/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210728.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 28, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 144
Headlines
1ST CHOICE: Fails to Pay Overtime & Commission, Johnson Claims
360 DIGITECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 13 Deadline
360 DIGITECH: Robbins Geller Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
360 DIGITECH: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 13 Deadline
360 DIGITECH: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 13 Deadline
39TH STREET AUTO: Underpays Mechanics, Ramos Suit Claims
3M COMPANY: Burton Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Blackwell Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
3M COMPANY: Timkey Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
56 ST AUTO: Faces Ramos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
AAA STAFFING: Fails to Pay Recruiters' OT, Bowen et al. Claim
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Russell City Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Hamm FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT for Nurses
AIRBNB INC: D.C. App. Affirms Arbitration Order in Selden Suit
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Brown FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina
ALLY FINANCIAL: Barry TCPA Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
AMAZON.COM INC: Discusses Court Ruling on Labor Class Action Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Ends Use of Arbitration for Customer Disputes
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Hernandez Seeks Blind's Online Store Access
AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL: CCI Loses Class Certification Bid
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Settles $26 Billion Opioid Crisis Suit
ATHIRA PHARMA: Vincent Wong Reminds of August 24 Deadline
AUSTIN JACKSON: Whole Woman's Health Seeks to Certify Two Classes
B10 LLC: Fails to Properly Compensate Restaurant Staff, Valdez Says
BERKELEY UNIFIED: Notice of Class Action Settlement Discussed
BIGGE CRANE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Lawsuit Against Firm
BK AUTO REPAIR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Miranda Suit Says
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Hogan Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to N.D. Ill.
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 17 Deadline
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 17 Deadline
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Jiang Sues Over Misleading Offering Documents
BMO NESBITT: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Foreign Exchange Fees
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Another Canadian Court Denies Certification
CANAAN INC: Court Dismissed Putative Securities Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Gaillard Sues Over Refusal to Honor GAP Product Terms
CAPTURERX: Faces Suit Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info
CARDINAL MULTI: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
CARLOTZ INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CARVE DESIGN: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Suit Alleges
CENTERSTATE BANK: Sept. 3 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
CESCAPHE: Class Action Proceeding Filed Over COVID-19 Refunds
CHUBBY SNACKS: Nisbett Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Website Access
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Thornton Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline
CLIQ PRODUCTS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COINBASE GLOBAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 20 Deadline
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action Over Nasdaq Listing
COINBASE GLOBAL: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
COINBASE GLOBAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
COINBASE GLOBAL: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
COMCAST CORPORATION: Court Tosses Tillage Bid for Class Status
CONSENSYS SOFTWARE: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CORMEDIX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds September 20 Deadline
CORMEDIX INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of September 20 Deadline
CORMEDIX INC: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
CREDIT CORP: Manzano Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
CREDIT PROS: Bid for Protective Order in Hancock TCPA Suit Denied
DIDI GLOBAL: NY Debacles Shed Light on Corp Liability Insurance
DOMINICAN COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DOMTAR CORPORATION: Anderson Sues Over Deceptive Proxy Statement
DRAFTKINGS INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 31 Deadline
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Pay Wages and Taxes Owed, Bruehl Claims
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Liantonio Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
DYNAMIC WIRELESS: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
EAGLEMOSS INC: Davis Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Sofer FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
EQUIFAX INFO: Judge Recommends Denial of Rivera Class Cert Bid
EXCELSIOR COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FACEBOOK INC: To Pay $52 Million to Class of Content Moderators
FEDERAL METAL: Storrs Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
FIDELITY FIRST: Romero Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
FILTERS FAST: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Proposed Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Class Action Continues for Shelby GT350 Mustang Owners
FRANCE: Police Targeted in Class-Action Over Racial Profiling
FULL TRUCK: Pratyush Hits Share Drop Over Tech Law Non-compliance
FULL TRUCK: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 10 Deadline
GATE GOURMET: Moore Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
GOOGLE LLC: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Sandofsky FCRA Class Suit
GPM INVESTMENTS: Faces Froom Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
GUARANTEED RATE: Rios Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
HAMILTON POINT: Hidalgo Seeks August 3 Extension to File Reply
HANOVER VENTURES: Gonzalez Seeks Conditional Collective Status
HAWAI'I: Provisional Class Certification in Chatman v. DPS Granted
HAYNES INVESTMENTS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Brice Class Suit
HILBERT COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOME DEPOT: Carlson Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
HONDA MOTOR: Odyssey Defect Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
HOUGHTON COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ICONIX BRAND: Mamakas Seeks to Enjoin Shareholder Vote on Merger
INSURANCE COMPANY: MSP Recovery to Recover Medical Reimbursements
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Health Sues Over Da Vinci Surgical Robot System
JAMES RIVER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JAMES RIVER: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JBS USA: Discloses $20 Million Settlement Over Antitrust Class Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sunscreen Products Contain Benzene, Briglio Says
JUUL LABS: Belleville School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Wis.
JUUL LABS: Faces Richland County Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Fort Towson Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Green Bay School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Mar Lee School Alleges
JUUL LABS: New Lothrop Suit Claims Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Tishomingo School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
KANZHUN LIMITED: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 10 Deadline
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Cohen Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Thomas Suit Says
KRAFT HEINZ: $16MM Class Settlement in Ferron Suit Wins Final Nod
LEE'S SUMMIT: Spatz Seeks Conditional Class Cert. of FLSA Claims
LIFESTYLE DIRECT: Loan Seekers Bring Class Action Against Scammers
LINCHPIN SALES: Orbach Seeks Denied Wage Statements, Overtime Pay
LOUISIANA: Initial Approval of Settlement in Hamilton Sought
MANUAL RODAS: Denial of Cardenas-Meneses Class Cert Bid Endorsed
MED THRIVE: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL: Acuna Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
MONTY PYTHON: B.C. Judge Removes 'Dead Parrot' Joke From Suit
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA: Faces New Legal Battle Over Vehicle Parking Ban
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL: Pollution Class Action Suit Certified
NEW JERSEY: Initial Approval of Settlement Deal Sought
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Arce Class Suit in New York Supreme Court
NIKOLA CORP: Investors Get Second Chance at Lead Role in Lawsuit
NJ ALE: Faces Cardoso Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Nyanjom Sues Over Illegal Collection Debts
OCWEN LOAN: Parties Seek to Hold Ruling on Class Certification Bid
OPENTABLE INC: Faces Vaccaro Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
P & Z CAROLINA: $755K Class Deal in Ditsworth Suit Wins Final Nod
P.D.K. ROOFING: Faces Guerra Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Discusses Shareholder Class Action Claims
PELLA CORPORATION: Olds BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
PERRIGO CO: Fails to Dismiss Class Action Over Timely Disclosure
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Class Action
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Rosen Law Reminds of September 21 Deadline
QUESTFLEET LLC: Jones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RED APPLE: Notches Win in Suit Over Overcharging of Tenants
RENOVACARE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 14 Deadline
RENOVACARE INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 14 Deadline
RENOVACARE INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 9 Deadline
ROADRUNNER MOVING: Victims May Get Relief With Colorado Lawsuit
ROCKET COMPANIES: Thornton Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline
ROYAL PHILIPS: Trucker Seeks Class-Action Status for Lawsuit
SCORE MEDIA: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
SEGA OF AMERICA: Muto Alleges Key Master Machine Rigged
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Class Status Bid Must Be Filed by May 13
SPECTRUM KING: Misclassifies Sales Executives, Reitzel Claims
SPECTRUM MNG'T: Illegally Records Phone Conversations, Suit Says
ST. STEPHEN'S: State Auto's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Denied
STABLE ROAD: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 13 Deadline
STABLE ROAD: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 13 Deadline
STABLE ROAD: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 13 Deadline
SUITABLE INC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUTTER HEALTH: Plaintiffs Press $172M Fee Bid in Antitrust Case
TAIHO CORP: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Halcomb Jr. Claims
TENNESSEE: Faces Class Action Over Federal Unemployment Benefits
TEXAS TECH: System Responded to COVID-19 Tuition Fee Class Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: 4 Plaintiffs Who Experienced Engine Fires File Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Emissions Warranty
TRANSLINK: Retired Employees File Breach Suit Over 2020 Cyberattack
TURBOTENANT: Sandofsky FCRA Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D. Colo.
UNISEA INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Ohring Labor Class Suit
USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Fierro Says
VAIL CORPORATION: Gibson FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. California
VISA INC: Faces Mayer Class Suit in California State Court
VISTA SHADOW: Faces Class Suit Over Apartment Mismanagement
VMK INC: Faces Reeves Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
WALMART INC: Ramos Sues Over Unlawful Criminal Screening Policy
WALT DISNEY: Anaheim Taxpayers Subsidize Disneyland, Suit Alleges
WALT DISNEY: Labor Lawsuit Granted Class-Action Status
WELLPET LLC: Pennsylvania Court Narrows Claims in Loduca Class Suit
WORKERS CREDIT: Encarnacion Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
XTO ENERGY: Harmon Seeks Unpaid Construction Managers' OT Wages
[*] Celebrity Attorney Reluctant on Donald Trump's Big Tech Suit
*********
1ST CHOICE: Fails to Pay Overtime & Commission, Johnson Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROY JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. 1ST CHOICE FLOORING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-05129-PKH (W.D. Ark., July 19, 2021)
brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees against the Defendant for its alleged willful
and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as a sales
associate, claims that the Defendant misclassified him as exempt
form the requirements of the FLSA. Despite working overtime hours,
the Defendant did not pay him overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he has
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Moreover, the Defendant had agreed to pay the Plaintiff a
percentage of all sales he brought in for the Defendant. However,
the Defendant breach their agreement by failing to pay the
Plaintiff 25% of all sales he brought in for the Defendant.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's
fees and all litigation costs, and other relief as the Court may
deem necessary, just and proper.
1st Choice Flooring, LLC offers residential and commercial flooring
sales and installation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
WH LAW | WE HELP
1 Riverfront PI. - Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Tel: (501) 891-6000
E-mail: chris@wh.law
360 DIGITECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against 360 DigiTech, Inc. ("360
DigiTech" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: QFIN) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired 360 DigiTech securities between April 30, 2020 and July 7,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/qfin.
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 the throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had been collecting personal information in
violation of relevant People's Republic of China ("PRC") laws and
regulations; (2) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an
increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action;
and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/qfin 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 360
DigiTech you have until September 13, 2021 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]
360 DIGITECH: Robbins Geller Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The 360 DigiTech class action lawsuit charges 360 DigiTech, Inc.
(NASDAQ: QFIN) and certain of 360 DigiTech's top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to
represent purchasers of 360 DigiTech securities between April 30,
2020 and July 7, 2021, both dates inclusive ("Class Period"). The
360 DigiTech class action lawsuit (Balderas v. 360 DigiTech, Inc.,
No. 21-cv-06013) was commenced on July 13, 2021 in the Southern
District of New York and is assigned to Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the 360 DigiTech 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 360
DigiTech class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later
than September 13, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The 360 DigiTech class action lawsuit alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) 360 DigiTech
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, 360
DigiTech's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.
On July 8, 2021, reports circulated on social media to the effect
that 360 DigiTech's core product, the 360 IOU app, had been removed
from major app stores. The reports came on the heels of the removal
of other companies' apps as Chinese regulators investigated their
customer data protection practices. On this news, 360 DigiTech's
stock price fell more than 21%, damaging investors.
Then, on July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech
confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store
and quoted a 360 DigiTech spokesperson, who disclosed that 360
DigiTech had "submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the
whole process."
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased 360 DigiTech
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the 360 DigiTech 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 360 DigiTech
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the 360 DigiTech class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
360 DigiTech 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.[GN]
360 DIGITECH: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of 360 DigiTech, Inc.
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.
360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ:QFIN)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/360-digitech-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17925&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021
Class Period: April 29, 2021 - July 7, 2021
Allegations against QFIN include 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.
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. [GN]
360 DIGITECH: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of 360 DigiTech, Inc. ("360 DigiTech"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QFIN) between April 30, 2020 and July 7,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased the ADRs of 360 DigiTech, Inc. and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the ADRs of 360 DigiTech, Inc., you
may, no later than September 13, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the ADRs of 360 DigiTech, Inc.
The filed complaint 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:
-- the Company had been collecting personal information in
violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations;
-- accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and
-- 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 8, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported chatter on social media
that the Company's core product offering, the 360 IOU app, has been
removed from app stores.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.12, or 21%, to
close at $26.02 per share on July 8, 2021.
Subsequently, on July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360
DigiTech confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android
app store and quoted a Company spokesperson, who disclosed that the
Company had "submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the
whole process."
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
39TH STREET AUTO: Underpays Mechanics, Ramos Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, MIGUEL RAMOS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. 39TH
STREET AUTO REPAIR, INC., BRUCE FRIEDMAN, and TOMAS EYCLER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04045-MKB-MMH (E.D.N.Y., July 19,
2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a mechanic at the
Defendant's automobile repair shop from on or around February 2019
through and including June 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.
However, the Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, they were only
paid a fixed salary rate regardless of how many additional hours
they worked in a week. Moreover, the Defendants allegedly failed to
keep track of their time, failed to post notice regarding their
wage, and failed to provide them with wage statement and any notice
of their rate of pay and such other information.
39th Street Auto Repair, Inc. operates an automobile repair shop.
Bruce Friedman and Tomas Eycler are co-owners of the 39th Street
Auto Repair. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd St., Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
3M COMPANY: Burton Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02230-RMG
(D.S.C., July 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Faces Blackwell Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY BLACKWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02215-RMG (D.S.C., July 21, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and military
members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with thyroid disease, the suit says.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Timkey Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM TIMKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02231-RMG
(D.S.C., July 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and military
members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
56 ST AUTO: Faces Ramos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL RAMOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 56 ST AUTO REPAIR INC., 56TH STREET
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR INCORPORATED, and MIGUEL CINTRON, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04052-ENV-PK (E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law including unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours pay,
failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide wage
statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses.
Mr. Ramos was employed as a mechanic at the Defendants' automobile
repair shop located at 249 56th Street, Brooklyn, New York from
February 2016 through February 2019.
56 St Auto Repair Inc. is an auto repair shop business with its
principal place of business located at 249 56th Street, Brooklyn,
New York.
56th Street Automobile Repair Incorporated is an auto repair shop
business with its principal place of business located at 249 56th
Street, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
AAA STAFFING: Fails to Pay Recruiters' OT, Bowen et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
BIANCA BOWEN and GUILOUSE GRANDOIT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAA STAFFING LLC and
ANNE'S O'CONNEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02894-ELR (N.D. Ga.,
July 19, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by willfully failing and refusing to pay proper compensation to
their recruiters.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as recruiters –
Bowen was from 2016 to 2020, while Grandoit was from April 2019 to
August 2020.
According to the complaint, the Defendants required the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated recruiters to regularly work more than
40 hours per week. However, the Defendants deprived them of their
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the federally mandated
overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Instead of paying them one and one-half times their regular hourly
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, the
Defendants purportedly enacted a policy of forbidding overtime
payments and did not compensate them for any overtime hours they
have worked.
AAA Staffing LLC provides staffing to the apartment industry across
the country. Anne O'Connel is the owner and operator of AAA
Staffing. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Sean Nation, Esq.
William J. Cantrell, Esq.
CANTRELL ZWETSCH, P.A.
401 East Jackson St., Suite 2340
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: (800) 698-6650
Fax: (813) 867-0116
E-mail: snation@czattorneys.com
wcantrell@czattorneys.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Russell City Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as City of Russell, KY; City of Jenkins, KY; City
of Pineville, KY; City of Worthington, KY; City of Vanceburg, KY;
City of Greenup, KY; City of South Shore, KY; City of Bellefonte,
KY; on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated home
rule cities v. Abbott Laboratories, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd., Allergan plc, Endo International PLC, Johnson & Johnson,
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., KVK Tech, Inc., Assertio
Therapeutics, Inc., Depomed Inc., Amerisourcebergen Drug
Corporation, Anda, Inc., Cardinal Health, Inc., CVS Health
Corporation LLC, Kroger Company, McKesson Corporation, Rite Aid
Corporation, Kentucky CVS Pharmacy LLC, Rite Aid of Kentucky, Inc.,
Walgreens Corporation, Walmart Inc., Case No. 21-CI-00515 was
removed from the Franklin Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky on July 23, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00030-GFVT to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product.
Abbott Laboratories -- https://www.abbott.com/ -- is an American
multinational medical devices and health care company with
headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq.
GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
Louisville, KY 40223
Phone: (502) 244-9331
Fax: (502) 244-9334
Email: m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
- and -
William D. Nefzger, Esq.
BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER, PLC
1041 Goss Avenue
The BCCN Building
Louisville, KY 40217
Phone: (502) 587-2002
Fax: (502) 587-2006
Email: will@bccnlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Breaux Ballard Rogers, Esq.
BALLARD ROGERS LAW OFFICE, PLLC
539 Market Street, 3rd Floor
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 640-3535
Fax: (502) 582-2296
Email: ballard@ballardrogerslaw.com
- and -
Earl Frederick Straub, Jr., Esq.
Ryan Thomas Polczynski, Esq.
WHITLOW, ROBERTS, HOUSTON & STRAUB
300 Broadway
P.O. Box 995
Paducah, KY 42001
Phone: (270) 443-4516
Fax: (270) 442-1712
Email: rstraub@whitlow-law.com
rpolczynski@whitlow-law.com
- and -
Kevin Michael Bandy, Esq.
ULMER & BERNE, LLP – Cincinnati
600 Vine Street, Suite 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 698-5000
- and -
John David Dyche, Esq.
Scott T. Dickens, Esq.
FULTZ MADDOX DICKENS, PLC
101 S. Fifth Street
2700 National City Tower
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 588-2017
Fax: (502) 588-2020
Email: jddyche@fmdlegal.com
sdickens@fmdlegal.com
- and -
Donald L. Miller, II, Esq.
QUINTAROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A. – Lex
2452 Sir Barton Way, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40509
Phone: (859) 226-0057
Fax: (859) 226-0059
Email: dmiller@qpwblaw.com
- and -
Joseph Allan Cobb, Esq.
COBB LAW, PLLC
1303 Clear Springs Trace, Suite 100
Louisville, KY 40223
Phone: (502) 966-7100
Fax: (502) 434-5900
Email: allancobb@cobblawpllc.com
- and -
Margaret Jane Brannon, Esq.
JACKSON KELLY PLLC – Lexington
100 W. Main Street
City Center, Suite 700
Lexington, KY 40507
Phone: (859) 255-9500
Fax: (859) 288-2849
Email: mjbrannon@jacksonkelly.com
- and -
Edmund J. Benson, Esq.
BENSON LAW OFFICES
450 Old Vine Street, Suite 200
Lexington, KY 40507
Phone: (859) 475-1644
Fax: (859) 368-7169
Email: ned@nedbensonlaw.com
- and -
Carol Dan Browning, Esq.
Carolyn Purcell Michener, Esq.
Jeffrey Steven Moad, Esq.
SITTES & HARBISON, PLLC – Louisville
400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 587-3400
Email: cbrowning@stites.com
cmichener@stites.com
jmoad@stites.com
- and -
Elisabeth S. Gray, Esq.
Mark S. Fenzel, Esq.
MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER
401 S. Fourth Street
2600 Brown & Williamson Tower
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 584-1135
Fax: (502) 588-1980
Email: egray@middletonlaw.com
mfenzel@middletonlaw.com
- and -
Conor Brendan O'Croinin, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
100 E. Pratt Street, Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
Phone: (410) 949-1160
Fax: (410) 659-0436
Email: cocroinin@zuckerman.com
- and -
Robert D. Bobrow, Esq.
Robert Estes Stopher, Esq.
BOEHL, STOPHER & GRAVES - Louisville KY
400 W. Market Street
2300 Aegon Center
Louisville, KY 40202-3345
Phone: (502) 589-5980
Fax: (502) 561-9400
Email: rbobrow@bsg-law.com
rstopher@bsg-law.com
- and -
Frank Kern Tremper, Esq.
Mark G. Arnzen, Esq.
ARNZEN, MOLLOY, & STORM, P.S.C.
600 Greenup Street
P.O. Box 472
Covington, KY 41012-0472
Phone: (859) 292-7654
Fax: (859) 292-7655
Email: ftremper@arnzenlaw.com
marnzen@arnzenlaw.com
- and -
Andrew Louis Sparks, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC - KY
300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1700
Lexington, KY 40507
Phone: (859) 899-8734
Fax: (844) 670-6009
Email: asparks@dickinsonwright.com
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Hamm FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT for Nurses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY HAMM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE CO., INC., ACADIA JV
HOLDINGS, LLC, and RED RIVER HOSPITAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00550 (M.D. Tenn., July 21, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Texas law including failure to pay overtime compensation for
on-duty unpaid meal periods and off-the-clock work, quantum meruit,
money had and received, unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a nurse at Red
River Hospital in Wichita Falls, Texas, and was also employed by
Defendants Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. and Acadia JV Holdings,
LLC as a nurse at River Place Behavioral Health in LaPlace,
Louisiana.
Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., is an owner and operator of
behavioral hospitals and health facilities throughout the United
States, with its principal place of business in Franklin,
Tennessee.
Acadia JV Holdings, LLC is a healthcare company with its principal
place of business is located in Franklin, Tennessee.
Red River Hospital, LLC is a healthcare company with its principal
place of business located in Franklin, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
- and –
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, 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
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
- and –
William M. Hogg, Esq.
Michael K. Burke, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: whogg@schneiderwallace.com
mburke@schneiderwallace.com
AIRBNB INC: D.C. App. Affirms Arbitration Order in Selden Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY SELDEN, Appellant v. AIRBNB, INC., Appellee,
Case No. 19-7168 (D.C. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit affirms the district court's order of
arbitration and denial of Selden's motion to vacate the arbitration
award.
The case involves the arbitrability of discrimination claims
brought against Airbnb, an online home rental platform. Airbnb
provides an online "community marketplace" for people to list and
rent accommodations around the world. When Selden signed up for
Airbnb, he was presented with a sign-in wrap -- a webpage that
informs the user he is agreeing to certain terms by signing up.
Airbnb's Terms of Service included a clause requiring that all
disputes be resolved by arbitration.
The case arose when Selden created an Airbnb account in March 2015.
When he went to the sign-up page on his iPhone, he chose to sign
up with his Facebook account. At the time, Airbnb required a user
to provide a profile picture, which hosts could view. Selden's
Facebook profile picture became his Airbnb profile picture.
After Selden signed up for Airbnb, he inquired about a listing in
Philadelphia to rent a single room in a property occupied by the
owner. The host told Selden the property was not available. Later
that day, Selden noticed the property was still listed. Selden, an
African American man, suspected the host had denied his request
because of his race, which the host could see from Selden's profile
picture.
Two days later, Selden created two fake Airbnb accounts with
profile pictures of white individuals. He then used his fake
accounts to request renting the same property for the same dates.
According to Selden, the host accepted both requests. He posted
his claims of discrimination on social media with the hashtag
"#airbnbwhileblack," which went viral.
Mr. Selden filed a complaint in the District Court for the District
of Columbia against Airbnb asserting claims under three statutes.
First, he alleged that Airbnb violated Title II of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, Section 201, 78 Stat. 241, 243
(codified at 42 U.S.C. Section 2000a), which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race in public accommodations.
Second, he alleged that Airbnb violated the Civil Rights Act of
1866, 14 Stat. 27 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. Section 1981),
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in the
formation of contracts. Third, he alleged that Airbnb violated the
Fair Housing Act, Pub. L. No. 90-284, Section 804, 82 Stat. 73, 81
(1968) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. Section 3604), which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in the sale or rental
of housing.
To support these discrimination claims, Selden asserted that two
Airbnb policies had a disparate impact on African Americans: Its
photo policy, requiring a user to provide a profile picture that
hosts could view, and its true name policy, requiring a user to use
his true name that hosts could see. Selden asserted his
discrimination claims individually and on behalf of a class,
seeking damages and injunctive relief.
Based on the arbitration clause in the Terms of Service, the
district court granted Airbnb's motion to compel arbitration. The
district court determined that Airbnb's sign-up screen placed
Selden on reasonable notice of the Terms of Service, and therefore
he agreed to the Terms when he signed up. Concluding that Selden's
discrimination claims were arbitrable, the district court ordered
the parties to arbitrate and stayed the case pending the
arbitration.
Mr. Selden filed an arbitration demand with the AAA. A month
later, the arbitrator approved of the parties sending document
requests but also explained that he was willing to consider renewed
requests for additional discovery after completing the document
production. Selden's counsel followed up with an email expressly
"reserving the right to seek testimony by way of depositions prior
to the close of discovery," but never requested any interrogatories
or depositions prior to the close of discovery.
Airbnb filed a dispositive motion to have Selden's claims
dismissed. Selden opposed the motion, in part by submitting an
expert report from Dr. Dan Svirsky. In his report, Dr. Svirsky
explained a study he coauthored about racial discrimination in the
sharing economy and posited that Airbnb's true name policy had a
disparate impact on African Americans. During arguments, Selden
requested depositions of Airbnb employees before the arbitrator
decided the motion. A few days later, the arbitrator granted
Airbnb's motion.
Although the arbitrator noted that the allegations against the host
were "serious" and "involved totally inappropriate conduct," the
arbitrator dismissed Selden's claims against Airbnb as a matter of
law. J.A. 320. He determined that the host's property -- a room in
an owner-occupied, single-family residence -- was not a public
accommodation, so it did not fall under the protection of Title II.
He also concluded that Airbnb's online marketplace was not a
public accommodation. Relatedly, a single-family residence like
the host's property is not a dwelling that qualifies for the Fair
Housing Act's protection. Because Airbnb was not a party to the
contract between Selden and the host, and had no agency
relationship with the host, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 did not
apply. The arbitrator entered an award in favor of Airbnb.
Selden then filed a motion to vacate the arbitrator's award in the
district court, arguing the arbitrator erred by denying his
discovery requests for interrogatories and depositions and by
ignoring his expert report. According to Selden, these errors
amounted to misconduct and a refusal to consider evidence,
justifying vacatur of the award.
The district court denied the motion. As to the discovery
requests, the court determined the error was Selden's, because he
failed to request interrogatories or depositions prior to the close
of discovery. With respect to the expert report, the court held
that Selden failed to show the arbitrator refused to consider it
because the arbitrator permitted Selden to submit the report. In
any event, Selden failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the
lack of discovery because the arbitrator's decision was based on
the legal conclusion that neither the host's property nor Airbnb's
online platform fell within the statutes he invoked. The district
court refused to vacate the arbitration award and dismissed
Selden's case.
On appeal, Selden challenges both the district court's order of
arbitration and its denial of his motion to vacate the arbitration
award.
First, Selden contends that the district court erred by ordering
arbitration of his discrimination claims. He maintains that he did
not agree to arbitration because Airbnb's sign-up screen failed to
give him reasonable notice of the Terms of Service. Selden also
maintains that his statutory claims were not arbitrable.
The Court of Appeals holds that Selden agreed to arbitrate his
claims against Airbnb because he had reasonable notice of the Terms
of Service and the arbitration clause therein. Selden used his
Facebook account to sign in to Airbnb on a screen that stated
signing up constituted agreement to the Terms of Service. This
type of screen is known as "sign-in wrap," a website "designed so
that a user is notified of the existence and applicability of the
site's 'terms of use' when proceeding through the website's sign-in
or login process." In other words, a sign-in wrap bundles signing
up for a service with agreement to the website's contractual terms.
The Court of Appeals concludes that Airbnb's sign-up screen placed
Selden on reasonable notice that by signing up he agreed to the
Terms of Service.
Second, Selden argues that Title II of the Civil Rights Act
prohibits arbitration of claims brought under it and that it was
unconscionable to require him to arbitrate his Fair Housing Act
claim.
The Court of Appeals considers whether Selden's discrimination
claims were arbitrable. It holds that all of Selden's claims were
subject to arbitration. Airbnb's sign-up screen put Selden on
reasonable notice that by signing up he was agreeing to the
arbitration clause within the Terms of Service, and Selden's
discrimination claims were subject to arbitration. The Court of
Appeals therefore affirms the district court's order compelling
arbitration.
Third, Selden contends that the district court erred by refusing to
vacate the arbitrator's award due to alleged misconduct. He
alleges that the arbitrator committed misconduct by refusing to
provide for interrogatories or depositions and by refusing to
consider Dr. Svirsky's expert report.
Neither ground constitutes misconduct warranting vacatur of the
arbitration award, the Court of Appeals opines. Selden's first
ground for misconduct -- that the arbitrator failed to provide for
interrogatories or depositions -- fails because it is a problem of
Selden's own making. Selden's second ground of alleged misconduct
-- that the arbitrator refused to consider his expert report --
fails because Selden has failed to establish how the purported
refusal to consider the expert report would have altered the
arbitrator's legal conclusions. Because Selden has failed to
demonstrate an error affecting the outcome of the arbitration, the
Court of Appeals declines to vacate the arbitration award.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the
district court's order of arbitration and denial of Selden's motion
to vacate the arbitration award.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2k2st8d4 from Leagle.com.
Ikechukwu Emejuru -- iemejuru@enylaw.com -- argued the cause for
appellant. With him on the briefs was Andrew Nyombi --
anyombi@enylaw.com.
Sean Marotta -- sean.marotta@hoganlovells.com -- argued the cause
for appellee. With him on the brief were Michelle A. Kisloff --
michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com -- and Matthew J. Higgins --
matthew.higgins@hoganlovells.com.
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Brown FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TARA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, Case No.
21CVS6360, was removed from the Superior Court of Guilford County,
State of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on July 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00595 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
Alltran Financial, LP is a financial services company based in
Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D. Roth, Esq.
SESSIONS ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC
3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 828-3700
Facsimile: (504) 828-3737
E-mail: broth@sessions.legal
ALLY FINANCIAL: Barry TCPA Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul D. Borman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismisses the case,
CHRISTINE M. BARRY individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 20-12378 (E.D. Mich.), with prejudice.
The case is a putative national class action brought under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227.
On Aug. 31, 2020, Plaintiff Barry filed the putative national Class
Action Complaint alleging, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, that Defendant Ally Financial, a prominent
banking institution that provides consumers with various banking
services, including mortgage and car loan financing, violated the
TCPA by placing calls to cell phone numbers belonging to
non-customers of Defendant, using an Automatic Telephone Dialing
System (ATDS), without the consent of the recipient, in an attempt
to collect a debt (delinquent car loans).
Individually, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant called her
cell phone, without her consent, using an ATDS, in an attempt to
reach her brother, "who has a car loan financed by the Defendant."
She pleads that she requested that the Defendant stop calling her
cell phone, but that it "continued placing phone calls to her in an
effort to reach her brother." The Plaintiff claims that the
"Defendant's phone calls were part of its scheme to collect
delinquent car loans from borrowers" by "placing phone calls to
borrowers' relatives and acquaintances in an effort to pressure the
borrowers to make payment on their loans to avoid the embarrassment
of being perceived as 'deadbeats' by the borrowers' relatives and
acquaintances."
The Plaintiff brings the Complaint as a putative national class
action. The putative class is defined as: "All persons residing in
the United States: (a) whom do not have an existing account with
Defendant; (b) to whom Defendant or a third party acting on
Defendant's behalf, placed a phone call to his/her cellular phone;
(c) in connection with a delinquent car loan that is not owed by
him/her; (d) using an automatic telephone dialing system; (e) at
any time in the period that begins four years before the date of
the filing of the original complaint through the date of class
certification."
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts one claim for violation of the
TCPA, on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Members of the TCPA Class,
and seeks injunctive and monetary relief.
On March 16, 2021, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Stay the
proceedings pending the United States Supreme Court's ruling in
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511. The issue before the Supreme
Court in Facebook was whether the definition of an automatic
telephone dialing system in the TCPA encompasses any device that
can "store" and "automatically dial" telephone numbers, even if the
device does not "us[e] a random or sequential number generator."
On April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Facebook, "holding that a necessary feature of an autodialer under
Section 227(a)(1)(A) is the capacity to use a random or sequential
number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be
called."
On April 15, 2021, the Court entered an Order Lifting the Stay and
Ordering Plaintiff to Show Cause why the Supreme Court's decision
in Facebook is not controlling over the Plaintiff's claims in the
case. In that Order, the Court noted that the Plaintiff bases her
TCPA claim against Defendant on phone calls she received that were
unsolicited but nonetheless directed to her, on behalf of her
brother, and that she does not allege that the Defendant used a
random or sequential number generator.
The Plaintiff filed her response to the Court's show cause order on
April 30, 2021, and the Defendant filed a reply on May 14, 2021.
The Court does not believe oral argument will aid in its
disposition of the matter; therefore, it is dispensing with oral
argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule
7.1(f)(2).
Judge Borman finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to
plausibly plead that the Defendant's dialing system used a random
or sequential number generator to make calls to her, or even any
facts that infer that the system had the capacity to make such
calls. He points out that the Plaintiff does not dispute that the
Defendant's autodialer system did not use a random or sequential
number generator in connection with its calls to her (or to the
purported class members). Rather, these calls were targeted at
specific individuals in connection with specific accounts held by
the Defendant. That ends the case.
Looking further, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff's Complaint is
also dismissed because it fails to plausibly plead that the
Defendant's dialing system used a random or sequential number
generator to make calls to her, or even any facts that infer that
the system had the capacity to make such calls. He says the
Plaintiff's mere speculation in his Response to the Court's show
cause order that the Defendant's dialing system might have the
capacity to use randomly generated number systems to call other
unknown persons, for some other unknown reason, without any factual
basis in the pleadings to support that speculative possibility,
fails to satisfy Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007), which limits claimants to plausible claims, not just
possible ones.
Finally, the Judge opines that the Plaintiff's constrained reading
of footnote 7 conflicts with the Court's clear holding in Facebook
that "a necessary feature of an autodialer under Section
227(a)(1)(A) is the capacity to use a random or sequential number
generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called."
And as he explained, the Plaintiff pleads that she, and purported
class members, were called in connection with specific accounts
held by the Defendant for a specific purpose, and not through
randomly or sequentially generated numbers.
For these reasons, Judge Borman concludes that the Supreme Court's
decision in Facebook is controlling over the Plaintiff's claims in
the case and dismisses the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice for
failure to state a claim under the TCPA.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5b8jy9wc from Leagle.com.
AMAZON.COM INC: Discusses Court Ruling on Labor Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
wfmz.com reports that Amazon workers at the Breinigsville warehouse
- and other Amazon facilities around the country - have been
required for years to have their bags searched after their shifts
in mandatory security screenings.
In 2013, two workers at the Breinigsville warehouse filed a lawsuit
against Amazon, saying they didn't think it was fair that they had
to clock out before those screenings. They wanted to be compensated
for the time they spent standing in line waiting and having their
bags searched.
The class action lawsuit went all the way up to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court, which was split in its decision, but ultimately
ruled in favor of the workers.
The court's majority opinion was that workers are required to be
paid under the state's Minimum Wage Act, which says "hours worked"
includes "any time when an employee is required by the employer to
be on the premises of the employer."
The court found that workers don't have to be actually doing work
that just relates to their job title, in order to get paid.
The state Supreme Court's decision isn't just a win for Amazon
employees; the ruling applies to any worker in Pennsylvania who is
waiting in line for security screenings mandated by their
employer.
From now on, if employers in Pennsylvania want to search their
employees' things, they'll have to pay them while they do it.[GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Ends Use of Arbitration for Customer Disputes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corkery at nytimes.com reports that Amazon told customers
that it would no longer require them to resolve their legal
complaints involving the technology giant through arbitration, a
significant retreat from a strategy that often helps companies
avoid liability.
In a brief email to customers, Amazon said anyone using its
products would now have to pursue disputes with the company in
federal court, rather than go through the private and secretive
arbitration process, which critics say puts consumers at a huge
disadvantage.
"This is a big deal," said Florencia Marotta-Wurgler, a professor
at New York University Law School who focuses on consumer law. "For
so long, the tide had been going the other way, with companies
adding arbitration clauses to their contracts."
The five-sentence note informing Amazon's customers about its
updated "conditions of use" did not explain the reasons for
dropping arbitration. When asked about the reasoning, a company
spokeswoman did not elaborate.
Amazon has been hit with roughly 75,000 arbitration claims alleging
that devices, such as the Echo, that feature the company's
voice-operated assistant, Alexa, were recording customers without
their consent. Amazon faces potentially tens of millions of dollars
in fees that it will have to pay the private arbitrators to have
those cases heard.
The Alexa-related cases are part of a relatively new tactic that a
handful of law firms are using in an effort to upend the
fundamental reason most companies include arbitration clauses in
their contracts: to prevent customers from pursuing a legal claim.
For many disputes, it would not make financial sense for consumers
to go through the trouble of hiring a lawyer and pursuing an
arbitration claim as an individual. For decades, consumers in
similar disputes were able to pool their resources to hire a lawyer
to represent them as a group in class-action lawsuits.
To prevent class actions, many companies began inserting language
in their contracts that required customers buying services in
nearly every facet of life — from renting a car to admitting a
parent to a nursing home — to agree to arbitration in the event
of a dispute. That meant signing away their opportunity to be part
of a class action.
The Supreme Court has upheld this legal tactic, in large part
because companies have successfully argued that they would make
sure arbitration was fair for the consumers, including agreeing to
pay many of the fees. But the upshot was that very few people ever
used the arbitration system.
In the Amazon Alexa cases, lawyers representing the customers
turned this feature of the arbitration system to their advantage.
By filing claims en masse, the strategy left Amazon with a large
legal bill even before any cases had been resolved. Just to hire
the arbitrator and to get the process started for a single claim
cost Amazon about $2,900.
"For most companies, arbitration was always part of an effort to
evade liability, not just to escape class actions," said Travis
Lenkner, a lawyer at the firm Keller Lenkner, which is representing
the consumers in the Alexa-related claims. "This is the first
company to turn tail. Others may well do so."
Keller Lenkner has used a similar approach in challenging how
DoorDash, the food delivery service, classified and compensated its
workers. When the firm filed thousands of arbitration claims on
behalf of DoorDash workers, the company argued unsuccessfully in
court that it shouldn't have to pay many of the initial fees for
the cases. A federal judge scolded DoorDash for what he said was an
effort to evade the arbitration system.
In the Alexa-related cases, Amazon did not fight the fees in court,
but told Keller Lenkner in May that it had dropped arbitration
requirements as part of its "conditions of use." Many of the Alexa
arbitration claims are still proceeding, and, according to Amazon,
many of the cases have been ruled in the company's favor.
The customers are claiming that Amazon's devices, including the
Echo, violated rules in states where people must give their consent
to be recorded.
"When we looked into the issue, we were convinced that most people
don't realize smart speakers are recording them," said Warren
Postman, the lead lawyer at Keller Lenkner on the Alexa-related
claims and other arbitration cases.
Amazon said its Echo technology was meant to detect only a chosen
"wake word," or a word that triggers the device. The company said
customers could review and delete recordings at any time and could
choose that the recordings never be saved.
While the mass arbitration strategy has worked in some types of
cases, it probably cannot be "broadly replicated across the
economy," said Deepak Gupta, a lawyer who represented customers in
a landmark 2010 Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion,
that enshrined arbitration as the way companies can seek to resolve
disputes.
More complex cases involving workers who claim they face harassment
or other employment issues on the job cannot likely be dispensed
with in a mass arbitration. Because the Supreme Court is not
expected to weaken the right of companies to use arbitration, Mr.
Gupta said Congress needed to pass laws to protect the rights of
workers and consumers to go to court.
Still, he said, the mass arbitration strategy is showing the
"cynicism of forced arbitration."
"It was never about making it easier for customers to resolve
disputes — it was about killing claims," Mr. Gupta said. "Once
Amazon saw it would have to face an avalanche of claims, it decided
to walk away." [GN]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Hernandez Seeks Blind's Online Store Access
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-05590-JSC (N.D. Cal., July
21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.aa.com/, allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b) empty links that
contain no text, (c) redundant links where adjacent links go to the
same uniform resource locator (URL) address, and (d) linked images
missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
American Airlines, Inc. is an airline company headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Binyamin Manoucheri, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL: CCI Loses Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Career Counseling, Inc.
d/b/a Snelling Staffing Services, a South Carolina corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, v. Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC, and John
Does 1–5, Case No. 3:16-cv-03013-JMC (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge J
Michelle Childs entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff Career Counseling's motion for class
certification; and
2. denying as moot Career Counseling's bid to appoint class
counsel and motion to appoint class representative.
Because Career Counseling cannot satisfy all of Rule 23(a)'s
requirements, consideration of whether it meets Rule 23(b)'s
requirements of predominance and superiority is futile, says the
Court.
The Plaintiff Career Counseling, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, filed the instant putative class action seeking
damages and injunctive relief from the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991,
as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (JFPA).
Career Counseling is an employment staffing agency, which acts as a
middleman between employers and prospective workers.
A copy of the Court's order and opinion dated July 16, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Vd60f5 at no
extra charge.[CC]
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Settles $26 Billion Opioid Crisis Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amajor milestone was reached in the opioid crisis that has ravaged
Madison County, small towns, and the commonwealth.
Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced a $26 billion settlement
from lawsuits against the nation's top three distributors of opioid
drugs, claiming the distributors have created a public nuisance and
are guilty of negligence in failing to properly handle suspicious
orders of controlled substances.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and
McKesson Corporation are named as defendants in the suit.
The three companies control about 85% of the market nationally for
prescription opioid distribution, according to court documents.
Johnson and Johnson was also included in the lawsuit.
"This settlement is a result of investigations by our office and
attorney generals across the country about how these distributors
failed to fulfill their legal duty by shipping opioids to
pharmacies that submitted suspicious drug orders and how Johnson
and Johnson mislead both patients and doctors about opioid drugs,"
Cameron said.
The state of Kentucky stands to receive $460 million which will go
to provide state and local governments. The funds are required to
go towards addiction and opioid abatement programs. Once the
agreement is finalized, $21 billion will be paid over 18 years from
the three pharmaceutical companies, and Johnson and Johnson will
pay $5 billion over nine years.
Cameron said while this does not conclude the process, the
announcement is a major step to return money to the commonwealth.
"There is hardly a family anywhere in the commonwealth that has
been immune to the scourge of opioids," Cameron said. "We have lost
thousands of our fellow Kentuckians and seen families and children
torn apart by the grips of addiction. Today's announcement is for
each one of them. For the mom who lost her son in the prime of
life. For the father who begs their daughter to enter treatment.
For the little girl in foster care that prays everyday her parents
will get better and that she can return home. These are so often
the stories of the opioid epidemic and these are the Kentuckians we
are fighting for."
Some of these funds, once acquired by the state, will go to Madison
County, who was one of the first governments to sign on to the
lawsuit in 2017 and alleged the distributors have unlawfully sold
millions of prescription opioids in the county, which resulted in
the drugs entering the illicit market.
Madison County Judge and Kentucky Association of Counties President
Reagan Taylor was present at the press conference Wednesday
afternoon, and said it was an honor to be there.
"On behalf of Madison County, KACo, and the 120 counties across the
commonwealth, today marks a huge step in our fight to bring — a
small way — justice to communities across the commonwealth that
have been devastated and impacted by the horrific effects of the
drug epidemic," Taylor shared.
He stated as one of the first counties to join the class action
opioid lawsuit, Madison County sent a loud and clear message to
some of the largest players in the prescription drug distribution
ring this government will not allow those actions to go unchecked.
"During my time in office, I have shouted from the rooftop that the
drug epidemic has been the root of so many of issues in Madison
County: our detention center overcrowding, the impact on our first
responders, demand on our health care system, the exhaustion of our
social service providers, and the impact on our workforce, to name
a few," Taylor said. "While we don't know locally the full impact
of the settlement for Madison County, I will work tirelessly to
ensure Madison County gets its fair share of the settlement
funds."
According to the Kentucky Overdose Fatality Report from 2019, 53
overdose deaths were confirmed for a 62.32% age-adjusted mortality
rate in Madison County.
In December 2020, the overdose record was surpassed when there were
around 57 overdose deaths confirmed at the end of the year.
As of Wednesday afternoon, Madison County Coroner Jimmy Cornelison
said he has 42 confirmed overdose deaths, and 13 toxicology reports
pending. He expects this year's overdose rate to surpass that of
previous years.
While Cameron and Taylor said this will not conclude the process,
the AG's office will have 30 days to review the settlement
agreement and make sure they are the right terms for the
commonwealth before it will move forward.
For more information visit,
kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-stream.aspx?n=AttorneyGeneral&prId=1092.
[GN]
ATHIRA PHARMA: Vincent Wong Reminds of August 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Athira Pharma, Inc.
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.
Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATHA)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/athira-pharma-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17925&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased Athira Pharma,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021
and/or purchased common stock in or traceable to the Company's
registration statement issued in connection with the Company's
September 2020 initial public offering priced at $17.00 per share.
Allegations against ATHA include that: (1) the research conducted
by Defendant Kawas, which formed the foundation for Athira's
product candidates and intellectual property, was tainted by Kawas'
scientific misconduct, including the manipulation of key data
through the altering of Western blot images; and (2) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and
omitted material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made not misleading.
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.[GN]
AUSTIN JACKSON: Whole Woman's Health Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH, et
al., v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00616-RP
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying two defendant classes under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and Local Court Rule CV-23:
The first proposed class consists of:
"all non-federal judges in the State of Texas with
jurisdiction over civil actions and the authority to enforce
the Act ("Judicial Defendant Class").
The second proposed class consists of:
"the clerks in all non-federal courts in the State of Texas
with jurisdiction over civil actions and the authority to
enforce the Act ("Clerk Defendant Class").
The proposed defendant class representatives are the Honorable
Austin Reeve Jackson of the 114th District Court and Penny
Clarkston, Clerk for the District Court of Smith County.
The Plaintiffs include individuals and organizations that provide
abortions and/or counseling, funding, and practical assistance to
individuals in need of abortion in Texas. 1 S.B. 8 prohibits
physicians from providing an abortion if a "fetal heartbeat,"
defined to include "cardiac activity," is detected.
The action challenges the constitutionality of Texas Senate Bill 8,
87th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2021).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/370KqNE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christen Mason Hebert, Esq.
JOHNS & HEBERT PLLC
2028 East Ben White Blvd
Suite 240-1000
Austin, TX 78741
Telephone: (512) 399-3150
E-mail: chebert@johnshebert.com
Attorneys for Whole Woman's Health, Whole Woman's Health Alliance,
Marva Sadler Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Allison Gilbert,
M.D., Brookside Women's Medical Center PA d/b/a Brookside Women's
Health Center and Austin Women's Health Center, Alamo City Surgery
Center PLLC d/b/a Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Houston
Women's Reproductive Services, Reverend Daniel Kanter, and Reverend
Erika Forbes
Molly Duane, Esq.
Kirby Tyrrell, Esq.
Melanie Fontes, Esq.
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
199 Water Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (917) 637-3631
E-mail: mduane@reprorights.org
ktyrrell@reprorights.org
mfontes@reprorights.org
- and -
Jamie A. Levitt, Esq.
J. Alexander Lawrence, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
250 W. 55th Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 468-8000
E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com
alawrence@mofo.com
- and -
Marc Hearron, Esq.
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
1634 Eye St., NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 524-5539
E-mail: mhearron@reprorights.org
Attorneys for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health
Services, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical
Center, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, and Dr. Bhavik Kumar
Julie Murray, Esq.
Richard Muniz, Esq.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF
AMERICA
1110 Vermont Ave., NW Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 973-4997
E-mail: julie.murray@ppfa.org
richard.muniz@ppfa.org
Attorneys for Houston Women's Clinic
Julia Kaye, Esq.
Brigitte Amiri, Esq.
Chelsea Tejada, Esq.
Lorie Chaiten, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18 th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2633
E-mail: jkaye@aclu.org
bamiri@aclu.org
ctejada@aclu.org
rfp_lc@aclu.org
- and -
Adriana Pinon, Esq.
David Donatti, Esq.
Andre Segura, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC.
5225 Katy Freeway, Suite 350
Houston, TX 77007
Telephone: (713) 942-8146
Facsimile: (713) 942-8966
E-mail: apinon@aclutx.org
ddonatti@aclutx.org
asegura@aclutx.org
Attorneys for The Afiya Center, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice,
Jane's Due Process, Lilith Fund for Reproductive
Equity, North Texas Equal Access Fund
Stephanie Toti, Esq.
LAWYERING PROJECT
41 Schermerhorn Street No. 1056
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (646) 490-1083
E-mail: stoti@lawyeringproject.org
- and -
Rupali Sharma, Esq.
LAWYERING PROJECT
197 Pine Street, Apt. 23
Portland, ME 04102
Telephone: (908) 930-6445
rsharma@lawyeringproject.org
B10 LLC: Fails to Properly Compensate Restaurant Staff, Valdez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AGUSTIN VALDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. B10 LLC d/b/a BAREBURGER, GEORGE DELLIS, and
GEORGE RODAS, Defendants, Case No. 716264/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Queens Cty., July 19, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York State Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide wage
notices, failure to provide wage statements, and failure to
reimburse business expenses.
Mr. Valdez was employed by the Defendants as a cook, food prep, and
dishwasher, while performing other miscellaneous tasks, at
Bareburger located at 42 Main Street, Port Washington, New York
from March 2012 until November 2017.
B10 LLC is a restaurant owner and operator under the name
Bareburger, with its principal place of business located at 42-38
Bell Boulevard Bayside, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
BERKELEY UNIFIED: Notice of Class Action Settlement Discussed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trish McDermott at patch.com reports that
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND
HEARING DATE FOR FINAL COURT APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
TO: all current and future Berkeley Unified School District
("BUSD") students who have, may have, or are suspected of having a
reading disability within the meaning of IDEA, Section 504, the ADA
and/or California Education Code Section 56000.
Please read this notice. Your rights may be affected by a court
hearing in this case.
This is about a proposed settlement in a class action case filed on
May 2, 2017, by four current and former BUSD students with reading
disorders, including dyslexia. The case is called Student A. et al.
v. Berkeley Unified School District, and was filed in the federal
court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
3:17-cv-02510 ("Action").
The students who brought the case claim that BUSD discriminates
against and fails to provide students with reading disabilities a
Free Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE"), to which they are
entitled to under federal and state law. BUSD denies that there is
any factual or legal basis for the plaintiffs' claims.
The Action has been actively litigated. The students and BUSD ("the
Parties") have also participated in extensive settlement
negotiations. Based on the negotiations, the Parties have reached a
class-wide settlement and have entered into a Class Action
Settlement Agreement ("Settlement"). The Court has preliminarily
approved the Settlement. The Court has not ruled on who should
prevail in his case. The Parties have entered into the Settlement
to avoid the burden, expense, and uncertainties of continued
litigation.
The Settlement Class
If you are a student or will be a student at BUSD (or the education
rights holder of any such student) who has, may have, or are
suspected of having a reading disability within the meaning of
IDEA, Section 504, the ADA and/or Section 56000, you may be a
member of the proposed settlement class. Your rights may be
affected by the Settlement.
Summary Of The Proposed Settlement
Literacy Improvement Plan:
BUSD will work collaboratively with nationally recognized outside
consultants to develop and implement a Literacy Improvement Plan
("Plan") to improve reading and language arts achievement for all
students, especially those with or at risk for reading
disabilities.m The Plan will be implemented over three to five
years and includes the following:
-- BUSD will provide appropriately intensive and early
research-based reading intervention services, related services,
supplementary aids and services,
Page 1
accommodations, and modifications, including, but not limited to,
assistive technology and accessible materials, to students with
reading disabilities.
-- BUSD will implement policies to promote early and successful
reading.
-- BUSD will maintain systematic, equitable, and verifiable
policies and practices to provide early, intensive, research-based
general education interventions for students at risk for reading
disabilities. These will be facilitated by universal screening and
progress monitoring of reading growth to promote timely evaluation
and identification of students at risk for reading disabilities.
-- BUSD will conduct a review and assessment of its core reading
program.
-- BUSD will choose and implement a "reading data system" and
"reading testing system" for use in Grades K-8 to measure students'
reading fluency, and their progress toward "benchmarks" or academic
goals.
-- BUSD will maintain a routine and practical method to carry out
Child Find duties to identify students with suspected reading
disabilities.
-- BUSD will implement policies and procedures to improve IEP
goal and Section 504 plan development, progress monitoring, and use
of appropriately intensive, research-based interventions. BUSD will
transition to the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses ("PSW") for
specific learning disability eligibility ("SLD"). BUSD has also
selected the Wilson Reading System for use with struggling
readers.
-- BUSD will create an Implementation Team including the BUSD
Director of Schools, Director of Special Education, and Section 504
Plan Coordinator. This team will report to the School Board at
least quarterly on progress on the Plan.
-- BUSD leadership will support the Plan through targeted
professional development for teachers and related-services
personnel, and ongoing monitoring of staff engagement and
perceptions about the Plan.
Monitoring by Outside Monitor
BUSD will retain an impartial outside Monitor to provide a
Monitoring Plan to the School Board and Implementation Team,
receive progress reports on compliance from BUSD, and submit
semi-annual progress reports to the School Board and Implementation
Team.
Term of Settlement
The Settlement lasts for three years after its Effective Date,
which depends on whether there are objections to the Settlement
and, if so, whether any objector files any appeal.
Page 2
Release of Claims
The Settlement resolves and releases any and all claims for
injunctive, equitable, or declaratory relief that are the subject
of, included within, and/or arise from the Action, including such
claims which could have been brought as educationally-based claims
under IDEA, Section 504, ADA, and/or Section 56000, arising from
May 2, 2017, through the Term of the Agreement. The Settlement does
not bar any administrative or judicial action by a student
Plaintiff or Settlement Class Member alone, claiming that the
individual student is not receiving a free and appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment to which the
individual is entitled under IDEA, Section 504, the ADA or
California law.
Attorneys' Fees
The class was represented by Disability Rights, Education & Defense
Fund ("DREDF"), Jacobson Education Law ("JEL"), King & Spalding
LLP, and Goodwin Proctor LLP (together "Class Counsel"). BUSD has
agreed to pay $350,000 for attorneys' fees and costs, with this
amount to be split equally by DREDF and JEL. BUSD is represented by
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.
Fairness of Agreement
The Settlement is conditioned upon the Court entering an order at
or following the Final Approval Hearing, finally approving the
Settlement as fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the
Class Members.
The class representatives and Class Counsel have decided that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the
class. In reaching this decision, the class representatives and
Class Counsel have worked with and consulted with nationally
recognized literacy experts, thought about the pros and cons of the
settlement, the possible outcomes, costs, and length of more
litigation and appeals of these issues.
Objections to The Settlement
The Court has given preliminary approval of the Settlement, and has
scheduled a hearing for November 4, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the
Courtroom of the Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar, United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay
Street, Oakland, CA 94612, to determine whether the proposed
Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable and should be finally
approved.
You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection. You
cannot ask the Court to change the settlement; the Court can only
approve or deny the settlement. If the Court denies the settlement,
the actions outlined in this notice will not occur and the lawsuit
will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must file an
objection.
All written objections and supporting papers must (a) identify the
case name and number (Student A. et al. v. Berkeley Unified School
District, N. D. Cal. Case No. 4:17-cv-02510), (b) include the full
name, address, and phone number of the objector, (c) include a
Page 3
statement of each objection, (d) include a written brief detailing
the reasons for each objection, any legal and factual support, and
facts demonstrating the objector is a Settlement Class Member, (e)
be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Class
Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, or by
filing them in person at any location of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California (check COVID-19
orders before visiting), (g) be filed or postmarked on or before
October 1, 2021.
If you are a Class Member and you have filed a timely written
objection that includes a statement of your intention to
participate in this hearing, you may participate in, and beheard
at, this hearing. You are not required to appear. You may appear on
your own or through an attorney. If you appear through an attorney,
you are responsible for paying that attorney. This hearing date may
be changed by the Court without further notice to the entire class.
If you wish to be on the electronic service list to be informed of
any changes to the schedule, please file a notice of appearance
with the Court which includes a valid e-mail address at which you
can receive notice.
How To Opt Out Of The Settlement
You may request to be excluded, or "opt out," from the Settlement
Agreement. Class members who request to be excluded from the
Settlement will NOT have released their claims for injunctive,
equitable, or declaratory relief. They will then be entitled to
pursue such claims in a separate action. If you do not request to
be excluded from the Settlement Agreement, you will be releasing
your claims as described above in the "Release of Claims" section
of this notice.
To request to be excluded from the Settlement Agreement, you must
prepare and submit a written request. The request must provide (a)
the class member's full name, (b) a statement that the class member
wishes to be excluded from the settlement class in Student A. et
al. v. Berkeley Unified School District, Case No.
4:17-cv-02510-JST, and (c) the class member's signature. The
request must be submitted to the Court either by mailing it to the
Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, or by
filing it in person at any location of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California (check COVID-19
orders before visiting), (d) be filed or postmarked on or before
October 1, 2021.
IF YOU DO NOT TIMELY SUBMIT AN OBJECTION OR REQUEST TO OPT OUT AS
DESCRIBED HEREIN, YOU WILL WAIVE YOUR OBJECTION AND RIGHT TO OPT
OUT AND BE FORECLOSED FROM MAKING ANY OBJECTION TO OR REQUEST TO
OPT OUT FROM THE SETTLEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THIS SETTLEMENT,
YOU NEED NOT APPEAR OR FILE ANYTHING IN WRITING.
Page 4
Binding Effect
The Settlement, if given final approval by the Court, will bind all
members of the Settlement Class. This will prevent any person who
is a member of the Settlement Class from seeking different or
additional relief regarding all issues resolved in the Settlement
for the term of the Settlement.
Further Information
This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. Complete copies of
this notice and the Settlement Agreement, motions for approval of
the class settlement, motions for attorneys' fees, and other
important documents in this case are available at
https://dredf.net/student-a-settlement or from class counsel at
Disability Rights, Education, and Defense Fund, Attn: Malhar Shah,
Telephone (510) 644-2555, ext. 5230, mshah@dredf.org, or by
accessing the Court docket in this case through the Court's Public
Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the
Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave. San
Francisco, CA 94102 (call 415-522-2000 to seek authorization during
COVID-19). [GN]
BIGGE CRANE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Lawsuit Against Firm
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal
Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit
against Bigge Crane and Rigging Co., alleging the company violated
the California Labor Code. The lawsuit against Bigge Crane and
Rigging Co., is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior
Court, Case No. RG21103123. To read a copy of the Complaint, please
click here.
According to the lawsuit filed, Bigge Crane and Rigging Co.
allegedly failed to reimburse employees for required business
expenses. California Labor Code Sec 2802 expressly states that "an
employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary
expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
consequence of the discharge of his or her duties . . ." During
employment, Plaintiff and other California Class Members were
allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones in order
to complete their job duties.
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges Defendant underpaid sick pay
wages to Plaintiff and other California Class Members by failing to
pay such wages at the regular rate of pay. Plaintiff received a
non-discretionary bonus that was allegedly not calculated into the
regular rate of pay, which resulted in an alleged underpayment of
sick pay wages.
For more information about the class action lawsuit against Bigge
Crane and Rigging Co., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an
experienced California employment attorney today.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, Orange
County and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice
of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct
[GN]
BK AUTO REPAIR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Miranda Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROMULO GARCIA MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. BK AUTO REPAIR & COLLISION LLC (D/B/A BK WASH
& REPAIR CENTER), MOHANAD AWAD, SAMUEL AWAD, and ALI AWAD, Case No.
1:21-cv-04051 (E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2021) seeks from Defendants
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Miranda worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Miranda appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff Miranda the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which he had to work over 10 hours a day, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Miranda is a former employee of Defendants BK Auto Repair
& Collision LLC (d/b/a BK Wash & Repair Center), Mohanad Awad,
Samuel Awad, and Ali Awad. Individual Defendants own, operate, and
control BK Auto Repair in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Hogan Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH HOGAN, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. THE BLACKSTONE
GROUP INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 21-L-000288, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Kane County, Illinois to the the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on July 8, 2021.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-03628 to the proceeding.
Ms. Hogan brings a putative class action alleging that somehow,
Blackstone, through its acquisition of Ancestry.com DNA LLC,
violated the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act.
Blackstone is an American alternative investment management company
based in New York City. In 2019, Blackstone converted from a
publicly traded partnership into a corporation.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Martin L. Roth, Esq.
Alyssa C. Kalisky, Esq.
Amelia H. Bailey, Esq.
THE BLACKSTONE GROUP INC.
K IRKLAND & E LLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
E-mail: martin.roth@kirkland.com
alyssa.kalisky@kirkland.com
amelia.bailey@kirkland.com
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a Lead Plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
BlueCity Holdings Limited ('BlueCity' or the 'Company')
(NASDAQ:BLCT) from July 5, 2020 through July 19, 2021 (the 'Class
Period'). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.
If you purchased BlueCity securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit BlueCity Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877)
779-1414 or nwiesner@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that the Company's offering documents were
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact or omitted other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading. Specifically, the offering
documents were false or misleading and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) defendants had overstated BlueCity's business and financial
prospects; (2) the Company was ill-equipped to absorb the costs of
becoming a publicly traded company, including IPO- and
growth-related costs; (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants
had misrepresented the Company's capability for sustainable growth;
and (4) as a result, the offering documents were materially false
or misleading and/or failed to state information required to be
stated therein.
On December 2, 2020, BlueCity issues a press release announcing
financial and operating results for the third quarter and fiscal
year 2020. The press release reported, among other results, that
the Company's cost of revenues had increased 41.4% year-over-year,
selling and marketing expenses had increased 86.3% year-over-year,
technology and development expenses had increased 49.5%
year-over-year, and general and administrative expenses had
increased 4,349% year-over-year.
On this news, BlueCity's American Depositary Share ('ADS') price
fell $3.30 per ADS, or 22.84%, to close at $11.15 per ADS on
December 2, 2020.
Then on March 23, 2021, BlueCity issued a press release announcing
its results for the fourth quarter of 2020. Among other results,
BlueCity announced revenue of $42.7 million, missing consensus
estimates by $3.92 million.
On this news, BlueCity's ADS price fell $3.25 per ADS, or 26.71%,
over the following two trading sessions, to close at $8.92 per ADS
on March 24, 2021.
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. 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 BlueCity securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/bluecityholdings-blct-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-417/apply/
or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
nwiesner@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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
BlueCity Holdings Limited ("BlueCity" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BLCT) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively,
the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering conducted on or about July 8,
2020 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). BlueCity investors have until
September 17, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your BlueCity 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/bluecity-holdings-limited/. 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 December 2, 2020, BlueCity reported its third quarter and fiscal
year 2020 results, disclosing, among other results, that the
Company's cost of revenues had increased 41.4% year-over-year,
selling and marketing expenses had increased 86.3% year-over-year,
technology and development expenses had increased 49.5%
year-over-year, and general and administrative expenses had
increased 4,349% year-over-year.
On this news, the Company's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $3.30 per ADS, or 22.84%, to close at $11.15 per ADS on
December 2, 2020, thereby injuring investors.
Then on March 23, 2021, BlueCity reported its results for the
fourth quarter of 2020, disclosing, among other results, revenue of
$42.7 million, missing consensus estimates by $3.92 million.
On this news, BlueCity's ADS price fell $3.25 per ADS, or 26.71%,
over the following two trading sessions, to close at $8.92 per ADS
on March 24, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) 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
Registration Statement was materially false or misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein. [GN]
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Jiang Sues Over Misleading Offering Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUNHUI JIANG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLUECITY HOLDINGS LIMITED, BAOLI MA, ZHIYONG (BEN) LI,
ZHE WEI, WEI YING, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS
LIMITED, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED,
PRIME NUMBER CAPITAL LLC, R. F. LAFFERTY & CO., INC., and COGENCY
GLOBAL INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-04044-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., July 19,
2021) is an action on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired BlueCity American Depositary Shares
(ADSs) pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued
in connection with the Company's initial public offering (IPO)
conducted on or about July 8, 2020 seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of
1933. The claims arise from BlueCity's materially misleading
Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO.
According to the complaint, on July 8, 2020, BlueCity filed a
prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO,
which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement or
the Offering Documents. That same day, BlueCity conducted the IPO
pursuant to the Offering Documents, issuing 5.3 million of the
Company's ADSs to the public at the Offering price of $16.00 per
ADS for approximate proceeds of $78.86 million to the Company
before expenses and after applicable underwriting discounts and
commissions.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules
and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, the
Offering Documents were false or misleading and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Defendants had overstated BlueCity's business
and financial prospects; (2) the Company 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 the Company's capability for
sustainable growth. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
BlueCity's ADSs, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Defendant BlueCity operates a platform for the LGBTQ community
primarily under the BlueCity brand in China, India, Korea,
Thailand, and Vietnam.[BN]
Phillip Kim, Esq. (PK 9384)
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
BMO NESBITT: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Foreign Exchange Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino at canadianlawyermag.com reports that Justice
Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has
approved a $100 million settlement of a foreign exchange class
action against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., BMO InvestorLine Inc., and
BMO Trust Company, calling it "genuinely commendable."
During the distribution process, eligible class members will
directly receive their payments over the coming months, said a news
release from Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, who acted as
class counsel.
The class action, initiated in 2006 and certified in 2012, alleged
that the defendants charged an undisclosed fee on foreign exchange
conversions in registered accounts. The class, comprising around
135,000 class members, includes individuals residents in Canada who
held approximately 160,000 registered accounts, including RRSPs,
RESPs, and TFSAs, and who had a currency conversion performed in
their account between June 14, 2001 and Sept. 6, 2011 at BMO
InvestorLine Inc. and between Oct. 1, 2002 and Sept. 6, 2011 at
Nesbitt Burns Inc
In 2020, the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario issued a summary
judgment finding the defendants liable to the class members for
breach of trust, fiduciary duty and contract. The court, concluding
that the appropriate remedy was an accounting and disgorgement of
profits, scheduled a reference in January 2021 to determine the
amount of the defendants' profits to be returned to the class
members.
A few days before the scheduled reference, the parties' counsel
advised the court that they had reached a settlement for a
non-reversionary, all-inclusive sum of $100 million. Judicial
approval was sought with respect to the settlement agreement, class
counsel's legal fees based on the 25 per cent contingent fee
retainer and honoraria to be paid to the representative
plaintiffs.
In MacDonald et al v. BMO Trust Company et al, 2021 ONSC 3726,
Justice Belobaba, writing for the Superior Court, approved on June
17 the settlement agreement, the requested honoraria and legal fees
of $20 million, though not on the basis of a straight-line
application of a contingent fee percentage, plus disbursements and
taxes.
Belobaba concluded that the settlement amount, being almost exactly
in the middle of the range, was fair, reasonable and in the best
interests of the class, noting that as the designated referee he
had already reviewed the expert reports and written submissions
from counsel regarding reasonable and necessary expenses and the
appropriate profits to be awarded.
Belobaba said that the legal fees approved in a large recovery or
settlement like this one should consider the necessity for
maintaining the integrity of the legal profession as well as the
risks incurred and results achieved. [GN]
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Another Canadian Court Denies Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
mondaq.com reports that Mark A. Gelowitz (Toronto) , Robert Carson
(Toronto) and Lauren Harper (Toronto)
On July 14, 2021, the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
dismissed the plaintiff's application for class certification in
Kish v. Facebook, Inc. [PDF], a putative privacy class action.
Justice Keene's reasons address the evidentiary requirement of
"some basis in fact" and reinforce that the certification process
is a meaningful screening device in privacy class actions.
This decision builds on a series of recent decisions emphasizing
the gatekeeping role of the courts at the certification stage of
privacy class actions, including the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice's decision denying certification in Simpson v. Facebook and
the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta's decision denying
certification in Setoguchi v. Uber B.V.
Background
The Kish action was one of several putative class actions filed in
Canada with allegations that a third party named Cambridge
Analytica had obtained information about Canadian Facebook users
from a professor and third-party application developer named Kogan.
The Kish action also included a variety of other allegations, but
most of the pleadings and the evidence that the plaintiff sought to
lead related to the allegations about Cambridge Analytica. As
described below, the plaintiff's evidence in support of these
allegations consisted primarily of documents that plaintiff's
counsel and the plaintiff's proposed expert had downloaded from the
internet.
Near the end of the initial certification hearing, the plaintiff
reconstituted her action and sought to certify a class that
essentially consisted of any person in Canada who has ever had a
Facebook account or has never registered for a Facebook account.
Justice Keene noted that the proposed class would appear to include
every person in Canada.
Justice Keene's reasons
Justice Keene's primary basis for denying certification was the
plaintiff's failure to satisfy the evidentiary requirements for
certification. Justice Keene struck out all of the evidence led by
the plaintiff - which consisted of a proposed expert report and two
affidavits from the plaintiff herself - because the evidence did
not meet the threshold requirements for admissibility. Justice
Keene explained that striking this evidence "results in there being
no evidence before this Court from the plaintiff and this is fatal
to the plaintiff's application".
The Expert Evidence: among other defects, the plaintiff did not
establish that the proposed expert had the qualifications to answer
the questions posed to him. Justice Keene also expressed concerns
over the proposed expert's "research", which included relying on
documents that had been downloaded from the internet but lacked any
badges of reliability.
The Plaintiff's Affidavits: all of the attachments to the
plaintiff's affidavits were provided to her by her counsel, and the
plaintiff conceded that she had not even read some of them. Justice
Keene held that these documents were inadmissible because the
plaintiff did not provide any evidence to show that they were
reliable or met other threshold requirements for admissibility.
As noted above, this failure to establish an evidentiary basis for
the certification requirements was fatal to the application.
However, Justice Keene went on to explain that, in the alternative,
even if he were to consider evidence led by the plaintiff, the
plaintiff failed to meet any of the five certification criteria
prescribed in s. 6(1) of The Class Actions Act. Justice Keene found
that there were many defects, including:
No Cause of Action: the plaintiff's pleadings lacked the requisite
particularization to allow the defendants to understand the
claims.
No Identifiable Class: the proposed class was not a single
over-arching class sharing common issues. (Rather, it was two
mutually exclusive classes: people with Facebook accounts, and
people without.)
No Common Issues: the over-generalization in the pleaded claims and
the proposed class definition defeated commonality.
Not the Preferable Procedure: the claims would require extensive
individual inquiries.
Justice Keene also cited with approval Justice Belobaba's statement
in the Simpson case about the Court's important gatekeeping role in
certification of privacy class actions: "while certification
remains a low hurdle it is nonetheless a hurdle."
Key takeaway
Like the Simpson case, the Kish case is another helpful reminder
that certification remains a meaningful screening device and that,
depending on the facts of the case, there are a variety of
strategies that defendants facing putative privacy class actions
may be able to use to successfully defeat class actions at a
preliminary stage. [GN]
CANAAN INC: Court Dismissed Putative Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2021, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative
securities class action against a Chinese manufacturer of
cryptocurrency mining hardware (the "Company") alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Boluka
Garment Co. v. Canaan Inc., No. 20-cv-07139 (S.D.N.Y. July 8,
2021). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to disclose
material information regarding alleged related-party transactions
in its registration statement. The Court dismissed the complaint
with leave to amend because plaintiffs failed to allege loss
causation and materiality.
After three unsuccessful attempts to go public in certain Asian
markets, allegedly because of regulatory scrutiny, the Company
launched an initial public offering in the U.S. on November 21,
2019. On February 20, 2020, a short seller published an online
report (the "Report") accusing the Company of deceptive business
practices, including allegations that the Company inflated its
customer base, overstated its financial prospects, and failed to
disclose related-party transactions between the Company and its
executives or major shareholders. With respect to the related-party
transactions, the Report stated that "[t]ransactions with related
parties and/or sham entities have been a hallmark of . . .
fraudulent US-listed Chinese companies," and that the Company used
related-party transactions to "boost[] sales prior to [its] Chinese
listing attempts." The Company's stock value fell by more than 6.8%
the day the Report was published.
Against that backdrop, plaintiffs alleged the registration
statement failed to disclose (1) that an individual who held 8.8%
of the Company's total shares also served as a senior executive in
charge of the Company's international sales and marketing; (2) that
another company, controlled in part by two of the Company's
directors, had purchased approximately $150,000 worth of the
Company's products between January and April 2017; and (3) that a
separate company controlled by that same executive had announced a
"strategic cooperation framework agreement" to purchase or
distribute the Company's equipment worth up to $150 million. The
first two transactions were not disclosed in the Report, though the
third was.
The Court first dismissed the claims under Section 10(b) based on
the first two alleged related-party transactions for failure to
allege loss causation. Rejecting arguments based on statements in
the Report about related-party transactions by Chinese issuers
generally or that other statements in the Report suggested an
"over-arching fraudulent scheme," the Court held that the Report
did not "disclose the information that the [complaint] describes"
and that the allegations of a scheme were an unsupported "stretch."
The Court also held that the negative causation defense to the
Section 11 claim was "apparent from the face of the complaint"
because the Report did not disclose the specific related-party
transactions alleged in the complaint.
Finally, with respect to plaintiffs' allegation that the Company
failed to disclose the $150 million cooperation framework, which
was disclosed in the Report, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims
for failure to allege materiality. The Court noted that under Basic
Inc. v. Levinson a court must determine whether a given event is
material by balancing "both the indicated probability that the
event will occur and the anticipated magnitude of the event in
light of the totality of the company activity." Applying this
balancing test, the Court held that the probability of the deal
impacting the Company's financials was "speculative" because the
deal itself was non-binding and the Company's public statements
disclosed its non-binding nature. The Court noted that even if the
Company had disclosed the transaction in its SEC filings, such
disclosure might have misled investors by giving "the false
impression that [the Company] expected to receive substantial
revenue from [the deal] even though the agreement was provisional
and nonbinding."[GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Gaillard Sues Over Refusal to Honor GAP Product Terms
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCINE GAILLARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, a
division of Capital One, N.A.; AXIOM PRODUCT ADMINISTRATION, LLC;
and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02228-JMC (D.S.C., July
21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract, fraud in the inducement, breach of contract accompanied
by fraudulent act, and violations of the South Carolina Unfair
Trade Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' refusal to honor the terms of
Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) products they sell to consumers
purchasing financed automobiles. Defendant Axiom Product
Administration administers GAP waiver products on behalf of finance
companies like Capital One and John Doe Defendants and it breaches
the contractual terms governing the GAP product terms it created by
basing its payment on an actual cash valuation method of their own
choosing, rather than the collision insurance payment, resulting in
a substantial underpayment on each claim. The Defendants have
refused to waive balances due when required under the terms of GAP
products administered by Axiom on behalf of those Defendants and
incorporated as addenda to the Plaintiff and other Class members'
loan agreements. The Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered loss and damages because of the breach of the loan
agreement, including loss of funds and the inability to obtain
credit, the suit alleges.
Capital One, N.A., is a national bank association with its
principal place of business in Virginia.
Capital One Auto Finance, a division of Capital One, N.A.
headquartered in Virginia.
Axiom Product Administration, LLC is a product administration
company doing business in South Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
Christopher P. Kenney, Esq.
Phillip D. Barber, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
1410 Laurel Street (29201)
Post Office Box 1090
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 252-4848
Facsimile: (803) 252-4810
E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
pdb@harpootlianlaw.com
- and –
Tobias G. Ward, Jr., Esq.
Derrick Jackson, Esq.
TOBIAS G. WARD, JR., P.A.
534 Congaree Avenue
Columbia, SC 29205
Telephone: (803) 708-4200
E-mail: tw@tobywardlaw.com
dj@tobywardlaw.com
CAPTURERX: Faces Suit Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info
------------------------------------------------------------
CaptureRx, a health IT company that helps hospitals manage their
340B drug discount programs, is being accused of failing to
properly protect health information stored on its network after a
ransomware attack exposed at least 2,400,000 patients' information,
according to court documents cited by Bloomberg Law.
San Antonio-based CaptureRx discovered unusual activity on or
around Feb. 6 in some files on its IT systems. Compromised files
contained patient records with protected health information
including names, birthdates and prescription details.
Michelle Rodgers, a patient at ARcare in Augusta, Ark., is the
plaintiff in the lawsuit, which was filed July 21 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. The suit claims
on behalf of Ms. Rodgers and other members of the class that
CaptureRx was negligent in protecting their PHI. The plaintiffs are
seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief,
according to the court documents.
"CaptureRx is responsible for allowing this Data Breach through its
failure to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards and failure
to comply with industry-standard data security practices as well as
federal and state laws and regulations governing data security,
including security of PHI," the lawsuit alleges.
A growing list of hospitals and health systems have reported
breaches stemming from the incident. Some of the affected providers
include NYC Health + Hospitals, Ascension St. Joseph Hospital,
Bayhealth and UPMC Cole. The Maine Attorney General's office
reported the breach as affecting 2,420,141 individuals. [GN]
CARDINAL MULTI: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO MENDOZA, MIGUEL
MARTINEZ and KEVIN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. CARDINAL MULTI SERVICES LLC and
WILSON O. AGUILAR, Case No. 1:21-cv-00685-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order in this Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) case to conditionally certify Plaintiffs' FLSA
claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b),
and to facilitate the issuance of notice to all potential class
members.
The Parties have consented to conditional certification of the
following class of people:
"All individuals employed by Defendants as non-supervisory
construction workers at any time during the period beginning
three years prior to the date of commencement of this action
through the date of judgment."
Cardinal Multi Services is a residential and commercial asphalt &
concrete cutting firm.
A copy of the Parties motion dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i3Vujo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Hanna, Esq.
Roseann R. Romano, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 223-2620
Facsimile: (202) 296-9600
E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com
CARLOTZ INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired CarLotz, Inc. ("CarLotz" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ: LOTZ) securities between December 30, 2020 and May 25,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your CarLotz 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/carlotz-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 March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the
Company stated that gross profit and gross profit per unit ("GPU")
"were softer than . . . expected" due to "the surge in inventory
during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit
profitability." CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory
"created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher
days to sell."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.79, or 8.5%, to
close at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline over the next
two consecutive trading sessions by $0.62, or 7.3%, to close at
$7.83 per share on March 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
Then, on May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced
its first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that gross
profit per unit fell below expectations. In particular, the Company
had expected retail GPU between $1,300 and $1,500, but reported
$1,182.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.94, or 14%, to
close at $5.57 per share on May 11, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $0.45, or 8%,
to close at $4.12 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Then, on May 26, 2021, before the market opened, CarLotz announced
an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement.
Specifically, CarLotz stated that its "profit-sharing corporate
vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in light of
current wholesale market conditions, it has paused consignments to
the Company." Moreover, this partner "accounted for more than 60%
of the cars sold and sourced" during first quarter 2021 and "less
than 50% of the cars sold and approximately 25% of cars sourced"
during second quarter 2021 to date.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.70, or 13.4%, to
close at $4.51 per share on May 26, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants made material
misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that, due to a
surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz
was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower processing and
higher days to sell; (2) that, as a result, the Company's gross
profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3) that, to minimize
returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for
more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the Company was offering
aggressive pricing; (4) that, as a result, CarLotz's gross profit
per unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) that this Company's
corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments
to the Company due to market conditions, including increasing
wholesale prices; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 7,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
CARVE DESIGN: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARVE DESIGN LLC, d/b/a Geekey, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04100 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.geekey.com,
allegedly contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and
Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content,
and services offered to the general public through the website.
These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a) images are
not properly labeled, (b) links use general text like "read more"
with no surrounding text explaining the link purpose, (c) frames do
not have a title, (d) button elements are empty with no
programmatically determined name, (e) form controls have no label
and no programmatically determined name, (f) forms have fields
without label elements or title attributes, (g) headings are not
nested correctly, and (h) several links on a page share the same
link text but go to different destinations.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Carve Design LLC, doing business as Geekey, is an online retailer
of a multitool designed to hang on a key chain, headquartered in
Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
chris@lipskylowe.com
CENTERSTATE BANK: Sept. 3 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA DENISE GRANT, on
behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, v.
CENTERSTATE BANK, Case No. 8:20-cv-01920-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the
Parties asks the Court to enter an order:
1. extending the joint amended motion to modify class
certification-related deadlines as follows:
-- September 3, 2021 Plaintiff Disclosure of Expert
Reports for Class Certification
-- September 3, 2021 Motion for Class Certification Deadline
-- October 3, 2021 Defendant Disclosure of Expert
Reports for Class Certification; and
2. granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of
Time to File Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Parties motion dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x8HitF at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
Daniel Tropin, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
tropin@kolawyers.com
- and -
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christian P. George, Esq.
Katherine C. Fackler, Esq.
Lawrence D. Silverman, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
50 North Laura St., Suite 3100
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 798-3700
Facsimile: (904) 798-3730
E-mail: christian.george@akerman.com
katherine.fackler@akerman.com
jay.harrington@akerman.com
lawrence.silverman@akerman.com
CESCAPHE: Class Action Proceeding Filed Over COVID-19 Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to the wedding business in Philadelphia, no other
player is as big as Cescaphe. Locally based wedding and special
event companies have 150-600 guests at six venues throughout the
city, from Lucy on South Broad Street to the waterworks at
Fairmount Park and the flagship chess cafe ballroom. We hold
gorgeous ceremonies and receptions for the target. At Northern
Liberties. But now, Cescaphe is subject to a class action filed in
COVID over the company's refund policy. This is a problem that has
plagued wedding and event planning businesses across the country
for many years.
In October 2018, when we were all living a "normal" life, Michael
Randall proposed to his college lover Molly Moskowitz at a
Halloween party they dressed like this: Game of Thrones letter.
Moskowitz said so, and within a week or so, the pair had an outdoor
wedding in a tent with Cescaphe at WaterWorks, "many places in
Philadelphia's most epic events," as the company describes it.
reserved. Over 200 guests are welcomed at the champagne bar with
"luxury appointments" such as fresh raspberries, chilled seafood
and sushi stations, the "Vienna dessert display" and the butler's
hors d'oeuvres. The couple paid a deposit of $ 5,000.
There was only one problem. It's the wedding date. Moskowitz and
Randall were scheduled to celebrate their wedding on June 12, 2020.
However, it turned out that no one had a wedding of 200 people in
Philadelphia in June 2020. The COVID vaccine has not yet been
deployed and there was an open-air rally of 200 people. It would
have been illegal (or even much smaller).
