of $13.00 per share for proceeds of $88,123,750 to the selling stockholders before expenses and after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions. On February 1, 2021, Home Point filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Home Point's aggressive expansion of its broker partners would dramatically increase the Company's expenses; (ii) 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; (iii) accordingly, the Company had overstated its business and financial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. On May 6, 2021, Home Point issued a press release announcing the Company's financial results for the first quarter of 2021. Among other results, Home Point reported revenue of $324.2 million, missing consensus estimates by $41.72 million. On this news, Home Point's stock price fell $1.66 per share, or 17.7%, to close at $7.72 per share on May 6, 2021. At the time this Complaint was filed, Home Point's stock price has continued to trade below the $13.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN] HOOSICK FALLS: $65M Settlement Reached in Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- news10.com reports that three of the four defendants in the Hoosick Falls PFOA contaminant case have agreed to a $65.25 million settlement. "The community is ready to get this behind us," said Hoosick Falls Mayor Rob Allen. Allen said the settlement of the PFOA class action lawsuit is a sign of good things to come. "It doesn't erase everything that was done. It doesn't erase the lives affected, the lives lost, but it's a really important first step," Allen said. 3M, Saint-Gobain and Honeywell have agreed to a settlement awaiting approval from a federal judge. Dupont has not. In a statement Honeywell said in part: "The remediation in Hoosick Falls is a top priority for Honeywell . . . . we continue to work collaboratively and transparently . . . . to conduct environmental investigations, construct interim remedies, and implement cleanup plans." "The health, safety and wellbeing of both our employees and the communities in which we operate are important to us, and we take that responsibility very seriously," said Director of Business Communications at Saint-Gobain Lia LoBello. The settlement will be divided between three classes: property owners, private well owners and for medical monitoring. The rest of the money goes toward legal fees. "This is a property damage nusiance and medical monitoring settlement of classes. It's not an injury or illnes settlement," said Co-lead counsel Stephen Schwarz. Schwarz said once the settlement is approved, his firm can begin meeting with residents to discuss what their next steps are. "People that end up participating in this settlement who are not sick now, who may get sick later, will retain their rights to sue in later years," Schwarz said. The village is weeks away from finding out where it will get clean water from. Mayor Allen hopes this announcement is a start in closing a difficult chapter for residents. "Once this is settled, we can basically go back to showing how great of a community it is to be here," Allen said. [GN] INSULET CORP: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Donald Frederico, Esq., of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that "I have written before about one of the peculiar characteristics of a class action settlement; namely, that once a class action settlement is reached, the interests of the named plaintiffs and the defendant in obtaining settlement approval are aligned, which makes the court's role as fiduciary to the members of the class all the more important." That lack of adversity is present in class counsel's fee petition as well. A defendant is generally indifferent to the amount of fees to be awarded to class counsel, because the fee award often represents nothing more than an amount to be allocated to class counsel out of a larger sum that the defendant has already agreed to pay. Class members, on the other hand, often have a real stake in the amount of the fee award, because the larger the attorneys' slice of the settlement pie, the less pie remains for distribution to the class. At the time the fee petition is presented, therefore, class counsels' interests conflict with the interests of the class they represent, and unless one or more class members object to the fee award, the adversary process provides them with little protection from potential overreach. It then becomes primarily the responsibility of the court, acting as a fiduciary to the class, to probe the fee request and make sure that the bite it takes out of the settlement proceeds is reasonable. The court's ability to perform this fiduciary role depends on class counsel's performance of their ethical duty to present their request for attorneys' fees with candor, as required by Rule 3.3 of the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. As every attorney, or at least every litigator, should know, Rule 3.3(a) requires that lawyers shall not knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or," if they have done so, fail to correct it; shall not fail to disclose adverse legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction not disclosed by opposing counsel; and shall not offer evidence the lawyer knows to be false, and must take "reasonable remedial measures" if they learn that material evidence they have offered was false. Failure of class counsel to adhere to these standards can result in a reduction of the requested amount for attorneys' fees, denial of the fee petition altogether, and in some cases, referral to bar authorities for potential disciplinary action. This duty of candor places on class counsel a special duty of care in ensuring the accuracy of their fee petition and its supporting declarations. A recent decision from the District of Massachusetts demonstrates one potential consequence of including inaccurate information in such materials, even if the inclusion is the result of inadvertence. The Decision In Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet Corp., C.A. No. 15-12345-MLW (D. Mass., June 25, 2021) ("Insulet"), Judge Mark Wolf awarded a reduced amount of attorneys' fees to two plaintiff law firms because the declarations attorneys from those firms submitted in support of their fee requests included language that the court found to be false and misleading. Specifically, the declarations stated that the hourly rates the firms were using for their lodestar analyses "are the same as the regular rates charged for [the attorneys'] services, which have been accepted in other securities or shareholder litigation." Judge Wolf found that these statements were false because the firms "worked almost exclusively on a contingent fee basis and had very few paying clients." In other words, he concluded, contrary to the statements in the declarations, there were no "regular rates" against which the fee requests could be assessed. Two other firms submitted supporting declarations as well, but omitted the reference to having regular rates charges for their services. The court found that those firms "did not err in their representations to the court with regard to the rates each used to calculate their respective lodestars." [E]xercising its equitable authority to award attorneys' fees from a common fund," and acting "as a quasi-fiduciary for the class," the court awarded the two offending firms what they would have received had the overall award been 23% of the common fund, and awarded the two non-offending firms what they would have received had the overall award been 25% of the common fund. This amounted to a reduction of approximately $200,000 in one fee award and approximately $70,000 in the other. Given that, despite his finding of "false and misleading" representations, Judge Wolf still awarded significant attorneys' fees to the two law firms, it appears that he did not consider the inaccuracies in Insulet to be the result of intentional misconduct, but at most a lack of sufficient care by counsel in ensuring the accuracy of the fee submissions. As the judge explained, one of the court's purposes in reducing the two fee awards in Insulet was to provide guidance to class counsel for future cases: "The court hopes that its decision in this case will be another reminder to counsel that their representations with regard to requests for attorneys' fees, among other things, will be scrutinized by judges, and that there will be consequences if they have not satisfied their duty to provide the court information that is accurate, complete, and reliable." Take-Aways Beyond its application to the attorneys before it, the court's decision is significant in at least two respects. First, what seems to have happened in Insulet is that counsel submitting the declarations the court found to be false and misleading copied the "regular rates" language from declarations that they had submitted in other cases and that were accepted by other courts. They argued, probably correctly, that it is a common practice for class counsel to include the language or similar language in their fee declarations. The court rejected this "but-everybody-does-it" argument, holding that "[t]he fact that the false and misleading representations made by [the two attorneys] concerning the ‘regular rates charged by their attorneys' may be common, does not mean that they should be ignored or excused." This was especially so, Judge Wolf noted, because he had rejected similar language in another case, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 2020 WL 949885 (D. Mass., Feb. 27, 2020) ("State Street"), with which the lawyers admitted they were familiar. Second, the court in both Insulet and State Street pointed to another subsection of the Model Rule, subsection 3.3(d), governing ex parte proceedings. Section 3.3(d) of both the ABA Model Rules and the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct provides: "In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse." In other words, because an ex parte proceeding by definition lacks the adversarial nature that helps ensure that judges will not be misled by inaccurate information, the rules impose on the attorneys appearing before the court a heightened duty of candor beyond that imposed by Rule 3.3(a). In State Street, which involved the same plaintiff but different attorneys, and more examples of potentially false and misleading statements, Judge Wolf had concluded that "[a] petition for an award of attorneys' fees in a class action is appropriately treated as an ex parte submission because at that point the attorneys' interests in maximizing their compensation [are] adverse to the interest of the class in maximizing its recovery." 2020 WL 949885, at *14 (citing In re Rite Aid Corp. Secs. Litig., 296 F.3d 294, 307-08 (3d Cir. 2005)). There, he held: "In view of the fact that the adversary process is not operating when attorneys representing a class seek a fee award, it is especially important that they satisfy their duty of candor to the court." 2020 WL 949885, at *13. In support of this conclusion, Judge Wolf relied on Comment 14A to the Massachusetts version of Rule 3.3, which provides: "When adversaries present a joint petition to a tribunal, such as a petition to approve the settlement of a class action suit or the settlement of a suit involving a minor, the proceeding loses its adversarial character and in some respects takes on the form of an ex parte proceeding. The lawyers presenting such a joint petition thus have the same duties of candor to the tribunal as lawyers in ex parte proceedings and should be guided by Rule 3.3(d)." (Emphasis added). Although this Comment may not appear in every jurisdiction's version of Rule 3.3, its characterization of a class action settlement proceeding as ex parte aptly reflects the diminished adversity present in the settlement approval process, and the importance of attorney candor in assisting courts in fulfilling their fiduciary obligations to settlement class members. Conclusion Judge Wolf's decisions in Insulet and State Street should serve as a wake-up call to attorneys seeking judicial approval of class action settlements. Counsel requesting awards of attorneys' fees in class action settlements, and especially counsel appearing in Massachusetts federal and state courts, would be especially well-advised to study both decisions in order to avoid the adverse outcomes experienced by the attorneys whose declarations in support of their fee requests were found wanting. [GN] INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Oct. 12 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers, P.C. on July 19 announced a proposed securities class action settlement regarding Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. ("IPCI"). In 2019, a proposed securities class action was commenced against IPCI and Isa Odidi, IPCI's CEO and Chairman of the Board, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court"). It is alleged that during the period from February 29, 2016 to and including July 26, 2017 (the "Class Period"), IPCI made misrepresentations and omissions regarding a New Drug Application made to the United States Food and Drug Administration for an opioid analgesic called Rexista. The parties have reached a proposed settlement of the class action, which is subject to approval by the Court (the "Agreement"). The Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or liability. The Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims. This Notice provides a summary of the proposed settlement. Under the Agreement, the Defendants will pay or cause to be paid CAD $266,000 (the "Settlement Amount") in full and final settlement of all claims against them, including Class Counsel's fees, applicable taxes and expenses, and interest, in exchange for a full release and a dismissal of the class action. Due to the limited monetary amount of the settlement, settlement funds will not be distributed to Class Members, but rather any amounts remaining after amounts approved by the Court to be paid to the Plaintiff and Class Counsel, will be provided cy près to the Class Actions Clinic at the University of Windsor Law School. Investors can opt-out of the proposed settlement and pursue their own action with their own lawyer at their own expense. A copy of the long-form notice providing greater detail about the settlement, including about