This is when things start to get worse, according to a complaint
contained in a federal class action lawsuit recently filed by the
couple against Chess Cafe. The proceedings allege that Cescaphe
"performed fraudulent and deceptive acts by misunderstanding or
misunderstanding the terms of the contract" in order to avoid
returning the deposit.
The agreement between the couple and Cescaphe clearly states that a
$ 5,000 deposit "guarantees" the date they desire. Of course, the
agreement clearly states that the $ 5,000 deposit is
non-refundable.
However, the agreement also included the wording of force majeure
found in most contracts. This is a clause that can be used to
release all parties from the agreement in the event of "God's Act"
or other extreme circumstances that may be "illegal or impossible."
We will fulfill the above agreement. As Moskowitz and Randall saw,
it was not possible to have a reasonably sized wedding on the day
Cescaphe guaranteed, so the deposit should have been refunded.
However, according to the proceedings, Cescaphe claimed that the $
5,000 deposit was not at all, despite the contract Philly Mag
considered (and several other contracts that read the same). ,
Literally called "deposit". Despite the provisions of the contract,
Cescaphe claimed that he did not hold the date either. It was an
"event planning fee" that the company could maintain. In the
proceedings, Cescaphe pressured them and other couples to
reschedule their events at a later date, slimming down the
available dates and may force them to have a weekday wedding. Claim
to have told.
In early June 2020, in response to this pressure and Chess Cafe's
position not to return $ 5,000, Moskowitz and Randall chose May 7,
2021 as their new wedding date. Due to availability issues, their
wedding was moved from the waterworks outdoors to the Cescaphe
Ballroom indoors.
In September 2020, the couple decided that wouldn't work either.
Then they canceled the Cescaphe event. "We made the difficult
decision to postpone the wedding again," the couple later wrote in
a note to the guests. "The city of Philadelphia's restrictions have
not been lifted enough for us to have a wedding." (May 7, 2021
lifted restrictions for the city to hold weddings and other events.
Please note that the non-chess cafe wedding banquet will be held in
Bellevue in June 2022.)
The couple tried to get Cescaphe to return $ 5,000, but it didn't
help. On May 25, this year, the couple's lawyer, Ken Chotiner,
fired a letter to Cescaphe and demanded that the company be given $
5,000. Cescaphe's lawyer immediately shot back the letter, saying,
"There is no refund."
In the letter, the lawyer claims that Chess Cafe did a lot of work
for that $ 5,000. This includes meeting couples in person to
discuss menu options, arranging blocks for hotel rooms, and
"coordinating flowers" with popular people. Beautiful Blooms, a
flower design company in Philadelphia.
Approximately a month after Cescaphe's lawyer sent the letter,
Moskowitz and Randall filed a class action lawsuit in federal court
in Philadelphia, accusing Cescaphe of fraud, contract breaches, and
Pennsylvania consumer protection law violations. did. They have
filed proceedings on their behalf, and they claim more than 1,000
other Cescaphe clients who may be affected by the actions of the
company, a controversial amount. Will probably be over $ 5
million.
On June 28, just four days after the proceedings were filed, a
chess cafe lawyer sent Shotiner a second letter. In the letter,
lawyers accused Shotiner of suing the chess cafe for "harassing"
and "powerful weapons" to return $ 5,000. The letter calls the
proceeding "flirty" and states that the lawyer intends to seek
sanctions against Shotiner even by filing it.
The letter also argues that the federal court, referring to the
original agreement signed with Cescaphe in 2018, is not a suitable
place for couples to express their dissatisfaction. The contract
contains standards, Increasingly controversial Compulsory
arbitration clause. It states that disputes must be settled by
arbitration, not proceedings.
However, contracts and arbitration agreements are not as
cut-and-dry as they look, and it is up to the judges in the federal
proceedings to dismiss the proceedings filed by Cescaphe's lawyers
and rule the allegations that force arbitration. On Tuesday
afternoon, Shotiner told Philly Magh that he would submit a
response to the court explaining why the arbitration clause was
unenforceable.
Meanwhile, six other couples, similar to Moskowitz and Randall,
recently appeared in a civil litigation court in Philadelphia,
individually regarding refunds for Cescaphe's wedding deposits,
along with refunds for other types of events. I asked the judge to
be able to combine the arbitration cases. The proceeding was filed
by Todd Rusky, a lawyer in Penvalley. Todd Rusky, along with his
wife, is also the plaintiff in the proceedings.
In a court filing that pointed out that Cescaphe had received more
than $ 4 million in PPP funding over the past year, the couple had
an estimated arbitration agent with disputes ranging from $ 5,000
to $ 6,000 per couple. If the costs range from $ 2,500 to $ 3,000
and the cases are heard separately, it makes no sense for them to
pursue arbitration individually.
Filing is also done by Cescaphe have Refunds were granted in some
cases, but only apply to couples who have agreed to sign a
nondisclosure agreement. (When asked to comment on this particular
claim, a Cescaphe spokesman did not specifically mention it, but in
response wrote: or military deployment. ")
As in the Moskowitz-Randall case, Cescaphe's lawyer said in court
documents that some or all of the couples seeking relief at the
Common Pleas Court were already serviced with a $ 5,000 or $ 6,000
deposit. Said.
On Monday, a judge denied the request to participate in the
arbitration case. The federal proceedings are ongoing.
"As the largest wedding provider in the region, we continue to
create and deliver dream weddings and events," a Cescaphe
spokeswoman wrote in a statement to Philly Mag. "Our team has been
constantly working with all pandemic-affected individuals to
develop the best solution for them, whether it's a rescheduled
wedding, a micro-wedding, or any other upcoming event. It's a shame
to see less than 2% of affected customers trying to take advantage
of small businesses. An objective review of the facts has been and
will be done over the last 20 years. We show that we have acted
with respect and fairness to our customers so that we may continue
to do so. "[GN]
CHUBBY SNACKS: Nisbett Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Website Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHUBBY SNACKS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-06218 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.chubbysnacks.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
lack of alternate-text (alt-text) for images, (b) frames do not
have a title, (c) button elements are empty, (d) all radio buttons
groups are not contained in a field-set element, (e) webpages use
duplicate IDs, which cause problems in screen readers, (f) webpages
have markup errors, (g) headings are not nested correctly, and (h)
several links on a page share the same link text but go to
different destinations.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Chubby Snacks Inc. is an online retailer of single serving
prepackaged snacks made of fruit jellies, nut butters and whole
wheat bread, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Thornton Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Churchill Capital Corp IV
(NYSE: CCIV). Investors who purchased CCIV stock or other
securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021 may
contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by
visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Churchill for more information.
Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.
The complaint alleges that on February 22, 2021, a merger agreement
was announced between Churchill, a special purpose acquisition
company and Lucid, an American automotive company specializing in
electric cars. The transaction equity value was estimated at $11.75
billion. Churchill's share price closed at $57.37. It is alleged
that Lucid announced the production of its debut car would be
delayed until at least the second half of 2021, with no definite
date set for delivery of an actual vehicle. It is also alleged that
Lucid was projecting the production of only 557 vehicles in 2021,
rather than the 6,000 it had been touting before the merger
announcement.
Interested CCIV investors have until August 30, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class
members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a
lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose
to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is
not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is
investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a
lead plaintiff.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
CLIQ PRODUCTS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cliq Products Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Cliq Products Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06283 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cliq Products -- https://www.cliqproducts.com/ -- offers the CLIQ
Chair which is a sturdy, comfortable, portable chair that rapidly
packs up to the size of a water bottle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise
acquired Coinbase Global Inc. ("Coinbase" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: COIN) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the offering
documents issued in connection with Coinbase's April 14, 2021
initial public offering (the "IPO"). Investors have until September
20, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.
On May 17, 2021, Coinbase undermined its representations in the
Offering Materials that the Company's existing cash and cash
equivalents were sufficient by announcing plans to raise capital
via a convertible bond sale. On May 19, 2021, Coinbase revealed
technical problems experienced by users on its platform, including
"delays . . . . due to network congestion" effecting "those who
want to get their money out."
On this news, the price of Coinbase shares fell $23.44 per share,
nearly 10% over two consecutive trading sessions, to close at
$224.80 per share on May 19, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint alleges that the registration statement and
prospectus used to effectuate the Company's Offering were false and
misleading and omitted to state that, at the time of the Offering:
(1) Coinbase required a sizeable cash injection; (2) Coinbase's
platform was susceptible to service-level disruptions, which were
increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to
a larger user base; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you purchased Coinbase shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
IPO and suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or
Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action Over Nasdaq Listing
------------------------------------------------------------------
cointelegraph.com reports that a Coinbase shareholder has filed a
securities class action against Coinbase for allegedly misleading
investors ahead of its public listing about the company's financial
state and resilience as a crypto trading platform.
Filed by law firm Scott + Scott in the California Northern District
Court on Thursday, the class action names Coinbase shareholder
Donald Ramsey as a plaintiff, both individually and on behalf of
all other investors similarly situated.
Ramsey is pursuing his claims under the United States Securities
Act and has presented evidence drawn from Coinbase's regulatory
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, company
press releases, analyst reports and other publicly disclosed
information about the exchange.
Alongside the company itself, the class action names CEO Brian
Armstrong, chief legal officer Paul Grewal and other top executives
as defendants, as well as several of its venture capital backers.
Ramsey is accusing Coinbase and its executives of making
"materially misleading statements" in their offering materials at
the time of the public listing and offering positive statements
that "lacked a reasonable basis." The class action alleges that:
"At the time of the Offering: (1) the Company required a sizeable
cash injection; (2) the Company's platform was susceptible to
service-level disruptions, which were increasingly likely to occur
as the Company scaled its services to a larger user base."
Ramsey further alleges that once the alleged discrepancies between
self-presentation and reality came to public light, Coinbase's
share price fell accordingly. Citing events in mid-May, when
Coinbase conceded it needed to raise funds and announced plans to
raise $1.25 billion through a convertible bond sale, Ramsey
emphasizes that the company's stock sharply declined by close to
10% over two trading sessions.
The class-action marshals evidence from contemporary media reports
in mid-May, citing a Forbes report on the bond sale announcement:
"Investors were also likely surprised by the timing of the issue,
considering that Coinbase just went public in mid-April via a
direct listing (which doesn't involve issuing new shares or raising
capital), signaling that it didn't require cash. So the company's
decision to issue bonds a little over a month later is likely
raising some questions."
Ramsey's class action also points to the technical difficulties on
the platform on May 19, when a surge of traders hoping to "get
their money out" during a bearish period in the crypto markets
experienced "delays [. . .] due to network congestion."
As Cointelegraph reported at the time, delays in Ether (ETH) and
ERC-20 token withdrawals ostensibly due to congestion on the
Ethereum network were experienced that day by users on both
Coinbase and Binance. While not indicating the reason, the Gemini
exchange also announced that it would be taking emergency
maintenance actions to correct ongoing issues.
The class action argues that these kinds of service-level technical
issues are critical and damaging for the company's claims to be the
easiest place to buy and sell crypto in the retail market. The
complaint emphasizes this all the more so, given that the company
is reliant on transaction fees to "generate nearly all of its
revenues."
By the time Ramsey commenced the class action, Coinbase's stock was
trading at $208 per share, compared to its opening price of $381 on
April 14.
Counsel for the defendants had reportedly not yet appeared as of
Thursday. Cointelegraph has reached out to Coinbase representatives
for comment and will update this article accordingly. [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Coinbase Global, Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the following company during
the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:COIN)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Coinbase Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus for the resale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its
Class A common stock, whereby Coinbase began trading as a public
company on or around April 14, 2021.
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Coinbase Global, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company required a sizeable cash injection;
(2) the Company's platform was susceptible to service-level
disruptions, which were increasingly likely to occur as the Company
scaled its services to a larger user base; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17928&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: COIN) Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to Coinbase's offering materials for the resale of
up to 114,850,769 shares of its Class A common stock, whereby
Coinbase began trading as a public company on or around April 14,
2021 (the "Offering") have until September 20, 2021 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Coinbase class action lawsuit.
The Coinbase class action lawsuit charges Coinbase, certain of its
top executives, and others with violations of the Securities Act of
1933. The Coinbase class action lawsuit was filed in the Northern
District of California on July 22, 2021 and is captioned Ramsey v.
Coinbase Global, Inc., No. 21-cv-05634.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Coinbase 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 Coinbase class action lawsuit must be filed with
the court no later than September 20, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Coinbase class action lawsuit alleges that
Coinbase's offering materials were false and misleading and omitted
to state that, at the time of the Offering: (i) Coinbase required a
sizeable cash injection; (ii) Coinbase's platform was susceptible
to service-level disruptions, which were increasingly likely to
occur as Coinbase scaled its services to a larger user base; and
(iii) as a result, defendants' positive statements about Coinbase's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On May 17, 2021, Coinbase revealed plans to raise about $1.25
billion via a convertible bond sale (the "Bond Offering").
Forbes.com was quick to note the conflict between the offering
materials and Coinbase's Bond Offering in its article entitled "Why
is Coinbase Stock Trending Lower?" stating in relevant part
"[i]nvestors were also likely surprised by the timing of the issue,
considering that Coinbase just went public in mid-April via a
direct listing (which doesn't involve issuing new shares or raising
capital), signaling that it didn't require cash." On this news,
Coinbase's stock price declined nearly 4%.
Then, on May 19, 2021, as the value of cryptocurrencies fell,
Coinbase revealed technical problems experienced by users on its
platform, including "delays . . . due to network congestion"
effecting those who want to get their money out. On this news,
Coinbase's stock price declined nearly 6%, further damaging
investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Coinbase
Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Coinbase's
offering materials issued in connection with the Offering to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Coinbase 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 Coinbase class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Coinbase class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Coinbase 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. [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a
securities class action lawsuit against Coinbase Global Inc.
(NASDAQ: COIN) ("Coinbase" or the "Company"), certain Coinbase
directors and officers, and each of the venture capital firms that
benefitted from Coinbase's April 2021 direct offering (the
"Offering"), alleging violations of Sec11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sec 77k, 77l(a)(2), and 77o.
If you purchased Coinbase common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Offering, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney
Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 for more information.
Coinbase is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the United
States. As of the Company's offering, the Coinbase platform was
used by approximately 43 million retail users, 7,00 institutions,
and 115,000 ecosystem partners in over 100 countries.
On April 14, 2021, Coinbase went public through the Offering,
making available 114,850,769 shares of its Class A common stock to
the general public. Coinbase shares began trading on the NASDAQ at
$381.00 per share.
According to the complaint, the registration statement and
prospectus used to effectuate the Company's Offering were false and
misleading and omitted to state that, at the time of the Offering:
(1) Coinbase required a sizeable cash injection; (2) Coinbase's
platform was susceptible to service-level disruptions, which were
increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to
a larger user base; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
positive statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
As the truth about the Company's need to raise cash and its
platform's limitations reached the market, the value of Coinbase's
shares declined dramatically. By the commencement of the action,
Coinbase's shares traded as low as $208.00 per share, or over 45%
below the April 14, 2021 opening price of $381.00 per share.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline
The Lead Plaintiff deadline in this action is September 20, 2021.
Any member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. The case is
pending in the Northern District of California under docket number
3:21-cv-05634.
What You Can Do
If you purchased Coinbase common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's Offering, or if you have questions about this notice
or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney
Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 or
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com.
About Scott+Scott
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio.
This may be considered Attorney Advertising.[GN]
COMCAST CORPORATION: Court Tosses Tillage Bid for Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES TILLAGE, et al.,
v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06477-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying the
motion for class certification.
The plaintiffs ask for leave to seek certification of an injunctive
relief class if this motion is denied. It is unclear -- given how
long this case has dragged on and given the extent to which the
plaintiffs appear to have overreached in this motion -- whether
this would be fair. It is also unclear, given the erroneous legal
theory on which the plaintiffs have been proceeding, whether they
have developed a record that would support a request for injunctive
relief on behalf of a class, Judge Chhabria says.
Accordingly, a case management conference is scheduled for
Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss this issue. Seven
days prior, the parties must file a joint case management statement
setting forth their positions. Regarding the parties' motions to
seal, none of the redacted portions of the briefs are appropriate
for sealing. To the extent that the contents of the exhibits sought
to be sealed is reflected in the briefs, those exhibits are also
not appropriate for sealing. Both motions to seal are therefore
denied entirely, without prejudice to filing a renewed request
within 7 days that is much narrower and more targeted. If no such
motion is filed within 7 days, all the materials will be unsealed.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x8v2t9 at no extra charge.[CC]
CONSENSYS SOFTWARE: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ConsenSys Software
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. ConsenSys Software Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06281 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ConsenSys -- https://consensys.net/ -- is the software engineering
leader of the blockchain space.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
CORMEDIX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds September 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a Lead Plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
CorMedix Inc. ('CorMedix' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ:CRMD) from July
8, 2020 through May 13, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey alleges violations of the Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased CorMedix securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit CorMedix Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877)
779-1414 or nwiesner@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (ii) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath NDA for
catheter-related bloodstream infections ("CRBSIs") in its present
form; (iii) Defendants had downplayed the true scope of the
deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the
facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On March 1, 2021, CorMedix issued a press release "announc[ing]
that the [FDA] cannot approve the [new drug application ("NDA")]
for DefenCath . . . . in its present form." CorMedix informed
investors that the "FDA noted concerns at the third-party
manufacturing facility after a review of records requested by FDA
and provided by the manufacturing facility."
On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $5.98 per share, or
39.87%, to close at $9.02 per share on March 1, 2021.
Then on March 13, 2021, CorMedix announced that "[b]ased on our
analyses, we have concluded that additional process qualification
will be needed with subsequent validation to address the
deficiencies identified by FDA."
On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
19.97%, to close at $6.05 per share on May 14, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 20, 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 CorMedix securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/cormedixinc-crmd-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-418/apply/
or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
nwiesner@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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]
CORMEDIX INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of September 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against CorMedix Inc. ("CorMedix" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: CRMD) in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired CorMedix publicly traded securities between July 8, 2020
and May 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made material
misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) deficiencies
existed with respect to DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at
the facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; (2) in light
of the foregoing deficiencies, the FDA was unlikely to approve the
DefenCath NDA for CRBSIs in its present form; (3) Defendants had
downplayed the true scope of the deficiencies with DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On March 1, 2021, CorMedix issued a press release "announc[ing]
that the [FDA] cannot approve the [NDA] for DefenCath . . . in its
present form." CorMedix informed investors that the "FDA noted
concerns at the third-party manufacturing facility after a review
of records requested by FDA and provided by the manufacturing
facility"; that the "FDA did not specify the issues and CorMedix
intends to work with the manufacturing facility to develop a plan
for resolution when FDA informs the facility of the specific
concerns"; that, "[w]hen we are informed of the issues, we will
schedule an investor conference call to provide an update on our
expected timeline for resolution"; and that, "[a]dditionally, FDA
is requiring a manual extraction study to demonstrate that the
labeled volume can be consistently withdrawn from the vials despite
an existing in-process control to demonstrate fill volume within
specifications." On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $5.98
per share, or 39.87%, to close at $9.02 per share on March 1,
2021.
Then, on April 14, 2021, Defendants announced that CorMedix would
have to take additional steps to meet the FDA's requirements for
DefenCath's manufacturing process, including "[a]ddressing FDA's
concerns regarding the qualification of the filling operation
[that] may necessitate adjustments in the process and generation of
additional data on operating parameters for manufacture of
DefenCath." On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.44 per
share, or 15.37%, to close at $7.93 per share on April 14, 2021.
Finally, on May 13, 2021, CorMedix announced that "[b]ased on our
analyses, we have concluded that additional process qualification
will be needed with subsequent validation to address the
deficiencies identified by FDA." After an analyst pressed for
clearer information on DefenCath's manufacturing deficiencies on a
conference call held that same day, Phoebe Mounts, CorMedix's
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, finally disclosed,
inter alia, that "there are times when there may be unexpected
results obtained"; that the FDA "expect[s] us to generate
sufficient data to demonstrate that [the filling] process is a
controlled process and is consistent with the agency's requirements
for good manufacturing practice"; that "sterility is a very
important part of that process," as well as "the accuracy in making
sure the right volume of DEFENCATH is loaded into the vials"; that
"we are talking about thousands of vials during the manufacturing
run"; that Defendant must "generat[e] of a lot of data to make sure
that . . . all the equipment has been qualified for the intended
use and every step in the manufacturing process has been
qualified"; that "th[e] process needs to be very robust, [and]
needs to be reproducible"; and that "the burden is on the
manufacturer to demonstrate that the facility can do that process
reducibly and generate the required product for commercial
distribution." On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.51 per
share, or 19.97%, to close at $6.05 per share on May 14, 2021.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of CorMedix
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
September 20, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]
CORMEDIX INC: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of CorMedix Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the following company during
the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
CorMedix Inc. (NASDAQ:CRMD)
Investors Affected: July 8, 2020 - May 13, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
CorMedix Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (ii) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was unlikely
to approve the DefenCath new drug application ("NDA") for
catheter-related bloodstream infections ("CRBSIs") in its present
form; (iii) Defendants had downplayed the true scope of the
deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the
facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cormedix-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17928&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
CREDIT CORP: Manzano Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp Solutions
Inc. The case is styled as Wilma Manzano, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Credit Corp Solutions
Inc. d/b/a Tasman Credit, Case No. 716710/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Queens Cty., July 23, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Commercial – Other."
Credit Corp Solutions -- https://www.creditcorponline.com/ -- is a
receivables management company that purchases and collects consumer
debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
CREDIT PROS: Bid for Protective Order in Hancock TCPA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DYLAN HANCOCK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CREDIT PROS
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-02826-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge
Cathy L. Waldor of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey:
(i) granted in part and denied in part Credit Pros' motion to
amend its answer to the complaint to assert certain
affirmative defenses; and
(ii) denies Credit Pros' motion for a protective order.
I. Introduction
The case is a putative class action brought under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). Plaintiff
Hancock alleges that Defendant The Credit Pros, which offers
consumers credit repair solutions, transmitted, without consent,
pre-recorded phone calls and autodialed text messages to the
Plaintiff and the putative class members, thereby violating the
TCPA.
On behalf of himself and the putative class, the Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, requiring the Defendant to stop making
pre-recorded voice sales calls to consumers without their consent,
and to stop sending autodialed text messages to consumers without
their consent, as well as an award of statutory damages to the
members of the Class and costs.
The matter comes before the Court on Credit Pros' motions seeking
(i) to amend its answer to assert certain affirmative defenses; and
(ii) a protective order in connection with third-party subpoenas
issued by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has opposed both motions
and Credit Pros has replied.
II. Credit Pros' Motion to Amend
Having timely answered the Complaint, Credit Pros now seeks to
amend its answer to include the following affirmative defenses:
[16.] Plaintiff's claims and/or the claims of the putative
class Plaintiff seeks to represent fail or otherwise are banned, in
whole or in part, or are limited because the subject telephone
calls (including but not limited to text messages and pre-recorded
calls) constitute commercial speech protected by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and the imposition of
liability for such telephone calls violates the First Amendment
right of Defendant.
[17.] Plaintiff's claims and/or the claims of the putative
class Plaintiff seeks to represent fail or otherwise are barred, in
whole or in part, or limited because Plaintiff and/or the putative
classes Plaintiff seeks to represent lack standing to bring this
action. Neither Plaintiff nor the putative class members suffered
the requisite harm required to confer standing under Article III of
the United States Constitution.
[18.] Defendant asserts that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter because the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) is unconstitutional.
[19.] Plaintiff fails to state and cannot state a plausible
claim for class relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in that,
among other things, the claims Plaintiff seeks to assert cannot be
common or typical of the claims of the putative class, and class
relief is not superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the claims Plaintiff seeks to assert.
Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy requirements for this case to proceed as a
class action.
The proposed defenses grow from the Supreme Court's decision in
Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, 140 S.Ct. 2335 (2020)
("AAPC"), which was issued shortly after Credit Pros filed its
answer. A hotly contested footnote in AAPC touches upon the TCPA's
constitutionality between 2015 and 2020, dates that overlap with
the case's relevant period. Three of the first three district
courts to encounter the issue, beginning with Creasy v. Charter
Communs., Inc., 489 F.Supp.3d 499 (E.D. La. 2020), read AAPC to
hold that the TCPA was unconstitutional during this time. These
courts therefore dismissed their respective TCPA claims on the
grounds that they lacked jurisdiction to enforce an
unconstitutional law. These decisions "led Credit Pros' counsel to
believe, out of an abundance of caution and to protect the Credit
Pros' rights, that the counsel should seek leave to file an Amended
Answer to assert additional defenses" grounded in the
constitutionality arguments that prevailed in the Creasy Cases.
Analysis
i. The Nineteenth Proposed Defense
At the outset, Judge Waldor denies as futile Credit Pros' motion as
to the nineteenth proposed defense, since the class certification
challenges raised therein are not the province of an affirmative
defense. He therefore denies leave for Credit Pros to assert the
nineteenth proposed defense and will proceed to Rule 15 and Rule 16
analyses as to the other three.
ii. The Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Proposed Defenses
The Plaintiff attacks Credit Pros' lack of diligence in pursuing
amendment under Rule 16 and the substance of these proposed
defenses as futile under Rule 15.
Judge Waldor rejects both arguments. First, inasmuch as the
sixteenth through eighteen proposed defenses grow from AAPC and the
Creasy Cases, Credit Pros was diligent in seeking leave to move to
amend, having done so within a reasonable time after these
decisions (particularly Creasy) were handed down. Second, Credit
Pros' sixteenth through eighteenth proposed defenses are neither
untimely under Rule 16 nor futile under Rule 15. Therefore, the
Judge grants Credit Pros' motion to assert these defenses.
III. Credit Pros' Motion for a Protective Order
The Plaintiff has served subpoenas upon three third-party vendors,
Ringba, Five9, and Drips, which were identified in Credit Pros'
discovery responses. Ringba provides a call tracking platform for
incoming calls to Credit Pros; Five9 provides Credit Pros with its
phone system; and Drips is a computer software program that allows
Credit Pros to make outgoing marketing calls. The Plaintiff states
that the subpoenas are geared toward obtaining "crucial information
to their class certification motion and their and the putative
class members' claims"; more specifically, that "these documents
are crucial to identify class members and to demonstrate Credit
Pros' systematic course of conduct uniformly affected class members
who received automated calls to their cellular telephone or
residential landlines, and whether such conduct was willful."
Although the Plaintiff subpoenaed a total of nine categories of
information from the vendors, Credit Pros has consented to the
vendors providing certain responses. Consequently, its motion
implicates only the following requests:
1. All records, including call logs (including prerecorded
calls and text messages), billing records, and communications,
associated with any account maintained by the Defendant.
2. Information or data concerning all calls (including
prerecorded calls and text messages) made to, by or on behalf of
the Defendant using your services, including call logs in native
form and recordings or copies of the calls.
3. The identity and contact information (including any
databases in which such information is contained) for any and all
recipients of outbound calls.
4. Documents sufficient to identify all products or services
supplied by the vendors to the Defendant or anyone acting on its
behalf.
5. All contracts or agreements with Defendant or anyone acting
on their behalf.
6. If any documents responsive to the requests in this
subpoena are in the hands of third parties, produce documents
sufficient to identify those third parties.
Analysis
i. Call Logs and Related Materials
Most of the disputed requests concern call logs and related
information regarding calls and texts placed by Credit Pros using
the vendors' services. Credit Pros' primary arguments against
disclosure of these materials are that the items sought are
irrelevant to this lawsuit, that the Plaintiff seeks confidential
information, and that these requests are overly burdensome.
Judge Waldor rejects all three objections. First, she holds that
Credit Pros fails to cite a single TCPA case in which similar
requests were denied, and on reply only passingly and
unconvincingly attempts to distinguish two of the roughly dozen
cases cited by the Plaintiff in opposition. The case law plainly
supports the Plaintiff's position on this point, which the Court
therefore resolves in the Plaintiff's favor. Second, the parties
have entered into a discovery confidentiality order that expressly
addresses the confidential treatment of, inter alia, "trade
secrets, competitively sensitive technical, marketing, financial,
sales or other confidential business information"; "private or
confidential personal information"; and "information received in
confidence from third parties." Third, given that the case was
filed on March 15, 2020, records covering March 15, 2016, through
the present are discoverable.
ii. Other Requests
First, the Plaintiff has subpoenaed certain incoming call
information from Ringba. Because Credit Pros does not effectively
rebut the notion that incoming call data may be relevant to
rebutting its consent defenses; Judge Waldor finds that this
information is discoverable. Second, the Plaintiff has requested
"contracts or agreements with Defendant or anyone acting on their
behalf." The Judge holds that this demand is proper, with a
caveat: such agreements are discoverable to the extent that they
concern the vendors placing voice or text messages during the
relevant period. Third, the Plaintiff also seeks "documents
sufficient to identify all products or services supplied by the
vendors to the Defendant or anyone acting on its behalf."
According to the Judge, the call logs and related materials
discussed likely will suffice to identify the products or services
supplied by the vendors to Credit Pros. Finally, the Plaintiff
requests for the vendors to identify third parties who may be in
possession of responsive documents. The Judge will not issue an
advisory opinion on how the vendors should respond to these items,
and instead directs Credit Pros and the vendors to the subpoenas'
plain terms and to Rules 26 and 45 to determine their
responsibilities thereunder.
IV. Conclusion
An order consistent with Judge Waldor's Opinion follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4raesw2t from Leagle.com.
DIDI GLOBAL: NY Debacles Shed Light on Corp Liability Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enoch Yiu at scmp.com reports that Didi Global's New York listing
debacle is shedding light on a little-known area of insurance that
protects corporate directors and officers (D&O) from legal
liability, as a number of law firms are soliciting shareholders to
sign up for class-action lawsuits in US courts.
Class action suits related to the securities industry jumped to 334
cases in the United States last year, 49 per cent higher than the
average between 1997 and 2019, according to data compiled by
Cornerstone Research. Chinese defendants in federal courts
increased to 24 last year, the most in at least seven years, and up
from as few as four in 2016, keeping pace with the record number of
China-domiciled companies that flocked to the US capital markets to
raise funds.
The biggest known Chinese claimant of D&O insurance was Luckin
Coffee, the Xiamen-based Starbucks pretender that was kicked off
the Nasdaq in June 2020 after its chief operating officer and other
senior executives admitted to committing accounting fraud.
Luckin, fined US$180 million by US regulators last December, made a
US$25 million D&O insurance claim eight months earlier on a
consortium of Chinese insurers including Ping An Insurance Group,
according to the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission
(CBIRC). Ping An, which faces a maximum payout of US$2 million
under the syndicated coverage, said it was still reviewing the
claim.
The trend is likely to pick up, as US-listed Chinese companies find
themselves caught between tougher regulatory regimes like the
Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act of the US, and China's
latest rule that adds cybersecurity oversight to the layers of
approval for overseas listings. Didi, the dominant ride-hailing
service in China, may be under particular pressure as it forced its
way to a US$4.4 billion New York listing, an act now characterised
by Chinese officials as a deliberate act of deceit, sources said.
"The Didi incident and the new regulation in China are likely to
increase the awareness for the need for D&O insurance," said Eric
Hui Kam-kwai, chief executive of Zurich Insurance (Hong Kong),
which also offers D&O coverage. "The estimated take-up rate for the
mainland listed companies may double to 40 per cent in the next two
years."
Ping An said it had also participated in Didi's director insurance
but could not give details because of client confidentiality. "The
case is in the early stages of the claim process and we are
reviewing the application," said a spokesman. D&O is the
fastest-growing insurance product in China, with as many as 150
publicly traded companies signing on for the corporate liability
coverage in the first half alone. One such company was Minsheng
Holdings, which disclosed in a January 23 filing to the Shenzhen
Stock Exchange that it was paying no more than 150,000 yuan
(US$23,170) in annual premium to provide its executives with up to
30 million yuan of coverage.
The IPO of the Chinese ride-hailing company Didi Global on the New
York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2021. Photo: Reuters.The IPO of the
Chinese ride-hailing company Didi Global on the New York Stock
Exchange on June 30, 2021. Photo: Reuters.
The IPO of the Chinese ride-hailing company Didi Global on the New
York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2021. Photo: Reuters.
Didi Global's New York listing debacle is shedding light on a
little-known area of insurance that protects corporate directors
and officers (D&O) from legal liability, as a number of law firms
are soliciting shareholders to sign up for class-action lawsuits in
US courts.
Class action suits related to the securities industry jumped to 334
cases in the United States last year, 49 per cent higher than the
average between 1997 and 2019, according to data compiled by
Cornerstone Research. Chinese defendants in federal courts
increased to 24 last year, the most in at least seven years, and up
from as few as four in 2016, keeping pace with the record number of
China-domiciled companies that flocked to the US capital markets to
raise funds.
The biggest known Chinese claimant of D&O insurance was Luckin
Coffee, the Xiamen-based Starbucks pretender that was kicked off
the Nasdaq in June 2020 after its chief operating officer and other
senior executives admitted to committing accounting fraud.
Luckin, fined US$180 million by US regulators last December, made a
US$25 million D&O insurance claim eight months earlier on a
consortium of Chinese insurers including Ping An Insurance Group,
according to the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission
(CBIRC). Ping An, which faces a maximum payout of US$2 million
under the syndicated coverage, said it was still reviewing the
claim.
The trend is likely to pick up, as US-listed Chinese companies find
themselves caught between tougher regulatory regimes like the
Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act of the US, and China's
latest rule that adds cybersecurity oversight to the layers of
approval for overseas listings. Didi, the dominant ride-hailing
service in China, may be under particular pressure as it forced its
way to a US$4.4 billion New York listing, an act now characterised
by Chinese officials as a deliberate act of deceit, sources said.
"The Didi incident and the new regulation in China are likely to
increase the awareness for the need for D&O insurance," said Eric
Hui Kam-kwai, chief executive of Zurich Insurance (Hong Kong),
which also offers D&O coverage. "The estimated take-up rate for the
mainland listed companies may double to 40 per cent in the next two
years."
10 Jul 2021
Ping An said it had also participated in Didi's director insurance
but could not give details because of client confidentiality. "The
case is in the early stages of the claim process and we are
reviewing the application," said a spokesman. D&O is the
fastest-growing insurance product in China, with as many as 150
publicly traded companies signing on for the corporate liability
coverage in the first half alone. One such company was Minsheng
Holdings, which disclosed in a January 23 filing to the Shenzhen
Stock Exchange that it was paying no more than 150,000 yuan
(US$23,170) in annual premium to provide its executives with up to
30 million yuan of coverage.
D&O insurance in the US costs 20 times more than in Hong Kong and
in mainland China, because of the litigiousness and prevalence of
class-action lawsuits in America, insurers said. Policy premium
jumped 56 per cent in the first three months from last year, the
13th consecutive quarter of growth, according to data provided by
AON the London-based insurer.
"From a shareholder's perspective, class actions are more commonly
seen against companies that have US exposure (via share listings)
and as a result of M&A transactions," AON said in a report.
Companies may pay about 10 per cent to 20 per cent, or US$1 million
to US$2 million premium for every US$10 million of D&O coverage in
the US, compared with US$100,000 for every US$10 million of
coverage in Hong Kong or China.
"There is already an upwards price movement for D&O insurance
[premium] in the past two years, and incidents like Didi may lead
to further increases," said Edward Shen, Head of casualty product
underwriting of Hong Kong-based reinsurer Peak Re, which does not
count Didi as a client.
Didi counts Singapore's Temasek Holding, Tencent Holding, and this
newspaper's owner Alibaba Group Holding as its financial backers.
Tencent's president Martin Lau and Alibaba's executive chairman
Daniel Zhang are directors on Didi's board. Since its listing, the
ride-hailing service's smartphone apps had been ordered to be
removed from app stores, and Didi has been investigated by a number
of Chinese regulators, including the national security ministry.
The Beijing-based ride-hailing company, with 90 per cent of China's
market, did not respond to queries by South China Morning Post
about the size of its D&O insurance and when the policy was
bought.
"Didi shall maintain directors' and officers' insurance in an
amount determined in good faith by the board to be appropriate,"
the company said in its US listing prospectus, attaching a
boilerplate indemnification agreement for its executives and
officers.
"The increased regulation from the Chinese government and the new
legislation being introduced in the US is likely to deter Chinese
firms from wanting to list in the US in the future," said Antony
Sassi, the Asia managing partner of the legal firm Reynolds Porter
Chamberlain (RPC). "For those already listed, these developments
may well result in them having to consider delisting in the next
couple of years. This could well be a positive for the Hong Kong
stock market."
"Chinese companies may well think twice before embarking on a US
listing going forward," he said.[GN]
DOMINICAN COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dominican College.
The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Dominican College, Case No.
1:21-cv-06267 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dominican College -- https://www.dc.edu/ -- formally the Dominican
College of Blauvelt, private college in Orangeburg, New York is
chartered by the Board of Regents of the University of the State of
New York and accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
DOMTAR CORPORATION: Anderson Sues Over Deceptive Proxy Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOMTAR CORPORATION, GIANNELLA ALVAREZ,
ROBERT E. APPLE, DAVID J. ILLINGWORTH, BRIAN M. LEVITT, DAVID G.
MAFFUCCI, DENIS TURCOTTE, and JOHN D. WILLIAMS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01956 (D. Colo., July 19, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, Domtar filed a materially false and/or
misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in order to convince stockholders to vote in favor of
the proposed acquisition of Domtar by Paper Excellence B.V. The
proxy statement is materially deficient and misleading because,
inter alia, it fails to disclose material information regarding:
(i) Domtar's financial projections and the financial analyses
performed by its financial advisor Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; and
(ii) Morgan Stanley's and company insiders' potential conflicts of
interest. Without such undisclosed information, Domtar stockholders
cannot evaluate for themselves whether to vote in favor of the
proposed transaction or seek appraisal. The Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the Defendants from conducting the stockholder vote on the
proposed transaction unless and until the material information is
disclosed to the stockholders.
Domtar Corporation is a producer of uncoated free-sheet paper, with
its principal executive offices located at 234 Kingsley Park Drive,
Fort Mill, South Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
- and –
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 860-9158
Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
E-mail: raymond@bespc.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 31 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
DraftKings Inc. f/k/a Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:
DKNG) ("DraftKings") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
DraftKings securities between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
DraftKings securities during the Class Period may, no later than
August 31, 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; toll free at
(844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/draftking-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=draftking
DraftKings operates as a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company in the U.S. It operates through two segments,
Business-to-Consumer and Business-to-Business (B2B). DraftKings
provides users with daily sports, sports betting, and iGaming
opportunities. It is also involved in the design, development, and
licensing of sports betting and casino gaming platform software for
online and retail sportsbook, and casino gaming products.
DraftKings distributes its product offerings through various
channels, including traditional websites, direct app downloads, and
direct-to-consumer digital platforms.
DraftKings was incorporated in Nevada as DEAC NV Merger Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of its legal predecessor, DEAC, a special
purpose acquisition company. On April 23, 2020, DEAC consummated
transactions contemplated by a Business Combination Agreement (the
"Business Combination") dated December 22, 2019, as amended on
April 7, 2020. In connection therewith, DEAC merged with and into
DraftKings, whereby DraftKings survived the merger and became the
successor issuer to DEAC. Also, DraftKings acquired all of the
issued and outstanding share capital of SBTech (Global) Limited
("SBTech"). SBTech is a full-service B2B turnkey technology
provider with omni-channel sports betting solutions, trading
services, and marketing and bonus tools powering popular sports
betting and online gaming brands.
The Class Period commences on December 23, 2019, when DraftKings
issued a press release announcing the Business Combination.
Throughout the Class Period, the defendants touted the acquisition
of SBTech and its business.
The truth about SBTech was revealed on June 15, 2021, when
Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a report alleging that
DraftKings' merger with SBTech exposed DraftKings to dealings in
black-market gaming. Citing "conversations with multiple former
employees, a review of SEC and international filings, and
inspection of back-end infrastructure at illicit international
gaming websites," Hindenburg alleged that "SBTech has a long and
ongoing record of operating in black markets," estimating that 50%
of SBTech's revenue is from markets where gambling is banned.
Following this news, DraftKings' stock price fell $2.11 per share,
or 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share on June 15, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) SBTech had a history of unlawful operations; (2)
accordingly, DraftKings' merger with SBTech exposed it to dealings
in black-market gaming; (3) the foregoing increased DraftKings'
regulatory and criminal risks with respect to these transactions;
(4) as a result of all the foregoing, DraftKings' 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, DraftKings' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
DraftKings investors may, no later than August 31, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Pay Wages and Taxes Owed, Bruehl Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW BRUEHL, M.D., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, DUKE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, and PRIVATE
DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC, PLLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00590
(M.D.N.C., July 19, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for submitting inaccurate tax information returns in the form of
W-2s and 1099s to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in
violation of 26 U.S. Constitution and failing to pay all wages and
taxes owed and making improper deductions from employees' wages in
violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is a licensed physician and a former employee of
Defendant DUHS and Defendant PDC.
Duke University is a non-profit educational institution with its
principal place of business in Durham, North Carolina.
Duke University School of Medicine (DU Med School) is a non-profit
educational institution with its principal place of business in
Durham, North Carolina.
Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) is a provider of academic
training to students of Duke University and clinical services to
patients, with its principal place of business in Durham, North
Carolina. It is often referred to as the Duke University Health
System (DUHS).
Private Diagnostic Clinic, PLLC (PDC) is a professional limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Durham,
North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Valerie Bateman, Esq.
FORREST FIRM, P.C.
406 Blackwell St., Suite 420
Durham, NC 27701
E-mail: valerie.bateman@forrestfirm.com
- and –
Rachel M. Blunk, Esq.
FORREST FIRM, P.C.
125 S Elm St., Suite 100
Greensboro, NC 27401
E-mail: rachel.blunk@forrestfirm.com
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Liantonio Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Nick Liantonio, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Dynamic
Recovery Solutions, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-04165
(E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions -- https://www.gotodrs.com/ -- is a
third-party collection agency licensed and bonded in all applicable
states to collect on past due accounts for its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
DYNAMIC WIRELESS: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE FLORES, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. DYNAMIC WIRELESS NYC LLC d/b/a METRO BY T-MOBILE, and
SAMIR ACHIBAT, Case 1:21-cv-06160 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the New York State Human Rights
Law.
Plaintiff seeks from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages, (2)
unpaid overtime wages, (3) unpaid wages due to timeshaving, (4)
illegal wage deductions, (5) liquidated damages, and (6) attorneys'
fees and costs.
The complaint alleges that Defendants had a time-shaving policy of
not compensating Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all
hours worked. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for an hour
of work per week for closing on Friday nights and deducted half an
hour per day for lateness several times per week. Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees are owed anywhere between one hour, up
to four hours per workweek. Defendants also had a policy of not
paying them a spread of hours premium at the prevailing New York
minimum wage rate. Further, Defendants took illegal wage
deductions, including for cash shortages, repayment of employer
losses (theft), and others, in violation of the NYLL, the complaint
says.
Defendant Achibat is the owner and operator of Defendant Dynamic
Wireless where Plaintiff worked from 2011 to June 25, 2021. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clara Lam, Esq.
BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Tel.: (718) 971-0326
Fax: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: clam@bkllawyers.com
EAGLEMOSS INC: Davis Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EAGLEMOSS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-06216 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
shop.eaglemoss.com, allegedly contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
fail to accurately describe the contents of graphical images, (b)
fail to properly label title, (c) fail to distinguish one page from
another, (d) contain multiple broken links, (e) contain headings
that do not describe the topic or purpose, and (f) the keyboard
user interfaces lack a mode of operation where the keyboard focus
indicator is visible.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Eaglemoss Inc. is a pop-culture collectibles company headquartered
in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Sofer FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is captioned as Sofer v. Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-05915-PMH (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern.
Enhanced Recovery provides debt collection and asset recovery and
reporting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu R. Babad,Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
EQUIFAX INFO: Judge Recommends Denial of Rivera Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO JOEL RIVERA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-04639-AT-CCB (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Bly recommended that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action alleging that
Defendant willfully and negligently violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), by failing to reinvestigate certain disputed
inquiries in consumer credit files.
The Plaintiff alleges that he disputed the inclusion of this
inquiry on his Equifax credit report multiple times, but Equifax,
in line with its longstanding company practice, failed to abide by
its obligation under 15 U.S.C. section 1681i(a)(1)(A) to either
reinvestigate Plaintiff's dispute or remove the inquiry.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class:
"During the period beginning two years prior to the filing of
this action and through the time of class notice, all persons
residing in the U.S. and its Territories to whom Equifax sent
a document containing a statement that "inquiries are a
factual record of file access" in response to a written
dispute of one or more hard inquiries."
A copy of the Judge Bly's recommendation dated July 16, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i5zCE4 at no
extra charge.[CC]
EXCELSIOR COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Excelsior College.
The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Excelsior College, Case No.
1:21-cv-06268 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Excelsior College -- https://www.excelsior.edu/ -- is a
not-for-profit accredited online institution that offers online
degree programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
FACEBOOK INC: To Pay $52 Million to Class of Content Moderators
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval has been granted for an unprecedented $52 million
class action settlement on behalf of content moderators who work as
contractors for Facebook according to an order entered by the Hon.
V. Raymond Swope in San Mateo County Superior Court, plaintiffs
announced. The settlement provides for substantive workplace
changes designed to mitigate the psychological harm that can be
caused by routinely viewing objectionable conduct. The award also
establishes a $52 million fund for ongoing mental health treatment
and other payments to class members.
"This settlement provides immediate change, and real financial
compensation for content moderators. We are very proud that we were
able to work with Facebook to reach this result for the content
moderators" said Steve Williams of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, one
of the lead counsel for the class.
Co-lead counsel Daniel Charest of Burns Charest said "This
groundbreaking litigation fixed a major workplace problem involving
developing technology and its impact on real workers who suffered
in order to make Facebook safer for its users. Ultimately, the
settlement is a great result for the class members."
More than 14,000 content moderators work for Facebook's vendors in
California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida. The workplace improvements
stemming from this settlement will apply to any U.S.-based content
moderation operations for Facebook. Filed in California state court
in Redwood City in September 2018, the lawsuit alleged that those
who performed content moderation work on behalf of Facebook were
denied protection against severe psychological damage and other
injuries which can result from repeated exposure to graphic
content, such as child sexual abuse, beheadings, terrorism, and
animal cruelty.
This settlement agreement with Facebook provides minimum monetary
relief of $1,000 to every member of the class. Class members
diagnosed with specified conditions because of their work reviewing
graphic and objectionable content will receive a further payment
that can be used to obtain medical treatment for that condition. In
addition, class members diagnosed with a specified condition may be
eligible for additional damage awards of up to $50,000 each,
dependent upon the amount remaining in the settlement fund after
screening and treatment payments.
Above and beyond this compensation, Facebook has agreed to take
significant measures to provide U.S.-based content moderators
employed by Facebook's vendors with a safer work environment. These
measures include requiring Facebook's vendors to provide coaching
sessions with licensed mental health counselors and other
mental-health support, as well as enhancing review tools to make
content moderators' work safer. In that sense, the settlement
protects former, current, and future content moderators.
The lawsuit is Scola v. Facebook Inc., No. 18-CIV05135, filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo County. For further information on the case, please visit
https://www.saverilawfirm.com/our-cases/facebook-content-moderators-safe-workplace-litigation/,
https://www.burnscharest.com/news/burns-charest-seeks-approval-of-52-million-class-action-settlement-with-facebook-on-behalf-of-u-s-based-content-moderator-class/,
and the Scola v. Facebook, Inc. settlement website at
https://contentmoderatorsettlement.com/.
About The Firms
The Joseph Saveri Law Firm is one of the country's most acclaimed,
successful boutique firms, specializing in antitrust class actions
and complex litigation on behalf of purchasers, businesses,
consumers, and employees across diverse industries. For further
information on our practice and accomplishments on behalf of our
clients, please visit www.saverilawfirm.com.
Burns Charest LLP is a litigation boutique with a national practice
representing consumers and businesses in complex litigation. To
learn more, visit www.burnscharest.com. [GN]
FEDERAL METAL: Storrs Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEON STORRS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FEDERAL METAL COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01364 (N.D. Ohio, July 16, 2021) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendant to challenge
its alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt heat welder and sorter form approximately 2018 to August
2019, and again from approximately August 2020 to November 26,
2020.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to compensate him
and other similarly situated heal welders and sorters for the time
they spent performing pre- and post-shift duties, for at least
approximately 20 minutes or more of compensable pre- and post-shift
work, which is integral and indispensable part of their principal
duties. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek,
the Defendant deprived them of overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
they worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
The Federal Metal Company manufactures and supplies brass and
bronze ingots. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Tel: (216) 230-2955
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W. Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Tel: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
FIDELITY FIRST: Romero Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fidelity First Real
Estate and Mortgage Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marlon
Romero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Fidelity First Real Estate and Mortgage Inc. doing business as:
Fidelity First Funding, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:21-cv-01233 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Fidelity First Funding -- https://www.fidelity1stfunding.com/ --
offer FHA Loan, Debt Consolidation, Mortgage, Home Equity, Home
Refinance & Low Credit Home Loan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
FILTERS FAST: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Proposed Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that 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]
FORD MOTOR: Class Action Continues for Shelby GT350 Mustang Owners
------------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Ford class action lawsuit
continues for consumers in nine states who allege 2016 Ford Shelby
GT350 Mustangs overheat and enter limp mode.
The Ford class action lawsuit was originally filed in 2017 for all
current and former owners and lessees nationwide of 2016 Ford
Shelby GT350 Mustang Base and Technology package models.
According to the lawsuit, the Mustangs overheat on tracks and
public roads and suddenly enter limp mode to protect the engines
from damage.
The plaintiffs who filed the Ford class action allege the cars are
advertised as track-ready, but those plaintiffs allege the Shelby
GT350 Base and Technology models are defective because they aren't
equipped with transmission and rear differential coolers.
The coolers are used to prevent the engines from overheating when
running at high RPM.
The 2016 Ford Shelby GT350 Mustang has five available packages,
including Base, Technology, Track, R, and R Technology packages.
The lowest packages, Base and Technology, are the cars involved in
the lawsuit and are not equipped with coolers, and Ford says they
were not advertised as being equipped with coolers.
The class action says track-ready Shelby GT350 Mustang owners are
told if they want coolers installed, Ford won't cover the cost
because the repairs aren't covered under any of Ford's warranties.
The plaintiffs also argue Ford installed coolers in 2017 Shelby
GT350 Mustangs because the automaker allegedly knew about the
overheating problems in model year 2016 cars.
According to the plaintiffs, customers purchased the 2016 Shelby
GT350 Base and Tech packages for the very purpose of sustained
track driving, making the cars useless when they enter limp mode.
Ford Class Action Lawsuit Certified in Nine States
What began as a nationwide class action was trimmed to class
certification in nine states:
Statutory and common law fraud classes in California, Florida,
Illinois, New York, and Washington; statutory fraud classes in
Missouri and Texas; common law fraud classes in Oregon and
Tennessee; and implied warranty and Magnuson-Moss classes in
California and Texas.
However, the judge dismissed claims concerning the cars entering
limp mode on public roads, as well as the express warranty claims
of any 2016 Shelby GT350 Mustang customers who did not present
their cars to dealers.
Express warranty claims were also dismissed for customers who did
not give Ford pre-lawsuit notice of filing the class action
lawsuit.
Also tossed are express and implied warranty claims of four
plaintiffs, and all claims of one other plaintiff.
The nine-state class action includes consumers who purchased 2016
Ford Shelby GT350 Mustang cars from Ford dealerships before April
1, 2016.
Ford fought class action certification by emphasizing it
specifically recommended 2016 Shelby GT350 Mustang Base and
Technology owners add transmission and differential coolers to the
cars if drivers planned on "sustained high speeds or track day
use."
Ford also says its "track-capable" advertising is "mere puffery"
because no one can even agree what track-capable means.
The automaker pointed to one plaintiff who said, "track capable can
mean different things to different people." Then another plaintiff
said he needed the MagneRide suspension in order to take his car to
the track, whereas a different plaintiff said the MagneRide
suspension was irrelevant.
Ford further argues there was no false advertising on the Base and
Technology models because the advertising for the higher-end "R"
and "Track" packages was not deceptive.
"In various brochures made available to dealers and consumers
before purchase, the R model was marketed as 'the most track-ready'
and recommended for 'hardcore track use' while the Track model was
touted as the 'track-day specialist.' In contrast, those same
materials were silent on the Base and Technology models' track
capabilities." -- Ford
Ford admits the cars were built to rapidly decelerate by entering
limp mode, but the automaker argues no warranties were breached
because limp mode is a safety feature, not a defect or
malfunction.
And while the plaintiffs claim the overheating from a lack of
coolers is the defect, Ford argues the engines never overheated
precisely because limp mode was activated to protect the engines
from overheating.
However, the judge says he can easily see why consumers believe the
2016 Ford Shelby GT350 Mustangs were ready for serious track
driving.
"There should be no doubt that Ford touted the Shelby lineup as
designed for the track. Other advertising materials include phrases
like "an all-day track car that's also street legal," "tested
endlessly on the most challenging roads and tracks in the world,"
"we wanted to build the best possible Mustang for the places we
most love to drive - challenging back roads with a variety of
corners and elevation changes - and the track on weekends," and
finally described the Mustang as "track-focused." - Judge Federico
A. Moreno
The Ford class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida: Tershakovec, et al., v Ford
Motor Company.
The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman, and Grossman Roth
Yaffa Cohen. [GN]
FRANCE: Police Targeted in Class-Action Over Racial Profiling
-------------------------------------------------------------
france24.com reports that a group of NGOs filed a class-action
lawsuit against the French state over alleged racial profiling by
the police, an issue that has poisoned relations between the police
and minority youths. In January, six NGOs, including Human Rights
Watch and the French branch of Amnesty International, had warned
they would take legal action if the government did not take steps
to end what they called discriminatory identity checks within four
months. [GN]
FULL TRUCK: Pratyush Hits Share Drop Over Tech Law Non-compliance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kohli Pratyush, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (FTA), Peter
Hui Zhang, Simon Chong Cai, Colleen A. De Vries, Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC, China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong
Securities Limited, Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., and Cogency
Global, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03903, (E.D. N.Y., July
12, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
FTA purports to, with its subsidiaries, operate a digital freight
platform that connects shippers with truckers to facilitate
shipments in the People's Republic of China offering freight
listing, matching and brokerage services and online transaction
services, as well as various value-added services. Peter Hui Zhang
was at the time of the IPO its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Board of Directors, Simon Chong Cai was at the time of the
IPO its Chief Financial Officer. Colleen A. De Vries was at the
time the duly authorized representative in the United States on
behalf of Defendant Cogency Global Inc. Morgan Stanley is an
investment banking firm that acted as a representative underwriter
of the its IPO while China International Capital Corporation Hong
Kong Securities Limited acted as representative underwriter of the
IPO, helping to draft and disseminate the IPO documents.
In June 2021, Defendants held an initial public offering of
approximately 82,500,000 American Depositary Shares (ADS) to the
investing public at $19.00 per ADS.
The IPO's Registration Statement allegedly failed to disclose that
the company's practices were apparently non-compliant with relevant
technology laws and violated China's regulatory laws with regards
to data security.
On this news, FTA ADSs fell $1.27 per ADS, or over 6%, to close at
$17.75 per ADS on July 6, 2021, the next trading day, damaging
investors. Pratyush purchased FTA securities and was economically
damaged thereby. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10116
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
FULL TRUCK: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 10 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Full Truck Alliance
Co. Ltd. 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.
Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (NYSE:YMM)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/full-truck-alliance-co-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=17925&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Full Truck's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection
with Full Truck's June 2021 initial public offering.
Allegations against YMM include that: (1) Full Truck's apps
Yunmanman and Huochebang would face an imminent cybersecurity
review by the Chinese government; (2) the Chinese government would
require Full Truck to suspend new user registration; (3) FTA needed
to conduct a "comprehensive self-examination of any cybersecurity
risks"; (4) Full Truck 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.
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. [GN]
GATE GOURMET: Moore Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PASCAL MOORE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. GATE GOURMET, INC. and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV17642, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
July 19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-05834 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to authorize
or permit meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest breaks,
failure to timely pay earned wages during employment, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay
all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of
employment, and unfair business practices.
Gate Gourmet, Inc. is a provider of airline catering solutions and
provisioning services for airlines, with its principal place of
business in Reston, Virginia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Douglas J. Farmer, Esq.
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 442-4810
Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
E-mail: douglas.farmer@ogletree.com
brian.berry@ogletree.com
GOOGLE LLC: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Sandofsky FCRA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW SANDOFSKY, an individual, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 21-10052-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor,
IV, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
The case is a putative class action brought under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681. Plaintiff
Sandofsky has brought suit against the Defendant, alleging that
Google failed to ensure that the "consumer reports" it generates
are accurate and that it failed to remove information on its
platform that may be harmful to the public. Sandofsky, who is an
attorney, is proceeding pro se. He brings the action on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals -- presumably,
anyone as to whom Google has produced search results, and thus a
"consumer report."
The complaint alleges that Google generates "consumer reports" in
violation of the FCRA. Specifically, it alleges that Google
provides a search engine that indexes internet content into a
searchable database "which, upon a user's request, is produced in
the form of a list of hyperlinks, accompanied by concise
descriptions of the content contained within each, and ordered
according to their importance to the individual user." It further
alleges that employers, landlords, and others use the Google search
engine "to find data on individual consumers for the purpose of
evaluating whether to transact business with them, employ them, or
associate with them generally." In addition, it contends that
Google has a policy that "it will not remove content from its
search results unless the author of such content has removed it
from their website or it creates significant risks of identity
theft, financial fraud, or other specific harms."
According to the complaint, Google presently produces search
results associated with Sandofsky's name upon request, without
permission, and for a profit. In particular, it contends that a
link to "mylife.com" appears as a search result on Google, which is
a website that allegedly contains records of a 2007 arrest related
to Sandofsky.
Mr. Sandofsky filed the initial complaint in the case on Jan. 11,
2021. The complaint was then amended on Jan. 26, 2021. It alleges
a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681, and a state-law product-liability claim based on an
alleged design defect.
On April 30, 2021, Google moved to dismiss the amended complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Analysis
A. Documents Attached to Sandofsky's Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss
As a preliminary matter, Sandofsky requests that the Court takes
judicial notice of various exhibits to his opposition to the motion
to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2). He contends that
the Court can take judicial notice of the exhibits pursuant to Fed.
R. Evid. 201.
Judge Saylor notes that the rule allows a court to take judicial
notice of adjudicative facts, which are facts "not subject to
reasonable dispute" either because they "are generally known within
the trial court's territorial jurisdiction" or "can be accurately
and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned." But that is a rule of evidence, not a
rule of pleading, and it does not trump the requirements of the
rules of civil procedure. Accordingly, the Judge will not take
judicial notice of any of the documents attached as exhibits to
Sandofsky's opposition to the motion to dismiss.
B. FCRA Claim
Judge Saylor holds that the complaint does not contain sufficient
allegations of a FCRA violation to survive a motion to dismiss.
Crucially, it contains no information providing a plausible basis
that Google actually is a consumer reporting agency. Instead, it
merely asserts, in conclusory terms, that "in as much as Google
returns search results on consumers not generally the subject of
publicity, Google is a credit reporting agency under the FCRA." It
therefore does not plead sufficient "factual content" for the FCRA
claim to be plausible on its face. Rather, it "merely recites the
language of the FCRA in an attempt to come within the confines of
the FCRA, or stretch the statutory language beyond its intended
purpose," and therefore must be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the FCRA claim will
be granted.
C. Product Liability Claim
Mr. Sandofsky also contends that Google's search engine is
defectively designed and "unreasonably dangerous" because it
"invites extortionists to promote their business by piggy backing
on the search results it produces as its algorithm quickly learns
to favor such content." He contends that Google failed to
"maintain appropriate procedures for the expedient review and
deletion of materials on its platform that may cause harm to the
public," and alleges that "Google is fully aware of millions of
consumers affected by its behavior yet it refuses to adopt
appropriate mitigation measures."
Judge Saylor finds that it is not entirely clear what Sandofsky
contends is his injury as part of the product liability claim.
However, it is clear that he has not alleged any personal physical
harm or harm to any of his property. The complaint therefore does
not state a claim for relief based on a product-liability theory
and will be dismissed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Saylor granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ss4b2dz from Leagle.com.
GPM INVESTMENTS: Faces Froom Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA FROOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GPM INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00859-WCG (E.D. Wis., July 21, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws including
failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay an agreed-upon
wage.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a customer service
associate and/or gas station attendant in Wausau, Wisconsin.
GPM Investments, LLC is an investment company headquartered in
Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, 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
GUARANTEED RATE: Rios Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUARANTEED RATE AFFINITY, LLC, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV26503 (Cal. Sup.
Ct., July 19, 2021) alleges the Defendants of violations of the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(PAGA).
The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as non-exempt
employee, asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants failed to pay all wages to their non-exempt
employees, including minimum wages and overtime wages;
-- The Defendants failed to provide them lawful meal periods
or compensation in lieu thereof, and rest breaks or compensation in
lieu thereof;
-- The Defendants failed to provide them itemized wage
statements; and
-- The Defendants failed to pay wages due upon separation of
employment.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated aggrieved
employees, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking monetary
relief, including reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs,
and other relief as the Court deems juts and proper.
Guaranteed Rate Affinity, LLC provides residential mortgage lending
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: JCampbell@aegislawfirm.com
HAMILTON POINT: Hidalgo Seeks August 3 Extension to File Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hidalgo v. Hamilton Point
Granary, LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01637-PAE-DCF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time to
file Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for conditional collective certification.
The Plaintiff requests an extension of two weeks, from July 20,
2021 to August 3, 2021. The purpose of this extension is to allow
the parties the opportunity to engage in settlement discussions.
This is Plaintiff’s first request for an extension, and
Defendants’ consent to the extension.
A copy Plaintiff's motion dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rAEpk2 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: 212-465-1180
Facsimile: 212-465-1181
E-mail: INFO@LEELITIGATION.COM
HANOVER VENTURES: Gonzalez Seeks Conditional Collective Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNY GONZALEZ, on behalf
of himself, and all FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v.
HANOVER VENTURES MARKETPLACE LLC, d/b/a LE DISTRICT, JOHN DOE
COMPANY 1, d/b/a HPH HOSPITALITY, PAUL LAMAS, PETER A POULAKAKOS,
NICOLAS ABELLO, and DAVID COUCKE, Case No. 1:21-cv-01347-ER
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion for conditional collective certification.
HPH is a New York City restaurant and development company led by
restaurateur Peter Poulakakos and his business partner Paul Lamas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rC0Jd0
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, are:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24 th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
HAWAI'I: Provisional Class Certification in Chatman v. DPS Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY CHATMAN, FRANCISCO ALVARADO, ZACHARY GRANADOS,
TYNDALE MOBLEY, and JOSEPH DEGUAIR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAX N. OTANI, Director
of State of Hawai'i, Department of Public Safety, in his official
capacity, Defendant, Civil No. 21-00268 JAO-KJM (D. Haw.), Judge
Jill A. Otake of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii:
(i) grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class
Certification; and
(ii) grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
Order.
The putative class action concerns the alleged conditions in
Hawaii's prisons and jails that have contributed to multiple
COVID-19 outbreaks. The Plaintiffs contend that the Department of
Public Safety ("DPS"), headed by Defendant Otani, has mishandled
the pandemic and failed to implement its Pandemic Response Plan in
violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The Plaintiffs are currently incarcerated or detained at DPS
correctional facilities in Hawai'i. They allege that the Defendant
has mishandled and failed to manage outbreaks at its facilities
notwithstanding its Response Plan, which has been in place since
March 2020.
In particular, the Plaintiffs identify the following deficiencies:
(1) housing up to 60 residents/detainees in a single room; (2)
failure to provide adequate water; (3) failure to provide sanitary
living conditions or proper hygiene; (4) failure to separate
COVID-positive inmates; (5) failure to properly quarantine new
intakes; (6) failure to communicate with DPS staff and inmates
regarding proper COVID-19 protocols; (7) failure to protect elderly
and medically vulnerable inmates; (8) failure to allow adequate
social distancing; (9) failure to provide personal protective
equipment or enforce proper mask wearing; and (10) failure to
consistently or adequately evaluate, monitor, and treat inmates
with COVID-19 symptoms.
The Plaintiffs propose the following classes and subclasses:
a. Post-Conviction Class: All present and future sentenced
prisoners incarcerated in a Hawai'i prison.
b. Post-Conviction Medical Subclass: Includes all present and
future Post-Conviction Class members whose medical condition
renders them especially vulnerable to COVID-19 as determined by
guidelines promulgated by the CDC. See U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, People Who Are At Higher Risk (last viewed
June 9, 2021) https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html.
c. Pretrial Class: All present and future pretrial detainees
incarcerated in a Hawai'i jail.
d. Pretrial Medical Subclass: Includes all present and future
Pretrial Class members whose medical condition renders them
especially vulnerable to COVID-19 as determined by guidelines
promulgated by the CDC. See U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, People Who Are At Higher Risk (last viewed June 9,
2021) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/
need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html.
The Plaintiffs initiated the action on April 28, 2021, in the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i. On June 8,
2021, the Defendants and the other originally named defendants
removed the action. The Plaintiffs immediately filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and
Declaratory Judgment ("FAC") and the Injunction Motion.
On June 18, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Supplement to the
Injunction Motion.
On June 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC pursuant to a
stipulation entered into by the parties and approved by Magistrate
Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield. The SAC asserts three causes of action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 28 U.S.C. Section 2241:
unconstitutional punishment in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment (Count One), unconstitutional conditions of confinement
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count Two), and
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the
Eighth Amendment (Count Three). The first claim applies to the
pretrial subclass, the second claim applies to the pretrial class,
and the third claim applies to the post-conviction subclass.
The Plaintiffs request injunctive relief to require the Defendant
to implement the Proposed Response Plan that includes the
following:
a. Physically distance all residents from one another and
staff within DPS correctional facilities, which imposes at least
six feet of distance between individuals at all times;
b. Provide all residents in DPS custody sanitary living
conditions (i.e., ensure regular access to a working toilet, sink,
and drinking water);
c. Identify residents who may be high-risk for COVID-19
complications, in accordance with guidelines from the CDC, and
prioritize these individuals for medical isolation or housing in
single cells;
d. On a daily basis, thoroughly and professionally disinfect
and sanitize the DPS correctional facilities; and
e. Provide hygiene supplies that are not watered down,
including supplies to wash hands and disinfect common areas, to
inmates at all times and free of charge.
The Plaintiffs pray for certification of the proposed classes and
subclasses, entry of judgment declaring the Defendant's practices
and actions violated the Constitution, entry of an order requiring
Defendant to execute the Proposed Response Plan, appointment of a
special master to oversee the development and implementation of the
Proposed Response Plan, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendant filed his Opposition and the Plaintiffs filed their
Reply to the Injunction Motion on June 23 and 25, 2021,
respectively. On June 28, 2021, the Defendant filed his Opposition
to the Class Certification Motion. The Plaintiffs filed their
Reply on July 1, 2021.
The Court held a hearing on the Injunction Motion and Class
Certification Motion on July 8, 2021.
Discussion
I. Class Certification
The Plaintiffs request provisional certification of their proposed
classes and subclasses for the purposes of their requested
preliminary injunctive relief and ask that they be appointed as
class representative and that their counsel be appointed as class
counsel. They argue that class certification is appropriate
because they satisfy the requirements set forth in FRCP 23(a) and
23(b)(2). The Defendant challenges certification for lack of
commonality and typicality, and he also contends that certification
pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) is inappropriate.
Judge Otake begins with FRCP 23(a)'s prerequisites. First, she
finds that the numerosity requirement -- uncontested by the
Defendant -- is easily satisfied, as there are nearly 3,000
residents housed at DPS facilities, and the joinder of these class
members would be impracticable. Second, the Plaintiffs satisfy the
commonality requirement because central to the lawsuit is the
Defendant's alleged failure to comply with its Response Plan, and
the resulting harm to DPS inmates/detainee. Third, the Plaintiffs
satisfy the typicality requirement as their injuries "arose from
the same event or practice or course of conduct that gave rise to
the claims of other class members and his claims were based on the
same legal theory." Fourth, the Plaintiffs and their counsel do
not have conflicts with other class members and that they will
vigorously prosecute the classes' interests, as they have to date.
Because the Plaintiffs have satisfied FRCP 23(a)'s prerequisites,
Judge Otake now turns to FRCP 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs challenge
the conditions of their confinement under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments and the Defendant's failure to mitigate the spread of
COVID-19 in DPS facilities. They seek injunctive relief requiring
the Defendant to implement protocols and adhere to procedures to
prevent COVID-19 transmission. This relief conforms with FRCP
23(b)(2), Judge Otake holds. Contrary to the Defendant's assertion
that an injunctive class cannot be certified because of the
differences between facilities, the class members are allegedly
suffering the same or similar injury that can be alleviated for all
by uniform changes in and/or adherence to DPS policies and
practices statewide. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have satisfied
FRCP 23(b)(2).
The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs' class definitions
are overbroad because other cases certifying classes did not
involve classes of inmates at all correctional facilities within a
given state, and the classes should not include vaccinated inmates
or those who recovered from COVID-19. These arguments are without
merit, Judge Otake finds. She says the Court already rejected the
Defendant's argument that the differences between facilities
precludes certification and is again unpersuaded by the Defendant's
contention that these differences render the class definitions
unworkable. Regardless of the facilities' distinctions, all class
members would obtain relief from the issuance of the proposed
injunction.
Having met FRCP 23(a)'s and 23(b)(2)'s requirements, the Plaintiffs
are entitled to provisional class certification.
II. TRO/Preliminary Injunction
A. Winter Factors
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must
establish: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a
likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in favor of the plaintiff,
and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Nat.
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Judge Otake now turns to the Winter factors to determine whether
the Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction. The
Plaintiffs urge the Court to review their requested injunction as
prohibitory, not mandatory, because they are requesting maintenance
of the status quo, defined by Defendant as DPS facilities
implementing the Response Plan. Insofar as the Plaintiffs claim
that DPS is not complying with its Response Plan, and they request
the appointment of a special master to develop and implement their
Proposed Response Plan, they arguably seek a mandatory injunction,
i.e., an order requiring the Defendant to take certain action.
Even though DPS claims it is compliant, the problematic conditions
identified by the Plaintiff would not change if the status quo is
merely maintained, and the Plaintiffs would not obtain the relief
they desire. Assuming without deciding that the requested
injunction is mandatory, Judge Otake finds that the Plaintiffs meet
the corresponding stringent standard. The Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that there is a strong likelihood of success on the
merits of their claims, that they will suffer irreparable injury if
relief is not granted, and that the balance of hardships and public
interest weigh heavily in their favor. And because they satisfy
this standard, they would easily meet the more lenient "sliding
scale" standard also employed by the Ninth Circuit.
B. Scope of Injunctive Relief
The Plaintiffs request the same injunctive relief in the Injunction
Motion that they ultimately seek in the litigation -- the
appointment of a special master pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
3626(f)(1)(A) to oversee the development and implementation of
their Proposed Response Plan.
Judge Otake explains it is typically improper "to grant the moving
party the full relief to which he might be entitled if successful
at the conclusion of a trial. This is particularly true where the
relief afforded, rather than preserving the status quo, completely
changes it." But even if the injunction is mandatory, it is mild
because it merely requires the Defendant to adhere to its Response
Plan and employ practices that comport with CDC guidelines.
Accordingly, the Judge denies the Plaintiffs' request to appoint a
special master. This does not foreclose the possibility that a
special master or another person with a similarly contemplated role
may be appointed in the future, if appropriate.
Although the Plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief is largely
appropriate, Judge Otake has made necessary adjustments to ensure
that the relief is narrowly tailored to correct the constitutional
violations identified and is the least intrusive means to correct
the harm to the Plaintiffs. Based on the foregoing, Judge Otake
the Injunction Motion and orders the Defendant to fully comply with
the Response Plan, focusing in particular on the following: (i)
Section 3.a (Good Health Habits); (ii) Section 3.b (Environmental
Cleaning); (iii) Section 3.c (Social Distancing Measures); (iv)
Section 3.d (Encourage the use of Masks and Other No-Contact
Barriers); (v) Section 6 (New Intake Screening); (vi) Section 8
(Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)); (vii) Section 10 (Medical
Isolation/Cohorting (Symptomatic Persons)); (viii) Section 12
(Quarantine (Asymptomatic Exposed Persons)) - with an emphasis on
the provisions concerning the (1) identification of inmates who are
at increased risk for severe illness and (2) single cell and
available housing prioritization of inmates with increased risk of
severe illness from COVID-19; (ix) Section 13 (Surveillance for New
Cases).
The Defendant is further ordered to: (i) provide sanitary living
conditions to all inmates in DPS custody, i.e., regular access to a
working toilet, sink, and drinking water; and (ii) prohibit DPS
employees from restricting access to inmate grievance forms or from
preventing the submission of grievances with respect to COVID-19
issues.
Oversight is referred to Magistrate Judge Mansfield, who is
authorized to address compliance with the preliminary injunction,
engage in factfinding procedures he deems appropriate, and issue
certified factual findings to the undersigned. The parties are
directed to attend status conferences with Magistrate Judge
Mansfield once a month. One week prior to each status conference,
the parties will file a joint status report. I f they are unable to
do so, they will file separate status reports. The parties are
directed to contact Magistrate Judge Mansfield's chambers to
schedule the first status conference. The parties need not file a
status report but should be prepared to discuss compliance with the
injunction.
C. FRCP 65(c)
FRCP 65(c) permits a court to grant preliminary injunctive relief
"only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court
considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any
party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained." Judge
Otake points out that while this language appears to be mandatory,
Rule 65(c) invests the district court with discretion as to the
amount of security required, if any. Based on the class
composition and record before it, she waives the bond requirement.
Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Otake granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class Certification, and (2)
grants in part and denies in part their Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3f95vs92 from Leagle.com.
HAYNES INVESTMENTS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Brice Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, KIMETRA BRICE, et al., Plaintiffs v. HAYNES
INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al., Defendants. KIMETRA BRICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. MIKE STINSON, et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
18-cv-01200-WHO, 19-cv-01481-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H.
Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California:
(1) denied the Defendants move for summary judgment;
(2) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment; and
(3) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude two of the
Defendants' experts in the class action case involving the
Defendants' alleged scheme to charge illegally high rates
of interest to consumers.
Plaintiffs and named class representatives Kimetra Brice, Earl
Browne, and Jill Novorot are (or for part of the class period were)
California residents who took out short term loans with allegedly
illegally high rates of interest from entities run through Native
American Tribes; Great Plains Lending, LLC and/or Plain Green, LLC.
The remaining Defendants in these cases are alleged to be
founders, funders, or owners of now-defunct Think Finance, LLC, the
entity through which the allegedly illegal "Tribal Lending Scheme"
was organized, financed, and run.
The Defendants move for summary judgment and the Plaintiffs move
for partial summary judgment and to exclude two of the Defendants'
experts in the class action case involving the Defendants' alleged
scheme to charge illegally high rates of interest to consumers.
Discussion
I. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
The Defendants make a number of arguments in support of summary
judgment, but those arguments implicate numerous disputed and
material questions of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact.
A. Individual Person/Entity Liability
First, the Defendants argue, as they did on their motion to
dismiss, that Linda Stinson and Shaper cannot be liable for their
conduct as directors of Think Finance, because those claims were
released as part of the Think Finance bankruptcy. Second, they
argue that Shaper and Linda Stinson cannot be individually liable
as they were merely operating as directors or shareholders of Think
Finance and, therefore, are shielded from liability by the
corporate form. Third, they contend that the Plaintiffs have
failed to adduce facts showing that Defendant company 7HBF No. 2
Ltd., which simply held Think Finance shares, could be liable to
the Plaintiffs.
Judge Orrick holds that the Defendants' arguments regarding Linda
Stinson and Shaper's protections under Think Finance's corporate
form, the scope of the Bankruptcy Release, and the potential
liability of 7HBF may limit some of these Defendants' potential
liability, but disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment
at this juncture to Linda Stinson, Shaper, or 7HBF.
First, at this juncture, the Plaintiffs have identified evidence
from which reasonable jurors could find that the Think Finance
shareholders/owners directed to some extent the conduct of the
Board and management of Think Finance. Second, there is sufficient
but disputed evidence regarding Shaper and Linda Stinson's central
roles in the conduct of these entities such that a jury should
decide whether each of these defendants either directed the
tortious conduct or otherwise exercised "close personal control"
over the entities' tortious activity. Lastly, to the extent the
allegations are that the various Harvison individuals were acting
on behalf of and for the benefit of 7HBF, the fact that some
individual liability may be released for acts committed as Board
members of Think Finance (e.g., acts taken pursuant to their
fiduciary duties running to Think Finance) does not automatically
preclude 7HBF's potential liability.
B. RICO
The Defendants move for summary judgment on each of the Plaintiffs'
four causes of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(a)-(d).
Specifically, the Defendants contend the Plaintiffs have failed:
(i) to demonstrate proximate cause and therefore standing to bring
the RICO claims against these Defendants; (ii) to show these
Defendants have "collected" unlawful debts as required under
sections 1962(a) through (c); (iii) lack evidence to support
violations of Section 1962 (a), (b) and (c); and (iv) the
conspiracy claim fails because at most the evidence shows a
conspiracy to collect unlawful debts but not a conspiracy to
violate RICO.
Judge Orrick denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
the RICO claims. He finds that (i) there is sufficient albeit
disputed evidence at this juncture to satisfy proximate causation;
(ii) the loans set an allegedly usurious interest rate and required
repayment on a set schedule to avoid penalties and fees; (iii) the
Plaintiffs have theories they may present to the jury to satisfy
the "injury investment rule"; (iv) the Plaintiffs may be able to
convince a reasonable juror that the collection of unlawful debts
by these Defendants allowed these Defendants to acquire or maintain
their control of Think Finance and the larger Enterprise, and that
these Defendants' interests in Think Finance and the larger
Enterprise were not otherwise "legitimate" for other legal
purposes; (v) there is sufficient, albeit disputed, evidence that
each Defendant understood, intended, and directed the Enterprise's
running of loans through the Tribal Entities; and (vi) there is
sufficient but disputed evidence that each Defendant not only
knowingly agreed to facilitate the Tribal Lending Scheme through
the RICO Enterprise but also allegedly directed and controlled the
RICO Enterprise, whose sole existence (as well as the primary if
not sole purpose of Think Finance) was to generate usurious loans
through those schemes.
C. State Law Claims
The Defendants also move for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
California law claims, arguing they are barred by the statute of
limitations and that the claims otherwise fail.
Judge Orrick holds that the contracts have very similar waivers and
provisions that could have lulled the Plaintiffs into not
attempting to file suit to remedy both their federal and state law
claims. Equitable tolling appears to apply. Any final
determination will be based on a review of the evidence at trial
regarding not only the Defendants' conduct, expectations, and
knowledge of or direction over the terms of the loan agreements
used in the Tribal Lending Scheme, but also the conduct and
testimony of the Plaintiffs. The Judge also finds that the
Defendants point to no evidence or unconsidered caselaw that would
result in a different conclusion at this juncture as to Haynes or
any other Defendant. Finally, he holds that it is not clear that
the basis of the fraudulent transfer claim or the relief being
sought under that claim is coextensive with the unjust enrichment
claim asserted.
For these reasons, Defendants' 7HBF No. 2, Ltd., Stephen J. Shaper,
Linda Stinson, Michael Stinson, Haynes Investment, LLC, and L.
Stephen Hayne's Motion For Summary Judgment is denied.
II. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
The Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on the following
issues: (i) the choice-of-law provisions in the loan contracts are
unenforceable; (ii) California law applies to the loans; (iii)
tribal immunity does not apply to the Defendants/the loans (Third
Affirmative Defense); (iv) the RICO conspiracy claim has been
established, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d); and (v) the substantive
RICO violation under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) has been
established.
A. Choice of Law
The Plaintiffs argue that the loan contracts' choice of law
provisions selecting tribal law is uniformly unenforceable. In
their opposition, the Defendants do not attempt to address their
prior failure to demonstrate that adequate remedies exist under
tribal law or otherwise explain why Judge Orrick should depart from
his prior analysis. They simply rehash their arguments, relying on
the same cases the Judge already addressed or considered in
connection with their motions to compel, to dismiss, or to stay
pending appeal in these consolidated cases. He need not revisit
the issue. The choice of law provision mandating tribal law is
unenforceable and the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment on this ground is granted.
B. California Law Applies
Absent the contractual provision, there is only one choice of law
to apply, California. Contrary to the Defendants' arguments, there
are no material questions of fact that preclude my determination
that California law applies. California law is the only law left
that could apply to the Plaintiffs' and the class members' claims.
Hence, the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to
the applicability of California law is granted.
C. Tribal Immunity Does Not Apply
The Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on the Defendants' third
affirmative defense; that some Defendants are protected by or some
claims extinguished by tribal immunity. In their opposition, the
Defendants admit they personally "are not entitled to assert or
invoke sovereign immunity as a defense to these claims" but
nonetheless argue the Plaintiffs' litigation "of these claims
against shareholders of entities providing contractual services to
those lenders is a significant infringement on the sovereignty of
the tribes."
Judge Orrick holds that the Defendants miss the point. The claims
hinge on the personal conduct of the Defendants. While that
conduct is based in significant part on the services the Defendants
personally engaged in or approved to be provided to the Tribes, the
claims do not impede on the sovereignty of the Tribes where the
Tribes are not defendants in the case and no Tribal Entities
remain. Absent apposite caselaw or facts showing how the action
"interferes with the purpose or operation of a federal policy
regarding tribal interests," tribal immunity is irrelevant to the
action. Judge Orrick granted the Plaintiffs' motion on the
inapplicability of tribal immunity.
D. RICO Conspiracy
The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(d) is denied. Disputed facts regarding the role of
each Defendant alleged to be involved in the Tribal Lending Scheme
regarding their individual knowledge of the purpose of the Tribal
Lending Scheme, disputed facts regarding the benefits they received
from the Tribal Lending Scheme, as well as disputed facts regarding
their knowledge of the extent of the Enterprise's activities
preclude summary judgment on the RICO conspiracy claim.