Class Counsel's fees that will be requested of the Court, your right to oppose the settlement, the hearing of the motion to approve the settlement, and the right to opt-out is available at https://investorcomplexlaw.com/intellipharmaceutics-international-inc/. There will be a hearing (the "Approval Hearing") in which Class Counsel will request the Court to approve (i) the Agreement; and (ii) their legal fees and expenses. The Approval Hearing shall take place on October 12, 2021 at 10:00AM. The Approval Hearing is scheduled to take place in person at the Courthouse at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St W., Toronto, ON., but due to the COVID pandemic may need to be conducted via video-conferencing methods such as Zoom or by conference call, as directed by further order of the Court. At the Approval Hearing, the Court will determine whether the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class. At the Approval Hearing, Class Counsel will also seek Court approval of their request for fees equal to CAD $130,000 plus reimbursement of their relevant expenses. Class Counsel has been working under a contingency-fee agreement, has not been paid as the matter has proceeded, and has paid all the expenses of conducting the litigation. Class Counsel will be requesting that the legal fees and disbursements be deducted from the Settlement Amount. Any Class Member may participate in the Approval Hearing to object to the Agreement or comment on the Agreement or Class Counsel's request for fees, so long as they email any objections or comments to Class Counsel at info@investorcomplexlaw.com no later than August 27, 2021 at 5:00pm EST. Class Members who do not email an objection or comment by August 27, 2021 at 5:00pm EST will not be permitted to participate in the Approval Hearing. The French Long-Form Notice may be found at https://investorcomplexlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Intellipharmaceutics_Long-Form_First_Notice_FR.pdf The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has authorized distribution of this Notice. Questions about this Notice should NOT be directed to the Court. Contacts: Andrew Morganti Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers, P.C. 1200 Bay Street, Suite 1203 Toronto, ON, M5R 2A5 Email: info@investorcomplexlaw.com [GN] JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Class Action Over "No-Poach" Culture ---------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Jackson Hewitt still has a "culture" where the company and its franchisees unlawfully promise not to compete for workers despite having agreed to remove written "no-poach" clauses from franchise contracts, former tax preparers told a New Jersey federal court seeking to expand the time period of their proposed consolidated class action. [GN] JAMES RIVER: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against James River Group Holdings, Ltd. ("James River" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: JRVR) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired James River securities between August 1, 2019 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/jrvr. 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 throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) James River had not adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (2) James River was using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that materially understated the Company's true exposure to Uber claims; (3) as a result, James River was forced to increase its unfavorable reserves in subsequent quarters even after cancelling the Uber policies; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about James River's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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/jrvr 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 James River you have until September 7, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] JAMES RIVER: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 7 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 19 disclosed that purchasers of James River Group Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: JRVR) common stock between August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until September 7, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the James River Group class action lawsuit. The James River Group class action lawsuit charges James River Group and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The James River Group class action lawsuit (Employees' Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth dba Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund v. James River Group Holdings, Ltd., No. 21-cv-00444) was commenced on July 9, 2021 in the Eastern District of Virginia and is assigned to Judge M. Hannah Lauck. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the James River Group 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 James River Group class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September 7, 2021. CASE ALLEGATIONS: In 2014, James River Group ramped up its Commercial Auto Division by underwriting a new type of insurance policy that covered Rasier LLC ("Rasier"), a subsidiary of the ride-sharing company Uber Technologies, Inc. (together with Rasier, "Uber"). The James River Group class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) James River Group had not adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (ii) James River Group was using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that materially understated James River Group's true exposure to Uber claims; (iii) as a result, James River Group was forced to increase its unfavorable reserves in subsequent quarters even after cancelling the Uber policies; and (iv) consequently, defendants' statements about James River Group's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On October 8, 2019, James River Group announced that it had delivered a notice of early cancellation for all insurance policies issued to Uber, though James River Group would remain contracted to provide coverage for future claims related to the period James River Group's Uber policies were in effect (known as "runoff"). James River Group stated that "[the Uber] account ha[d] not met our expectations for profitability." On this news, James River Group's stock price declined more than 22%. Then, on May 5, 2021, after alleged assurances to investors that the legacy contract posed no challenges, James River Group disclosed an additional $170 million of unfavorable reserves related to the Uber policies. On a related conference call, James River Group revealed that the increase was due to a change from using "industry data, pricing data, experience data, average claim severity data, and blended methodologies" to "using only our own loss experience in our paid and incurred reserve projections . . . [to calculate] a better and more conservative estimate of ultimate losses on this account." Simultaneously, to cover its losses, James River Group announced that it was seeking to raise $175 million through a public equity offering, which was priced at "the sector's steepest discount ever" according to Bloomberg. On this news, James River Group's stock price fell an additional 26%, further damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased James River Group common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the James River Group 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 James River Group class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the James River Group class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the James River Group class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for 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 J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN] JET LENDING: Faces Quinan Suit Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MOQUITA QUINAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JET LENDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-02296 (S.D. Tex., July 15, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has registered for one of the Defendant's seminars on or about January 4, 2019 in which he has completely filled out a registration form that contained a box that she checked to receive more information about the Defendant's services. Subsequently on or about September 29, 2020, the Defendant began calling the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 7300 with prerecorded solicitations regarding its loan and mortgage refinance products and related services, which is completely unrelated to the seminar for which she had provided her number over one year period. The Plaintiff contends that at the time of registration, she never provided the Defendant her express written consent to be contacted via prerecorded voice calls. The Defendant has allegedly caused similar prerecorded messages to be sent to individuals residing within the judicial district which has caused them harm, including the Plaintiff, in the form of invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, inconvenience and disruption to their daily life. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, treble damages, an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited call activity without obtaining consent first, and other relief as the Court deems necessary. Jet Lending, LLC offers short term and long-term mortgage loans for real estate investment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and – Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (786) 496-4469 E-mail: IJhiraldo@IJhlaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Benzene in Sunscreens ---------------------------------------------------------------- National plaintiffs' law firm Keller Lenkner LLC on July 19 filed a class action against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (J&J) on behalf of purchasers of certain Aveeno and Neutrogena sunscreens that have dangerous and unacceptable levels of the known cancer-causing chemical, benzene. Benzene, which is often found in crude oil and identified by the smell associated with gasoline, is classified as a human carcinogen by the United State Department of Health and Human Services, and a Group 1 compound (i.e. "carcinogenic to humans") by the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that J&J failed to include labeling that the sunscreens may contain benzene as an active or inactive ingredient, rendering the products adulterated, misbranded and unlawful for sale. The complaint also alleges that J&J's conduct caused economic damages to the plaintiffs, who relied on the ingredient list and advertising to decide whether to purchase the sunscreen. On July 14, 2021, J&J admitted the products were unfit to sell due to unsafe levels of benzene, in a voluntary recall of five aerosol sunscreens. J&J has recalled all lots of these five products. "Johnson & Johnson continued to market these sunscreen products as safe and healthy for consumers after being alerted to dangerous levels of a known, cancer-causing chemical," said Keller Lenkner Partner Warren Postman. "Companies that knowingly sell cancer-causing products to the public should face serious consequences for their actions, and we will pursue all available remedies for consumers who were injured by Johnson & Johnson's disregard for public health." The Keller Lenkner legal team includes partners Warren Postman and Seth Meyer, as well as associate Alex Dravillas. Alexandra Walsh and Kimberly Channick of Walsh Law PLLC and David B. Byrne III of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Mikes, P.C. are co-counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs. The action is Dominguez et al v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-05419 and is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. ABOUT KELLER LENKNER: Keller Lenkner LLC -- http://www.kellerlenkner.com-- represents plaintiffs in complex litigation matters in federal and state courts throughout the nation. The firm acts for clients in many types of cases, including class and mass actions, arbitrations, and multi-district litigation matters. Its team includes four former law clerks at the Supreme Court of the United States and former partners and associates from the country's leading law firms. Since its founding in 2018, the firm has secured results for more than 100,000 clients. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over OGX Hair Care Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dejania Oliver, writing for WebMD, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson with the claim that the company's OGX hair care products cause significant hair loss. The products are sold at major national retailers, including Target, Ulta, CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens. Johnson & Johnson shampoos, conditioners, and some hair oils are among the products named in the lawsuit. The plaintiff, Larissa Whipple, an Illinois woman, cites the ingredient DMDM hydantoin as the main concern. DMDM hydantoin is a preservative and antimicrobial agent sometimes found in hair care products. It's considered a "formaldehyde donor," meaning it releases a small amount of formaldehyde over time to keep the product fresh. But formaldehyde donors like this one have been linked to allergies, rashes, hair loss, and cancer. The Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program has said formaldehyde is known to cause cancer. The lawsuit says that the company may have violated consumer protection laws by advertising the products containing this ingredient to people who want healthy hair. "Johnson & Johnson made a number of affirmative misrepresentations . . . that the products 'deeply nourish', ‘gently cleanse,' and 'repair hair.' However, the products' formula contains an ingredient, or combination of ingredients, that has caused Plaintiff and thousands of consumers to experience hair loss and/or scalp irritation," the lawsuit says. Johnson & Johnson says all their ingredients are carefully selected and are listed on the products' label. The company stated that none of their new products contain DMDM hydantoin and they have not launched any new hair products with this ingredient in several years. "We carefully select ingredients to ensure the safety and performance of our products," Johnson & Johnson said in a statement to WebMD. "Some of our existing products contain a small amount of DMDM hydantoin, which is used to prevent mold from developing while the product is in the shower. Every preservative used in our products must clear our rigorous safety assessment process." In August 2012, Johnson & Johnson announced it would remove DMDM hydantoin and other similar ingredients from their products by 2015. However, the lawsuit says that is a "broken promise." "Johnson & Johnson did in fact remove DMDM hydantoin from existing consumer products at that time," the lawsuit says. "However, when Johnson & Johnson acquired Vogue International, including their line of OGX products, Johnson & Johnson failed to change the ingredient profile of the products that did not maintain the same standards for consumer safety." In the preservatives section of Johnson & Johnson's safety and care commitment website, the company claims DMDM hydantoin does not meet their safety standards, but further down the page they say they use DMDM hydantoin in products when other preservatives are incompatible with other ingredients in a formula. Dermatologist Shani Francis, MD, says hair product manufacturers should be striving to create a positive experience for their customers. "Hair breakage and texture changes are important clues to pay attention to regarding overall hair health. We should always seek out products to enhance our hair care experience," Francis says. "Having a great understanding of your individual hair needs is most important to avoid problems." DMDM hydantoin is listed by the FDA as one of the preservatives found to cause the most allergic reactions from the use of cosmetic products. The FDA requires certain products to list ingredients, but some ingredients may not be specifically identified and instead listed as "fragrance" or "perfume." Francis says an important thing to remember is that there is no "one size fits all" for hair care products and seeking out products with a company history of strong customer experience is a good way to look for new products. "For ingredients, water-based products are generally a good place to start. Aloe vera high in the ingredient list suggests a more acidic pH. Glycerin also is a humectant that can help naturally add moisture to hair," Francis says. "Ultimately, balance is most important. Often[times], too much of a good thing is not a good thing. Additionally, if you have an underlying medical, scalp or skin condition, you could have a unique situation and should seek the help of a board-certified dermatologist." [GN] JUUL LABS: Faces Norman Schools Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------------ NORMAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05487 (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Norman Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 131 South Flood Avenue in Norman, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Juda School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05482 (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Juda School District is a unified school district with its offices located at North 2385 Spring Street in Juda, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Mesa School District Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MESA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01247-DWL (D. Ariz., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Arizona Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Mesa Public Schools is a public school district in Arizona. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grant Woods, Esq. GRANT WOODS, PC 3202 N. 16th Street Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 258-2599 E-mail: gw@grantwoodspc.net - and – Ron Kilgard, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 248-0088 Facsimile: (602) 248-2822 E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com - and – Joseph C. Tann, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. TANN, PLLC 7735 N. Seventy-Eighth Street Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (602) 432-4241 E-mail: josephtann@josephtann.com - and – Lynn Sarko, Esq. Derek Loeser, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Dean Kawamoto, Esq. Felicia Craick, Esq. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com fcraick@kellerrohrback.com JUUL LABS: Monticello Suit Claims Deceptive E-Cigarette Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTICELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05484 (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Monticello School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 334 South Main Street in Monticello, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: School District of Lodi Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction ------------------------------------------------------------------ SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LODI, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05489 (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. School District of Lodi is a unified school district with its offices located at 115 School Street in Lodi, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05485 (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Alhambra Unified School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 1515 West Mission Road in Alhambra, California. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KANZHUN LIMITED: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders of Kanzhun Limited (NASDAQ: BZ). Shareholders who purchased shares of BZ 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/kanzhun-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=17789&from=5 CLASS PERIOD: June 11, 2021 to July 2, 2021 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kanzhun would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the Chinese government ("CAC"); (2) the CAC would require Kanzhun to suspend new user registration on its BOSS Zhipin app; (3) Kanzhun needed to "to conduct a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks"; (4) Kanzhun needed to "enhance its cybersecurity awareness and technology capabilities"; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. 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] KANZHUN LIMITED: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Kanzhun Limited (NASDAQ:BZ) ("Kanzhun") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Kanzhun securities between June 11, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Kanzhun securities during the Class Period may, no later than September 10, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail atinfo@ktmc.com; orclick https://www.ktmc.com/kanzhun-limited-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=kanzhun Kanzhun operates an online recruitment platform, BOSS Zhipin, which is a mobile-native product that promotes instant direct chats between employers and job seekers, delivers matching results, and is powered by proprietary artificial intelligence algorithms and big data insights. On May 21, 2021, Kanzhun filed a registration statement on a Form F-1, which in combination with subsequent amendments on Forms F-1/A filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4), are collectively referred to as the Registration Statement and issued in connection with the initial public offering ("IPO"). On June 23, 2021, Kanzhun filed its final prospectus for its IPO on a Form 424B4, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, Kanzhun sold approximately 48,000,000 American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") at $19.00 per ADS. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to reveal the Cyberspace Administration of China's ("CAC") positions and discussions with Kanzhun regarding its data security and cybersecurity issues. The truth was revealed on July 5, 2021, when Kanzhun issued a press release entitled "KANZHUN LIMITED Announces Cybersecurity Review in China" which announced, in part, that Kanzhun "is subject to cybersecurity review by the [CAC]. During the review period, ‘BOSS Zhipin' app is required to suspend new user registration in China to facilitate the process." Following this news, Kanzhun's ADS price fell $5.79 per ADS, or 15%, to close at $30.52 per ADS on July 6, 2021, the next trading day. The complaint alleges that in the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kanzhun would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the CAC; (2) the CAC would require Kanzhun to suspend new user registration on its BOSS Zhipin app; (3) Kanzhun needed "to conduct a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks"; (4) Kanzhun needed to "enhance its cybersecurity awareness and technology capabilities"; and (5) as a result, the defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Kanzhun investors may, no later than September 10, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] KANZHUN LIMITED: Robbins Geller Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 19 disclosed that purchasers of Kanzhun Limited (NASDAQ: BZ) publicly traded securities between June 11, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until September 10, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Kanzhun class action lawsuit. The Kanzhun class action lawsuit charges Kanzhun and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Kanzhun class action lawsuit (Bell v. Kanzhun Limited, No. 21-cv-13543) was commenced on July 12, 2021 in the District of New Jersey and is assigned to Judge Kevin McNulty. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Kanzhun 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 Kanzhun class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September 10, 2021. CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Kanzhun class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Kanzhun would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC"); (ii) the CAC would require Kanzhun to suspend new user registration on its BOSS Zhipin app; (iii) Kanzhun needed to "to conduct a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks"; (iv) Kanzhun needed to "enhance its cybersecurity awareness and technology capabilities"; and (v) 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. On July 5, 2021, Kanzhun issued a press release entitled "KANZHUN LIMITED Announces Cybersecurity Review in China" which announced in pertinent part, that "pursuant to the announcement posted by the [CAC] on July 5, 2021, [Kanzhun] is subject to cybersecurity review by the authority," "[d]uring the review period, ‘BOSS Zhipin' app is required to suspend new user registration in China to facilitate the process," and Kanzhun "plans to conduct a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks and continue to enhance its cybersecurity awareness and technology capabilities." On this news, the price of Kanzhun's American Depository Shares fell approximately 15%, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Kanzhun securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Kanzhun 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 Kanzhun class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Kanzhun class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Kanzhun class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. 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] KEN REAL ESTATE: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ken Real Estate Lease LTD., et al. The case is styled as Crystal Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ken Real Estate Lease LTD. doing business as: Anaheim Majestic Garden Hotel, a Japanese corporation; Does 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No. 2:21-cv-05950-FLA-MAA (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Anaheim Majestic Garden Hotel -- https://majesticgardenhotel.com/ -- is a casual, Tudor-style hotel 1 mile from both Disneyland theme park and Disney California Adventure park, and 3 miles from Angel Stadium of Anaheim baseball venue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Jones Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., et al. The case is styled as Jonathan Jones, Christina Harris-Errera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00975-MRH (W.D. Pa., July 22, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury. Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in Eindhoven.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Michael Kashurba, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMIRH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Email: amk@chimicles.com MANPOWER US: Underpays Factory Workers, Crossley Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- TROY CROSSLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANPOWER US, INC.; KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01196 (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide minimum wages, failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unlawful business practices. Mr. Crossley was employed as a factory worker by the Defendants at the Louis Vuitton Distribution Center in Ontario, California from approximately November 25, 2020 to December 11, 2020. Manpower US, Inc. is a global workforce solutions company, headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. is a transport and logistics company, headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Caroline N. Cohen, Esq. Heather G. Fuchs, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ccohen@schneiderwallace.com hfuchs@schneiderwallace.com MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Investor Receive Class Action Status -------------------------------------------------------- Seeking Alpha reports that in early 2019, a group of investors including the Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund filed suit against Maxar Technologies (NYSE:MAXR) alleging the company misled them about a satellite contract and overstated some financials. The investors have now received class action status from a federal court in Colorado. [GN] MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned CHRIS, NATHAN, AND JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION and DAVID CIFU, as Case No. 4:19-cv-00189-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order extending the time for them to move for class certification. The Plaintiffs respectfully request the deadline for them to move for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(c)(1) and S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 23.2 be extended for at least 90 days, or until the Court issues a scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16(b) setting forth a new deadline to move for class certification. The Plaintiffs further request leave of the Court to conduct class certification discovery. On 19 April 2021, the Plaintiffs in this matter filed the First Amended Complaint. Generally, the FAC alleges that McKesson, as Prime Pharmaceutical Vendor to the Veterans Administration (VA), and Dr. David Cifu, the primary outside researcher for traumatic brain injury treatment for the VA and U.S. Department of Defense, knew since 2008 that a hyperbaric oxygen treatment ("HBOT") protocol could heal Blast induced Traumatic Brain Injury. The Plaintiffs allege that rather than inform the patients and their treating physicians of the very effective HBOT protocol, the defendants fraudulently or negligently withheld the information for over a decade. McKesson is an American company distributing pharmaceuticals and providing health information technology, medical supplies, and care management tools. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kOU1Pw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Challender, Esq. 504 Oxford Drive Richmond Hill GA 31324 Telephone: (912) 445-5946 E-mail: shannonchallender@usa.com MOUNTAIN RUN: Faces Stoner Suit Over Deceptive Collection Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- MITCHELL STONER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOUNTAIN RUN SOLUTIONS, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01027-UNA (D. Del., July 15, 2021) brings this class action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Vivint Smart Home primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The Defendant alleged has contracted with Vivint to collect the alleged debt. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant contacted her via telephone on or about December 30, 2020 and agreed that her alleged debt would be resolved for a one time payment of $250.00. The breakdown includes a $119.33 collection costs without any further explanation of the basis for those costs. When the Plaintiff made payment by credit card, she was charged the $9.95 credit card fee and an additional $5.00 checking account fee in addition to the $250.00 payment for the settlement of the Vivint obligation. However, neither the $119.33 collection costs, the $9.95 credit card fee, nor the $5.00 checking account fee were permitted by the agreement creating the debt nor are they permitted by law. The Defendant has allegedly misled and deceived the Plaintiff into falsely believing that he owed the additional collection costs and additional fees. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices. The Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, litigation costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Mountain Run Solutions, LLC is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antraig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy, Suite 22 Wilmington, DE 19805 Tel: (302) 722-6885 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com OCUGEN INC: Liable to Investors Over Stock Price Drop, Diaz Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO PAUL FERNANDEZ DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCUGEN, INC., SHANKAR MUSUNURI, and SANJAY SUBRAMANIAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03182 (E.D. Pa., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects in order to sell Ocugen securities at artificially inflated prices between February 2, 2021, and June 10, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the information submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was insufficient to support an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), (ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA, (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the company's financial statements, as well as the Defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On June 10, 2021, Ocugen issued a press release announcing that it would pursue a biologics license application with the FDA instead of the previously announced EUA. On the release of the news, the company's share price declined from $9.31 per share of Ocugen stock on June 9, 2021, to close at $6.69 per share on June 10, 2021, a drop of approximately -28.14 percent, says the suit. Ocugen, Inc. is as a biopharmaceutical company, with its principal executive offices located at 263 Great Valley Parkway, Malvern, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com OCUGEN INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Viswanath Pilla, writing for moneycontrol, reports that US-based law firm Pomerantz on July 19 announced that it had filed a class action lawsuit against Bharat Biotech's US partner which has licence to develop and distribute Covaxin in US and Canada citing certain violations of the US federal securities laws. Pomerantz alleges in the class action lawsuit that, the defendants (Ocugen) have made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations, and compliance policies. The class action was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Ocugen securities between February 2, 2021, and June 10, 2021. ". . . failed to disclose that the information submitted to the (US)FDA was insufficient to support an EUA, Ocugen would not file an Emergency Use Authorization with the FDA, (and) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements, as well as defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading or lacked a reasonable basis," Pomerantz alleged in its law suit. On February 2, Ocugen announced an exclusive licensing agreement with Bharat Biotech to obtain exclusive rights to develop, manufacture and commercialise the latter's COVID-19 vaccine Covaxin in the US. Pomerantz said based on this news, the Ocugen's share price rose from a close of $1.81 per share on February 1, to close at $3.26 per share on February 2, 2021, an increase of approximately 80.1 percent. "On February 5, submitted investor presentation that described in great detail the Covaxin vaccine characteristics, the "unmet need in the United States" and Ocugen's plan to develop and file an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")," Pomerantz said. "On June 10, 2021, Ocugen issued a press release announcing that it would pursue a "biologics license application" with the FDA instead of the previously announced EUA," it added. Pomerantz said on the release of the news, the company's share price declined from $9.31 per share of Ocugen stock on June 9, 2021, to close at $6.69 per share on June 10, 2021, a drop of approximately 28.14 percent. [GN] PHH MORTGAGE: Abfall Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael F. Abfall, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 21 CV 2039 65 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas Lorain County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 22, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01414 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. PHH Mortgage Corporation -- https://www.phhmortgage.com/ -- provides mortgage financing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107 Phone: (513) 382-5347 Email: bflick@dannlaw.com - and - Daniel M. Solar, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. DANNLAW P.O. Box 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Phone: (216) 373-0539 Fax: (216) 373-0536 Email: dsolar@dannlaw.com notices@dannlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael P. McGivney, Esq. LOCKE LORD - Chicago 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 443-0208 Email: michael.mcgivney@lockelord.com PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over CPAP Machines ---------------------------------------------------------- Last month, Health Canada issued a recall for various respiratory and sleep health products manufactured by Philips Electronics. Those products contained a potentially toxic foam. Now, an Ontario resident has started a proposed national class action alleging that Philips knew that these machines were dangerous but did not inform customers. The case, brought by Sotos Class Actions, alleges that Philips received reports of degrading foam years earlier and that ought to have alerted Philips that the products were potentially dangerous. However, Philips did not warn its customers until April of this year and did not take steps to initiate a recall until June. The recalled devices include ventilators used in hospitals and CPAP machines used to treat sleep apnea. The products are meant to be used either continuously (ventilators) or every night (CPAP machines). Hundreds of thousands of recalled devices have been used in Canada. Philips has not confirmed when these machines will be repaired or replaced. However pending repair or replacement, users are left with the choice of continuing to use the machines, notwithstanding the risk to their health, leaving their serious health conditions untreated, or buying expensive new machines, if any can be found. The Statement of Claim seeks compensation of $1 billion and punitive damages of $250 million. More information can be found on the Sotos Class Actions website. For further information: Media Contacts: Louis Sokolov lsokolov@sotos.ca , 416-875-8715. https://sotosclassactions.com/ [GN] RENOVACARE INC: Faces Boller Suit Over 24.8% Drop of Stock Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELLE A. BOLLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENOVACARE, INC., HARMEL RAYAT, and THOMAS BOLD, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-13766 (D.N.J., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about RenovaCare's business, operations, and prospects in order to sell RenovaCare securities at artificially inflated prices between August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, at the direction of Chairman Harmel Rayat, RenovaCare engaged in a promotional campaign to issue misleading statements to artificially inflate the company's stock price; (2) that, when OTC Markets Group, Inc. inquired, RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially false and misleading press release claiming that no director, officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement in the purported third party's promotional materials; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's disclosure controls and procedures were defective; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the company's stock price fell $0.66, or 24.8%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.00 per share on June 2, 2021, damaging investors, says the suit. RenovaCare, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with its principal executive offices located in Roseland, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: cecchi@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com RENOVACARE INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on July 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against RenovaCare, Inc. ("RenovaCare" or the "Company") (OTC: RCAR) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired RenovaCare publicly traded securities between August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that, at the direction of the Company's controlling shareholder and Chairman, Harmel Rayat ("Rayat"), RenovaCare engaged in a promotional campaign to issue misleading statements to artificially inflate the Company's stock price; (2) that, when the OTC Markets inquired, RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially false and misleading press release claiming that no director, officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement in the purported third party's promotional materials; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were defective; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times. On May 28, 2021, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued a litigation release stating that RenovaCare was being charged with alleged securities fraud. According to the SEC's complaint, between July 2017 and January 2018, the Company's controlling shareholder and Chairman, Harmel Rayat, "arranged, and caused RenovaCare to pay for, a promotional campaign designed to increase the company's stock price." Specifically, "Rayat was closely involved in directing the promotion and editing promotional materials, and arranged to funnel payments to the publisher through consultants to conceal RenovaCare's involvement in the campaign." When OTC Markets Group, Inc. requested that RenovaCare explain its relationship to the promotion, the complaint alleges that "Rayat and RenovaCare then drafted and issued a press release and a Form 8-K that contained material misrepresentations and omissions denying Rayat's and the company's involvement in the promotion." Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of RenovaCare during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the September 14, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] RENOVACARE INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of September 14 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against RenovaCare, Inc. ("RenovaCare" or the "Company") (OTCMKTS: RCAR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under 21-cv-13930, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired RenovaCare securities between August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired RenovaCare securities during the Class Period, you have until September 14, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. RenovaCare is a development stage company that has not generated any revenue since its inception and has no commercialized products. Its activities primarily consist of research and development, business development, and capital raises. It owns the CellMist System, which consists of a treatment method for cell isolation for the regeneration of human skin cells and other tissues (the CellMist Solution) and a solution sprayer device to deliver cells to the treatment area (the SkinGun). 