E. RICO Enterprise
Judge Orrick also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c). He says material
disputes of fact exist regarding the scope of the Enterprise and
the relationships between the various entities. The same is true
regarding the relationship between the various Defendants alleged
to be "persons" within the Enterprise and their responsibility for
managing, controlling, or directing the Enterprise. With respect
to the unlawful debt issue, the Judge says more foundation needs to
be laid at trial regarding the RSM data and what it supports
concerning the rate and amount of interest actually paid by class
members. At trial, the Plaintiffs will need to authenticate and
prove up the contents of the RSM data through RSM, an expert, or
another source with sufficient knowledge in order to show how much
usurious interest class members actually paid.
III. Plaintiffs' Motions to Exclude
The Plaintiffs move to exclude the testimony of Lance G. Morgan,
who opines generally on the comparison of the agreements the Tribal
Lending Entities entered into with various Defendants to "other
tribal corporate structures, strategies, and operational and
financial partnering relationships," whether it was "rational" for
the Tribal Entities to "outsource several elements of their
respective business operations" to the Defendants and others and
how that outsourcing compares to "other emerging tribal
industries," and whether it was "rational" for the Tribes to enter
into their respective agreements with some of the Defendants. The
Plaintiffs argue that Morgan is not qualified to opine on issues
relevant to the case and should be excluded under Rules 403 and 702
in light of the danger of misleading the jury, and that his
testimony is largely irrelevant, unreliable, or inadmissible legal
argument and opinion and therefore it should be likewise excluded
under Rules 403 and 702 as well as under Daubert v. Merell Dow
Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 178 (Mot. to Exclude
Morgan).
The Plaintiffs also move to exclude the testimony of Eric C. Henson
who opines generally on federal policy encouraging American Indian
economic development and self-sufficiency, that the tribal
governments at issue entered into "mutually beneficial business
arrangements with outside parties that facilitated tribal efforts
to engage in online lending," that "revenues raised by the Tribes
were directed to essential governmental services," that the
Plaintiffs' allegations "are dismissive of the role played by the
governments of the Tribes," and the Plaintiffs' "efforts to
prohibit the Tribes' lending activities directly impair the ability
of the Tribes to generate revenues." They argue that Henson is not
an expert on any issue relevant to the case, he impermissibly bases
his testimony here on other matters, his testimony is unreliable,
and he offers excludable legal opinions and argument all of which
must be excluded under Rules 403, 702 and Daubert.
Judge Orrick granted the Plaintiffs' motions to exclude under Rule
403. He finds that both of these experts opine on issues that are
not directly relevant to the resolution of the claims against the
Defendants remaining in these consolidated cases. Whether the
structure of the arrangements between the Tribes and some of the
Defendants are similar to other prior or subsequent arrangements is
not relevant to the potential RICO liability or liability under
California law. Similarly, how the Tribes spent the money they
received from these arrangements and the social utility of that
income to the Tribes is similarly irrelevant to the claims at
issue, except to the scope of the financial benefit vis-à-vis
non-Tribal entities. However, that issue can be established
through documentary and percipient witness testimony. In addition,
what terms should or should not be used at trial should be
addressed through the parties' motions in limine.
IV. Administrative Motion to Seal
The Plaintiffs filed conditionally under seal documents and
information marked as confidential by third-parties in related
proceedings. Neither the Defendants nor the third-parties have
submitted a declaration in support of continued sealing under the
compelling justifications standard.
Judge Orrick recognizes that some of all of these third-parties may
be defunct and that the documents or information may have been
designated for confidential treatment in other matters and produced
for use in the litigation under protective orders issued in other
jurisdictions. However, these consolidated actions are on the
verge of trial. The fact that these documents may have been
produced under protective orders issued in other jurisdictions will
no longer suffice to keep the information under seal for purposes
of summary judgment or trial. Representatives of the third-parties
or others whose interests align with them must submit a declaration
demonstrating existing, compelling justifications for the continued
sealing this information. Any such declaration will be submitted
by Aug. 2, 2021. If no such declarations are filed, the Court will
unseal the information at issue.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Orrick denied the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment. He granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. He also
granted the Plaintiffs' motions to exclude.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/zdy75fe3 from Leagle.com.
HILBERT COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hilbert College. The
case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Hilbert College, Case No.
1:21-cv-06266 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hilbert College, located in Hamburg, N.Y., south of Buffalo --
https://www.hilbert.edu/ -- is a private four-year college founded
in 1957 in the Catholic Franciscan tradition.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
HOME DEPOT: Carlson Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS CARLSON,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign corporation; and THE HOME DEPOT,
INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01150-MJP (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying case as a class action under Rule 23, defining
the
class as follows:
"All individuals employed by Home Depot as in-store
supervisors or specialists in Washington state at any time
between June 26, 2017 and the date of the Order granting
class certification in this matter;"
2. designating Mr. Carlson as Class Representative;
3. appointing Adam J. Berger and Elizabeth Hanley of
Schroeter Goldmark & Bender as Class Counsel; and
4. approving that notice of this action be provided to the
Class.
The Defendants operate the largest chain of hardware and home
improvement stores in the United States. The Plaintiff Chris
Carlson was employed by Home Depot for approximately 15 years,
including approximately eight years as a supervisor of various
departments in the Company's Federal Way, Washington store. As a
result of the Company's lean staffing, high customer demand, and
"Customers First" philosophy, supervisors like Mr. Carlson and
department specialists like those he supervised were frequently
unable to take the timely, full rest and meal breaks required by
Washington law.
Mr. Carlson brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and other
supervisors and specialists employed by Home Depot in Washington
state to recover back wages and damages under the Washington
Industrial Welfare Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and the
Washington Wage Rebate Act, for missed, late, and truncated rest
and meal breaks. Mr. Carlson also asserts claims under the
Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), RCW 19.86, arising from
Home Depot's manipulation of time records to disguise the missed
and late meal breaks.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y2M9Oh
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary Dardeau, Esq.
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-8000
Facsimile: (206) 682-2305
E-mail: dardeau@sgb-law.com
The Counsel for the Defendant are:
D. Michael Reilly, Esq.
Taylor Washburn, Esq.
David G. Hosenpud, Esq.
LANE POWELL, PC
1420 Fifth Ave, Ste 4200
Seattle, WA 98101-2338
E-mail: reillym@lanepowell.com
washburnt@lanepowell.com
hosenpudd@lanepowell.com
HONDA MOTOR: Odyssey Defect Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Honda Odyssey class action lawsuit
has been dismissed after minivan owners "failed to adequately
allege a defect in the Transmission."
The Honda class action alleges there are defects in 2018-2019 Honda
Odysseys equipped with 9-speed ZF automatic transmissions that
allegedly suffer from the following:
"[R]ough, delayed, or sudden shifting or failure to shift; grinding
or other loud noises during shifting; harsh engagement of gears;
sudden or harsh accelerations/decelerations; and sudden loss of
power."
According to the plaintiffs, the Odyssey minivans operate
erratically and cause safety problems for drivers and occupants.
The class action lawsuit says Honda equipped the minivans with the
9-speed transmissions to allegedly improve the fuel economy. But
the plaintiffs claim that came at a high cost of transmission
troubles that Honda couldn't fix.
The Honda class action lawsuit alleges Odyssey drivers have
problems when making turns, changing lanes, merging into traffic
and accelerating from stops.
The plaintiffs allege a driver can do everything they can to
correctly operate the minivans, but the Odyssey transmissions
allegedly prevent the safe operation of the vehicles.
Honda Odyssey Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the class action but said the
plaintiffs may amend and refile some of their claims.
Honda argued all plaintiff claims should be dismissed because the
claims rely on the existence of a transmission defect, but the
plaintiffs allegedly don't adequately plead a defect.
In its motion to dismiss, Honda said the symptoms described by the
plaintiffs are not symptoms of a defect but "are expected side
effects of the Transmission's fuel-efficient design."
Honda also told the judge the plaintiffs must plead what the defect
is, but instead the plaintiffs allegedly only plead a "conclusory
allegation" there is a defect and its alleged symptoms.
According to the judge, she agrees with Honda the plaintiffs plead
only symptoms of a defect and have not given Honda "proper notice
of what, exactly, it must defend."
Judge Freeman said the Honda Odyssey class action lawsuit does
reference technical service bulletins (TSBs) regarding software
repairs to other vehicles equipped with the same transmissions.
However, the lawsuit doesn't allege a "malfunction in the operation
of any software or electronic control unit" in a 2018-2019
Odyssey.
Judge Freeman said some of the bulletins referenced in the lawsuit
directed dealerships to update the transmission software in the
past.
"However, Plaintiffs do not plead that these are the same parts in
the Class Vehicles afflicted by the "design defects that cause the
transmission to exhibit" the alleged symptoms." -Judge Freeman
This was enough to cause the Honda class action lawsuit to be
dismissed, but the judge said the plaintiffs may amend their
complaint.
However, certain claims were dismissed with prejudice, including
claims alleging breach of implied warranty under Florida law, a
violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and a violation
of the South Carolina Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act
The Honda Odyssey class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California: Browning,
et al., v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC, and Berger
Montague PC. [GN]
HOUGHTON COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Houghton College. The
case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Houghton College, Case No.
1:21-cv-06269 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Houghton College -- https://www.houghton.edu/ -- is a nationally
ranked Christian college of the liberal arts and sciences and the
best priced Christian college in the nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
ICONIX BRAND: Mamakas Seeks to Enjoin Shareholder Vote on Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
APOSTLE MAMAKAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ICONIX BRAND GROUP, INC., BOB GALVIN, PETER
CUNEO, JAMES MARCUM, JUSTIN BARNES, DREW COHEN, LANCER CAPITAL,
LLC, ICONIX ACQUISITION LLC, and ICONIX MERGER SUB INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2021-0632 (Del. Ch., July 21, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violation of Section 203 of
Delaware Constitution, breach of fiduciary duties, and aiding and
abetting.
According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of a false and misleading solicitation/recommendation statement and
an offer to purchase with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. Both the recommendation statement and the offer to
purchase fail to disclose that the proposed acquisition of Iconix
Brand Group, Inc. to Lancer Capital, LLC is governed by Section 203
and misrepresent the number of affirmative votes of Iconix common
stockholders required under Section 203 to complete the proposed
transaction. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the proposed transaction, or, in the event that
the shareholder vote is held, enjoin the consummation of the
proposed transaction, until such time as Iconix receives the
requisite number of shares required by Section 203 for the
consummation of the proposed transaction and discloses all material
information to shareholders, the suit says.
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. is an apparel company headquartered in New
York, New York.
Lancer Capital, LLC is a private equity firm based in
Pennsylvania.
Iconix Acquisition LLC is a limited liability company in New York,
New York.
Iconix Merger Sub Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iconix
Acquisition LLC in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
- and –
Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
Brian C. Mears, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com
brian.mears@ksfcounsel.com
- and –
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
INSURANCE COMPANY: MSP Recovery to Recover Medical Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP Recovery Claims Series, LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC and MSP
Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Insurance Company of Florida, Auto
Club Group, Auto Club Insurance Association and Auto Club Group
Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-11606, (S.D. Fla.,
July 12, 2021) seeks double damages under the MSP Law for
Defendant's failure to pay for or reimburse medical expenses
resulting from injuries sustained in automobile and other
accidents.
MSP claims reimbursement of medical expenses of Merchants
policyholders who were also Medicare beneficiaries.
Plaintiff is a Medicare Advantage Organization that provides
Medicare benefits to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries enrolled under
the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. These Medicare beneficiaries
were simultaneously covered by insurance policies issued by
Defendants, which made Defendants the primary payers for the
medical bills, services, and items paid by Plaintiffs and the Class
Members. They paid for the medical items or treatment even though
the Defendants were responsible for paying those expenses under
their no-fault insurance policies and the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions of Medicare.
According to the complaint, Defendants are auto and/or other
liability insurers that provide either no-fault or med-pay
insurance to their customers, including Medicare beneficiaries
enrolled under Part C of the Medicare Act. Pursuant to their
contractual obligations with their insureds, and under state law,
Defendants are to provide coverage for their insureds'
accident-related medical expenses on a "no-fault" basis. In the
case of automobile and other accidents specifically involving
Enrollees of MA Plans, Defendants are considered primary plans
under the MSP Law. Defendants' obligation to pay for
accident-related medical expenses on behalf of Enrollees is primary
relative to Medicare's obligation to pay for those same
accident-related medical expenses, which is secondary. Defendants
have allegedly failed to make these payments and reimbursements,
passing on those expenses to Medicare and MA Plans. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eduardo Bertran, Esq.
Armas Bertran Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 SW 72nd Ave, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: (305) 661-2021
Email: ebertran@armaslaw.com
- and -
Ryan Hy Susman, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
Tel: (954) 655-9165
Email: rsusman@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN AND COFFIN
P.O. Drawer 71
24110 Eden Street
Plaquemine, LA 70765
Tel: (225) 687-6396
Email: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
- and -
Michael O. Mena, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
Tel: (305) 614-2222
Email: mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
John H Ruiz, Esq.
JOHN H. RUIZ, P.A.
5000 SW 75th Ave #400
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: (305) 614-2222
Email: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
Francesco Antonio Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 SW 72nd Ave, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: (401) 598-6594
Email: fzincone@armaslaw.com
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Health Sues Over Da Vinci Surgical Robot System
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KALEIDA HEALTH, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-05266-KAW
(N.D. Cal., July 8, 2021) is an antitrust action, brought under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, involving abuse of monopoly
power claims, including a tying and monopoly leveraging scheme
implemented by Intuitive in the sale of its da Vinci Surgical Robot
System.
According to the complaint, Intuitive has obtained patents giving
it monopoly power in the U.S. surgical robot market, but unlawfully
leveraged that power to restrict competition in the separate (a) da
Vinci surgical robot service aftermarket, and (b) da Vinci surgical
robot instrument service aftermarket, by, among other things as
alleged herein, tying the sale of the da Vinci to the service of
the robot and the necessary robot instruments.
The Plaintiff contends that Intuitive conditions the sale or lease
of the da Vinci on the purchaser's acceptance of Intuitive's
mandatory service contract. The service contract requires the
purchaser to use Intuitive as the sole service provider for all da
Vinci systems, and prohibits the purchaser from either servicing
the robot itself or hiring an independent robot repair company
("IRRC") to service the da Vinci.
Intuitive also ties the service, including repair and replacement,
of da Vinci surgical instruments, sold under the brand name
"EndoWrist," to the sale or lease of its robot system. Intuitive
restricts the number of times a purchaser may use the EndoWrist
instruments, in most cases to a mere ten uses. This forces
Plaintiff and proposed Class members to purchase substantially more
EndoWrists than necessary, rather than allowing the EndoWrists to
be serviced and repaired for longer use, more in keeping with their
useful lives, hospitals cannot hire IRRCs to service or repair
their EndoWrist instruments (i.e., clean or sharpen them for longer
use), the Plaintiff adds.
Intuitive Surgical is an American corporation that develops,
manufactures, and markets robotic products designed to improve
clinical outcomes of patients through minimally invasive surgery,
most notably with the da Vinci Surgical System.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
Seth R. Gassman, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com
sgassman@hausfeld.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
ietheridge@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
bdclark@locklaw.com
- and -
Howard Langer, Esq.
Edward Diver, Esq.
Peter Leckman, Esq.
LANGER, GROGAN & Diver, P.C.
1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 320-0876
Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
E-mail: hlanger@langergrogan.com
ndiver@langergrogan.com
pleckman@langergrogan.com
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3009
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
- and -
William J. Leonard, Esq.
OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL &
HIPPEL LLP
Centre Square West, Suite 3400
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102-2101
Telephone: (215) 665-3000
Facsimile: (215) 665-3165
E-mail: William.leonard@obermayer.com
JAMES RIVER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of James River Group Holdings, Ltd. ("James River
Group") (NASDAQ: JRVR) between August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021. You
are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/james-river-group-holdings-ltd-information-request-form?prid=17933&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
James River Group Holdings, Ltd. NEWS - JRVR NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (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.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in James
River Group, 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.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased James River Group securities
between August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/james-river-group-holdings-ltd-information-request-form?prid=17933&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
[GN]
JAMES RIVER: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased
James River Group Holdings, Ltd. ("James River Group") (NASDAQ:
JRVR) between August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/james-river-group-holdings-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=17914&wire=5
Allegations against JRVR include that the Company 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.
If you suffered a loss in James River Group 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.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
JBS USA: Discloses $20 Million Settlement Over Antitrust Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Court-Approved Legal Notice
If you purchased any Pork product in the United States from January
1, 2009, through April 2, 2021, a class action settlement may
affect your rights.
A settlement has been reached in a class action antitrust lawsuit
filed on behalf of Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs with Defendants
JBS USA Food Company, JBS USA Food Company Holdings, Swift Pork
Company, and related or affiliated entities ("JBS" or "Settling
Defendant"). This Court-ordered notice may affect your rights.
Please review and follow the instructions carefully.
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
authorized this notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will
hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement.
Who is Included?
For settlement purposes, members of the Settlement Class are
defined as all persons and entities who indirectly purchased Pork
from any of the Defendants or any co-conspirator, or their
respective subsidiaries or affiliates, for personal use in the
United States from January 1, 2009, through April 2, 2021.
Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants;
the officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant; any entity
in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any
affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of any Defendant.
Also excluded from this Settlement Class are any federal, state, or
local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over
this action and the members of his/her immediate family and
judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action. In addition
to JBS, the Defendants in this lawsuit for purposes of this notice
include Clemens Food Group, LLC, The Clemens Family Corporation,
Hormel Foods Corporation, Seaboard Foods LLC, Smithfield Foods,
Inc., Triumph Foods, LLC, Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods,
Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., and Agri Stats, Inc.
If you are not sure you are included, you can get more information,
including a detailed notice, at www.overchargedforpork.com or by
calling toll-free 1-877-777-9594.
What is this Lawsuit About?
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and their
co-conspirators conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the price of Pork, as of January 1, 2009, with the intent
and expected result of increasing prices of Pork in the United
States, in violation of federal and state consumer and antitrust
laws. JBS denies it did anything wrong. The Court did not decide
which side was right, but both sides agreed to the Settlement
Agreement to resolve the case and get benefits to the Settlement
Class. The case is still proceeding on behalf of the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs against other Defendants who may be subject to
separate settlements, judgments, or class certification orders.
What does the Settlement Provide?
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, JBS will pay
$20,000,000 to resolve all Settlement Class claims against it in
this litigation against JBS. In addition to this monetary benefit,
JBS has also agreed to provide specified cooperation in the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' continued prosecution of the
litigation. No money will be distributed yet. Co-Lead Counsel will
continue to pursue the lawsuit against the other Defendants.
Co-Lead Counsel may request that the Court award attorneys' fees
and permit the reimbursement of certain litigation costs and
expenses. If such request is made at this time, it will be filed at
least fourteen days before the objection deadline and posted on the
website www.overchargedforpork.com at that time. Co-Lead Counsel
believes that the total amount of attorneys' fees sought will be no
more than 33.3% of the Settlement Fund or $6,666,666.66, and the
total amount of costs sought will be no more than $350,000. All
Settlement funds that remain after payment of the Court-ordered
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses will be distributed at the
conclusion of the lawsuit or as ordered by the Court.
What are your Rights and Options?
You do not need to take any action to remain a member of the
Settlement Class and be bound by the Settlement Agreement. As a
Settlement Class Member, you may be able to participate in (or
exclude yourself from) any future settlement or judgment obtained
by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs against other Defendants in the
case. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement
Agreement, you must exclude yourself by October 20, 2021, or you
will not be able to sue or continue to sue JBS for the Released
Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement). If you exclude
yourself, you can't get money from the Settlement. If you don't
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you may still object to
the Settlement Agreement by October 20, 2021. The detailed notice
explains how to exclude yourself or object. Details may also be
found on the FAQs page of the Settlement website. The Court will
hold a hearing in this case (In re Pork Antitrust Litigation
(Indirect Purchaser Actions), Case No. 0:18-cv-01776 (D. Minn.)) on
November 29, 2021, to consider whether to approve the Settlement
Agreement. You may ask to speak at the hearing, but you do not have
to.
In order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement,
you must submit a valid Claim Form. You may submit a Claim Form
either online or by mail. Both options are available at the website
www.overchargedforpork.com.
The date and time of the hearing and deadlines are subject to
change. Updates will be provided on the website
www.overchargedforpork.com.
This notice is only a summary. You can find more details about the
Settlement at www.overchargedforpork.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-777-9594. Please do not contact the Court. [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sunscreen Products Contain Benzene, Briglio Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIANNA BRIGLIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-13972 (D.N.J., July 21, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
sunscreen products under the Neutrogena brand. The Defendant failed
to disclose to consumers that the products contain high levels of
benzene, a known carcinogen. The Defendant knew or should have
known about the presence of benzene in its sunscreen products and
about its potential harmful effects to consumers. Nevertheless, the
Defendant allegedly continued to manufacture and sell products
containing benzene. The Plaintiff and the Class would not have
purchased the products had they known they were unsafe and have,
therefore, not received the benefit of their bargain.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is a consumer products company with
its principal place of business in Skillman, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
- and –
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
D. Patrick Huyett, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6486
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
phuyett@fklmlaw.com
- and –
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
Barbara L. Gibson, Esq.
Aarthi Manohar, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
E-mail: whoese@kohnswift.com
chillwig@kohnswift.com
bgibson@kohnswift.com
amanohar@kohnswift.com
JUUL LABS: Belleville School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Wis.
------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF BELLEVILLE, 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-05513 (N.D. Cal., July 19, 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.
School District of Belleville is a unified school district with its
offices located at 625 West Church Street in Belleville,
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: Faces Richland County Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE, 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-05515 (N.D. Cal., July 19, 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.
Richland County School District One is a unified school district
with its offices located at 1616 Richland Street in Columbia, South
Carolina.
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: Fort Towson Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
FORT TOWSON 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-05517 (N.D. Cal., July 19, 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.
Fort Towson Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 205 West 3rd Street in Fort Towson, 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: Green Bay School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN BAY AREA PUBLIC 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-05512 (N.D. Cal., July 19, 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.
Green Bay Area Public School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 200 South Broadway in Green Bay,
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, Mar Lee School Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAR LEE SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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. 3:21-cv-05518 (N.D. Cal., July 19, 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.
Mar Lee School District is a unified school district with offices
located at 21236 H. Drive North in Marshall, Michigan.
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:
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: New Lothrop Suit Claims Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEW LOTHROP AREA 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-05514 (N.D. Cal., July 19, 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.
New Lothrop Area Public Schools is a unified school district with
its offices located at 9285 Easton Road in New Lothrop, Michigan.
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: Tishomingo School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TISHOMINGO 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-05516 (N.D. Cal., July 19, 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.
Tishomingo Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1300 East Main Street in Tishomingo, 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
KANZHUN LIMITED: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 10 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Kanzhun
Limited ("Kanzhun") (NASDAQ: BZ) between June 11, 2021 and July 2,
2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/kanzhun-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=17888&wire=5.
Allegations against BZ include that the Company made 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.
If you suffered a loss in Kanzhun 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.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Cohen Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V. The case is styled as Suzanne Cohen, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00984-MJH (W.D. Pa., July 23, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
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:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 281-7229
Fax: (412) 281-4229
Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Thomas Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAOUL RODOLFO THOMAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC;
and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00874-CCW (W.D.
Pa. July 8, 2021) is a class action complaint on behalf of himself
and a proposed class of purchasers and users of Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure
(Bi-Level PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators manufactured by
Philips, which contain polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement
foam ("PE-PUR Foam").
On April 26, 2021, Philips made a public announcement disclosing it
had determined there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in
certain CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices it
manufactured may degrade or off-gas under certain circumstances.
On June 14, 2021, Royal Philips issued a recall in the United
States of its CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices
containing PE-PUR Foam, because Philips had determined that (a) the
PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may
enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and
(b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation.
Philips further disclosed in its Recall Notice that "these issues
can result in serious injury which can be life-threatening, cause
permanent impairment, and/or require medical intervention to
preclude permanent impairment."
Philips has disclosed that the absence of visible particles in the
devices does not mean that PE-PUR Foam breakdown has not already
begun. Philips reported that lab analysis of the degraded foam
reveals the presence of harmful chemicals, including: Toluene
Diamine ("TDA"), Toluene Diisocyanate ("TDI"), and Diethylene
Glycol ("DEG").
Prior to issuing the Recall Notice, Philips received complaints
regarding the presence of black debris/particles within the airpath
circuit of its devices (extending from the device outlet,
humidifier, tubing, and mask). Philips also received reports of
headaches, upper airway irritation, cough, chest pressure and sinus
infection from users of these devices, says the suit.
In its Recall Notice, Philips disclosed that the potential risks of
particulate exposure to users of these devices include: irritation
(skin, eye, and respiratory tract), inflammatory response,
headache, asthma, adverse effects to other organs (e.g., kidneys
and liver) and toxic carcinogenic affects. The potential risks of
chemical exposure due to off-gassing of PE-PUR Foam in these
devices include: headache/dizziness, irritation (eyes, nose,
respiratory tract, skin), hypersensitivity, nausea/vomiting, toxic
and carcinogenic effects, added the suit.
Philips recommended that patients using the recalled CPAP and
Bi-Level PAP devices immediately discontinue using their devices
and that patients using the recalled ventilators for
life-sustaining therapy consult with their physicians regarding
alternative ventilator options.
In 2013, Plaintiff Starner purchased a Philips Respironics Remstar
Pro CPAP device that he used nightly from January 2013 until April
2018. On April 26, 2018, Plaintiff Starner purchased a Philips
DreamStation Auto CPAP device, which he used nightly from the date
of receipt until June 26, 2021.
On June 26, 2021, Plaintiff Starner received an email from CPAP.com
advising him that his Philips' Respironics Remstar Pro and
DreamStation Auto CPAP devices were subject to a recall due to the
presence of a dangerous PE-PUR Foam that could cause him to suffer
from adverse health effects, including, inter alia, cancer and
organ failure.
Plaintiff Starner was advised to discontinue use of the devices. He
was also advised to verify whether his devices were subject to the
recall by submitting the serial numbers for his devices to an
online database Philips established. Plaintiff Starner received
confirmation that both his CPAP devices were subject to recall.
In addition, Plaintiff Thomas seeks medical monitoring damages for
users of Philips' devices identified in the Recall Notice, who are
at risk of suffering from serious injury, including irritation
(skin, eye, and respiratory tract), inflammatory response,
headache, asthma, adverse effects to other organs (e.g., kidneys
and liver) and toxic carcinogenic affects.
Royal Philips is a Dutch multinational corporation with its
principal place of business located in Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Royal Philips is the parent company of the Philips Group of
healthcare technology businesses, including Connected Care
businesses focusing on Sleep & Respiratory Care. Royal Philips
holds directly or indirectly 100% of its subsidiaries Philips NA
and Philips RS. Royal Philips controls Philips NA and Philips RS in
the manufacturing, selling, distributing, and supplying of the
recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices.
Philips NA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02141. Philips NA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Royal Philips.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold Levin, Esq.
Sandra L. Duggan, Esq.
Laurence S. Berman, Esq.
Frederick S. Longer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
sduggan@lfsblaw.com
lberman@lfsblaw.com
flonger@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Pearl A. Robertson, Esq.
Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
IRPINO AVIN HAWKINS
2216 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 525-1500
Facsimile: (504) 525-1501
E-mail: probertson@irpinolaw.com
airpino@irpinolaw.com
KRAFT HEINZ: $16MM Class Settlement in Ferron Suit Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIMBERLY E. FERRON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-62136-RAR (S.D. Fla.), Judge Rodolfo A.
Ruiz, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval
of Class Settlement, and (ii) the Plaintiff's Application for
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Costs.
The case arises out of Plaintiff Ferron's allegations that the
Defendant deceptively and unlawfully packaged, marketed, and
labeled numerous ground coffee products sold under the Maxwell
House and Yuban brands. Specifically, she alleged that the
Defendant deceptively and unlawfully labeled, packaged, and
marketed ground coffee sold as containing enough coffee such that
each product made a range of cups of coffee depending on the
brewing instructions that are followed -- even though, contrary to
these representations, the products allegedly did not contain
enough ground coffee to make the stated number of cups when
following the brewing instructions on the Product label.
The Plaintiff filed her initial Class Action Complaint on July 24,
2020, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in
and for Broward County, Florida, and included claims for violations
of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"),
Fla. Stat. Section 501.201 et seq. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the
Class, sought both monetary and injunctive relief. The Defendant
then timely removed the action to federal court. Subsequently, the
Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on Dec. 1, 2020,
which also included claims for violations of FDUTPA, and similar
statutes in other states.
The Parties engaged in intensive mediation and arm's-length
negotiations to resolve the action and all of the Plaintiff's
claims, and ultimately reached an agreement. In December 2020, the
Class Counsel and the Defendant executed a Settlement Agreement
that memorialized the material terms of the Settlement.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on Jan.
19, 2021. Following preliminary approval, the Settlement
Administrator provided Notice as ordered by this Court and set
forth in the Settlement Agreement. After receiving notice, none of
the Settlement Class Members opted out of the Settlement, and only
one Class Member submitted an objection.
In accordance with the Court's January 19th Preliminary Approval
Order, the Plaintiff and the Class Counsel sought final approval of
the Settlement Agreement by timely filing the following: (1) Motion
for Attorneys' Fees, which included a Declaration from Class
Counsel, L. DeWayne Layfield (filed March 22, 2021); (2) Final
Approval Motion, which included Declarations from Class Counsel, L.
DeWayne Layfield; Jeanne C. Finnegan, APR, the Managing Director
and Head of Kroll Notice Media Solutions, an affiliate company of
Kroll Settlement Administration, f/k/a Heffler Claims Group, LLC;
and Class Representative Kimberly E. Ferron (filed June 7, 2021);
(3) the Plaintiff's Opposition to and Motion to Strike and Overrule
the Sole Objection to the Settlement Filed by Objector, Dr. David
Tribula (filed June 14, 2021); and (4) the Plaintiff's Written
Responses to the Issues Identified in the Court's Order Setting
Agenda for Final Approval Hearing (filed June 17, 2021).
The Settlement requires the Defendant to make available up to $16
million for the benefit of the Settlement Class. To receive a
portion of the Settlement Fund, Settlement Class members must
properly complete an online or paper Claim Form, which must be
received within 85 days following the Notice Date. "Notice Date"
means the date on which the Settlement Administrator begins
disseminating the Settlement Notice consistent with the Preliminary
Approval Order. According to the Preliminary Approval Order, Feb.
17, 2021 was set as the Notice Date and the deadline for receipt of
a Claim Form was May 18, 2021.
The Defendant will issue Benefit Payments on all Valid Claims. In
other words, each Settlement Class member, who timely filed a valid
Claim Form with the Administrator, will receive payment from
Defendant in the following amount:
a) Tier 1. Settlement Class Members who elect to fill out the
Claim Form section for Tier 1 and who do not have valid Proof of
Purchase may recover $.80 per Unit purchased, up to a maximum of 6
Units per Household; or
b) Tier 2. Settlement Class Members who elect to fill out the
Claim Form section for Tier 2 and who provide valid Proof(s) of
Purchase may recover $.80 per Unit purchased for the number of
Units for which a valid Proof of Purchase has been provided, up to
a maximum reimbursement of $25 per Household.
The Settlement also provides injunctive relief for the benefit of
the Settlement Class. Specifically, the Defendant agreed to
either: (1) remove the Challenged Language from the Labeling of the
Products ("Option 1"); or (2) revise the lower and upper limits of
the serving ranges to correspond to the cups of coffee that can be
brewed following the single cup directions (lower limit) and the
cups of coffee that can be brewed using the 10 cup directions
(upper limit), as confirmed by a third-party laboratory ("Option
2"). The Settlement Agreement provides specific governing criteria
for the programmatic relief depending on if "Option 1" or "Option
2" is selected.
The Agreement allows Class Counsel to request attorneys' fees,
litigation costs, and expenses of up to $3.9 million, which is 24.4
% of the total monetary benefit provided by the Settlement, and
3.1% of the total value of the Settlement (meaning the value
provided by the Settlement's monetary benefit plus the value
provided by the Settlement's injunctive relief which has a
mathematically calculable value). The Parties negotiated and
reached an agreement regarding attorneys' fees and costs only after
agreeing on all other material terms of the Settlement, and as part
of an arm's-length mediation process overseen by Judge Andersen.
In exchange for the benefits conferred by the Settlement, all
Settlement Class Members and possible members of the class will be
deemed to have released Defendant from claims relating to the
subject matter of the Action. The detailed release language is
found in Section XII of the Agreement.
On June 21, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., Judge Ruiz held a duly noticed
Final Approval Hearing pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval
Order. Present before the Court for the Hearing were Ms. Ferron,
Class Counsel, and counsel for Defendant. The single objector, Dr.
David Tribula was not present. The Judge heard argument from
counsel for both parties with respect to the Final Approval Filings
and Dr. Tribula's Objection.
At the conclusion of the Hearing, Judge Ruiz reiterated his
findings and conclusions, including that: (1) the Settlement is
fair, adequate, and reasonable and will be granted final approval;
(2) Dr. Tribula's Objection is to be stricken for non-compliance
with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, or alternatively
overruled on the merits; and (3) the Class Counsel's application
for an award of attorneys' fees of $3.9 million which is equal to
24.4 % of the total monetary benefit provided by the Settlement,
and 3.1% of the total value of the Settlement (meaning the value
provided by the Settlement's monetary benefit plus the value
provided by the injunctive relief which has a mathematically
calculable value), will be granted.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Ruiz: (1) grants final approval of
the Settlement Agreement; (2) appoints Plaintiff Ferron as the
class representative for the Settlement; (3) appoints as the Class
Counsel and Settlement Class Counsel Law Office of DeWayne
Layfield, PLLC, Southern Atlantic Law Group, PLLC, and Law Office
of Howard W. Rubinstein P.A.; (4) awards the Class Counsel
attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and expenses of $3.9 million,
which is approximately 24.4% of the monetary Settlement Fund and
3.1% of the total value provided by the Settlement; (5) directs
Class Counsel, Plaintiff, and Defendant to implement and consummate
the Settlement Agreement pursuant to its terms and conditions; (6)
retains continuing jurisdiction over Plaintiff, the Settlement
Class, and Defendant to implement, administer, consummate, and
enforce the Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order; and
(7) will separately enter Final Judgment dismissing the action with
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5emxr4as from Leagle.com.
LEE'S SUMMIT: Spatz Seeks Conditional Class Cert. of FLSA Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY SPATZ, et al., v.
LEE'S SUMMIT R-7 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 4:20-CV-00448-RK (W.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Granting conditional class certification of Plaintiffs'
claims under 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
for:
"All current and former female employees of the Lee's
Summit R-7 School District whose salary, during the last
three years, was determined by (1) placement on one of the
District's salary schedules at the time of she was
initially hired and/or promoted and/or, (2) by a
subsequent move on the salary schedule, if any.
2. Appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives;
3. Appointing George E. Kapke , Jr., Kapke & Willerth, LLC,
Andrew Schermerhorn, and The Klamann Law Firm to act as
class counsel;
4. Approving the Notice of Claims and Opt-In Consent Form to
the Suggestions in Support of this Motion;
5. Approving the Notice of Claims and Opt-In Consent Form to
be sent via email to members of the class;
6. Directing the defendant to produce a list of class members
in a usable electronic format which includes full name,
address, work location, dates of employment, employee
number and all known email addresses within 14 days of the
Court's Order;
7. Approving the Notice of Claims to be posted in the break
rooms of all facilities where teachers and administrators
work;
8. Permitting repeat emailing of the Notice of Claims and
Opt-in Consent Forms;
9. Allowing the class opt-in period to last for 180 days
while discovery, in this case, continues, with class counsel
to keep track of opt-ins and report to the Court at the
end of the Opt-in period or as otherwise directed; and
10. Granting such other relief the Court deems just and
proper.
The Lee's Summit R-7 School District serves parts of Lee's Summit,
Kansas City, Missouri, rural eastern Jackson County and the
entirety of Unity Village, Greenwood, Lake Winnebago, and Lake
Lotawana in the State of Missouri.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zW0CMH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John M. Klamann, Esq.
Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq.
THE KLAMANN LAW FIRM
4435 Main Street, Suite 150
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 421-2626
Facsimile: (816) 421-8686
E-mail: jklamann@klamannlaw.com
ajs@klamannlaw.com
- and -
Ted Kapke, Esq.
Mike Fleming, Esq.
KAPKE & WILLERTH, Esq.
3304 N.E. Ralph Powell Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
Telephone: (816) 461-3800
Facsimile: (816) 254-8014
E-mail: ted@kapkewillerth.com
mike@kapkewillerth.com
LIFESTYLE DIRECT: Loan Seekers Bring Class Action Against Scammers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Broughton at allafrica.com reports that the High Court has
ruled that the Stellenbosch University Law Clinic can lead a class
action against Lifestyle Direct Group International.
The law clinic says thousands of desperate people were scammed
through websites into believing they were applying for much-needed
cash loans but ended up with debit orders.
The individual claims are small amounts and the judge said class
action litigation gave ordinary working people who cannot afford
exorbitant litigation costs access to justice.
Stellenbosch University Law Clinic has been given judicial go-head
to launch a class action against Lifestyle Direct Group
International and its affiliated websites, in an attempt to claw
back money it took from thousands of desperate loan seekers.
In a judgment handed down in the Western Cape High Court on
Wednesday, Judge Patrick Gamble also gave authority for the class
action to be on an "opt out" basis, meaning that those who were
allegedly duped will automatically become part of the litigation,
unless they specify otherwise.
In its application, the law clinic contended that the respondents
were not registered credit providers but they nevertheless lured
unsuspecting consumers with promises of loans and loan-finding
services. And although they were not registered legal
practitioners, they purported to charge consumers for legal
advice.
The law clinic contended that this was nothing more than an
"unlawful scam"; that the respondents were "wily confidence
tricksters" who exploited the informality of the internet and the
financial difficulties of poor consumers "to perpetrate an array of
frauds against innocent and vulnerable people on a daily basis".
Judge Gamble, in his judgment, said the law clinic said consumers
were duped into believing they were applying for much-needed cash
loans, while in fact they received no money and ended up paying a
monthly instalment for "legal services", which they never sought
nor received.
"They seek to bring an end to this sorry state of affairs through
the mechanism of a class action, and in the interim, through an
interdict," he said.
In considering the development of class action law in South Africa,
Judge Gamble said there were already guidelines and several matters
had already been considered by courts, including the "most
celebrated' silicosis case, in which mine workers affected by lung
disease sought to recover compensation for occupational injuries.
"At the heart of class action litigation lies access to justice for
ordinary working people who cannot otherwise afford the exorbitant
costs of litigation," he said.
The judge said the clinic's senior attorney Stephanus van der Merwe
had said there were "literally thousands" of complaints from irate
consumers.
The 12 websites all prominently bore the word "loan" and employed
the same "modus operandi" to mislead customers into unwittingly
signing subscription agreements with an initial fee of anything
from R399 to R429 a month, and then R99 for 12 months.
When providing their bank account details, those aggrieved said
they thought they were applying for loans, not debit orders and
when they tried to cancel, they were "stonewalled".
Judge Gamble said most of the respondents comprised a web of small
companies, each with physical offices located across greater Cape
Town. They were all associated with the first respondent, the
"Lifestyle Direct Group".
Another respondent was Capital Lifestyle Solutions, which traded as
"Lifestyle Legal" and functioned as a in-house debt collection
agency for the Lifestyle Group, which was used to "harrass"
consumers.
The faces behind the entities were Damian Malander and Nandie
Piach.
The judge said all the companies were registered on the same day,
20 May 2015, and were hosted on the same server.
The law clinic wanted to pursue four causes of action aimed at
having the agreements set aside and people getting back their
money.
Lawyers for the companies had accepted that the law clinic had made
out a prima facie case, based on the pleadings, and that the law
clinic was a suitable party to act as the "class representative".
The only contentious issue were the questions of "commonality and
appropriateness".
Judge Gamble said a class action did not require every member to
have an identical cause of action or seek identical relief, and in
this matter "the scheme appears to neatly fit into the commonality
criteria".
"If a class action is denied, similar, if not identical evidence
will have to be led in separate courts by each of the thousands of
members of the class. Given the relatively limited quantum involved
individually, these cases would likely be spread across numerous
regional and magisterial districts throughout the country ... It
would be an inefficient and unnecessary waste of resources for both
parties," Judge Gamble said.
He said even if there were some matters in which the concept of
commonality were considered to be "stretched", these could be dealt
with through directions of the trial judge and the proposed
judicial manager - a special master - appointed to oversee the
class action.
Regarding the issue of appropriateness, Judge Gamble said this was
confirmed by the fact that the class was large with relatively
small claims, some so small that they might be conceivably
recovered in the Small Claims Court, with the risk of multiple
findings at variance with each other.
"Such an outcome is clearly not in the interests of justice," he
said.
Judge Gamble sanctioned the appointment of a "special master" to
attend to the "nuts and bolts" of the class action, including the
verification of claims and disbursement of payments, but said it
would be up to the trial court to determine the precise duties of
its functions.
Interim interdict
Turning to the law clinic's application for an interim interdict,
shutting down the businesses, he said Malander had put up an
affidavit stating that they had been "exited from the National
Payment System" and the websites had been decommissioned and the
companies had not traded since April 2020.
Malander said there had been no demand for payments from any
customers and he had "no appetite to revive the business".
Judge Gamble said the law clinic had "smartly put together" a quick
reply, noting that it had accessed the Lifestyle Direct Group "that
very morning", while the matter was being argued before him.
A search of the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
records showed that several of the companies were still listed as
"being in business".
The Judge said, however, he would take Malander at his word,
recording his undertaking as part of the court order which he would
"breach at his peril".
In terms of the order, the consumers who shall form part of the
class action, comprise: "All persons who have had any moneys
debited from their bank accounts and / or who have been harassed
and / or threatened in connection with any demand for or collection
of payment by the respondents at any time from 1 May 2015 to date
on the basis of them having concluded purported agreements with the
respondents by submitting an application on one of the listed
websites".
The respondents were directed to furnish the law clinic with
details of its customers. [GN]
LINCHPIN SALES: Orbach Seeks Denied Wage Statements, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Orbach, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Linchpin Sales, LLC, Brandon Cockrell and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STC005625437 (Cal. Super., July
12, 2021), seeks unpaid wages, actual damages, liquidated damages,
restitution, declaratory relief, pre-judgment interest, statutory
penalties, civil penalties, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys'
fees and such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professional Code.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide meal and rest
periods and/or premium wages for such, minimum pay and overtime
wages, failed to provide accurate written wage statements, failed
to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual, failed to
reimburse necessary business-related expenses and failed to timely
pay final wages following separation of employment.
Defendants operate a digital marketing provider where Orbach was
hired as an account strategist since August 3, 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
LOUISIANA: Initial Approval of Settlement in Hamilton Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCUS HAMILTON, WINTHROP
EATON, MICHAEL PERRY, on their behalf, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated prisoners, v. DARREL VANNOY, Warden of Angola;
BURL CAIN, former Warden of Angola; JAMES CRUZE, Warden of Death
Row; LESLIE DUPONT, Deputy Warden of Security; and JAMES LEBLANC,
Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety Corrections,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00194-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs and
Defendants move the Court for an order to:
1. grant preliminary approval of the class action settlement
in this matter;
2. certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for the purposes of settlement
only;
3. approve the proposed Notice to the Class and Notice
Procedures and permit the Parties to begin implementing
these procedures; and
4. schedule a final hearing on the fairness, adequacy, and
reasonableness of the proposed Settlement Agreement and
class certification for a date at least six weeks after
preliminary approval of the settlement, class notice and
notice procedures.
The parties aver that the proposed class meets the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and that the proposed settlement is "fair,
reasonable, and adequate" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
Further, and in keeping with the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of
Rule 23(e)(2), the parties contend that the settlement was reached
without any fraud or collusion and in consideration of the
complexity and likely duration of the litigation, the amount of
discovery completed, the probability of success on the merits, the
range of possible recovery and the opinions of class counsel, class
members and the named plaintiffs.
The Department of Public Safety and Corrections is a state agency
of Louisiana, headquartered in Baton Rouge. The agency comprises
two major areas: Public Safety Services and Corrections Services.
The Secretary, who is appointed by the Governor, serves as the
department's chief executive officer.
A copy of the Parties motion dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3f3lNEh at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Betsy R. Ginsberg, Esq.
CARDOZO CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
55 5th Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 790-0871
E-mail: betsy.ginsberg@yu.edu
- and -
Pieter Van Tol, Esq.
Garima Malhotra, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 981-3000
Facsimile: (212) 981-3100
E-mail: pieter.vantol@hoganlovells.com
nicole.schiavo@hoganlovells.com
robin.muir@hoganlovells.com
garima.malhotra@hoganlovells.com
- and -
Nicholas Trenticosta, Esq.
7100 Saint Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70118
Telephone: (504) 864-0700
Facsimile: (504) 864-0780
E-mail: nicktr@bellsouth.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew Blanchfield, Esq.
KEOGH, COX & WILSON
701 Main Street (70802)
Post Office Box 1151
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Telephone: (225) 383-3796
Facsimile: (225) 343-9612
E-mail: ablanchfield@keoghcox.com
MANUAL RODAS: Denial of Cardenas-Meneses Class Cert Bid Endorsed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL CARDENAS-MENESES v.
MANUAL RODAS, ET AL., Case No. 2:21-cv-01643-JDC-KK (W.D. La.), the
Hon. magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay recommends that the motion to
certify class be denied.
"A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed
factual findings, conclusions, and recommendations reflected in
this report and recommendation within ten (10) business days
following the date of its service, shall bar an aggrieved party
from attacking on appeal, either the factual findings or the legal
conclusions that were accepted by the District Judge and that were
not objected to by the aforementioned party, except upon grounds of
plain error," says Judge Kay.
The Plaintiff filed the pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), presently
before this Court, on June 8, 2021. He brings claims related to the
conditions at FCIO following Hurricane Laura, which made landfall
in that area in August 2020. Plaintiff seeks to bring this action
on behalf of himself and other prisoners at FCIO.
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated July 16, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l3XiuK at no
extra charge.[CC]
MED THRIVE: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Med Thrive
Cooperative, Inc. The case is styled as Mark Gonzalez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Med Thrive
Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05673 (C.D. Cal., July 23,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Med Thrive Cooperative, Inc. -- https://medithrive.com/ -- is in
the Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores industry in San Francisco,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL: Acuna Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ACUNA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL AUDIT, INC., d/b/a MCA MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 9:21-cv-81256-WPD (S.D. Fla., July 16,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received a
correspondence from the Defendant on or about November 21, 2021 and
on or about December 31, 2021 in connection with the collection of
an alleged debt. The Defendant's first letter was demanding payment
from the Plaintiff in the amount of $75.96 for the alleged debt,
while the Defendant's second letter was advising the Plaintiff that
the alleged debt may be scheduled to be reported to one of the
credit bureaus if it had not already been reported and that he
could prevent the credit reporting by paying the debt. However, the
Defendant was not registered as a consumer collection agency with
the State of Florida Office of Financial Regulation at the time the
two correspondences were sent to the Plaintiff, thereby violating
the FDCPA 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e for using false, deceptive, or
misleading representation or means in connection with the
collection of any debt.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, who have
received debt collection communication from the Defendant, have
suffered damages in the form of invasion of privacy and an
intrusion upon their seclusion. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks actual
and statutory damages for himself and all other similarly situated
against the Defendants and enjoining the Defendant from future
violations of the FDCPA, as well as reasonable litigation costs and
attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as the Court may deem just and proper.
Medical-Commercial Audit, Inc. d/b/a MCA Management Company is a
consumer collection agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Davidson, Esq.
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Tel: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
- and –
Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq.
Matthew Bavaro, Esq.
LOAN LAWYERS
3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
Tel: (954) 523-4357
E-mail: Matis@Fight13.com
Matthew@Fight13.com
MONTY PYTHON: B.C. Judge Removes 'Dead Parrot' Joke From Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Proctor at CBC News reports that it is an ex-reference.
It has ceased to be.
Days after a CBC News story highlighted Canada's judicial love
affair with Monty Python, a B.C. judge has removed all references
to the British comedy troupe's iconic "dead parrot" sketch from a
recent class-action certification decision in B.C.
When it was first published, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ward
Branch's ruling in Krishnan vs. Jamieson Laboratories et al began
with a wholesale rendering of the 1969 BBC television skit in which
an irate Mr. Praline confronts a shifty shop owner over the
purchase of a Norwegian Blue parrot that appears to have "shuffled
off its mortal coil."
Branch went on to compare plaintiff Uttra Kumari Krishnan to Mr.
Praline -played in the sketch by John Cleese -in her search for
justice over the sale of glucosamine sulfate products that
allegedly don't contain glucosamine sulfate.
"Much like the poor Mr. Praline, [Krishnan] complains that she was
sold a health product that did not contain what it said on the
bottle," Branch wrote.
The "corrected judgment," which replaced the original ruling, makes
no mention of Mr. Praline or the parrot.
'Not common to see jokes edited out'
The original decision vanished from the court's website within
hours of the publication of the CBC story, which was widely
circulated.
Branch gave no reasons for the correction.
University of Ottawa associate law professor Amy Salyzyn, who heads
the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics, said that beyond the
humorous backdrop, the ruling revision raises some serious
questions.
She said judges often amend decisions to correct spelling and dates
and to adhere to the requirements of publication bans. Mistakes
happen to everyone.
"But I question whether it is appropriate to edit a judgment to
remove a joke that is subsequently regretted," Salyzyn told CBC
News in an email.
"One way to look at a poor attempt at judicial humour is as an
error of judgment by the judge, and there is arguably public
interest in being transparent and allowing the public to see that
error. It is certainly not common to see jokes edited out of
judgments."
Comedic plumage plucked
The decision in question gave the go-ahead to Krishnan to bring a
class-action lawsuit against the manufacturers of a number of
products that claim to contain glucosamine sulfate -purported to be
a relief for osteoarthritis.
According to the ruling, scientific tests allegedly found no
glucosamine sulfate in a bottle of Webber Naturals Glucosamine
Sulfate 500 mg capsules.
The manufacturers dispute the claim and say they passed Health
Canada's testing protocols for glucosamine sulfate -a line of
argument that originally led to the judge's second dead parrot
analogy.
"Health Canada's testing protocols cannot change a dead parrot into
a live one," Branch wrote in the first decision.
The judge plucked the comedic plumage from that portion of the
amended ruling, which now reads: "Determining whether a product 'is
what it says it is' is a material issue, regardless of Health
Canada's regulatory framework."
Humour 'fraught terrain' for judges
The excision of the joke means Branch's ruling will no longer form
part of a dead parrot precedent revealed by a CBC search of the
Canadian Legal Information Institute database.
Judges at both federal and provincial levels have cited Monty
Python -and the dead parrot sketch in particular -in cases dealing
with both misrepresentations and defunct entities.
The Canadian judiciary appears to have a fondness for the group,
whose original members -Cleese, Eric Idle, Michael Palin, Graham
Chapman, Terry Jones and Terry Gilliam -created the Flying Circus
TV show, broadcast on the BBC between 1969 and 1974.
The group had a passionate following in Canada, the setting for
another of its best-known satires, The Lumberjack Song, which
features the refrain "I'm a Lumberjack and I'm OK."
A search of the Australasian Legal Information Institute's rulings
reveals a similar love of Monty Python references among judges in
Australia, a country whose outback philosophers were featured in
the group's so-called The Bruces' Song.
In 2016, a judge in Melbourne accused a school district of acting
like both the dead parrot shopkeeper and a knight from the 1975
film Monty Python and The Holy Grail, who said "it's only a flesh
wound" after having his limbs cut off.
A much-cited book on defamation law in Australia also points to a
line from The Holy Grail as an example of speech that is abusive
but not defamatory: "Your mother was a hamster and your father
smelt of elderberries."
The University of Ottawa's Salyzyn suggests a lesson may be found
in the B.C. dead parrot reference that, in the words of the sketch,
"is no more."
"A judge is in fraught terrain when attempting humour," she said.
"The better practice may be to just leave jokes out of written
decisions." [GN]
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA: Faces New Legal Battle Over Vehicle Parking Ban
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Severson at hoodline.com reports that people living in their
RVs and other oversized vehicles on city streets and properties
have been point of seemingly endless contention in several Bay Area
cities in recent years. Now, the city of Mountain View is back in
the spotlight after the ACLU and the Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley launched a new class-action lawsuit against the city. The
Mercury News reports reports that the lawsuit concerns six people
who will represent all of the RV dwellers in the city.
The lawsuit claims that Mountain View's recent RV and oversized
vehicle parking ban violates state and federal law by
discriminating against people who have disabilities and live in the
RVs.
The suit claims the ban would force roughly 191 RV dwellers to
leave the city of Mountain View, according to San Jose Spotlight.
"We filed the lawsuit with the hopes of striking down the RV ban so
folks will have a place to park in Mountain View. We're really
hoping the city will not ticket or tow any RVs that are being used
for shelter until folks can access affordable housing," Michael
Trujillo with the Law Foundation told San Jose Spotlight.
The city issued a statement saying "due to their size, an oversized
vehicle on a narrow roadway can encroach into the vehicle lane of
traffic, which can increase the risk of collisions for motor
vehicles and bicycles as well as make it more difficult for
emergency and critical service vehicles to navigate the street
safely."
Mountain View officials also point to the fact that the voters in
November were in favor of the RV ban and that the city got the word
out to RV dwellers and gave them options for other housing. City
officials also say they notified property owners about new signs
that are now being installed in the popular RV parking areas that
explain the new rules.
The president of the Affordable Housing Action Network of Santa
Clara County, Sandy Perry, believes that if the RV dwellers are
forced out by police that they'll end up coming back and the
process will start all over again. "Since there is no place to go,
if people get moved along, they will move back. I'm sure Mountain
View will experience the same thing," Perry told San Jose
Spotlight.
Perry says that the city of San Jose has been shuffling RV dwellers
from one place to another for years. Many of the Mountain View
residents may end up relocating to San Jose. SJPD backed off its
enforcement of RV parking during the pandemic but it is now
enforcing 72-hour parking restrictions on city streets.
Several other Bay Area cities have also tried to enact bans on RV
parking on city streets, with another recent ban in Pacifica. Like
Mountain View, that ban is also being challenged by a lawsuit from
the ACLU. The city of Santa Cruz passed a law in 2015 banning
overnight parking of large vehicles, but it has been held up in
legal challenges and pushback from the California Coastal
Commission, who cited restrictions on coastal access caused by such
bans. As the Santa Cruz Sentinel reports, the city council voted
last month to reexamine the originally proposed ban and potentially
create a sanctioned parking program instead. [GN]
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL: Pollution Class Action Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Duffy at ottawacitizen.com reports that an Ottawa judge has
certified a class-action lawsuit launched by a group of Mississippi
Mills homeowners who say a local fire research lab polluted their
drinking water and devalued their homes.
The sprawling laboratory is owned by the National Research Council
of Canada (NRC).
The homeowners contend the NRC, though its negligence, released
firefighting chemicals into the environment from the lab,
contaminated their land and damaged the value of their properties.
In a recent decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith
certified the class action lawsuit, which allows it to move
forward.
A class action, the judge said, will allow the homeowners to share
the cost of hiring experts to pursue justice in what promises to be
a complex case. The NRC filed 16 reports as part of the
certification motion, he noted.
"If the plaintiffs' claim is not certified as a class proceeding,
the plaintiffs are unlikely to be able to afford to proceed," Smith
said.
The NRC has admitted its Ramsay Road research facility is the
source of the toxic compounds that have migrated into the
groundwater of the nearby residential development known as Ramsay
Meadows.
But the NRC opposed certification of the class action, arguing that
the majority of the 69 homeowners involved did not have any
perfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS) detected in their drinking
water. PFAS are chemicals commonly used in firefighting foam.
Court heard that contamination was detected in 10 to 15 properties.
Homes the Ramsay Meadows subdivision all rely on well water.
Lawyers for the homeowners argued that everyone near the lab has
suffered similar financial harm since they've all experienced a
decline in property values.
Between 1981 and 2016, the NRC used the site to conduct fire safety
research, including tests on different firefighting foams
containing PFAS.
In 2012, the NRC hired a consultant to conduct an environmental
assessment of the lab site. The Stantec report identified low
levels of PFAS in the soil, groundwater and drinking water, but the
consultants said there was no risk to human health.
In March 2015, Stantec delivered another report, which found that
soil samples at the site had PFAS levels that exceeded federal
guidelines. That November, samples were taken from the drinking
water of three homes in the nearby subdivision and results
indicated the presence of PFAS. One of the homes had levels that
exceeded Health Canada guidelines.
One month later, the NRC delivered letters to 49 homes in the
subdivision, advising them that their drinking water could be
contaminated. The NRC suggested they boil their water and offered
to conduct further testing.
In February 2016, the NRC offered to provide bottled water and to
install water filtration systems at all of the affected homes. That
offer was later extended to an additional 20 homes near the
subdivision.
Justice Smith rejected the homeowners' request to pursue punitive
damages against the NRC. Lawyers for the homeowners argued the NRC
waited too long to inform them of possible drinking water
contamination, but Smith said there was no evidence that the NRC
engaged in abusive or high-handed conduct.
At the time that most of the NRC experiments were conducted, the
judge noted, there were no health guidelines in place regarding
PFAS.
Carleton University leased space at the lab for more than a decade
and built a 10-storey burn tower where fire safety engineers set
structures on fire to examine the way that fire and smoke moved
inside high-rise buildings. Carleton's lab also included a
fully-instrumented tunnel – used to burn a subway car – and a
hall large enough to contain a framed house.
The judge ruled the Carleton should not be part of the class-action
lawsuit since there was no evidence that it used firefighting foam
with PFAS as part of its experiments.
Homeowner Suzanne Taylor said the subdivision continues to have
drinking water delivered at the expense of the NRC, which also
conducts regular testing of the area's well water. "They (the NRC)
has been pretty co-operative," said Taylor, who has lived in the
neighbourhood for 13 years. "But I'm a bit worried about what
happens when we sell." [GN]
NEW JERSEY: Initial Approval of Settlement Deal Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM X., BRIAN Y., CASEY
Z., on behalf of themselves and all others situated, and the
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY, and the ARC OF NEW
JERSEY, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, VICTORIA KUHN, in
her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New Jersey
Department of Corrections, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, and
ANGELICA ALLEN-McMILLAN, in her official capacity as Acting
Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education, Case No.
3:17-cv-00188-FLW-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed Class;
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class representatives;
3. appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class counsel;
4. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement;
and
5. approving the proposed notices and proposed schedule for
disseminating the notice and seeking Final Approval.
The New Jersey Department of Corrections is responsible for
operations and management of prison facilities in the U.S. state of
New Jersey.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i7mm1T at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tess Borden, Esq.
Jeanne LoCicero, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF NEW JERSEY
FOUNDATION
570 Broad Street, 11th Floor
P.O. Box 32159
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 854-1733
E-mail: tborden@aclu-nj.org
jlocicero@aclu-nj.org
- and -
Rebecca J. Rodgers, Esq.
Andrea Kozak-Oxnard, Esq.
Ptahra Jeppe, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS
ADVOCATES
655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 644-8644
E-mail: rrodgers@dralegal.org
akozakoxnard@dralegal.org
pjeppe@dralegal.org
- and -
William C. Silverman, Esq.
Russell T. Gorkin, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
11 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
E-mail: wsilverman@proskauer.com
rgorkin@proskauer.com
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Arce Class Suit in New York Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CITY OF NEW YORK. The
case is captioned as JON ARCE v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No.
809252/2021 (New York Sup., Bronx Cty., July 8, 2021).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mitchell J. Danziger-City.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that’s among the world’s major commercial,
financial and cultural centers. Its iconic sites include
skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building and sprawling Central
Park.[BN]
Plaintiff Jon Arce and other similarly situated inmates at the
George R. Vierno facility, Esh Unit on Rikers Island are
represented by:
Elliot H. Fuld, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ELLIOT H. FULD
930 Grand Concourse
Bronx, NY 10451
Telephone: (718) 410-4111
The City of New York, The New York City Department of Corrections
and Unnamed Corrections Officers are represented:
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
Telephone: (212) 356-1000
NIKOLA CORP: Investors Get Second Chance at Lead Role in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has
given a group of Nikola shareholders and their attorneys at Block &
Leviton and Pomerantz another chance to lead a proposed class
action lawsuit alleging the electric truck maker defrauded
investors. [GN]
NJ ALE: Faces Cardoso Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS CARDOSO MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NJ ALE HOUSE LLC (D/B/A BLU
ALEHOUSE), KOSTA GIANOPOULOS, TOM BLUME, ERIC DOE, NICK DOE, DANA
DOE, and LUIS DOE, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-13809 (D.N.J., July
19, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and
failing to reimburse business expenses.
Mr. Cardoso was employed as a cook at Blu Alehouse located at 92
NJ-23, Riverdale, New Jersey from June 2020 until April 19, 2021.
NJ Ale House LLC is an owner and operator of an American restaurant
under the name Blu Alehouse, located at 92 NJ-23, Riverdale, New
Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Nyanjom Sues Over Illegal Collection Debts
----------------------------------------------------------
Kellie Jo Nyanjom, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-01171-JAR-ADM
(D. Kan., July 8, 2021) is a class action under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), for the benefit of Kansas
consumers whose private, debt-related information NPAS Solutions,
LLC disclosed to an unauthorized third party, in connection with
the collection of consumer debts.
This unnecessary practice exposes private information regarding
alleged debts to third parties not exempted by the FDCPA, the
Plaintiff contends. The Defendant routinely provides, in connection
with the collection of consumer debts, protected information
regarding consumer debts to third-party mail vendors in violation
of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff says.
The Plaintiff seeks relief for herself and on behalf of similarly
situated Kansas consumers to whom Defendant sent debt collection
letters that were prepared, printed, or mailed by a third-party
mail vendor.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided
in Wichita, Kansas, and is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to
pay a debt owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, a creditor
other than Defendant.
On March 5, 2021, the Defendant caused a written communication to
be sent to Plaintiff at her Wichita address, in connection with the
collection of the Debt. The March 5, 2021 letter disclosed the
"Outstanding Account Balance" on the Debt.
RevSpring is owned by private equity firm GTCR LLC. RevSpring
"designs, analyzes, and improves communications and billing
solutions that increase consumer engagement and payment rates."
RevSpring touts that "North America's leading healthcare
organizations, revenue cycle management, and accounts receivables
management companies trust us to maximize their financial results
through dynamic and personalized print, online, phone, email, and
text communications and self-service payment options."
The Plaintiff did not provide consent to Defendant to communicate
or share any information about the Debt with any third-party mail
vendor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tony LaCroix, Esq.
LACROIX LAW FIRM LLC 1600
Genessee, Suite 956
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 399-4380
E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com
- and -
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
OCWEN LOAN: Parties Seek to Hold Ruling on Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY FRANKLIN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that the ruling on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be held in abeyance
until September 22, 2021 to allow the Parties an opportunity to
explore resolution.
Ocwen Loan provides mortgage loans. The Company offers consumer
home, reverse mortgage, and investment property loans.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC provides mortgage loans.
A copy of the Parties motion dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zNWRsB at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Jason Ibey, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
jason@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sara Louise Markert, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
Irvine, CA 92612-4414
Telephone: (949) 223-7245
Facsimile: (949) 437-8845
E-mail: Sara.markert@bclplaw.com
- and -
Brian V. Otero, Esq.
Stephen R. Blacklocks, Esq.
Ryan A. Becker, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0005
Telephone: (212) 309-1000
Facsimile: (212) 309-1100
E-mail: botero@HuntonAK.com
sblacklocks@HuntonAK.com
rbecker@HuntonAK.com
OPENTABLE INC: Faces Vaccaro Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVE VACARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OPENTABLE, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-05809 (C.D. Cal., July 19,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants
for their alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff
unsolicited text messages on his cellular telephone number ending
in -3928 on or about May 30, 2021 in an attempt to solicit the
Plaintiff to avail its services. The Defendants' text messages were
sent out automatically based on pre-programmed parameters via SMS
Blasting Platform, which is an "automatic telephone dialing
system." The Plaintiff asserts that he was never a customer of the
Defendants, never provided his cellular telephone number to the
Defendant for any reason whatsoever, and never provided the
Defendant his "prior express consent" to receive unsolicited text
messages.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated were harmed by causing the
to incur certain cellular telephone charges and by invading their
privacy. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff seeks damages injunctive relief for
recovery of economic injury.
Opentable, Inc. is an online restaurant-reservation service
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
P & Z CAROLINA: $755K Class Deal in Ditsworth Suit Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REBECKA DITSWORTH, Plaintiff v. P & Z CAROLINA PIZZA,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-00084-GNS (W.D. Ky.),
Judge Greg N. Stivers of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, Bowling Green Division, issued Memorandum
Opinion and Order:
a. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
Sealed Motions for Approval of Settlement and Attorneys'
Fees and Costs;
b. granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to
File Final Approval of Settlement and Motion for Approval
of Attorneys' Fees Under Seal;
c. granting the Defendants' Motion for Leave to Seal Document
File Supplemental Memoranda; and
d. granting the Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Leave to Seal
Document.
On May 5, 2020, Ditsworth sued Defendants P&Z Carolina Pizza, LLC,
doing business as Papa John's, Charles H. Zoellers, and Daniel B.
Patterson, seeking unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and Kentucky and North Carolina state wage laws.
Ditsworth represents delivery drivers for Papa John's who alleged
they were not paid the federal minimum wage due to insufficient
reimbursements for their vehicle expenses. Ditsworth subsequently
filed an Amended Complaint on May 19, 2020.
The parties moved to conditionally certify a collective class under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), preliminarily certify a putative class
under Rule 23, and preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement.
The Court granted the motion. On Oct. 16, 2020, the parties
jointly moved for final approval of the Agreement and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Agreement is intended to settle claims on behalf of delivery
drivers working for Papa John's in Kentucky, North Carolina, and
Tennessee during respective "Release Periods." The Agreement
identifies a "Total Settlement Amount" of $755,412.32, which is
defined as the "total gross settlement amount for purposes of
calculating the amounts necessary to fund settlement class
distributions under this Agreement." The Agreement's "Net
Settlement Amount" of $506,126.26, is defined as "the portion of
the Total Settlement Amount used for calculating the amounts
necessary to fund settlement class distributions." The Net
Settlement Amount is based on a $0.40/mile rate to compensate a
class of 704 drivers. This amount is comprised of the "Kentucky
Net Settlement Fund" of $186,559.49, the "North Carolina Net
Settlement Fund" of $198,853.41, and the "Tennessee Net Settlement
Fund" of $120,713.36.
The Agreement provides a claims process which allows a class member
to opt-in to the FLSA collective action by filing a claim and
thereby recover a "Potential Settlement Payment." If a class member
does not opt-out of the settlement, the Agreement provides an
automatic award of $50 for the Rule 23 class. This type of
settlement agreement is commonly referred to as a hybrid class
action. The Tennessee class members, however, do not need to
submit a claim; so long as a Tennessee class member does not opt
out, the member will receive a pro rata share of the Tennessee FLSA
Claim Fund.
The Agreement also contains a "clear sailing" provision, precluding
the Defendants from opposing the class counsel's request for
attorneys' fees of $248,307.85 and costs of $5,987.21.
Additionally, the Agreement allocates any unclaimed funds to the
"Reserve Fund", which is "a fund designated for late claims and
contingencies to be paid out of the Total Settlement Amount, which
will not exceed $15,000, plus any amounts remaining from the claim
funds." The funds remain in the Reserve Fund for the "Reserve Fund
Period." Ultimately, "any funds remaining after the Reserve Fund
Period will be retained by the Defendants."
Discussion
A. Settlement Agreement
Judge Stivers opines that (i) the parties have a bona fide dispute
leading to an uncertain outcome; (ii) he presumes an absence of
fraud or collusion; (iii) the settlement avoids the costs, delays,
and multitude of other problems associated with the complexity of
the class action; (iv) given the small class size, the most
pertinent part of discovery is related to the amount of actual
damages, and the parties have already engaged in discovery on that
issue; (v) the parties have endorsed the agreement as an
"excellent" settlement for both parties, especially considering the
potential bankruptcy of the franchise; (vi) the fact is that not
one class member objected to the settlement agreement to be most
persuasive; and (vii) the Settlement Class obtained recovery on a
class-wide basis for an alleged injury that, but for the
litigation, would almost certainly have gone uncompensated.
B. Attorneys' Fees
The counsel requests a 33% fee based on the percentage-of-the-fund
award. The counsel contends a loadstar "cross-check" illustrates
the reasonableness of their request, as they spent 181.5 hours on
the case and will likely spend additional time finalizing the
agreement and managing the Reserve Fund. The counsel maintains
their billable hour rate of $565 results in a 2.42 multiplier,
which is common in FLSA collective action cases in the Circuit.
Judge Stivers holds that it appears reasonable to award the
Plaintiff's attorneys' fees based on the total benefit accruing to
class members ($128,072.73) plus administrative costs ($5,978.21),
the Reserve Fund ($15,000), and the incentive fee to Ditsworth
($5,000, discussed below), which total $154,050.94. Allowing
attorneys' fees of $77,106.97 yields a total benefit to the class
of $231,307.71, and an attorneys' fee equal to 33% (i.e.,
$231,307.71 ÷ 3 = $77,102.57).
The Judge also notes that this fee equates to a rate of $424.80 per
hour for the 181.5 hours claimed by the Plaintiff's counsel, which
is in line with the fee approved by have not tendered a modified
agreement. Even considering the proposed fee reduction, the
proposed fees would equal 49.87% of the "Total Benefit."
Considering that the parties filed their motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement less than 30 days after filing the
Complaint, a fee of almost $70,000 appears reasonable.
C. Incentive/Service Payment & Costs
Judge Stivers finds that the proposed costs of $5,978.21 in
out-of-pocket expenses and settlement administration costs are
reasonable. The Agreement also provides Ditsworth a $5,000 service
award. When determining the reasonableness of an incentive
payment, courts in the Sixth Circuit have considered the named
plaintiffs' actions in protecting the class, the resulting benefits
to the class, the risks assumed by the named plaintiffs, and the
time and effort spent by the named plaintiffs, among other factors.
Ditsworth has spent substantial time on the case and provided
valuable information to the counsel. This service, according to
the Judge, viewed in comparison to her release of claims and the
modest award, weighs in favor of approval.
Conclusion
For the reasons he discussed, Judge granted (i) the Defendants'
Motion for Leave to Seal and Joint Motion for Final Approval of the
Settlement Agreement; and (ii) the Defendants' Motions for Leave to
Seal.
The provisionally certified Kentucky and North Carolina class is
now finally certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for purposes
of settlement only. The conditionally certified FLSA collective
action is now finally certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) for purposes of settlement only.
The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
The Clerk will strike the matter from the active docket.
It is a final and appealable order. There is no just cause for
delay.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uj8598xh from
Leagle.com.
P.D.K. ROOFING: Faces Guerra Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAN GUERRA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. P.D.K. ROOFING, INC., and DEE KEIHN, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-14293-KAM (S.D. Fla., July 19, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendants for its alleged violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants for several months
performing physical labor as a non-exempt employee.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants have been paying him on a
salary basis on the first three weeks of his employment, but it was
changed to hourly basis after that. Although he and other similarly
situated non-exempt employees worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek, the Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours they had worked in excess of 40 per week. In addition,
the Defendants allegedly failed to keep proper records of their
employees as the records reflect that they only worked 40 hours or
less in a workweek even though they have worked more than 40
hours.
P.D.K. Roofing, Inc. provides roofing services. Dee Keihn is the
owner of P.D.K. Roofing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth Coke, Esq.
COKE EMPLOYMENT LAW
131 North Second St., Suite 204
Fort Pierce, FL 34950
Tel: (772) 252-4230
Fax: (772) 252-4575
E-mail: beth@cokeemploymentlaw.com
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Discusses Shareholder Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that billionaire Peter Thiel and his
Palantir Technologies Inc. co-founders fired back in Delaware at
claims that their "class F" stock-a "flexible" security with voting
power adjusted to give them a 49.99% say in any decision-illegally
made them the company's "emperor for life."
Board chairman Thiel, CEO Alexander Karp, president Stephen Cohen,
and the company filed a summary judgment motion in Delaware's
Chancery Court, defending rather than denying the supervoting
shares. They didn't previously seek to have the case dismissed
without discovery, as most defendants do.
Although the proposed shareholder class action attacks the class F
stock for giving "a specified percentage of voting power to the
founders personally," rather than assigning voting power on a
per-share basis, that doesn't violate any statute or company
charter provision, according to the motion.
Palantir's capital structure "reflects the fundamental flexibility
that is at the core of Delaware corporate law," the filing says. "A
corporate charter may contain any provision not contrary to law,"
and there's "no prohibition on tying rights to the identity of
particular holders," it adds.
According to the co-founders, the class F shares were approved by a
majority of Palantir's other investors when the company went public
through a direct listing last year.
The arrangement is of a piece with others that have passed muster
for years, such as a provision guaranteeing 40% voting control of
Ford Motor Co. to the Ford family since its stock market debut in
1956, the motion says.
The allegation that the stock is reverse-engineered to have 49.99%
power over every vote, "as if by magic," is little more than a
"raft of hyperbole," according to the filing.
Even if the "attacks had legal merit, under no circumstances would
excising" the "entire class F structure"-as the lawsuit
requests-"be the appropriate remedy," the motion says. "The
appropriate remedy would not be to attack the charter with a battle
ax, but instead to wield a scalpel."
Palantir is represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC. The
founders are represented by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP and
Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP. The plaintiff is represented by
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Saxena White PA, and
Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC.
The case is In re Palantir Techs. Inc. Class F Stock Litig., Del.
Ch., No. 2021-0275, motion for summary judgment filed 7/23/21.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Leonard in Washington
at mleonard@bloomberglaw.com [GN]
PELLA CORPORATION: Olds BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BROOKS OLDS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PELLA CORPORATION, Case No. 21LL00005,
was removed from the Circuit Court of McDonough County, Illinois,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on
July 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-04123-SLD-JEH to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Pella Corporation is a window and door manufacturing company with
its principal place of business in Pella, Iowa. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gregory P. Abrams, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 212-6500
Facsimile: (312) 212-6501
E-mail: gregory.abrams@faegredrinker.com
PERRIGO CO: Fails to Dismiss Class Action Over Timely Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Pollock at independent.ie reports that a US judge has rejected
pharmaceutical company Perrigo's attempt to dismiss a shareholder
class action that claims it didn't disclose a EUR1.6bn tax
liability from Revenue in a timely manner.
Instead, the judge granted a summary judgment to the shareholders
on the issues of falsity and materiality.
In an opinion and order from the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York, US District Judge Denise Cote wrote that a
jury trial should decide if the defendants, including Perrigo, its
CEO Murray Kessler and former CFO Ronald Winowiecki, had the
required level of intent.
The original complaint in this action was filed by the City of Boca
Raton General Employees' Pension Plan and Palm Bay Police and
Firefighters' Pension Fund.
The Sunday Independent reported last year that the pension funds
had won class action certification in the case.
The funds claimed Perrigo failed to share the disputed EUR1.6bn tax
liability, which Revenue included in a letter the firm received in
October 2018, with its investors in a timely manner.
They alleged Perrigo failed to share the tax liability in a report
in November 2018 sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). In the November filing, Perrigo said it disagreed with
Revenue's findings but did not specify how much it might owe.
The shareholder groups alleged Perrigo didn't reveal the tax
liability until an SEC filing in December 2018, leading to
Perrigo's share price falling by 30pc in a day.
Judge Cote's order said the plaintiffs were "correct" to contend
that Perrigo's exclusion of the tax liability was "presumptively
misleading". She said Perrigo had a duty to disclose the loss
contingency if the chance of occurrence was "more than remote but
less than likely".
Judge Cote rejected Perrigo's argument that the EUR1.6bn in the
audit finding letter from Revenue was not material information.
Perrigo had claimed it was not a "foregone conclusion" that Revenue
would issue any assessment, and the amount of any assessment was
unknown.
Cote wrote this argument was not about whether an investor would
find the figure material, but to Perrigo's "duty to disclose".
Perrigo said it does not comment on pending litigation.
The dispute centres on Revenue's decision, following a 2016 audit,
to characterise the sale of Elan as a capital transaction, eligible
to be taxed at a rate of 33pc. Revenue subsequently sent Perrigo a
EUR1.64bn tax assessment.
Perrigo maintains the cash received was declared as trading income,
which is taxable at 12.5pc. The Irish Times reported Revenue had
accepted the contested sum is now less than EUR1bn. [GN]
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Piedmont Lithium
Inc. ("Piedmont" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLL) investors
concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the
federal securities laws.
If you suffered a loss on your Piedmont 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/piedmont-lithium-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 July 20, 2021, Reuters reported that Piedmont "has not applied
for a state mining permit or a necessary zoning variance in Gaston
County, just west of Charlotte, despite telling investors since
2018 that it was on the verge of doing so." According to the
article, a majority of the board of commissioners said, "they may
block or delay the project because Piedmont has not told them what
levels of dust, noise and vibrations will occur, nor how water and
air quality would be affected."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $12.56, or nearly 20%,
to close at $50.52 per share on July 20, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Piedmont should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. [GN]
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL) resulting from
allegations that Piedmont may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Piedmont securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2124.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On July 20, 2021, Reuters published an article
entitled "In push to supply Tesla, Piedmont Lithium irks North
Carolina neighbors" which reported that Piedmont "has not applied
for a state mining permit or a necessary zoning variance in Gaston
County, just west of Charlotte, despite telling investors since
2018 that it was on the verge of doing so." The article also
reported that "[f]ive of the seven members of the county's board of
commissioners, who control zoning changes, say they may block or
delay the project because Piedmont has not told them what levels of
dust, noise and vibrations will occur, nor how water and air
quality would be affected[,]" and quoted the chair of the board of
commissioners stating that "Piedmont has sort of put the proverbial
cart before the horse[.]"
The article further reported that "[s]tate officials added their
review process could stretch for more than a year as they solicit
comments from at least six other state and federal agencies[,]" and
quoted the director of Gaston County's planning and zoning office
stating that "I'm not even going to accept an application from
Piedmont for rezoning until they have their state permit in
hand[.]"
On this news, Piedmont shares fell $12.56 per share over the
trading day, or nearly 20%, to close at $50.52 per share on July
20, 2021, damaging investors.
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.[GN]
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Rosen Law Reminds of September 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Piedmont Lithium Inc. f/k/a/ Piedmont Lithium Limited
(NASDAQ: PLL, PLLL) between March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Piedmont investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Piedmont class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2124.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, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Piedmont has not, and would not, follow its stated steps
or timeline to secure all proper and necessary permits; (2)
Piedmont failed to inform relevant people and governmental
authorities of its actual plans; (3) Piedmont failed to file proper
applications with relevant governmental authorities (including
state and local authorities); (4) Piedmont and its lithium business
does not have "strong local government support"; and (5) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. 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
21, 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-2124.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. [GN]
QUESTFLEET LLC: Jones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Vernon Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Questfleet LLC, Mike "Doe",
and Raymond "Doe", Case No. 1:21-cv-04042 (E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2021)
is an action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law
(NYLL), and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt
transport route driver for Defendants from August 2020. Throughout
his employment, Defendants misclassified Jones as an independent
contractor and failed to pay him legally required overtime wages,
even though Jones regularly worked over forty hours per workweek.
Defendants also failed to provide Jones with accurate wage
statements with each payment of his wages, the complaint alleges.
Individual Defendants are the owners of Defendant Questfleet LLC, a
courier delivery service located in Lindenhurst, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
RED APPLE: Notches Win in Suit Over Overcharging of Tenants
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Hudson at therealdeal.com reports that billionaire John
Catsimatidis has scored a courthouse win against tenants in one of
his Prospect Heights rental buildings.
A class action lawsuit that accused Catsimatidis' Red Apple Group
of illegally overcharging tenants at 670 Pacific Street was
dismissed by a state Supreme Court justice.
The lawsuit, filed in October, was one of several cases alleging
that landlords improperly recorded an inflated first rent payment
at new development rental buildings that received 421a tax
abatements.
The question at the heart of the cases was whether it's legal to
offer concessions on the initial rent for units in 421a buildings
and not record the price the tenant actually paid when the
concessions were factored in.
Landlords argued that it's a time-old practice, while housing
advocates and Newman Ferrara, the law firm representing tenants in
each of the cases, contended that the practice amounts to illegally
inflating rents.
In the case of 670 Pacific, Judge Debra James sided with the
landlords, noting the existence of a "one-time construction
concession rider" as a key factor in her decision. Crain's first
reported the decision.
Catsimatidis and his lawyers are celebrating the win, and the
billionaire said he intends to try to recover attorneys' fees from
the plaintiffs "with a vengeance." He said he didn't plan on
pursuing tenants directly, but instead would seek to recover the
fees from their lawyers at Newman Ferrara.
"Basically we had a bunch of ambulance-chasing lawyers chasing all
the tenants," Catsimatidis told The Real Deal. "They sent out
letters to every tenant in the whole area shopping for one of them
to bite and that's what happened. The tenants were just sucked into
this deal, I believe."
Newman Ferrara's team has already filed a notice to appeal the
decision, calling Catsimatidis's celebration premature.
"Appellate determinations are what ultimately matter," said Lucas
Ferrara, the law firm's partner who is handling the case along with
Roger Sachar. "Tell Catsimatidis, who made his fortune selling
poultry, that it's a bit premature to start counting his
chickens."
Ferrara previously represented the billionaire developer more than
five years ago in a capacity unrelated to Red Apple's residential
holdings.
Sherwin Belkin, the partner at Belkin Burden Goldman, which
represented Red Apple in the matter, agreed that things would be
settled at the appellate level, but he called the decision a
milestone.
"This is very important in that it's the first case that addressed
the merits and found for multiple reasons that the complaint was
completely lacking in merit," he said.
Ferrara called his comment "disingenuous."