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) at the direction of the Company's controlling shareholder and Chairman, Harmel Rayat ("Rayat"), RenovaCare engaged in a promotional campaign to issue misleading statements to artificially inflate the Company's stock price; (ii) when OTC Markets Group, Inc. ("OTC Markets") inquired, RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially false and misleading press release claiming that no director, officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement in the purported third party's promotional materials; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were defective; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On May 28, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued a litigation release stating that RenovaCare was being charged with alleged securities fraud. According to the SEC's complaint, between July 2017 and January 2018, Rayat "arranged, and caused RenovaCare to pay for, a promotional campaign designed to increase the company's stock price." Specifically, "Rayat was closely involved in directing the promotion and editing promotional materials, and arranged to funnel payments to the publisher through consultants to conceal RenovaCare's involvement in the campaign." When OTC Markets requested that RenovaCare explain its relationship to the promotion, the complaint alleges that "Rayat and RenovaCare then drafted and issued a press release and a Form 8-K that contained material misrepresentations and omissions denying Rayat's and the company's involvement in the promotion." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.66, or 24.8%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.00 per share on June 2, 2021. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] RENOVACARE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 14 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 19 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of RenovaCare, Inc. (OTC: RCAR) between August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 14, 2021. SO WHAT: If you purchased RenovaCare securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the RenovaCare class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2123.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 14, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the direction of Chairman Harmel Rayat, RenovaCare engaged in a promotional campaign to issue misleading statements to artificially inflate the Company's stock price; (2) when the OTC Markets inquired, RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially false and misleading press release claiming that no director, officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement in the purported third party's promotional materials; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were defective; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times. To join the RenovaCare class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2123.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SD WHEEL: Fails to Pay Workers' Overtime, Espegard Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DALLAS ESPEGARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SD WHEEL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00849-WCG (E.D. Wis., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service representative and warehouse associate at 3989 East Endeavor Drive, Appleton, Wisconsin. SD Wheel Corp. is a custom wheel sales, distribution, and production company, with its principal office address located at 1300 South River Street, Batavia, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com STABLE ROAD: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Stable Road Acquisition Corp. from October 7, 2020 through July 13, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934. If you purchased Stable Road securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Stable Road Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse facts about Momentus and Stable Road's due diligence activities in connection with the merger, as follows: (1) Momentus's 2019 test of a water plasma thruster, its key technology, failed to meet Momentus's own public and internal pre-launch criteria for success, and was conducted on a prototype that could not generate commercially significant amounts of thrust; (2) the US government had conveyed that it considered Momentus's CEO, defendant Mikhail Kokorich, a national security threat, which jeopardized his continued leadership of Momentus and Momentus's launch schedule and business prospects; (3) consequently, the revenue projections and business and operational plans provided to investors regarding Momentus and the commercial viability and timeline of its products were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis in fact; and (4) Stable Road had failed to conduct appropriate due diligence of Momentus and its business operations and defendants had materially misrepresented the due diligence activities being conducted by the Company executives and its sponsor in connection with the merger. On January 25, 2021, Momentus announced defendant Kokrich had resigned as CEO to help "expedite the resolution of U.S. government national security and foreign ownership concerns." On this news, the price of Stable Road stock fell 19% over three trading days to close at $20.10 per share on January 27, 2021. On July 13, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced charged against Stable Road, its CEO, defendant Nrian Kabor, Momentus, defendant Kokorich, and others for making "misleading claims about Momentu's technology and about national security risks associated with Kokorich." All parties, except defendant Kokorich, settled the charges for $8 million. The SEC also publicized a cease-and-desist order and complaint against defendant Kokorich detailed defendants' scheme to defraud investors. On this news, the price of Stable Road stock fell another 10% to close at $10.66 on July 14, 2021. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 13, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Stable Road securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/stableroadacquisitioncorp-srac-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-416/apply/ or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Rujul Patel Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 rpatel@bernlieb.com [GN] STABLE ROAD: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Stable Road Acquisition Corp. ("Stable Road" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SRAC). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980. The investigation concerns whether Stable Road and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. On July 13, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced that it had brought charges against the special-purpose acquisition company ("SPAC") Stable Road in connection with its acquisition of Momentus Inc. ("Momentus"). Among other things, the SEC has alleged that Momentus lied about its technology, including falsely claiming that its propulsion system had been 'successfully tested' in space, ad that Stable Road repeated Momentus's misleading statements in public filings, while failing to conduct adequate due diligence of Momentus. On this news, Stable Road's stock price fell $1.22 per share, or 10.27%, to close at $10.66 per share on July 14, 2021. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] STABLE ROAD: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 13 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on July 18 disclosed that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:SRAC) If you suffered a loss, contact us at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/stable-road-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=17740&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021 Class Period: October 7, 2020 - July 13, 2021 Allegations against SRAC include that: (a) Stable Road's acquistion target, Momentus's 2019 test of its key technology, a water plasma thruster, had failed to meet Momentus's own public and internal pre-launch criteria for success, and was conducted on a prototype that was not designed to generate commercially significant amounts of thrust; (b) the U.S. government had conveyed that it considered Momentus's Chief Executive Officer a national security threat, jeopardizing his continued leadership of Momentus and Momentus's launch schedule and business prospects; (c) consequently, the revenue projections and business and operational plans provided to investors regarding Momentus and the commercial viability and timeline of its products were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis in fact; and (d) Stable Road had failed to conduct appropriate due diligence of Momentus and its business operations and defendants had materially misrepresented the due diligence activities being conducted by Stable Road executives and its sponsor in connection with the merger. Washington Prime Group, Inc. (NYSE:WPG) If you suffered a loss, contact us at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/washington-prime-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17740&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2021 Class Period: November 5, 2020 - March 4, 2021 Allegations against WPG include that: (1) WPG's financial condition was deteriorating substantially; (2) as a result, there was substantial uncertainty about the Company's ability to meet its capital structure obligations as they became due; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:SPCE) If you suffered a loss, contact us at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/virgin-galactic-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17740&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2021 Class Period: October 26, 2019 - April 30, 2021 Allegations against SPCE include that: (i) for accounting purposes, Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.'s ("SCH") warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (ii) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (iii) as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the business combination; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] STRADA CRUSH: Discusses Abusive Process of Delay in Seeking Re-Cert ------------------------------------------------------------------- jdsupra.com reports that Azar v Strada Crush Limited, 2021 ONSC 4758 reinforces the importance of the finality principle in the class actions context and that defendants should not face a "revolving door of representative plaintiffs." Azar is an unusual case in which interpersonal conflict between class counsel and class members led to de-certification of the class action. The certification judge found that certification of the class action had become "kryptonite in the class members' and their counsel's hands" (after a dispute over whether the proposed representative plaintiff testified wearing a Superman costume) and refused to re-certify a class action he recently de-certified. Background Following class counsel's successful certification motion, the representative plaintiff, George Azar, sought to appoint new counsel. He alleged that class counsel failed to advise him of his potential costs exposure and breached his professional obligations. Class counsel responded by moving to disqualify Azar as representative plaintiff or, alternatively, appointing a litigation guardian. Class counsel alleged Azar was unreliable and could not direct the litigation. While the certification judge found that a litigation guardian was unnecessary, he rejected Azar's motion because it was motivated by his personal grievances rather than the best interests of the class. As a result, Justice Morgan ordered class counsel to move for appointment of a new representative plaintiff within 60 days. Surprisingly, class counsel moved to re-instate Azar as the representative plaintiff six months later after an apparent reconciliation. The certification judge found that Azar was still an unsuitable representative plaintiff because of his volatile behaviour and inability to put the class' interests before his own. Without a suitable representative plaintiff, the certification judge reluctantly de-certified the action. Re-Certification Motion Class counsel then brought another motion seeking re-certification of the class action and appointment of a new representative plaintiff, Taylor Winecki, nearly 2 years after Justice Morgan's 60-day order. Winecki had participated in the litigation by swearing an affidavit in support of Azar's motion to appoint new counsel. Justice Morgan ruled that re-certification would render his prior rulings meaningless and constitute an abuse of process. Additionally, Justice Morgan noted that the defendants were entitled to finality and should not be forced to re-litigate settled issues. Justice Morgan also expressed concern that Azar had subsumed Winecki in his "fraudulent mayhem" and that the late proposed change to the representative plaintiff (brought nearly two years after class counsel's original deadline) was unfair to the defendant and also constituted an abuse of process. Takeaways from Azar Azar shows that while plaintiffs face a low procedural burden on certification, there are limits to the court's accommodation of procedural defects. Additionally, class action defendants should consider abuse of process arguments when faced with a "revolving door" of representative plaintiffs, especially when the plaintiff seeks to make late amendments to issues previously litigated. [GN] TALK OF THE TOWN: Clark Sues Over Dietary Managers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- CASEY L. CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TALK OF THE TOWN CONTRACT SERVICES LLC and REGINALD BAUGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01369-PAB (N.D. Ohio, July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the statutes of the State of Ohio by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Ms. Clark was employed by the Defendants as a dietary manager from approximately August 2018 to July 2021. Talk of the Town Contract Services LLC is a provider of dietary, laundry, and housekeeping services for assisted living, nursing and rehabilitation facilities across Ohio, with its principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com - and – Mark W. Biggerman, Esq. 29325 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 305 Pepper Pike, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 831-4935 Facsimile: (216) 831-9526 E-mail: mark@mblegal.com TESLA INC: Car Owners Call for Class Action Upgrade Cost -------------------------------------------------------- Mike Murphy, writing for MarketWatch, reports that Tesla Inc. has unveiled a $199-a-month subscription plan for its Full Self-Driving package, rather than a $10,000 up-front fee, but it could come with an added cost for some drivers. Electrek first reported the new subscription plan on July 16. According to Tesla's support page, there are two options, depending on the vehicle's current Autopilot capability: Basic Autopilot to FSD for $199 a month, or Enhanced Autopilot to FSD for $99 a month. Subscriptions can be canceled at any time. Tesla TSLA, 0.39% notes that FSD is not the same as fully driverless technology, and that "the currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous." But the subscription plan requires version 3.0 of the FSD hardware, and upgrading to that will cost $1,500. That hardware -- containing a new, more powerful chip -- has been standard in Teslas since mid-2019. However, Electrek reported on July 17 that Tesla owners who bought their vehicles between late 2016 and mid-2019 were told at the time they had FSD hardware built in and would not need an additional hardware update. A number of Tesla owners on Twitter and Reddit expressed irritation or outright anger over that possibility, with some saying Tesla should pay for the upgrade cost while others called for a class-action lawsuit. Tesla's support page says hardware upgrades are not included with the FSD subscription. Tesla, which dissolved its media relations team last year, did not immediately respond to a request for details about the FSD 3.0 upgrade cost. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: SUV Owners Object to RAV4 Fuel Tank Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Toyota RAV4 Hybrid fuel tank class action lawsuit settlement is taking heat from a group of SUV owners who object to the settlement agreement which allegedly provides RAV4 customers no real benefits. "Rather, the only thing this settlement fills is the lawyers' coffers. Of the $1,100,000 in monetary benefits, all $1,100,000 goes to plaintiffs' lawyers, and $0 goes to the class." -- Objection to Proposed Class Action Settlement and Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Approval Toyota's RAV4 Hybrid vehicles allegedly have defective fuel tanks that fail to fill to the advertised 14.5-gallon capacity. On January 15, 2020, Toyota RAV4 fuel tank lawsuit plaintiff Marco Fernandez (one of the 31 objectors to the settlement) filed the first class action against Toyota in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. That case was later consolidated with two later-filed cases, DeLuca, et al. v. Toyota, and Ferraguto v. Toyota. Lawyers representing objectors say that after the filing of the first class action lawsuit, "other plaintiffs filed copycat cases in other federal courts." In January 2020, separate lawyers filed a RAV4 Hybrid fuel tank lawsuit entitled, Ly v. Toyota asserting California-only claims. Then in March 2020, attorneys involved in this proposed settlement also filed a California-only case entitled, Coleman v. Toyota. However, in July 2020 attorneys for the original lawsuit were informed the Ly and Coleman cases would be dismissed. However, attorneys for Fernandez in the original lawsuit claim there was a problem. "Unbeknownst to the Fernandez plaintiffs, however, the Ly and Coleman plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their cases to engage in secret settlement negotiations. And despite his stipulation that each side would bear its own fees and costs, counsel for Ly now seeks to recover his attorneys' fees as part of the proposed settlement in this Court." Also, in January 2020 a separate Toyota RAV4 Hybrid class action was filed in California entitled, Boulom et al. v. Toyota. Then in February 2020, completely different lawyers filed this case related to the settlement, entitled Pulkrabek v. Toyota. In June 2021, the Pulkrabek plaintiffs added the California plaintiff from the Ly class action and sought preliminary approval of the fuel tank settlement. The Alleged Problems With the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Class Action Settlement The objectors argue none of the $1.1 million settlement goes to RAV4 Hybrid customers to compensate them for purchasing allegedly falsely advertised vehicles that cannot hold the advertised fuel capacity. But attorneys for the objectors allege if the settlement is approved by the judge, "the settlement waives class members' damages claims." Objectors also argue the $1.1 million settlement does nothing to compensate RAV4 Hybrid owners the $2,000 premium they paid for the RAV4 Hybrid over the non-hybrid model even though the defect allegedly caused RAV4 Hybrids to have the same or less mileage range than non-hybrids. The settlement does provide an "extended customer support program," but like many so-called class action settlement "benefits," the program already existed prior to the settlement agreement. According to the objectors, the program provides "an inspection of the fuel tank and/or fuel sender gauge," but Toyota already provides these inspections free of charge under the current program. Second, Toyota may replace the existing fuel tank and/or fuel sender gauge with "a new improved fuel tank and/or fuel sender gauge unit, as required." But the objectors point out the existing customer support program already does the same thing, so the "settlement therefore does not provide anything different than the current program." The objectors admit the extended program provides coverage for 15 years from the vehicle's first use or 150,000 miles, whichever occurs first. This represents an increase from the current program's 8-year and 100,000-mile coverage. But the objectors argue this is meaningless if Toyota cannot or does not fix the problem with the RAV4 Hybrid's fuel tank. "In short, the "extended" program merely provides window dressing for Toyota's existing (and failed) support program. Notably absent is any requirement that Toyota actually fix class members' fuel tanks so that they fill to their advertised 14.5 gallons. Or any obligation that Toyota do anything that it is not already doing under its existing program." The objectors to the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid fuel tank lawsuit settlement also claim the parties made it too much of a burden to object or opt-out of the settlement. Attorneys for objectors argue the settlement requires "lengthy documentation, handwritten signatures, and mail instead of online submissions." The Toyota RAV4 Hybrid fuel tank class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: Pulkrabek v. Toyota Motor Sales. In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation, No. 3:20-cv-00337. Objectors to the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid class action lawsuit settlement agreement are represented by Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP. [GN] TRADER JOE'S: 9th Cir. Affirms Labeling Class Action Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq., Jennifer Yang, Esq., Anisha Shenai-Khatkhate, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that in a unanimous precedential decision, a Ninth Circuit panel recently affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against Trader Joe's, which alleged that the statement "Up to 5% Retained Water" on Trader Joe's poultry product labels was misleading. According to Plaintiff, her independent testing showed Trader Joe's poultry products contained a higher percentage of retained water. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that federal law preempted Plaintiff's challenge to those advertising claims. Webb v. Trader Joe's, No. 19-56389, 2021 WL 2275265 (9th Cir. June 4, 2021). As the Ninth Circuit's decision explained, poultry testing and labeling are federally regulated under the Poultry Products Inspection Act ("PPIA") and overseen by the Food Safety and Inspection Service ("FSIS"). Importantly, FSIS had already inspected and approved Trader Joe's "Up to 5% Retained Water" claim. FSIS had also reviewed and declined to object to the testing protocol Trader Joe's used to obtain the data supporting that claim. And because Trader Joe's had never publicly published its testing protocol, the Court found Plaintiff had not (and could not) allege that her testing protocol was the same as that used by Trader Joe's. On this basis, the Ninth Circuit found Plaintiff's claims were preempted by the PPIA. Since the FSIS had already reviewed and accepted Trader Joe's testing protocol and labeling, requiring Trader Joe's to conform to Plaintiff's test protocol, or to accept Plaintiff's test data, would impose requirements "in addition to, or different than those" required under federal law -- namely, the PPIA. Plaintiff tried to avoid that finding by arguing Trader Joe's protocol was not "preapproved" by FSIS. In other words, Plaintiff argued FSIS did not object to the testing protocol, but did not explicitly approve it either. The Court was not persuaded. It noted that under the PPIA, Trader Joe's was only required to make its protocol available to FSIS, which "may object to or require changes" within 30 days. And under the federal regulatory scheme, FSIS's decision not to object or otherwise require changes to the protocol constituted federal approval. Many advertising class actions take issue with labels that are allegedly misleading. When those labels are subject to a federal regulatory scheme (more commonly the FDCA than the PPIA) in which the federal agency approves or signs off on a subsequently challenged statement, preemption can be a strong basis for a dismissal motion. [GN] TRANSUNION LLC: Brownstein Hyatt Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Auchterlonie, Esq., Alissa Gardenswartz, Esq., and Jonathan Sandler, Esq., of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, in an article for JDSupra, report that in its recent TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez decision, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that consumer plaintiffs must be able to demonstrate concrete harm from a defendant's statutory violation to have standing to seek monetary damages against that defendant in federal court. Without this Article III standing, a claimant does not have a "case" or "controversy" under the U.S. Constitution, and a federal court does not have the authority to adjudicate or order any remedy. Consequently, this case provides consumer product companies and finance firms with a shield against frivolous claims under federal law where the plaintiff cannot show that they suffered a harm. Furthermore, this case also provides consumer product companies and finance firms with even greater incentives to effectively address their customers' complaints on an individual basis prior to litigation, as doing so may significantly reduce the risk of having to pay vast amounts in class action settlements. In TransUnion v. Ramirez, a class of 8,185 individuals with Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) alerts in their credit files sued TransUnion under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of their credit files. The plaintiffs also complained about formatting defects in certain mailings sent to them by TransUnion. The parties stipulated prior to trial that only 1,853 class members had their misleading credit reports containing OFAC alerts provided to third parties. The question in the TransUnion case, therefore, was whether the class members whose incorrect reports didn't get disseminated were entitled to bring a claim for damages. In an earlier case that limited claims to only harmed persons, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U. S. 330, 340 (2016), the Supreme Court directed that Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. The court had rejected the proposition that "a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right." The TransUnion case went further than Spokeo and drew a solid line between the remedies available when plaintiffs allege a material risk of future harm. The court has recognized that a material risk of future harm can satisfy the concrete-harm requirement in the context of a claim for injunctive relief to prevent the harm from occurring, at least so long as the risk of harm is sufficiently imminent and substantial. See Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 341–342 (citing Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U. S. 398). Thus, material risk of harm may allow a court to enjoin activities or force companies to change practices. The TransUnion court clearly laid out the converse; it held that the mere risk of future harm, without more, cannot qualify as a concrete harm in a suit for monetary damages. The TransUnion decision is helpful for industries targeted by class action attorneys, as it should reduce the potential for large settlements based on the risk of future harm. However, regulatory risk and state class action risks are somewhat increased by this decision. Unlike plaintiffs' attorneys, state and federal regulators' incentive to bring cases is untouched by the lack of personal financial gain from speculative damages claims. Indeed, the regulators may see the diminishment of private class actions as a reason to step up government oversight. But with the potential for increased attention under FCRA (and similar statutes like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), the government also will be limited in the amount of damages they can claim. While we may see an increase in activity in these areas, the size of the damages awards may be more closely tied to harm that consumers actually suffered. Similarly, class actions under state laws may increase, as many states have consumer protection laws that provide for standing under a broader range of circumstances than what is provided by Article III in federal court. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act gives standing to a claim arising from a data breach where the plaintiff shows that their unencrypted or nonredacted personal information (as defined in the statute) was accessed, stolen or disclosed due to a company's failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. A plaintiff does not need to show that they were actually harmed. Under that statute, a plaintiff is entitled to recover statutory damages ranging from a minimum of $100 to a maximum of $750 per violation, or actual damages, whichever is greater. This case is a good reminder to revisit your firm's consumer complaint response practices. After the TransUnion decision, programs to redress consumer harm on an individual basis may inoculate you against expensive class actions. It is also a good reminder to know and understand the statutes in the jurisdictions where you are doing business. We've helped a number of companies develop policies and procedures to identify and redress consumer harm and can consult with you about best practices and implementation strategies. [GN] TRANSUNION LLC: Harris Beach Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel LeCours, Esq., of Harris Beach PLLC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on June 25, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez, holding that consumer class action claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) must allege the actual spread of misleading information to third parties in order to establish standing to assert a claim. The decision supplements the Supreme Court's May 2016 decision, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, further restricting the circumstances where a statutory violation can form the basis for a claim. Spokeo left open the question of whether the FCRA violation at the center of that case constituted a "concrete" harm, noting only that such a determination should consider whether the alleged injury bears "a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts." In TransUnion, the Supreme Court answered that question, holding (in a 5-4 decision) that a class member who has not suffered a harm similar to those recognized at common law cannot recover damages for a statutory claim. The putative class members in TransUnion fell into two groups: (1) those whose potential status as a national security threat was shared with third parties; and (2) those who were merely flagged in TransUnion's internal records. The Court concluded that only the former group could demonstrate concrete harm in the form of reputational damage because the transmission of information to potential creditors was similar to the tort of defamation. As to the latter group, the Court specifically rejected the notion that consumers whose information was not shared with third parties had standing to assert a claim based upon a risk of future harm. The Court determined that such potential future harm is too speculative to form the basis for Article III standing. Like Spokeo, the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion has substantial implications for the defense of consumer class action claims outside those created by the FCRA, including class action favorites like the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). Courts will now undoubtedly give heightened scrutiny to standing issues in putative class actions predicated upon technical statutory violations. This decision will also significantly impact the analysis at the class-certification stage since it is now clear that the basis for standing must be proven on a class-wide basis. As the dissenting opinion notes, the ruling also has implications that go beyond the scope of Spokeo and could potentially affect claimants under a wide-range of statutory rights created by Congress. The attorneys at Harris Beach are prepared to assist business in any matters regarding defending against consumer or class action claims. [GN] TROPICALE FOODS: Ferguson Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Palitas ------------------------------------------------------------ MURAD FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TROPICALE FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03775 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2021) alleges that the Defendant misrepresented the manufacturing, labeling, marketing and selling of paletas made from coconuts and other tropical fruits, under its Helados Mexico brand ("Product"). According to the complaint, the Defendant's marketing and advertising of the Product gives consumers the impression it is made in Mexico. This includes the iconic blue pushcart, with the bells at the handle, "HELADOS MEXICO," "PREMIUM ICE CREAM," "PALETA DE CREMA," "CON CREMA," "COCONUT," "COCO," "ALL NATURAL INGREDIENTS," pictures of coconut chunks, the products, and "Bars/Paletas." However, contrary to the Product's representations and omissions, it is not made in Mexico, lacks the type and quality of ingredients historically associated with this food and is not made in the traditional methods. The Product is not made in Mexico, but in Ontario, California, is indicated in the fine print on the side of the Product, the suit alleges. Tropicale Foods, Inc. was founded in 1999. The company's line of business includes manufacturing ice cream and other frozen desserts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com UBS GROUP: Seeks to Block GBP1BB Opt-Out Forex Rigging Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a group of banks urged a London competition tribunal on July 14 to block potentially tens of thousands of companies from being automatically enrolled into a "speculative" GBP1 billion ($1.4 billion) class action accusing them of rigging foreign exchange markets. A lawyer for UBS Group has said that claimants should be forced to opt in to the litigation if the Competition Appeal Tribunal allows it to proceed as a class action. [GN] UNISEA INC: Employee Files Wage Theft Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Rachel Sapin, writing for IntraFish, reports that yet another Alaska seafood producer is facing a class action lawsuit over working conditions at its facilities. Nippon Suisan's UniSea faces class action lawsuit over alleged wage theft. An employee alleges the company failed to pay for time spent putting on and taking off gear necessary to perform his work. [GN] UNITED STATES: Black Employees' Suit Seeks Mental Health Fund ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Lapointe, writing for The Hill Times, reports that the legal team representing hundreds of current and former Black federal employees now part of a proposed multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuit against the federal government has filed a motion in federal court for the government to implement a $100-million mental health fund to address mental injuries and ongoing challenges faced by Black public service workers. [GN] UNITED STATES: Judge Halts Minority Farmer Debt Relief Program -------------------------------------------------------------- Austin American-Statesman reports that black farmers who have long awaited debt relief were dealt a blow last month. A Florida judge issued a preliminary injunction halting a minority farmer debt relief program in the American Rescue Plan. Florida is one of several states where white farmers have sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the package. Texas is another: Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller filed a suit in April, calling the exclusion of white farmers and ranchers from the program unfair and discriminatory. Miller and the others are right: the American farm system is unfair and discriminatory, but not how they assert. Instead, it is rigged toward corporate interests at the expense of the majority of family farmers and ranchers, with Black farmers and other farmers of color faring worst of all. Most American farmers and ranchers have trouble making ends meet on the farm. Nationwide, 61% of farmers have an off-farm job. They contend with variable prices, unpredictable weather and little power in a market controlled by multinational corporations. Federal farm programs could support a wide range of farmers to navigate these challenges. But for most of the last 50 years, farm policy decisions have bolstered the corporatization of agriculture. Big farm operations have grown while the midsize farmers and ranchers who used to be the backbone of food production and of our rural communities have been pushed out of business. Recent farm aid funding is a case in point. In Texas, two-thirds of federal 2020 Coronavirus Food Assistance Program funds went to the top 10% of producers. Each of the top 1% of farmer recipients received about $302,000. The average check for the bottom 80% of Texas farmers, across all races? Just $3,621. This isn't new: from 1990 to 1995, two-thirds of USDA's largest farm loans went to corporations. On top of this unfair playing field, Black farmers and other farmers of color face past and current discrimination on the basis of race -- much of it from the USDA itself. The Coronavirus Food Assistance Program offers a stark illustration there too: Nationally, white farmers received $6.7 billion in aid while Black farmers received just $15 million. For over a century, the USDA denied timely loans to Black farmers and sent them into foreclosure, forced them from their farms, and even conspired with banks and developers to steal their land. In the first half of the 1990s, 97% of USDA disaster payments went to white farmers. When the agency did loan to Black farmers, those loans averaged one-quarter less than those to white farmers. In the face of such widespread USDA hostility, as well as racism and violence from white neighbors, the number of Black farmers in the U.S. fell by 98% through the 20th century, with land loss of nearly 90%. The Land Loss and Reparations Project estimates that USDA discrimination triggered a loss of $300 billion in Black wealth, contributing to a massive and ongoing racial wealth gap. USDA acknowledged its decades of bias in 1999, as part of a many-year class-action lawsuit. The settlement paid a total of $2.2 billion to thousands of farmers, though it came far too late for most to save their farms. The payments didn't address the debt associated with the loss of their land or farm -- debt directly due to USDA discrimination. The American Rescue Plan relief package is intended to settle those and similar debts. This is what Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and plaintiffs in the other lawsuits object to. In reality, the debt relief is a small step toward reversing untold decades of discrimination. In a farm sector geared toward the largest and most corporate players, family farmers and ranchers of all races have faced an unfair playing field. To level the field, we must prioritize measures both that address the harms of past discrimination and that build equitable structures so that all family farmers and ranchers can thrive. [GN] VBJ CONSULTING: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VBJ Consulting LLC. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VBJ Consulting LLC doing business as: Yarrow Financial, Case No. 3:21-cv-05628 (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. VBJ Consulting LLC doing business as Yarrow Financial -- https://yarrowfinancial.com/ -- offers a variety of useful services, including vendor programs, capital equipment loans, and leasing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com VIRGINIA MASON: Settles Nurses' Class Action for $5.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Farley, writing for Kitsap Sun, reports that a class-action lawsuit brought by thousands of nurses who said they weren't properly paid for lunch and other breaks has settled with Kitsap County's main health care system, now known as Virginia Mason Franciscan Health. The $5.5 million settlement is the product of months of mediation work and brings to an end what both sides acknowledged would've been an expensive and protracted trial in court over the nurses' lunches, breaks and pre- and post-shift work. The average payment a nurse will receive in the settlement is $510, their attorneys said in court documents, though actual amounts depend on their wages and other factors. The case, brought by Hana Etcheverry, a nurse at the former Harrison Medical Center in East Bremerton, included more than 7,000 employees of the health care system CHI Franciscan Health, today called Virginia Mason Franciscan Health. The lawsuit, filed in 2019, accused the health care system of violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington state law. The suit alleged nurses like Etcheverry, who worked shifts of 12 hours or more, "experience significant amounts of pre- and post-shift off-the-clock work, including unpaid, on-duty time preparing for their days before clocking in as well as completing charting and patient paperwork after clocking out." The nurses "cannot take timely, full, off-duty meal and rest periods, due to a lack of break relief and their required adherence to their ethical responsibilities to remain responsible for patient care at all times throughout their shifts," the suit said. Cary Evans, Virginia Mason Franciscan's vice president of communications and government affairs, said the health care system is "in the process" of notifying its employees about the settlement. "Virginia Mason Franciscan Health is committed to the fair compensation of our employees," he said in a statement. "We strongly deny that we have violated any wage and hour laws," Evans said. "However, we believe the best use of our resources is to move forward and focus on providing top-quality patient care, rather than further extending a costly and time-consuming legal case." Carolyn H. Cottrell, an attorney for Etcheverry and the nurses, did not respond to a call and email for comment. Attorneys for the nurses and the hospital system started meditating in August 2020 before reaching a tentative agreement in January 2021. The settlement was finalized June 3. The $5.5 million settlement includes a third for the nurse's lawyers, amounting to $1.83 million. The plaintiffs' research included studying time cards and interviews with 30 nurses of the hospital system. The plaintiffs acknowledged in documents that their actual target in court would have been for $16 million, but that they would have to prove the nurses were shorted "for every shift and every assignment" and that CHI, as it was then known, "acted knowingly or in bad faith." The case was brought following a 2018 state supreme court decision that appeared to clear the way for nurses to be able to file class-action suits against employers that don't allow for lunch or other breaks as codified in state law. In the lawsuit, the lawyers for the nurses said they must find a 30-minute break for lunch no sooner than two hours into a shift and no later than five. But common practice includes questions from colleagues and other work that must be done during that time, it alleged, to include carrying electronic devices on breaks so they can be reached at all times. "Instead of making nursing staff clock out for their meal periods then clock back in at the end of a meal period, Defendants assume nursing staff are able to find a 30-minute block of time to enjoy a bona fide meal period," the lawsuit said. "In fact, this does not typically occur." [GN] VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Estrada Suit Over Unpaid PZEV Repairs ------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA ESTRADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-05763 (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Business and Professions Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly identify and pay for all of the parts and labor that should correctly be covered for 15-years or 150,000 miles, as defined by California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Section 1962.1, relating to 2009 through 2017 Volkswagen Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles (PZEV). As a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members are paying out-of-pocket expenses for repairs that should be covered under the California Emissions Warranty. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is an automobile manufacturer, headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com WALMART INC: Constangy Brooks Attorney Discusses BIPA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laura Balson, Esq., of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that although the motivation behind the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act -- to protect individuals from having their unchangeable, biometric identities stolen or sold to the highest bidder -- is noble, the class action litigation that has ensued is a nightmare. For large companies, the alleged damages can be in the millions or billions of dollars, even without a single injured plaintiff in the class. For small companies, a BIPA lawsuit can mean the end of the business. And for defense attorneys, there have been very few strategies for effectively defending a client caught unaware of the statutory requirements. A few of the high-profile class settlements show the broad scope of this law. In 2020, Facebook settled for $650 million, and TikTok settled for $92 million, in actions brought by their respective users based on facial recognition technology. More recently, in early 2021, Walmart settled for $10 million in a lawsuit based on employees' use of a palm scanner when checking out and returning cash register drawers. The Walmart case may be the largest settlement in an employment-based BIPA case and is remarkable for a few other reasons. Walmart allowed employees to use either the palm scanner or a personal identification number, stopped using the palm scanner altogether in 2018, deleted all of the data collected during the time period that the scanner was in use, and argued that there was no actual injury to any putative class member. Nonetheless, the court denied Walmart's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and the parties engaged in discovery and multiple mediations before reaching a resolution. According to the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, Walmart identified 21,677 employees who used the palm scanner without first signing a written consent form. Whether the size and pace of these cases will continue may depend on the rulings in two highly anticipated appeals. The one expected to be released first, Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., No. 1-20-0562, asks the Illinois Appellate Court to determine whether the one-year statute of limitations for privacy claims applies to claims brought under the BIPA. (Many state and federal trial courts have instead applied the five-year "catch-all" statute of limitations in BIPA cases.) One indication that the short statute of limitations may apply came this past May. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan Inc., that an insurer must defend a tanning salon against a customer's BIPA claims, because the proposed class action alleged a privacy violation that was potentially covered under the salon's general liability policy. The Court's discussion of the BIPA as a privacy statute suggests that the one-year statute of limitations may apply. The second appeal to watch is McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, No. 1-19-2398. In McDonald, the Illinois Supreme Court has been asked to determine whether the state Worker's Compensation Act preempts the BIPA in the employment context. The Appellate Court said no, but if the Supreme Court rules otherwise, employers might be able to assert a complete defense to BIPA suits brought by employees. Such a decision would have no effect on the consumer class action cases brought against Facebook, Six Flags and others, but it would be excellent news for employers. In the meantime, employers who have not yet been targets of BIPA lawsuits should make sure they are in compliance with the notice, consent, and data retention requirements of the statute. For those who have already been sued, there is hope that one of the pending appeals will result in a ruling that finally provides some relief to employers. [GN] [*] Alston & Bird Discusses Class Action Lawsuits Amid Pandemic --------------------------------------------------------------- Alston & Bird, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that the numerous class actions filed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to work their way through the courts. In this section, we highlight some of these recent decisions and provide updates on some of the trends that have been developing. Employee WARNs That COVID Is Not a Natural Disaster Benson v. Enterprise Holdings Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-00891 (M.D. Fla.) (Jan. 4, 2021). Judge Dalton. Judge Dalton denied Enterprise's motion to dismiss a class action by rental car employees claiming that Enterprise violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by "dismissing them with little to no notice "due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court rejected Enterprise's defense based on the WARN Act's notice exception, which exempts employers from the notice requirement if a "mass layoff is a direct result of a natural disaster." Judge Dalton ruled that" Defendants' facilities or staff didn't disappear overnight, suddenly wiped out. Instead, COVID-19 caused changes in travel patterns and an economic downturn, which affected Defendants -- so the natural disaster defense doesn't apply." Judge Dalton deemed the "unforeseeable business circumstances exception" to be the "proper focus." Because that WARN Act exception does not fully exempt employers but only softens the notice requirement, Enterprise employees stated a claim for a WARN Act violation sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. Higher Ed & COVID Class Actions: Courts Split on Tuition Refund Cases v. Pace University, No. 1:20-cv-03210; In re Columbia Tuition Refund Action, No. 1:20-cv-03208 (S.D.N.Y.) (Feb. 26, 2021). Judge Furman. Courts across the country continue to grapple with the dozens of class actions filed against colleges and universities following their move to online instruction in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many courts have granted motions to dismiss filed by institutions of higher education, some courts have allowed student plaintiff complaints to proceed. As a general matter, courts dismissing these cases on the pleadings have done so when tuition refund claims were based on general allegations that tuition and fees were paid with the assumption that in-person instruction would take place. Absent specific promises on the part of a college or university that courses would be conducted in person, courts have typically granted defendants' motions. Some courts, however, have denied dismissal -- in part or fully. For example, Judge Furman denied Pace University's motion to dismiss the student -- plaintiffs' contract claim related to instructional format services because the university allegedly promised on its course registration portal that on-campus courses would be taught in person. In contrast, Judge Furman dismissed the instructional format contract claim from Columbia students because they were unable to point to any specific in-person instructional promise made by the school and the vague" on-campus experience" marketing statements were insufficient to support a claim. The Pace and Columbia students also alleged they had paid mandatory fees for the semester to use campus facilities and take part in campus activities and those fees had not been refunded. Based on those allegations, Judge Furman denied both institutions' attempts to dismiss the contract claims based on the availability of campus facilities and activities. Conditions of Carriage Carry Airline Cases Ide, et al. v. British Airways PLC, No. 1:20-cv-03542 (S.D.N.Y.) (Mar. 26, 2021); Bombin v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 5:20-cv-01883 (E.D. Penn.) (Mar. 29, 2021); Rudolph, et al. v. United Airlines Holding Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-02142 (N.D. Ill.) (Feb. 12, 2021); Fensterer v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 1:20-cv-05558 (D.N.J.) (Mar. 5, 2021). In recent decisions related to airline ticket refund lawsuits, courts have continued to hold that the conditions of carriage govern. Ide v. British Airways ruled that the general conditions of carriage, which allow customers to choose one of three remedies, apply to all customers, and Bombin v. Southwest held that the plaintiff asserted a valid claim for breach of contract based on the failure to operate as scheduled clause of the contract of carriage, which allows for refunds. Courts have also rejected force majeure arguments in the context of airline ticket refund cases. The judge in Rudolph v. United Airlines denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in part because under the contract of carriage, the flight cancellation at issue constituted a schedule change or irregular operation and not a force majeure event. Vaccines are readily available. Can employers require their employees to be vaccinated? Get the answer to this and other questions in" COVID-19 Vaccines: Seven Questions for Employers." Steady Streak of Dismissals for PPP Agents M&M Consulting Group LLC v. JP Morgan Bank N.A., et al., No. 8:20 cv-01318 (C.D. Cal.) (Jan. 6, 2021). Judge Selna. The Central District of California continued the consistent trend of federal courts dismissing claims related to agent fees under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant banks failed to pay fees to agents who assisted small businesses in acquiring federal loans under the PPP. The court held that "absent an agreement between agent and lender . . . lenders are not required to pay agent fees under the text of the CARES Act or its implementing regulations." Coronavirus Vaccine Case Survives Motion to Dismiss McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2:20-cv-01402 (E.D. Pa.) (Feb. 16, 2021). Judge Pappert. Denying motion to dismiss. While many coronavirus securities class actions alleging falsity based on statements expressing positive outlooks despite the pandemic have struggled to survive motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs earned a victory at the pleading stage when the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff alleged that the company manipulated its share price by overexaggerating its ability to create a coronavirus vaccine. The company publicly stated that it had "constructed" a vaccine in three hours, when it had only "designed" a vaccine in that amount of time. The court found that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded loss causation and an inference of scienter and that the statements were misleading. The result gives plaintiffs a blueprint for succeeding in the otherwise unsuccessful realm of pandemic-related securities claims. [GN] [*] Maryland Borrower Files Suit Over Deceptive Mortgage Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPA News reports that a Maryland borrower filed a class action lawsuit accusing their servicer of violating RESPA and the CARES Act by engaging in deceptive mortgage practices related to COVID-19 forbearance agreements. The servicer argued the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue their claims because their injuries were not caused by the alleged failure to send proper notices. [GN] [*] Wilson Elser Attorney Discusses Product Recalls, Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that Brian Thompson (Of Counsel-San Francisco, CA) authored "Total Recall: A Tool to Eclipse Class Action Litigation," published in the July 2021 issue of DRI's For the Defense. When a manufacturer recalls a product to rectify a defect, class action lawsuits often follow. Brian discusses how "mootness" challenges can operate as a powerful and creative tool for manufacturers against class action litigation - even when litigation seeks relief beyond the scope of the remedy offered by the recall. The article presents an analysis of recent automotive liability cases to discuss damages theories commonly asserted by plaintiffs in class actions, such as "overpayment" and "lost benefit of the bargain." Brian argues that a product recall that fixes a defect also restores the product's diminished value, leaving a court without a live controversy to adjudicate. Brian suggests that manufacturers that have established a recall purporting to fix a defect should challenge related litigation as moot, and invites defense counsel to use his article's analysis as a starting point for their arguments. A copy of the article is available at: https://www.wilsonelser.com/writable/files/Attorney_Articles_PDFs/ftd-07-2021-06-thompson_final_published_piece.pdf [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***