"This decision was in response to a 'motion to dismiss,' which
means the judge erroneously thought that a cognizable cause of
action wasn't asserted, but it is not a merits-based determination.
Not by any means," Ferrara told TRD.
In mid-June, a judge granted class certification for a similar case
alleging rent overcharges against Spruce Capital Partners at 1209
Dekalb Avenue.
The outcome of these cases as they work their way through the
courts is being followed closely by the industry and lawmakers. In
recent months, some lawmakers have pointed to similar cases as
examples of why the 421a program should be abolished.[GN]
RENOVACARE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Renovacare, Inc. ("Renovacare") (OTC PINK: RCAR)
between August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. To get
more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/renovacare-inc-information-request-form?prid=17898&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Renovacare, Inc. NEWS - RCAR NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) at the
direction of 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 Mr. 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 of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Renovacare, you have until September 14, 2021 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Renovacare securities between
August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/renovacare-inc-information-request-form?prid=17898&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
[GN]
RENOVACARE INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against RenovaCare,
Inc. ("RenovaCare" or "the Company") (OTC Pink: RCAR) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 14,
2017 and May 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 14, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/renovacare-inc/#case-form to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. RenovaCare and the Company's controlling
shareholder and Chairman, Harmel Rayat ("Rayat"), masterminded a
promotional campaign using misleading statements to inflate the
Company's stock price artificially. When the OTC Markets asked the
Company about its actions, it issued a press release claiming no
director, officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement
with the promotional materials developed by a supposed third party.
The Company failed to maintain appropriate controls over
disclosure. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about RenovaCare, investors
suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
RENOVACARE INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 19 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
RenovaCare, Inc. ("RenovaCare" or the "Company") (OTC: RCAR)
securities between August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
All investors who purchased RenovaCare, Inc. and incurred losses
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action or join the case on our website,
www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of RenovaCare, Inc., you
may, no later than September 14, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
RenovaCare, Inc.
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 ("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."
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.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of RLX Technology Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the following company during
the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:RLX)
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, RLX American Depository Shares pursuant or traceable to
the documents issued in connection with RLX's January 2021 initial
public stock offering.
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
RLX Technology Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: the Company's then-existing exposure to China's
ongoing campaign to establish a national standard for e-cigarettes,
which would bring them into line with ordinary cigarette
regulations, and that RLX's reported financials were not nearly as
robust as the offering materials projected, nor were they
indicative of future results. As a result, investors purchased RLX
shares at artificially inflated prices.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/rlx-technology-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17928&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
RLX Technology Inc. (RLX)
Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the January 2021
initial public stock offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 9, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-rlx/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
ROADRUNNER MOVING: Victims May Get Relief With Colorado Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
thedenverchannel.com reports that for more than three weeks, Jamie
Bunting has waited in her empty Monument home for any communication
from the company she hired to move her and her husband's
furniture.
RoadRunner Moving has their furniture. But most of their money,
roughly $14,000, has gone to a self-proclaimed moving broker called
Alliance Moving and Storage, based out of Florida.
Action lawsuit
Three weeks after moving to their new home in Monument, a family is
frustrated they still haven't received their belongings. Other
families are frustrated, too, which has led to a class-action
lawsuit.
Jamie Bunting in her empty home waiting for movers to arrive
By: Sloan DickeyPosted at 5:38 AM, Jul 23, 2021 and last updated
9:03 PM, Jul 23, 2021
MONUMENT, Colo. -- For more than three weeks, Jamie Bunting has
waited in her empty Monument home for any communication from the
company she hired to move her and her husband's furniture.
RoadRunner Moving has their furniture. But most of their money,
roughly $14,000, has gone to a self-proclaimed moving broker called
Alliance Moving and Storage, based out of Florida.
Recent Stories from thedenverchannel.com
Start Home Improvement Right! // Lifetime Windows
"Every day we get up and I look at the beautiful view and I try to
be positive while I wait for every single thing I own to arrive in
my house," Bunting said. "It's all at an unknown location right
now."
Bunting said Alliance Moving and Storage promised her that they
would be in contact with her from the beginning to the end of her
move and that her items would be delivered by early July. She said
neither of those things happened.
"They promised 30 days (of) free storage, with unloading and
loading at the storage facility, which has not happened. We're now
being charged for that," Bunting said. "They advertise 24/7 quality
customer service, which they didn't provide."
Now, a class action lawsuit has been filed in Colorado allowing
anyone who hired Alliance Moving and Storage to file a formal
complaint. The lawsuit seeks to "hold defendants and all those
involved accountable for the maximum legal and equitable relief for
defrauding the consuming public."
Lawyer Christopher German, who operates a practice out of Denver
and helped file the class action suit, said the company has
potentially defrauded hundreds of people in Colorado.
"During the summer and spring season, a lot of people are moving.
We think there's been a lot of victims, especially in Colorado
lately," German said. "These things -- you really can't put a
dollar amount on. The best we can do is try and get (Alliance) to
compensate victims and stop these practices."
German said he hopes to gather a group of plaintiffs to make a
strong case in court. The lawsuit alleges "more than 100 putative
class members exist and the amount in controversy by any one
plaintiff is not less than $25, nor less than $50,000 of the
aggregate of all claims."
In May, a 91-year-old woman and her daughter reached out to Denver7
saying they hired Alliance Moving and Storage to deliver
belongings. Twenty-six days later, the elderly woman said she has
no idea where her belongings are.
A Better Business Bureau Review of Alliance Moving and Storage
shows similar complaints.
Denver7 reached out to the owner and manager of Alliance Moving and
Storage, Richard Falcone, for comment on Bunting's move and the
class action lawsuit. Though he refused to discuss the claims, he
did say that the publicity of any alleged malfeasance would not
harm his company.
action lawsuit
Three weeks after moving to their new home in Monument, a family is
frustrated they still haven't received their belongings. Other
families are frustrated, too, which has led to a class-action
lawsuit.
Jamie Bunting in her empty home waiting for movers to arrive
By: Sloan DickeyPosted at 5:38 AM, Jul 23, 2021 and last updated
9:03 PM, Jul 23, 2021
MONUMENT, Colo. -- For more than three weeks, Jamie Bunting has
waited in her empty Monument home for any communication from the
company she hired to move her and her husband's furniture.
RoadRunner Moving has their furniture. But most of their money,
roughly $14,000, has gone to a self-proclaimed moving broker called
Alliance Moving and Storage, based out of Florida.
Recent Stories from thedenverchannel.com
Laser Slimming // A New You
"Every day we get up and I look at the beautiful view and I try to
be positive while I wait for every single thing I own to arrive in
my house," Bunting said. "It's all at an unknown location right
now."
Bunting said Alliance Moving and Storage promised her that they
would be in contact with her from the beginning to the end of her
move and that her items would be delivered by early July. She said
neither of those things happened.
"They promised 30 days (of) free storage, with unloading and
loading at the storage facility, which has not happened. We're now
being charged for that," Bunting said. "They advertise 24/7 quality
customer service, which they didn't provide."
Now, a class action lawsuit has been filed in Colorado allowing
anyone who hired Alliance Moving and Storage to file a formal
complaint. The lawsuit seeks to "hold defendants and all those
involved accountable for the maximum legal and equitable relief for
defrauding the consuming public."
Lawyer Christopher German, who operates a practice out of Denver
and helped file the class action suit, said the company has
potentially defrauded hundreds of people in Colorado.
"During the summer and spring season, a lot of people are moving.
We think there's been a lot of victims, especially in Colorado
lately," German said. "These things -- you really can't put a
dollar amount on. The best we can do is try and get (Alliance) to
compensate victims and stop these practices."
German said he hopes to gather a group of plaintiffs to make a
strong case in court. The lawsuit alleges "more than 100 putative
class members exist and the amount in controversy by any one
plaintiff is not less than $25, nor less than $50,000 of the
aggregate of all claims."
In May, a 91-year-old woman and her daughter reached out to Denver7
saying they hired Alliance Moving and Storage to deliver
belongings. Twenty-six days later, the elderly woman said she has
no idea where her belongings are.
A Better Business Bureau Review of Alliance Moving and Storage
shows similar complaints.
Denver7 reached out to the owner and manager of Alliance Moving and
Storage, Richard Falcone, for comment on Bunting's move and the
class action lawsuit. Though he refused to discuss the claims, he
did say that the publicity of any alleged malfeasance would not
harm his company.
"I make so much money here working with customers and moving 800 to
1,000 families across the country, that I didn't have to worry
about that," Falcone said.
While interviewing the Bunting family, Falcone called back. After
initially being hostile to both the reporter and the alleged
victims, he apologized and promised the Buntings he would fix their
situation.
"I'm going to go to the phones right now (to see) where the hell
RoadRunner is with your furniture and find out what the hell we're
going to do to take care of that. I'm going to find out what I can
do to get you guys compensations in there," Falcone said to the
frustrated family. "I apologize, folks. I really do. I'm going to
get on this right now."
Falcone said he had not heard of the lawsuit or been served legal
papers at the time of the phone call.
Contact Denver7 will continue to follow this story and the ongoing
class-action lawsuit. [GN]
ROCKET COMPANIES: Thornton Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Rocket Companies, Inc.
(NYSE: RKT). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased Rocket Class A common stock between
February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law
Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Rocket for more information. Investors may
also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
The case alleges that Rocket Companies and its senior executives
made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose
that: (i) Rocket's gain on sale margins were contracting at the
highest rate in two years as a result of increased competition
among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the lower
margin Partner Network operating segment and compression in the
price spread between the primary and secondary mortgage markets;
(ii) Rocket was engaged in a price war and battle for market share
with its primary competitors in the wholesale market, which was
further compressing margins in Rocket's Partner Network operating
segment; (iii) the adverse trends identified above were
accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins were
on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six
months of 2021; (iv) as a result, the favorable market conditions
that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve
historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as Rocket's
gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the
first quarter of 2019; and (v) rather than remaining elevated due
to surging demand, Rocket's company-wide gain-on-sale margins had
fallen materially below pre-pandemic averages.
Interested Rocket investors have until August 30, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class
members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a
lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose
to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is
not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is
investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a
lead plaintiff.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
ROYAL PHILIPS: Trucker Seeks Class-Action Status for Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
landline.media reports that attorneys for an Oregon truck driver
are seeking class-action status for a lawsuit against Royal Philips
over a recall of some of the company's devices used to treat sleep
apnea.
The named plaintiff, Gerry Shelton of Boring, Ore., was diagnosed
with sleep apnea in 2020. He purchased a Philips Dreamstation BiPAP
machine as part of his treatment. The lawsuit was filed on June 29
in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, where Philips has its
North American headquarters.
The device is part of a recall Philips announced earlier this year
that includes many of its CPAP and BiPAP machines. The recalled
machines contain a polyester-based polyurethane foam for sound
abatement.
The recall announcement states that the foam may break down and be
inhaled or ingested, or that it may emit volatile organic compounds
that can be inhaled or ingested, potentially causing serious injury
or life-threatening illnesses, including cancer.
"(Shelton) would not have purchased this product if he had known it
was defective, contained a carcinogenic byproduct, and would be
subject to a recall for containing defective materials," the
complaint states.
The lawsuit alleges that Philips had heard complaints from patients
of "black particles" in their machines for years but "did not warn
the public or its customers about these hazards" until this spring,
before issuing a voluntary recall in the U.S. in June.
Because of the recall, Shelton has been forced to stop using the
machine and does not have a replacement readily available. The
lawsuit also claims Shelton has had to stop driving truck due to
his untreated sleep apnea and that he suffered atrial fibrillation
"because he is no longer able to get sufficient sleep without the
use of an appropriate device to help him breathe properly."
The lawsuit seeks a refund, replacement with a nondefective device,
costs for ongoing medical monitoring, "and all other appropriate
damages for all the injuries he has suffered as a result of his
defective (device)."
According to the recall notice from Philips, the potential risks of
particulate exposure include headache, irritation, inflammation,
respiratory issues, and possible toxic and carcinogenic effects.
The potential risks of chemical exposure due to off-gassing include
headache, irritation, hypersensitivity, nausea/vomiting, and
possible toxic and carcinogenic effects. The notice states that
Philips has received no reports regarding patient impact related to
chemical emissions.
On July 21, attorneys for Royal Philips filed a request to stay the
proceedings in Shelton's case pending the court's decision on a
motion to transfer and consolidate the numerous lawsuits that have
been filed since the recall announcement.
According to court documents filed by Philips, the company is aware
of at least 20 similar lawsuits filed so far. [GN]
SCORE MEDIA: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Score Media and Gaming Inc. (NASDAQ: SCR) resulting from
allegations that theScore may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased theScore securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2125.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: theScore conducted its initial public offering
on or around February 25, 2021, selling 6 million shares of Class A
stock priced at $27.00 per share.
Then, on July 13, 2021, post-market, theScore reported its
financial results for its third fiscal quarter of 2021. theScore
reported GAAP earnings per share of -$0.78, missing consensus
estimates by $0.48, among other results. theScore also reported an
EBITDA loss of $21.1 million, in comparison with a loss of $8.7
million for the same period in the prior year, citing "primarily .
. . . additional expenses incurred in connection with the ongoing
expansion of the Company's gaming operations as well as costs and
professional service fees related to the recently completed U.S.
initial public offering."
On this news, theScore's shares fell $1.75 per share, or 9%, to
close at $15.99 per share on July 14, 2021, damaging investors.
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.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
SEGA OF AMERICA: Muto Alleges Key Master Machine Rigged
-------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Muto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sega of America, Inc., Play It! Amusements,
Inc., Komuse America Inc., Defendants., Case No. 21-cv-01161 (C.D.
Cal., July 8, 2021), seeks injunctive and monetary relief and
additional relief for violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.
Key Master Machine is a amusement arcade machine that is won by
successfully moving the player-controlled key to stop and enter
into a "keyhole" in the machine. Muto claims that the machines are
rigged and are designed to prevent users from being able to win
until a set number of unsuccessful plays have been completed. Muto
played the Key Master Machine on multiple occasions in or around
mid-to-late 2019 at the Westfield Mall in Palm Desert, California.
Sega of America, Inc. is responsible for Sega Corporation's North
America operations, including the development, marketing,
distribution, and sales of amusement arcade machines such as Key
Master in the United States.
Play It! Amusements, Inc. (previously Sega Amusements U.S.A.,
Inc.), is involved in the repair, maintenance, and sale of the Key
Master Machines and their parts.
Komuse America Inc. is the manufacturer of the Key Master Machines.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
jnassir@faruqilaw.com
rglezakos@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
Michael Liskow, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036-5803
Tel: (212) 899-1761
Fax: (332) 206-2073
Email: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com
mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Class Status Bid Must Be Filed by May 13
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic
Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 4:20-md-02936 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough
entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' expert designations are due on or before
December 31, 2021;
2. The Defendants' expert designations are due on or before
February 18, 2022;
3. Class certification discovery shall be completed on or
before May 2, 2022;
4. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due on
or before May 13, 2022;
5. The Defendants response to Plaintiffs Motion for Class
Certification is due on or before June 13, 2022; and
6. The Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their Motion for
Class Certification is due on or before July 1, 2022.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.[CC]
SPECTRUM KING: Misclassifies Sales Executives, Reitzel Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER REITZEL, an individual, Plaintiff v. SPECTRUM KING LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company, RAMI VARDI, an individual,
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV26376
(Cal. Sup. Ct., July 19, 2021) brings this complaint against the
Defendants seeking to recover damages and other relief pursuant to
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as Vice President of
Sales from in or around February 2017 until in or around November
2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally evaded their obligations under the wage and hour and
workers' compensation laws by misclassifying him and other
similarly situated employees as independent contractors. The
Defendants willfully refused to pay the Plaintiff any wages earned
from about September 2018 to about December 2018 and failed to
timely pay the Plaintiff starting in or around September 2018 and
until his departure. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees meal breaks, the
Plaintiff asserts.
Spectrum King LLC is in the business of marketing and selling "grow
lights" for the indoor cultivation of plants. Rami Vardi is the
managing member and CEO of Spectrum King. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oscar Ramirez, Esq.
Matthew Blair, Esq.
Kirill Lavinski, Esq.
BLAIR & RAMIREZ, LLP
515 South Flower St., 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 568-4000
Fax: (213) 568-4100
SPECTRUM MNG'T: Illegally Records Phone Conversations, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORETTA JOHNSON, an individually, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
a Delaware limited liability company, v. SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
RG21104462 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., July 9, 2021) arises from
the Defendants' illegal recording of telephone conversations with
Plaintiff and other consumers in the State of California without
their knowledge or consent, in violation of California Penal Code
thereby invading their privacy.
Plaintiff Loretta Johnson called and received a call from the
Defendants to inquire about ordering Defendants' services. Ms.
Johnson was not provided any disclosures that these calls with
Defendants, including a call where she provided personal
information, were being recorded.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief under Penal
Code section 637.2, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, as well as an award of attorneys' fees under Code of
Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
Charter is a leading broadband connectivity company and cable
operator. Charter Communications, Inc. offers residential and
business services including Spectrum Internet, TV, Mobile and
Voice.
Defendant Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business also
located at 400 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut. In May 2016,
Time Warner Cable, Inc. was merged into a subsidiary of Charter
Communications, Inc. and changed its name to Spectrum Management
Holding Company, LLC.
Charter sells cable television, broadband internet, and phone
services to Californians under the brand name Spectrum. Any
references to Spectrum in this complaint refer to all
Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
311 PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
4117400 Hollywood Blvd., No. 505
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Telephone: (917) 657-6857
Facsimile: (917) 501-3346
E-mail: yliebennan@parasmoliebennanlaw.com
gparasmo@parasmoliebennanlaw.com
- and -
David C. Parisi, Esq.
Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
PARISI & HAYENS LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (818) 990-1299
Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
shavens@parisihavens.com
ST. STEPHEN'S: State Auto's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff
v. ST. STEPHEN'S CEMETERY ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 3:19-cv-513-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky.), Judge David J. Hale of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky,
Louisville Division, denied State Auto's motion for partial summary
judgment.
Plaintiff State Automobile brought the declaratory-judgment action
to resolve a dispute over the scope of insurance coverage arising
out of a pending action in Jefferson Circuit Court. From 1992 to
2018, the Plaintiff issued annual primary insurance policies to
Defendant St. Stephen's Cemetery Association. These policies
provided commercial general liability coverage. The relevant
portion of the insurance policies for the declaratory judgment is
"Coverage A Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability." The
coverage "applies to 'bodily injury' and 'property damage' only if"
the "'bodily injury' or 'property damage' occurs during the policy
period."
The policies in effect from Feb. 15, 2008 to Feb. 15, 2018, contain
a funeral-services exclusion and a professional-services exclusion,
which explain circumstances where the insurance coverage does not
apply. The funeral-services exclusion provides: "this insurance
does not apply to 'bodily injury', 'property damage' or 'personal
and advertising injury' arising out of errors or omissions in the
handling, embalming, disposal, burial, cremation or disinterment of
dead bodies."
The professional-services exclusion provides: "this insurance does
not apply to 'bodily injury', 'property damage' or 'personal and
advertising injury' due to the rendering of or failure to render
any professional service." This exclusion provides a space for the
parties to provide a "Description of Professional Services." The
2008, 2010, 2011, and 2014 insurance policies list "cemeteries" as
a description of the professional services in the space provided.
The 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017 insurance policies, on
the other hand, provide no description of professional services in
the space provided.
Defendants Tina Seaton, Pamela Wilkerson, Kelly Bryant, Crystal
Ray, and Tina Clark (the underlying plaintiffs) brought a putative
class action in Jefferson Circuit Court against Defendants St.
Stephen's Cemetery Association; Bruce D. Zimmerman, Sr.; Herb
Zimmerman; Tony Bostic; Mark Holland; and Barbara Ann Houser (the
underlying defendants). The putative class consists of "citizens
of the United States of America who purchased, or whose family
member(s) purchased, cemetery plots, headstones, burial services
and other products and services from Defendants, and/or whose
family members are buried, or are presumed to be buried, at St.
Stephen's Cemetery."
The underlying action seeks to certify four subclasses:
a. Subclass 1 - Lost and/or misplaced remains: All
individual citizens of the United States of America whose loved
ones were buried or interred at St. Stephen's Cemetery from 1992 to
present, and whose remains can no longer be located and/or whose
loved ones' remains were exhumed without knowledge or consent
and/or those whose loved ones have been buried in a single plot
containing multiple people.
b. Subclass 2 - Improper Maintenance of Graves: All
individual citizens of the United States of America whose loved
ones were buried or interred at St. Stephen's Cemetery from 1992 to
present, and whose remains were improperly interred or improperly
maintained, including, but not limited to, improper maintenance of
loved ones' headstones and the grounds surrounding their loved
ones' graves resulting in property damage, in violation of Kentucky
law.
c. Subclass 3 - Failure to provide headstones: All
individual citizens of the United States of America who purchased,
or whose loved ones purchased, headstones from Defendants from 1992
to present, and who did not receive the headstones they purchased.
f. Subclass 4 - Sale of previously sold or occupied cemetery
plots: All individual citizens of the United States of America who
have or whose loved ones have purchased a grave plot from
Defendants from 1992 to present that is currently occupied by
someone other than the purchaser, or the person the purchaser
allowed to be buried in the plot, or has been sold to someone
else.
The state-court complaint alleges violations of the Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, negligence and
negligence per se, negligent trespass, nuisance, desecration of a
grave, outrage/negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful
mishandling of a corpse, and negligent supervision and retention.
The underlying plaintiffs seek certification of a class action,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, appointment of a receiver for
St. Stephen's, a full accounting of the final resting place of all
bodies buried at St. Stephen's, and a preliminary injunction
enjoining the underlying defendants from "continuing to take any
wrongful actions such as those set forth in this Complaint."
At the time of the parties' filings, the state court had not ruled
on the motion to certify the class action or the underlying
defendants' motion for summary judgment. Although State Auto is
not a party to the underlying action, it has been defending the
underlying defendants under the insurance policies in effect from
1992 to 2008.
On July 15, 2019, State Auto brought this declaratory-judgment
action against the underlying plaintiffs and defendants. It seeks
four declaratory judgments: First, that State Auto has no duty to
defend or indemnify the underlying defendants under the post-2008
insurance policies because the funeral-services exclusion precludes
coverage over the claims in the underlying action; second, that
State Auto has no duty to defend or indemnify the underlying
defendants under the post-2008 insurance policies because the
professional-services exclusion precludes coverage over the claims
in the underlying action; third, that State Auto has no duty to
indemnify the underlying defendants under the pre-2008 insurance
policies for alleged damages in the underlying action that occurred
after Feb. 15, 2008; and fourth, that State Auto has no duty to
indemnify the underlying defendants for "disgorgement and/or
restitution of ill-gotten gains" because they do not constitute
"damages" within the meaning of the insurance policies.
In sum, State Auto asks the Court to declare that State Auto owes
no duty to indemnify against any claims in the underlying
state-court action that accrued after Feb. 15, 2008.
State Auto seeks partial summary judgment on its first three
requests for declaratory judgment. It has identified 27 specific
claims where the individual involved either died or was buried
after Feb. 15, 2008. In State Auto's view, the pre-2008 policies
do not apply to these 27 claims in the underlying action because
the claims accrued after these policies expired. It also argues
that the funeral-services exclusion and the professional-services
exclusion in the post-2008 policies operate as a blanket exclusion
of insurance coverage for the 27 claims identified in the
underlying action.
Discussion
a. Exclusions in the Post-2008 Policies
State Auto seeks declaratory judgments that the funeral-services
exclusion and the professional-services exclusion preclude coverage
under the post-2008 insurance policies for the 27 individual claims
in the underlying action.
Judge Hale considers five factors to determine whether the exercise
of jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act is appropriate:
(1) whether the declaratory action would settle the controversy;
(2) whether the declaratory action would serve a useful purpose in
clarifying the legal relations in issue; (3) whether the
declaratory remedy is being used merely for the purpose of
procedural fencing or to provide an arena for a race for res
judicata; (4) whether the use of a declaratory action would
increase friction between federal and state courts and improperly
encroach upon state jurisdiction; and (5) whether there is an
alternative remedy which is better or more effective, citing Grand
Trunk W. R.R. Co. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 746 F.2d 323, 326 (6th
Cir. 1984) (citations omitted).
Judge Hale concludes that the first, second, fourth, and fifth
factors weigh against exercising jurisdiction, while the third
factor is neutral. He says although there are circumstances in
which a declaratory judgment would provide a final answer about an
insurance company's duty to indemnify an insured, such
circumstances do not exist. T he record in the case presents
multiple factual issues that would need to be resolved by the state
court before the Court could determine whether State Auto's
insurance policies exclude coverage for the underlying action.
In short, State Auto's request is not a simple matter of applying
one insurance policy to an undisputed set of facts. Instead, State
Auto seeks a declaration that two policy exclusions offer blanket
protection from a class action made up of four subclasses with
different claims. Under these circumstances, the Judge finds that
it would not be appropriate to exercise discretionary jurisdiction
over State Auto's requests for declaratory judgment.
b. Pre-2008 Policies
State Auto also seeks a declaratory judgment that the pre-2008
insurance policies do not provide coverage for the 27 claims that
accrued after Feb. 15, 2008.
Judge Hale opines that the first, second, and fifth factors weigh
against jurisdiction; the third factor is neutral; and the fourth
factor supports exercising jurisdiction. While this request for
declaratory relief presents a purely legal question, the Judge
finds that, in sum, the factors militate against exercising
jurisdiction. Declaratory judgment would not finally resolve the
question of whether State Auto must indemnify the underlying
defendants in the state-court action.
c. Remaining Claims
In its motion for partial summary judgment, State Auto makes no
request with respect to the fourth request for declaratory judgment
in the complaint or Defendants Holland; Zimmerman, Sr.; Bostic; and
Zimmerman's counterclaim for declaratory judgment.
In light of his decision to decline jurisdiction over State Auto's
first three requests for declaratory judgment, Judge Hale orders
supplemental briefing on whether the Court should exercise
jurisdiction over the two remaining requests for declaratory
judgment.
Disposition
For the reasons set forth, Judge Hale ordered as follows:
(1) State Auto's motion for partial summary judgment is
denied. The Judge declines to exercise jurisdiction over the first
three requests for declaratory judgment. State Auto's first three
requests for declaratory judgment are therefore dismissed without
prejudice.
(2) The parties will provide additional briefing on whether
the Court should exercise discretionary jurisdiction over State
Auto's remaining request for declaratory judgment. State Auto will
file its supplemental brief within 21 days of the entry of the
Order. The Defendants will file a supplemental response within 21
days of the filing of State Auto's supplemental brief. There will
be no replies.
(3) The parties will provide additional briefing on whether
the Court should exercise discretionary jurisdiction over
Defendants Holland; Zimmerman, Sr.; Bostic; and Zimmerman's
counterclaim for declaratory judgment. Defendants Holland;
Zimmerman, Sr.; Bostic; and Zimmerman will file their supplemental
brief within 21 days of the entry of the Order. State Auto and the
remaining defendants will file a supplemental response within 21
days of the filing of Defendants Holland; Zimmerman, Sr.; Bostic;
and Zimmerman's supplemental brief. There will be no replies.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3mxnyarc from
Leagle.com.
STABLE ROAD: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California captioned Hall v. Stable Road
Acquisition Corp., et al., (Case No. 21-5943) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Stable Road
Acquisition Corp. ("Stable Road" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SRAC,
SRACW, SRACU) securities between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until September 13,
2021 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
If you suffered a loss on your Stable Road 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/stable-road-acquisition-corp/. 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 or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
Stable Road is a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC").
Momentus Inc. ("Momentus") is currently a private company.
On October 7, 2020, Momentus announced that it had signed a
definitive merger agreement with Stable Road, resulting in Momentus
becoming a publicly traded entity. The transaction was initially
valued at $1.13 billion, but was later cut to $466.6 million in
June 2021 due to delays in the company's first commercial launch.
On January 4, 2021, Stable Road revealed that Momentus's January
2021 launch would be "remanifest[ed] . . . to a subsequent launch
opportunity in 2021" because the company needed additional time to
obtain the necessary regulatory approvals.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.71, or 9.5%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $16.25 per share on
January 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On January 25, 2021, Momentus announced that Kokorich had resigned
from the company. The press release also stated that Momentus, in
consultation with Stable Road "determined that accepting Mr.
Kokorich's resignation is in the best interest of the Company, in
an effort to expedite the resolution of U.S. government national
security and foreign ownership concerns surrounding the Company,
the existence of which the Company has recently confirmed."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.75, or 19%, over
three consecutive trading sessions to close at $20.10 per share on
January 27, 2021.
On May 24, 2021, Stable Road disclosed that Momentus "does not
expect to fly any missions in 2021" because it was still securing
regulatory approvals.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.61, or
approximately 14%, to close at $10.42 per share on May 24, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
On July 13, 2021, after market hours, the SEC announced a
settlement for penalties exceeding $8 million with Stable Road; its
sponsor SRC-NI; Stable Road's Chief Executive Officer, Brian Kabot;
and its merger target Momentus. The charges relate to misleading
claims about Momentus's technology and about national security
risks associated with Mikhail Kokorich ("Kokorich"), Momentus's
founder and former CEO. According to the SEC's charges, Stable Road
had repeated Momentus's misleading claims that it had
"‘successfully tested' its propulsion technology in space when,
in fact, the company's only in-space test had failed to achieve its
primary mission objectives or demonstrate the technology's
commercial viability."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.20, or over 10%, to
close at $10.68 per share on July 14, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Momentus had only conducted a single in-space
test, which did not meet any of Momentus's pre-launch evaluation
criteria, thus the company had not "successfully tested" its
technology; (2) that the sole in-space test conducted by Momentus
was never designed to test the commercial viability of the
company's thrusters; (3) that, as a result, Momentus's progress in
commercializing its technology was significantly overstated; (4)
that Kokorich had been informed that the U.S. Government considered
him to be a "threat" that caused his affiliation with another space
technology company to be a risk to national security; (5) that,
because Kokorich was considered a national security risk, Momentus
would face challenges obtaining the necessary licenses and
approvals for its commercial launches; (6) that, as a result,
Kokorich's affiliation with Momentus jeopardized, among other
things, the company's launch schedule and revenue projections which
were based on assumptions about the timing of the company's first
commercial launch; (7) that Stable Road had not conducted adequate
due diligence, including as it relates to Momentus's testing
progress and national security concerns with Momentus's CEO; (8)
that, as a result of the failure to disclose the foregoing, Stable
Road was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny; and (9)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Stable Road securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
September 13, 2021 ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]
STABLE ROAD: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Stable
Road Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:SRAC; SRACW; SRACU) ("Stable Road")
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Stable Roadsecurities
between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Stable Road securitiesduring the Class Period may, no later than
September 13, 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; toll free at
(844) 887-9500; via e-mail atinfo@ktmc.com; orclick
https://www.ktmc.com/stable-road-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=stable_road
Stable Road is a special purpose acquisition company. SRC-NI
Holdings, LLC (the "Sponsor") served as the sponsor of Stable Road
during the Class Period. In November 2019, the Sponsor, Brian
Kabot, Stable Road's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Chairman,
and James Norris, Stable Road's Chief Financial Officer, took
Stable Road public via an initial public offering (the "IPO").
While Stable Road did not identify any target companies at the time
of the IPO, the IPO offering materials stated that Stable Road
planned to pursue an acquisition focused in the cannabis sector.
Momentus Inc. ("Momentus") was an acquisition target of Stable Road
during the Class Period. Momentus is a private commercial space
company headquartered in Santa Clara, California.
The Class Period commences on October 7, 2020, when Stable Road and
Momentus issued a joint press release announcing that Stable Road
had agreed to acquire Momentus in a proposed merger, subject to
shareholder approval (the "Merger"). On October 13, 2020, Stable
Road filed on a Form 8-K an investor presentation regarding the
Merger. The investor presentation stated that Momentus had an
enterprise value of $1.2 billion and stated that its
"Groundbreaking Water Propulsion Technology" had been
"[s]uccessfully tested . . . on a demo flight launched mid-2019."
The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose the
adverse facts about Momentus' business, operations, and prospects
and Stable Road's due diligence activities in connection with the
Merger.
The truth began to emerge on January 25, 2021, when Momentus
announced that Mikhail Kokorich, the founder and CEO of Momentus,
had resigned his position "in an effort to expedite the resolution
of U.S. government national security and foreign ownership concerns
surrounding the Company." Following this news, the price of Stable
Road securities declined. Over three trading days, the price of
Stable Road Class A stock fell $4.75, or 19%, to close at $20.10 on
January 27, 2021.
Then, on July 13, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") announced charges against Stable Road, the Sponsor,
Momentus, Mr. Kabot and Mr. Kokorich for making "misleading claims
about Momentus' technology and about national security risks
associated with Kokorich." The release stated that all parties
other than Mr. Kokorich had settled the charges against them for $8
million in total, while the case against Mr. Kokorich continued.
Also on July 13, 2021, the SEC publicized a cease-and-desist order
and complaint against Mr. Kokorich which detailed the defendants'
scheme to defraud investors in connection with the Merger.
Following this news, the price of Stable Road securities declined.
On July 14, 2021, the price of Stable Road Class A stock fell $1.22
per share, or 10%, to close at $10.66.
The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented and failed
to disclose that: (1) Momentus' 2019 test of its key technology, a
water plasma thruster, had failed to meet Momentus' 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; (2) the U.S. government had conveyed
that it considered Mr. Kokorich a national security threat, which
jeopardized Mr. Kokorich's continued leadership of Momentus and
Momentus' launch schedule and business prospects; (3) as a result
of the above, 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 the defendants had materially
misrepresented the due diligence activities being conducted by the
Sponsor and Stable Road executives in connection with the Merger.
Stable Road investors may, no later than September 13, 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 [GN]
STABLE ROAD: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has filed a class action seeking
to represent purchasers of Stable Road Acquisition Corp.
(NASDAQ:SRAC; SRACW; SRACU) securities during the period between
October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The Stable
Road class action lawsuit charges Stable Road, its sponsor SRC-NI
Holdings, LLC, and certain of its executives, along with Momentus
Inc. and its former CEO, with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The Stable Road class action lawsuit (Jensen v. Stable
Road Acquisition Corp., No. 21-cv-05744) was filed in the Central
District of California and is assigned to Judge John F. Walter.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Stable Road class action lawsuit, please provide
your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney
Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via
e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Stable Road class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than September 13, 2021.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Stable Road was launched as a blank check
company, also known as a special purpose acquisition company or
"SPAC." On October 7, 2020, Stable Road and Momentus - a private
commercial space company - issued a joint press release announcing
that Stable Road had agreed to acquire Momentus in a proposed
merger, subject to shareholder approval. The press release stated
that the merger would "create the first publicly traded space
infrastructure company at the forefront of the new space economy."
The Stable Road class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose
adverse facts about Momentus's business, operations, and prospects
and Stable Road's due diligence activities in connection with the
merger, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them, as follows: (a) 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 CEO, defendant Mikhail Kokorich, a
national security threat, which jeopardized Kokorich's 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.
On January 25, 2021, Momentus announced that defendant Kokorich had
resigned as Momentus's CEO "in an effort to expedite the resolution
of U.S. government national security and foreign ownership concerns
surrounding the Company." On this news, the price of Stable Road
Class A stock fell 19% over three trading days, to close at $20.10
per share on January 27, 2021.
Then, on July 13, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") announced charges against Stable Road, its CEO, defendant
Brian Kabot, SRC-NI Holdings, Momentus, and defendant Kokorich for
making "misleading claims about Momentus's technology and about
national security risks associated with Kokorich." The release,
among other things, stated that all parties other than defendant
Kokorich had settled the charges against them for $8 million in
total, while the case against defendant Kokorich continued. Also on
July 13, 2021, the SEC publicized a cease-and-desist order and
complaint against defendant Kokorich which detailed defendants'
scheme to defraud investors in connection with the merger. On this
news, the price of Stable Road Class A stock fell an additional
10%, further damaging investors.
Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Stable Road
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Stable Road 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 Stable Road class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Stable Road class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Stable
Road 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 or more information. [GN]
SUITABLE INC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Suitable Inc. The
case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Suitable Inc. doing business
as: Sene, Case No. 1:21-cv-06293 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Suitable Inc. doing business as Sene -- https://senestudio.com/ --
is an American online custom clothing brand headquartered in Los
Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
SUTTER HEALTH: Plaintiffs Press $172M Fee Bid in Antitrust Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella at Reuters reports that plaintiffs' lawyers from
five law firms that led an antitrust lawsuit against Sutter Health
in California are defending their request for more than $172
million in attorneys' fees, as a state judge weighs an objection
from a named class member that the amount is excessive. [GN]
TAIHO CORP: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Halcomb Jr. Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ODIA HALCOMB JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAIHO CORPORATION OF AMERICA c/o
Statutory Agent Ct Corporation System, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01372 (N.D. Ohio, July 16, 2021) is brought by the
Plaintiff as a class and collective action complaint to challenge
the Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant from approximately
July 2020 to July 2021 as an hourly-paid non-exempt employee,
alleges that the Defendant did not properly calculate his and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees' regular rates when
determining their overtime compensation by failing to include all
non-discretionary payments such as shift premium payments. Although
they worked over 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to
properly pay their overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week, the Plaintiff contends.
Taiho Corporation of America is an automotive parts manufacturer.
[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
Tel: (216) 912-2221
Fax: (216) 350-6313
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
TENNESSEE: Faces Class Action Over Federal Unemployment Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
wsmv.com reports that a Nashville attorney says they are working on
litigation to take the state to court. This comes after the state
decided to end federal unemployment benefits early.
Attorney Gary Blackburn, with The Blackburn Firm, says he's heard
the cries from people across the state and feels their arguments
are justified.
"There are a number of people who are willing, perhaps even eager
to be class representatives. So we're going to determine which
persons will serve in that role," Blackburn said.
Blackburn plans to pursue a class action lawsuit against the
state.
"The research we've done so far shows that these federal funds are
paid to the state and under state law. They're co-mingled with the
same funds under which unemployment benefits are paid," Blackburn
said.
Governor Bill Lee made the announcement in May that he would end
federal unemployment benefits in July.
News4's Caresse Jackman asked the Governor about the decision
shortly after. The governor stated that the "Crisis is Over" and
that Tennesseans have over 250,000 jobs to choose from that are
currently advertised on jobs4tn.gov.
"We need to make sure that we create an environment that moves
people from unemployment to meaningful employment, and that
decision will do just that," Governor Lee said Thursday.
Blackburn argues that the funds from the United States go directly
into the state and are mingled with other state funds that are used
to pay those benefits.
Blackburn added that the state cannot just accept these funds and
then simply refuse to apply them.
"Some of these people represent organizations that have hundreds of
members...um, some of these people are in situations where it's not
unemployment benefits. There are also benefits paid for small
business owners who are impacted by the pandemic. You have people
who depend on this money--for school or for groceries for that
matter medical expenses," Blackburn said.
During a press conference Thursday, reporters asked Governor Lee
about the pending litigation and if he will reconsider bringing
back federal unemployment benefits and programs.
"I do not have any plans to make a change in that direction,"
Governor Bill Lee said.
Blackburn says they're seeking an injunction and they plan on
getting the suit filed within the next few days. [GN]
TEXAS TECH: System Responded to COVID-19 Tuition Fee Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mateo Rosiles at dailytoreador.com reports that on July 20, Peggy
Bryan, an Angelo State University student, filed a class action
lawsuit against the Texas Tech University System in the District
Court of Lubbock County.
The lawsuit, provided by the Office Media Relations &
Communications for the System, states that the plaintiff is suing
the System, the Board of Regents and the Chairman of the Board of
Regents on behalf of students who have paid or will pay tuition to
attend one of the universities within the system.
"The Universities have not refunded any amount of the tuition or
Mandatory Fees even though it has cancelled in-person classes in
mid-March, 2020," according to the lawsuit. "As a result, the
Universities unlawfully seized and are in possession of property
(funds) of the Plaintiff and Class members in the form of paid
tuition and Mandatory Fees."
The lawsuit further states that the plaintiff, on behalf of her
classmates, is asking for compensation to switching to online
classes from in-person classes. The plaintiff further asks the
courts to stop the four universities within the System from
charging students if the universities do not provide "the full
benefits bargained for."
The Tech System is currently comprised of four universities: Tech,
Angelo State University, Tech Health Science Center Lubbock and El
Paso, with Midwestern State University set to join the System on
Sept. 1. The Board of Regents is comprised of Michael Lewis,
chairman, Mark Griffin, vice chairman, John Steinmetz, John Walker,
Dusty Womble, Ginger Kerrick Davis, Arcilia Acosta, Cody Campbell
and Pat Gordon.
On July 21, the Office Media Relations & Communications of the Tech
System issued a statement pertaining to the lawsuit against the
System.
"The Texas Tech University System, and its institutions, have and
continue to prioritize the learning and educational resources
throughout the coronavirus pandemic to meet our students' needs.
Despite unprecedented challenges due to the pandemic, our
university leaders worked to continue providing an exemplary
education for students attending a university in our system.
Through remote learning, continuous access to on-campus and virtual
educational tools and resources, students remain the top priority
for our administration, faculty and staff," the statement said.
[GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: 4 Plaintiffs Who Experienced Engine Fires File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
legalexaminer.com reports that four plaintiffs have banded together
to file a new class-action lawsuit against the Toyota Motor
Corporation. They claim that the automaker designed a defective
battery capable of causing engine fires and should be held liable
for the damages. They seek to represent themselves and all others
similarly situated in the U.S. and the states of Florida, Illinois,
New Hampshire, and Missouri.
Plaintiffs Recount Experiences of Toyota Spontaneous Fires
According to the complaint, each of the four plaintiffs had similar
experiences with their Toyota vehicles.
Florida
The Florida plaintiff purchased a certified pre-owned 2018 Toyota
Rav4 equipped with a 12V battery on March 19, 2021. The plaintiff
believed it would be a safe and reliable vehicle. The sales
representative said nothing about the battery being defective.
On May 5, 2021, the plaintiff was driving the vehicle when it
experienced a sudden loss of power. She coasted to the side of the
road and got out, then noticed smoke, sparks, and flames. She
called 9-1-1 and emergency crews arrived to extinguish the fire.
As a result of this incident, the vehicle is now completely
inoperable. The plaintiff has spent about $2,000 so far as a result
of the problem.
Illinois
The Illinois plaintiff purchased a similar certified pre-owned 2018
Toyota RAV4 on April 18, 2019, believing it would be a safe and
reliable vehicle. The sales representative reportedly said nothing
about a defective battery.
On February 2021, the plaintiff returned from a trip in the vehicle
and noticed a burning smell in his garage. He later learned this
was connected to the defective battery.
New Hampshire
The New Hampshire plaintiff bought a new 2018 Toyota RAV4 in
January 2018, believing it would be safe and reliable. Then on May
12, 2020, she was driving it when she smelled a burning rubber
odor. As she pulled over to the side of the road, she saw flames
coming from the center console.
She got out quickly before the vehicle burned to its frame, taking
all her possessions with it. She has spent about $10,000 as a
result of the battery defect.
Missouri
The Missouri plaintiff purchased a new 2017 Toyota RAV4 on June 17,
2017, believing it would be safe and reliable. Again, nothing was
reportedly said about a potentially defective battery. On July 16,
2020, the plaintiff's spouse was driving when she began to notice
smoke coming from the vehicle. She pulled over and got out quickly
before the vehicle caught fire.
Emergency crews were able to extinguish the flames, but the RAV4
was deemed a complete loss. The plaintiff has spent about $6000 as
a result of the battery defect.
NHTSA Points to 12V Battery as Cause of Most Toyota Engine Fires
The plaintiffs claim that Toyota knew or should have known about
the battery defect that allegedly led to these incidences and to
many others that have been reported by other Toyota owners.
The defect, according to the plaintiffs, causes electrical shorts
when the battery's terminals come into contact with the frame that
holds the battery in place. When the battery short circuits, there
may be a sudden loss of electrical power, vehicle stalling, and/or
fire originating in the engine compartment.
On February 25, 2021, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) opened an investigation into these Toyota
engine fires. In its investigation summary, it reported that the
12V battery was identified as the area of origin in a majority of
the incidents reviewed. [GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Emissions Warranty
----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Toyota partial zero emissions
vehicle (PZEV) class action lawsuit includes 2011-2017 Lexus CT
200h and 2007-2019 Toyota Prius vehicles.
According to the lawsuit, Toyota failed to properly identify and
pay for all the vehicle parts and labor that should be covered
under the California emissions warranty.
California plaintiff and 2015 Lexus CT 200h owner Jessica Foust
filed the partial zero emissions lawsuit that includes:
"All persons who are, or have been, owners or lessees of model year
2011 through 2017 Lexus CT200h PZEV vehicles and model year 2007
through 2019 Toyota Prius PZEV vehicles, registered or operated in
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Washington."
The plaintiff says Toyota has distributed partial zero emissions
vehicles since 2010 and received zero emissions vehicle (ZEV)
credits from the state of California.
The Toyota lawsuit alleges the automaker is required to extend the
California emissions warranty on PZEVs to 15 years or 150,000 miles
for all emission-related parts, and to 10 years or 150,000 miles
for the hybrid battery.
Toyota has allegedly wrongfully limited the duration of coverage of
the hybrid battery by failing to cover the hybrid battery for 10
years or 150,000 miles. The class action lawsuit alleges Toyota
ignored regulations and covers the battery under warranty for only
8 years or 100,000 miles.
Toyota Class Action Lawsuit (Warranty Booklets)
The warranty books for the Prius and Lexus vehicles say the
California emissions control warranty covers the hybrid systems
which consists of the following components:
"Battery control module (battery voltage sensor); Hybrid battery;
Hybrid Battery junction block (including system main relay); Hybrid
control module (power management control module); Inverter with
converter; and, Transaxle (including motor and generator)."
According to the Toyota class action, the warranty books
"unlawfully and incorrectly" provide the hybrid battery "is covered
under the Hybrid System Warranty for eight years or 100,000 miles,
whichever occurs first."
The affected states named in the lawsuit come from the warranty
book for the California emissions warranty which applies to
vehicles in states other than California.
"Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington are the
other states to which this [California Emission Control] warranty
currently applies."
The Toyota class action lawsuit alleges the automaker is able to
reduce the amount of money it spends on warranty-related repairs of
the hybrid batteries.
The plaintiff argues, "most if not all dealerships or consumers
will not investigate or understand that the hybrid battery should
correctly be covered for 10 years/150,000 miles under the
California Emissions Warranty as required by the California Code of
Regulations."
Lexus and Toyota owners are then allegedly forced to pay for
repairs that should be covered under warranties.
According to the class action lawsuit, Toyota extended it's hybrid
battery warranty in October 2019 for all new 2020 Lexus hybrid and
Toyota hybrid, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicles from
8 years/100,000 miles to 10 years/150,000 miles.
However, that did nothing for the 2011-2017 Lexus CT 200h and
2007-2019 Toyota Prius vehicles.
The Toyota class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division:
Jessica Foust, v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Pomerantz LLP. [GN]
TRANSLINK: Retired Employees File Breach Suit Over 2020 Cyberattack
-------------------------------------------------------------------
biv.com reports that s pair of retired TransLink employees are
suing the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority,
claiming in a class action that a cyberattack last year that
compromised sensitive personal data could have harmful consequences
for the rest of their lives.
Representative plaintiffs James Thom and Brent Johnston filed a
notice of civil claim under the Class Proceedings Act in BC Supreme
Court on July 15. Thom, a retired customer service representative,
and Johnston, a former bus driver, claim they were notified by
TransLink via email in June 2021 that their personal information
was compromised in a data breach in late 2020.
According to the claim, TransLink publicly confirmed the hack of
current, former and retired employees' personal data in December
2020, nearly a month after the breach was reported in the media.
The information compromised in the hack includes names, addresses,
social insurance numbers and banking details. Thom and Johnston
claim the company later confirmed that salary and tax information
was also breached in the cyberattack, in addition to WorkSafeBC
incident records. In response, the company offered a two-year
subscription to a credit monitoring and fraud protection service,
but Thom and Johnston claim that class action members' data "will
at some point in the future be shared and disseminated online, and
in other forums."
"If it has not already been monetized, it is at risk of being so in
the future," the claim states.
Class members, according to the lawsuit, have been forced into the
"unenviable position" of having to monitor their personal
information for abuse, a risk that is "ongoing for the lifespan of
the plaintiffs and class members."
Moreover, the breach makes it likely that those affected will
suffer both future and imminent harm, because disclosure of
personal health information could impact insurance rates and impede
future travel and employment opportunities, as well as their
ability to qualify for credit "and other business opportunities."
"The Defendant downplayed the data breach and risks and took
several months . . . . to identify class members who had their
personal data compromised," the claim states. "The data breached is
now in the hands of unknown third-party criminals and nefarious
individuals and is in those hands for the lifetime of the
Plaintiffs and Class Members."
Thom and Johnston seek class certification for the action, and
damages for breach of contract, breach of trust, breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of privacy. Their allegations have not
been tested or proven in court, and TransLink had not responded to
the claim by press time. [GN]
TURBOTENANT: Sandofsky FCRA Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D. Colo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTHEW SANDOFSKY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TURBOTENANT, Case No. 21-00395,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
on July 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-01972-SKC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by disregarding federal consumer reporting
guidelines.
TurboTenant is a credit reporting agency based in Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Sandofsky, Esq.
90 Canal Street, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 817-1785
E-mail: mls@sandofskylaw.com
UNISEA INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Ohring Labor Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMICHAI OHRING, Plaintiff v. UNISEA, INC.; and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C21-359 TSZ (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, denied Unisea's Motion to
Compel Arbitration.
Unisea, a subsidiary of a multibillion-dollar Japanese company,
engages in the business of processing crab, pollock, and Pacific
cod in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Its seafood processing operations are
seasonal because they depend on the timing and quantity of the
fishing seasons for the various species. Due to the seasonal
nature of the work, Unisea hires seafood processing employees
pursuant to six-month employment agreements. Unisea's Employment
Agreements contain an arbitration provision that incorporates its
Employee Dispute Resolution Agreement ("DRA"). Unisea requires
seafood processing employees to sign both agreements.
Plaintiff Ohring submitted an online application to work as a
seafood processor for Unisea on Aug. 4, 2020. That same day,
Unisea sent him an email containing a description of the position.
The email informed Ohring that he would be responsible for his
transportation home if he did not complete his contract and warned
that tickets out of Dutch Harbor were over $1,000. The email did
not mention arbitration or the DRA.
In a subsequent email also sent on Aug. 4, 2020, Unisea asked
Ohring to call one of its employees for a telephone interview.
During the interview, the Unisea employee informed Ohring that if
he was hired, he would need to undergo a 14-day quarantine in Dutch
Harbor prior to beginning the job. Unisea's employee again did not
mention arbitration or the DRA during the interview.
On Aug. 7, 2020, Unisea sent Ohring an email offering him the
position. In the email, Unisea asked if Ohring could fly to Dutch
Harbor on specific dates and offered to help him arrange his flight
to Anchorage, Alaska. Ohring understood this to mean that
traveling to Dutch Harbor constituted his acceptance of an
employment offer. Unisea provided Ohring with a letter stating
that he was an essential employee so that he could gain entry to
Alaska during the COVID-19 pandemic.
After Ohring arrived in Dutch Harbor and completed his 14-day
quarantine, for which Unisea compensated him, Unisea took him to
its complex where he was drug tested. Unisea then conducted a
housing orientation and gave Ohring his room assignment.
Afterwards, Unisea told Ohring to go to the main office the
following morning to complete his paperwork.
Mr. Ohring arrived at the main office the next morning, Aug. 31,
2020, with approximately 15 other Unisea employees, many of whom
did not speak English. The receptionist gave Ohring a small stack
of papers to sign. The first form was the Employment Agreement.
The Employee Handbook contains an arbitration section that
discusses the DRA.
The third document Ohring signed was the DRA. By signing the DRA,
employees agree to have all Covered Disputes resolved according to
the process the DRA outlines. Additionally, the DRA incorporates
the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and provides that "questions
about whether a dispute must be arbitrated under this Agreement
will be determined by the arbitrator." The DRA also contains a
severance clause.
When Ohring was at the main office to sign paperwork, the
receptionist was the only Unisea employee present. Ohring stated
that "it was clear to him that English was not the receptionist's
first language and that she would be unable to explain the
arbitration agreement or its terms." He understood that if he did
not sign the paperwork, Unisea would fire him and he would have to
pay for his own lodging, food, and transportation home. He
estimated that these costs would amount to around $2,000, which he
could not afford. Moreover, due to the seasonal nature of the
work, Ohring did not believe he would be able to find another
seafood processing job, as the fishing season had already
commenced. For these reasons, Ohring felt "there was no way he
could refuse to sign."
On Dec. 28, 2020, Ohring's signed another six-month Employment
Agreement with Unisea that was identical to the one he signed in
August. He did not sign another Acknowledgment of Receipt or DRA.
Mr. Ohring filed a class action complaint against Unisea on March
16, 2021. In the Complaint, Ohring alleged that Unisea violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Alaska Wage and Hour
Act by not paying its employees for the time it takes them to put
on and remove protective gear.
On April 8, 2021, Unisea emailed its employees to notify them of
changes it had made to the DRA. Specifically, Unisea explained
that it would no longer enforce: (1) the 12-month limitations
period, (2) the confidentiality requirement, and (3) the
cost-sharing provision if it "would effectively prevent employees
from arbitrating their claims." The email further stated that the
changes would be effective starting that day. On April 27, 2020,
Unisea sent out an additional email informing employees that they
no longer had to first report concerns to their supervisor,
manager, human resources, or company executives before initiating
arbitration and that they may instead "simply go straight to
arbitration."
Two days later, on April 29, 2021, Unisea filed its Motion to
Compel Arbitration. Ohring opposes the motion, asserting that the
arbitration provisions in the employment agreement and DRA are
procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
Discussion
1. Delegation of Arbitrability
Unisea argues that because, through the DRA, the parties expressly
delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator, and not the
Court, the arbitrator must decide whether the arbitration
provisions in the DRA and other agreements are valid. It contends
that the language in the DRA providing that "questions about
whether a dispute must be arbitrated under this Agreement will be
determined by the arbitrator" clearly und unmistakably delegates
threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator. Ohring does
not dispute this contention.
Judge Zilly points out that indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that
comparable language constituted clear and unmistakable evidence
that the parties delegated threshold arbitrability questions to an
arbitrator. In Mohamed v. Uber Tech., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201, 1208
(9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit determined the parties had
clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability where
their agreements "delegated to the arbitrators the authority to
decide issues relating to the 'enforceability, revocability or
validity of the Arbitration Provision or any portion of the
Arbitration Provision.'" Comparably, the language in the DRA's
delegation clause clearly states that an arbitrator will decide
disputes regarding arbitrability.
2. Unconscionability of the Delegation Clause
Although the DRA delegated issues of arbitrability to the
arbitrator, this does not end the Court's inquiry because Ohring
also asserts that the DRA's delegation clause is procedurally and
substantively unconscionable. Because a court must enforce an
agreement that clearly and unmistakably delegates arbitrability
questions to the arbitrator, the only remaining question is whether
the particular agreement to delegate arbitrability is itself
unconscionable.
Judge Zilly holds that the undisputed facts surrounding Ohring's
signing of the delegation clause demonstrate that he lacked a
meaningful choice. Unisea apparently expected Ohring and the other
employees to sign the agreement containing the delegation clause
right then and there. Accordingly, Ohring did not have a
reasonable opportunity to understand the delegation clause prior to
signing it. It is unclear how Ohring having four months to ask
questions about the delegation clause after he had already signed
it constitutes evidence that he had a meaningful choice to assent
to the clause in the first instance. Hence, the Judge considers
whether the arbitration provisions in the DRA and other agreements
are unconscionable.
3. Unconscionability of Arbitration Provisions
Ohring asserts that the arbitration provisions in the DRA and other
agreements are procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The
existence of an unconscionable bargain is a question of law.
a. Procedural Unconscionability
Regarding procedural unconscionability, Ohring makes the same
arguments that he made with respect to the DRA's delegation clause.
Ohring signed the arbitration provisions in the first Employment
Agreement and the Acknowledgment of Receipt at the same time he
signed the DRA containing the delegation clause. Thus, for the
reasons already explained, Judge Zilly determines that the DRA as a
whole, and the arbitration provisions contained in the other
agreements, are procedurally unconscionable and void.
b. Substantive Unconscionability
Ohring further argues that the DRA is substantively unconscionable.
He asserts the DRA is substantively unconscionable because of the
one-sided, multistep pre-arbitration process, the shortened statute
of limitations, the one-sided termination right, the "Costs of
Arbitration" clause, and the confidentiality provision.
Judge Zilly holds that (i) the provision requiring the employee to
follow a multistep prearbitration process does not render the
arbitration agreement one-sided; (ii) the provision's shortened
limitations period, in combination with the DRA's lack of a tolling
provision, the fact that the time for completing this process is
completely within Unisea's control, and it being presented in a
contract of adhesion, makes the provision substantively
unconscionable; (iii) Unisea does not point to any differences in
its termination clause from the one at issue in Al-Safin that would
suggest its holding does not apply in the case; (iv) the Costs of
Arbitration clause is not substantively unconscionable; (v) the
confidentiality clause "serves no purpose other than to tilt the
scales in favor of" Unisea; (vi) Unisea's waiver of the
unconscionable terms does not moot Ohring's substantive
unconscionability arguments; and (vii) because Unisea engaged in a
pattern of trying to tip the scale in its favor in employment
disputes, the Judge declines to sever the provisions and instead
invalidates the entire DRA as substantively unconscionable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Judge Zilly determines that the parties did not have
a valid agreement to arbitrate and denies Unisea's motion to compel
arbitration. Accordingly, he need not address whether the parties
agreed to classwide arbitration and denies Unisea's request for
leave to file a separate motion for attorney's fees.
For these foregoing reasons, the Judge denied Unisea's Motion to
Compel Arbitration. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this
Order to all counsel of record.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2h8hwvws from Leagle.com.
USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Fierro Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL FIERRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, LLC, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-06147 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information that Defendants
required from their employees as a condition of employment, which
include, names, Social Security numbers (or National IDs), dates of
birth, and driver's license numbers (PII).
According to the complaint, between January 21 and 23, 2021, an
unauthorized actor entered the Waste Management, Inc. (WMI)
environment and accessed and took a number of files. On May 4,
2021, and during the weeks following, Defendants determined that
the potentially accessed files contained sensitive PII. Defendants
had an obligation to secure that PII by implementing reasonable and
appropriate data security safeguards. As a result of Defendants'
failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, Plaintiff
and the Class members have been exposed to a heightened and
imminent risk of fraud and identity theft, states the complaint.
Plaintiff Fierro is a current employee since August 2019 of USA
Waste of California, Inc., an affiliate of Defendant WMI, in Chino,
California.
Defendant USA Waste-Management Resources, LLC is a subsidiary of
and controlled by Defendant WMI, a leading provider of
comprehensive waste management environmental service in North
America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen Wilson-Wilson, Esq.
WILSON & BROWN, PLLC
629 Fifth Avenue, Suite 225
Pelham, NY 10803
Telephone: (646) 498-9816
Facsimile: (718) 425
E-mail: karen@wilsonbrownlawyers.com
- and -
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
VAIL CORPORATION: Gibson FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANNA GIBSON and ZACHARIAH SAIZHAWES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE VAIL
CORPORATION D/B/A VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY and DOES 1
THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case No. S-CV-0046587, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on July 19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-00649 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide minimum wages, failure to provide
overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
provide itemized wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll
records, failure to pay earned wages upon discharge, failure to pay
earned wages timely, unlawful and/or unfair business practices, and
civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The Vail Corporation, doing business as Vail Resorts Management
Company, is an American mountain resort company headquartered in
Broomfield, Colorado. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Melis Atalay, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
melis.atalay@ogletree.com
VISA INC: Faces Mayer Class Suit in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VISA INC. The case is
captioned as CYNTHIA MAYER, ET AL., v. VISA INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. CGC21593058 (Calif. Super., San
Francisco Cty., July 9, 2021).
The Defendants include Cybersource Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation; and VISA Inc., A Delaware Corporation.
A case management conference will be held on Dec. 8, 2021.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in Foster City, California, United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
HAMMOND LAW
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
VISTA SHADOW: Faces Class Suit Over Apartment Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------------
tulsaworld.com reports that everyone's out of Vista Shadow Mountain
apartments. Now comes the hard part.
"Just the immediate stuff is done," said City Councilor Lori Decter
Wright. "Now we've got people in hotels that don't have food. We've
got people whose things were packed. They went and stayed in the
hotel and came back and their unit was broken into and things were
stolen. So we've got a lot going on still."
City officials earlier this month ordered tenants of the south
Tulsa complex to be out of their apartments by after the city cited
it for violating multiple fire prevention and building maintenance
codes. The fire marshal earlier extended the deadline.
"There are still some employees, who are authorized to be on-site,
that will be seen coming in and out of the complex," the Fire
Marshal's Office said in a prepared statement. "After that,
residents who need to retrieve belongings will need to make an
appointment with the apartment management."
Meanwhile, two former Vista Shadow Mountain residents filed a
class-action lawsuit against the owners and operators of the
apartment complex, CiTYR Group at Vista Shadow LLC and P Vista
Shadow LLC.
Regina Edwards and Sandra Edwards are listed as plaintiffs in the
case.
"The greedy, unethical landlord at Vista Shadow Mountain Apartments
must be held accountable for the flagrant and illegal mistreatment
of its tenants, some of whom are among Tulsa's most vulnerable
citizens," the lawsuit states.
Photos: How the Olympic Village has evolved over the years
The lawsuit alleges that tenants were "ruthlessly taken advantage
of" by the complex's management through routine deferral of
maintenance, failure to pay utility bills, and allowance of unsafe
and unsanitary conditions.
"Then, in July 2021, without providing any reason, let alone good
cause, Shadow Mountain evicted all of its residents, ignoring the
terms of their leases and the governing law," the lawsuit states.
Shadow Mountain has violated several state laws, including breach
of contract, negligence and gross negligence, and failure to abide
by the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Oklahoma Consumer Protection
Act, the lawsuit alleges.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damage of no less than
$75,000 as well as punitive damages and are asking for a jury
trial.
Wright estimated that residents in about 160 units have been forced
out of their homes since early June. Vista Shadow Mountain
management had ordered residents in 50 units to be out of their
homes by the end of June after they were deemed uninhabitable.
The complex faced having its water turned off after it failed to
pay a $108,000 past-due bill. The bill was eventually paid.
Becky Gligo, executive director of Housing Solutions, has been
overseeing the efforts to help VSM residents transition into new
housing. She said that nearly 90 households were staying in hotels
temporarily and that 17 had found new residences.
"Now comes the hard work of getting these people into permanent,
quality housing," Gligo said. "We are working very closely with
Restore Hope Ministries to help get ERAP (Emergency Rental
Assistance Program) dollars to make that happen.
"We have had a lot of great local landlords step up who are
interested in helping these folks find a new home."
Wright said she and fellow City Councilor Phil Lakin plan to
propose the creation of a working group to examine how to prevent
situations like the one at Vista Shadow Mountain from happening
elsewhere. The troubles at the apartment complex also will be on
the agenda when councilors meet with state legislators and county
officials in August.
"I am hoping that out of that will come a broader working group of
intergovernmental leadership so that we can look at what the state
reform needs to be, what the county can do and then certainly what
we can do at the city level," Wright said.
Vista Shadow Mountain has not responded to multiple requests for
comment from the Tulsa World. [GN]
VMK INC: Faces Reeves Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, AARON REEVES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VMK, INC. d/b/a PURPLE LOTUS,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01948 (D. Colo., July 17, 2021) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has been bombarding the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 7295 with marketing
text messages despite the Plaintiff's repeated requests to stop
sending him unsolicited telemarketing messages. The Defendant's
failure to stop its unlawful conduct is an indicative of its
failure to implement a written policy for maintaining a do-not-call
list and to train its personnel engaged in telemarketing on the
existence and use of the do-not-call-list, says the suit.
Due to the Defendant's alleged unsolicited text messages, the
Plaintiff was harmed in the form of invasion of privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, and wasted time. Thus, on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from
initiating calls to telephone numbers listed on the National Do Not
Call Registry without obtaining prior express written consent to
place telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS). The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages and
treble damages, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.
VMK, Inc. d/b/a Purple Lotus owns and operates a marijuana
dispensary. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (786) 496-4469
E-mail: IJhiraldo@IJhlaw.com
WALMART INC: Ramos Sues Over Unlawful Criminal Screening Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-13827 (D.N.J., July 19, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
The case arises from the Defendant's disproportionate criminal
history screening policy which causes gross racial disparities in
the criminal justice system into its applicant pool. Walmart
employs an overbroad criminal history screen that fails to actually
assess whether an applicant's convictions are job-related or create
a business necessity for denial of employment, including by failing
to account for evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating
circumstances. As a result of the Defendant's alleged overbroad
policy, Walmart denied employment to the Plaintiff and
disproportionately denies employment to countless other Black and
Latinx applicants.
Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Chiarello, Esq.
Ossai Miazad, Esq.
Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: gchiarello@outtengolden.com
om@outtengolden.com
cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
- and –
Mikael A. Rojas, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 200W
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 847-4400
E-mail: mrojas@outtengolden.com
- and –
Michael C. Pope, Esq.
YOUTH REPRESENT
11 Park Place, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (646) 759-8080
E-mail: mpope@youthrepresent.com
WALT DISNEY: Anaheim Taxpayers Subsidize Disneyland, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
voiceofoc.org reports that a class action lawsuit against
Disneyland could be one step closer to answering a question many
Anaheim residents and some council members have been debating for
years.
Do Anaheim taxpayers subsidize Disneyland?
The lawsuit was filed against Disney in late 2019 for allegedly
failing to follow Anaheim's minimum wage law that city voters
approved the year before.
Earlier this month, OC Superior Court Judge William D. Claster
allowed the class action lawsuit against Disney to proceed.
"The judge agreed that it was an appropriate case for class
certification, which sounds really dull, but it's actually a big
moment — it doesn't happen often," said attorney Randy Renick,
who represents the resort employees.
The city law, known as Measure L, mandates that all businesses
receiving a city subsidy must pay their workers a minimum wage of
$17 an hour, which increases $1 per year.
The lawsuit alleges Disneyland is receiving a subsidy through the
$510 million resort bonds issued in 1997, which helped build a
parking garage and infrastructure improvements needed for
California Adventure.
But, before Anaheim voters even went to the ballot box in November
2018, City Attorney Rob Fabela said Disneyland would be exempt from
the law, in a report he issued.
"In summary, although there are many moving parts to the Bond
Transaction, it does not appear to incorporate a direct City
subsidy; that is, an agreement in which Disney is entitled to a
"rebate of transient occupancy tax, sales tax, entertainment tax,
property tax or other taxes, presently or in the future, matured or
unmatured." Therefore, it is the City Attorney's opinion that
Measure L would not apply to Disney by virtue of the Bond
Transaction," reads Fabela's 2018 report.
That's the cornerstone of Disneyland's defense against the city's
minimum wage law.
"Disney has benefited for years from public monies from the City of
Anaheim; yet it refuses to pay its employees the required living
wage. This defiance of Measure L is furthering the very real
struggles of its workers. Does this sound like the happiest
workplace on earth?"
Attorney Randy Renick, who represents the resort employees, said in
a news release Renick, in a phone interview, said Claster
essentially didn't throw out the case like Disney wanted.
"So the judge has blessed our legal theory and approved it to go
forward as a class action on behalf of 25,000 people," Renick
said.
Because of the nature of a class action lawsuit, it opens up the
door for all Disneyland employees to file for damages, Renick said.
The lawsuit was originally filed by employees of a subcontractor
inside the park and Disney employees.
"More than 25,000 Disney workers were not paid the living wage.
That's a lot of people Disney did not pay the living wage to," he
said, adding that he expects a jury trial sometime before next
Summer.
Disney officials didn't respond to requests for comment.
The $510 million 1997 resort bonds helped build the $108 million
Mickey and Friends parking garage, which Disney operates and keeps
all revenue from. The bonds also paid for the $170 million Anaheim
Convention Center expansion.
All of Disney's incremental hotel, sales and property taxes —
that would otherwise go to Anaheim — are used to pay down the
bonds.
And 20% of all citywide hotel taxes go to the bonds.
Once the bonds are paid off, by 2037 or sooner, Anaheim will give
the parking garage to Disney. It currently pays the city $1 a year
to rent the garage.
The minimum wage law defines the term subsidy as ". . . . any
agreement with the city pursuant to which a person other than the
city has a right to receive a rebate of transient occupancy tax,
sales tax, entertainment tax, property tax or other taxes,
presently or in the future, matured or unmatured."
Leading up to the November 2018 election, Disney cancelled two
major tax subsidy deals it had with the city — based, in part, on
another legal analysis by Fabela that invalidated a large hotel
subsidy because of confusion over the actual parcel that was
eligible for a city subsidy.
The entertainment juggernaut cancelled a 700-room luxury hotel near
Downtown Disney and the $267 million tax rebate that went along
with it.
Disney also cancelled another agreement with Anaheim that provided
a 30-year shield from any potential ticket tax on Disneyland by
giving the money back to Disney, even if it was a voter initiative.
The 2015 agreement called for Disney to invest at least $1 billion
in the resort district for the 30-year protection, with an
additional $500 million investment that would've extended the tax
protection for 15 years.
City officials have estimated Disney has already spent over $1
billion in the resort area. [GN]
WALT DISNEY: Labor Lawsuit Granted Class-Action Status
------------------------------------------------------
Krysten Swensen at insidethemagic.net reports that Disneyland may
be considered the Happiest Place on Earth for those who are lucky
enough to walk through its gates. There seems to always be magic in
the air and a feeling that nothing bad could ever happen there.
Unfortunately, that happy feeling doesn't always extend to all Cast
Members, many of whom feel that Disney does not pay them enough to
create the magical moments that Guests have come to expect.
About a year and a half ago, Disney workers filed a lawsuit against
the company, claiming that Disney does not pay its employees a
living wage. The lawsuit began with five former workers, but that
number has now increased -- while the exact number is not stated,
lawyers representing the workers claim that it is in the
thousands.
The suit is not only comprised of former Disney employees but also
employees from Sodexo and SodexoMagic, a company that runs
restaurants and coffee shops throughout Disneyland Resort.
Attorney Randy Renick, who represents the workers, said that he
couldn't disclose exactly how many employees comprise the class,
but placed it in the thousands.
"I think the issues here are simple: The voters demanded that
companies like Disney, who take public handouts, pay their workers
a living wage," Renick said. "Disney should not get a pass."
Voters approved Measure L in 2018, requiring resort businesses that
receive a city subsidy to pay at least $15 an hour. Under the
ordinance, the minimum rises by $1 an hour each year until 2022,
when it reaches $18. Raises will then be based on the
cost-of-living index.
According to the lawsuit, the City of Anaheim is using tax dollars
from Disney to pay off the construction bonds that Disney paid for
the Mickey and Friends parking structure at the Disneyland Resort.
That means that Disney isn't really paying its taxes; instead, it
is paying taxes that are paying off other bills owed by the
company.
The Mickey and Friends parking structure has long been a point of
contention for the City of Anaheim, which paid over $100 million
for the lot to be built and Disney received a lease from the city
for $1 per year. Disney, in turn, now charges a minimum of $25 per
car -- extra for preferred parking and larger vehicles. Disney gets
to keep all of the profit it makes from the parking garage.
A measure called Measure L was passed in Anaheim in 2018 and says
that companies receiving tax subsidies from the city must pay their
employees a living wage. The lawsuit claims that Disney kept the
profits that it made from the parking garage and did not pay a
required living wage while the company was letting the City of
Anaheim pay for the parking structure. Disney is contending that
the Mickey and Friends parking structure is not a subsidy.
Per the LA Times:
In a February 2018 report, Disneyland employees cited high
instances of homelessness, low wages and food insecurity. The
report was compiled for the Coalition of Resort Labor Unions by
researchers at Occidental College and the Los Angeles-based
Economic Roundtable.
According to the Coalition of Resort Labor Unions, more than 85% of
union workers at Disneyland earned less than $15 an hour at the
time of the 2018 report, which was released before Measure L was
approved.
In 2018, the Walt Disney Company made just over $59 billion. In
2019 it made almost $70 billion and only $65 billion in 2020, which
is still an impressive sum due to the fact that the theme parks and
numerous film productions had to be shut down for quite a long time
because of the pandemic.
This is not the first time that Disney has been accused of not
paying its workers a living wage. Abigail Disney, the great-niece
of Walt Disney, has frequently spoken out against what she thinks
is Disney taking advantage of Cast Members. Cast Members -- current
and former -- have also agreed with her and recently protested
against corporate greed outside of Disneyland.
At this time, Disney has not made a public comment about the
lawsuit moving forward, but larger companies like Disney usually
make it a habit to not comment on pending litigation. No more
information, such as mediation or trial dates, has been announced
at this time. [GN]
WELLPET LLC: Pennsylvania Court Narrows Claims in Loduca Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RITA SCHMIDT LODUCA, DONNA FREEMAN, and LYNN WESLEY,
Individually On behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. WELLPET LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-CV-0954
(E.D. Pa.), Judge J. Curtis Joyner of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in
part WellPet's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action
Complaint.
Plaintiffs Rita Schmidt Loduca, Donna Freeman and Lynn Wesley are
all Pennsylvania residents who allege that they purchased various
dog food products manufactured and sold by Defendant WellPet --
specifically its Wellness CORE, Wellness Complete Health, and
Holistic Select dry dog food brands. The gist of the complaint,
which the Plaintiffs purport to bring "individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated," is that the Defendants
misrepresented the appropriate daily feeding amounts for dogs by
omitting that the daily feeding instructions are only appropriate
for the "highest demand activity level and breed." These
misrepresentations purportedly resulted in the Plaintiffs and
members of the class purchasing more of the Defendants' dog food
than was otherwise necessary and caused their dogs to eat excessive
and unhealthy amounts of food. As a result of having been misled
into purchasing more dog food than was "otherwise necessary," the
Plaintiffs aver that they "expended additional unnecessary
financial sums and experienced a direct financial detriment."
The Plaintiffs claim that these misrepresentations were
"fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, unfair and/or false," and that
the "Defendant WellPet LLC and its respective parent organizations,
Defendants Berwind Corporation" profited from them. They therefore
seek both monetary and injunctive relief under Pennsylvania state
law for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, civil conspiracy
and for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. Section 201, et seq.
Asserting that the Complaint fails to set forth any claims against
it upon which relief may be granted, Defendant WellPet moves for
dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6).
Discussion
As noted, WellPet challenges all six counts of the Plaintiffs'
complaint on the grounds that they fail to aver the facts necessary
to make out viable causes of action. Judge Joyner addresses each
Count/Claim in turn.
1. Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
Count I of the Class Action Complaint purports to state a claim
that, by their actions in formulating the feeding instructions for
their dry dog food products, the Defendants violated Pennsylvania's
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. Section
201, et seq. ("UTPCPL").
Judge Joyner finds that the Plaintiffs' Complaint generally avers
that the feeding information on the labels of the bags of at least
three of the Defendants' dry dog food brands misrepresents the
correct feeding recommendations for the vast majority of canine
pets and instead uses high activity dogs and/or breeds as the
baseline for its recommended quantities. The Complaint goes on to
allege that the Plaintiffs relied upon the recommendations set
forth on the pet food bags in feeding their dogs and that this
reliance resulted in the overfeeding of their pets and in the
Plaintiffs (and proposed class members) having purchased more food
than necessary to their financial detriment.
Given that "the plain language of the current statute imposes
liability on commercial vendors who engage in conduct that has the
potential to deceive and which creates a likelihood of confusion or
misunderstanding" and "that is all that is required," the Judge
finds that Count I satisfies the Twombly-Iqbal pleading standards.
Indeed, even notwithstanding that the labels do include language
reflecting that the feeding guidelines are "optimized for high
activity dogs who receive 1 hour or more of activity per day" and
that pet owners should "adjust as needed," the Plaintiffs need only
show "that the acts and practices are capable of being interpreted
in a misleading way." What constitutes "activity" or "high
activity" may well vary from the opinion of one pet owner to
another. As this is a matter which is best sorted out through
discovery, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the UTPCPL claim is
denied.
2. Negligent and Intentional Misrepresentation (Fraud)
In Counts IV and V of their Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs
assert claims for intentional misrepresentation/fraud and negligent
misrepresentation on the grounds that the Defendants knew and/or
should have known that the daily feeding directions on their dog
food products were false in that most dogs do not have the activity
levels necessary to warrant receiving the amount of food
recommended.
In reviewing the Plaintiffs' Complaint in light of the preceding
principles, Judge Joyner finds that while the Plaintiffs' Complaint
has sufficiently pled the elements of both intentional and
negligent misrepresentation against the Defendant under
Pennsylvania law, it fails to satisfy the particularity
requirements of Rule 9(b) for pleading fraud. Instantly, the
gravamen of the Plaintiffs' complaints against Moving Defendant is
that the feeding instructions listed on the bags of several of its
dry dog food products are misleading in that they misrepresent the
proper amounts to feed canines who have average activity levels.
The Plaintiffs further aver that the daily feeding directions
contained on the labels of their dog food products are false and
that the Defendants knew or should have known they were false, that
they relied upon the directions in purchasing the food and feeding
their dogs and that they incurred damages in the form of having
purchased more pet food than was "otherwise necessary." These
allegations adequately plead a cause of action for negligent
misrepresentation under Pennsylvania law.
Moreover, there is nothing to suggest from a reading of the
complaint that the parties had anything other than a routine
retail-seller to retail-consumer/buyer relationship or that the
Plaintiffs in any way negotiated liability terms with Defendant.
Inasmuch as the Plaintiffs thereby aver that the Defendant has in
the course of its business supplied false/misleading information
for the guidance of consumers such as they, that they relied upon
that information to their detriment and purportedly suffered losses
as a result, the Judge finds that a claim under Restatement Section
552 has been stated, and the economic loss doctrine does not bar
Count IV. Accordingly, the motion as to Count IV is denied and the
motion as to Count V is granted with leave to replead.
3. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
In Count II of their Complaint, the Plaintiffs also present a state
law claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
The Defendants likewise seek the dismissal of this count for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
In the case, Judge Joyner must concur with the Defendant that the
Plaintiffs have failed to make out a cause of action against them
for the implied warranty of merchantability. Indeed, his review of
the Complaint fails to yield a finding of any facts which suggest
that the Defendant's pet food was in any way defective or of
inferior quality or was in any way unfit for its stated purpose.
Again, the basis for the Plaintiffs' claims is that they were
misled into purchasing too much pet food -- not that there was
anything wrong with the food products which they bought. In view
of this and given that Count II contains nothing more than
conclusory and formulaic allegations that the Defendant's
misrepresentations and omissions constituted a breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, it fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Count II will therefore be dismissed
with prejudice.
4. Unjust Enrichment
The Defendants likewise move for the dismissal of Count III of the
complaint, which purports to plead a cause of action against them
for unjust enrichment.
Judge Joyner holds that the Plaintiffs plead in Count III that the
Defendants "have been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues
derived from their misrepresentations and/or omissions" regarding
the proper daily feeding directions on the labels of the three dry
dog foods at issue, "which caused the Plaintiffs and the Class
Members to purchase more dog food products than otherwise
necessary." They further contend: The Defendants' retention of the
revenues derived from their misrepresentations and/or omissions as
to the daily feeding directions on the labels of their dog food
products is unjust and inequitable, because the Plaintiffs would
not have purchased additional dog food products and Defendants
would not have received additional monies, but for the false
representations and/or omissions." The Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs have thereby pled sufficient facts which if proven,
could conceivably warrant a finding in their favor that the
Defendants were unjustly enriched by their retention of the
revenues produced through the the Plaintiffs' allegedly unnecessary
purchases. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied as to Count
III.
5. Civil Conspiracy
Count VI of the Complaint raises a claim for civil conspiracy in
that the "Defendants conspired with each other to commit unlawful
acts or lawful acts in an unlawful manner." The Defendant argues
that the civil conspiracy count fails "at the threshold" because
the Plaintiffs have failed to state an underlying tort claim and
because the Complaint "fails to allege the manner in which a
conspiratorial scheme was devised and carried out."
The Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the "Defendants
conspired with each other to commit unlawful acts or lawful acts in
an unlawful manner," and that the "Defendants knowingly and
voluntarily agreed to engage in unfair and deceptive practices to
promote the use of their dog food products by making and
disseminating false, unsubstantiated, and misleading statements and
misrepresentations with regard to feeding directions, as well as
material omissions, in furtherance of their common strategy to
increase sales." They further aver that the "Defendants acted with
malice, purposely, intentionally, unlawfully, and without a
reasonable or lawful excuse."
While these allegations are largely conclusory, Judge Joyner
nevertheless finds that they are sufficiently specific to survive
the Twombly/Iqbal test. As noted, the Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged several underlying torts upon which conspiracy may be
predicated. The Judge will therefore deny the motion with respect
to Count VI.
6. Injunctive Relief
Finally, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs have not
properly stated a claim for injunctive relief because "there is no
count in the complaint seeking an injunction, nor does the
complaint identify any injunctive relief the Plaintiffs seek."
Rather, there is only a conclusory reference to "injunctive relief
as necessary" in the Prayer for Relief portion of the complaint.
On this Judge Joyner must agree with the Defendant -- the complaint
as it presently stands has not sufficiently stated a claim or shown
an entitlement to injunctive relief. He can only speculate as to
the nature of the relief sought and Twombly and Iqbal make clear
that pleadings require a showing of entitlement to relief and
sufficient detail as to the basis therefor to enable a defendant to
formulate a defense. Thus, to the extent that the complaint is
endeavoring to state a cause of action for injunctive relief, that
cause of action is dismissed, albeit with a grant of leave to the
Plaintiffs to amend to properly plead such a claim should they
truly desire it.
Order
For all of the reasons he set forth, Judge Joyner granted in part
and denied in part WellPet's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/25jy99fk from Leagle.com.
WORKERS CREDIT: Encarnacion Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Workers Credit Union.
The case is styled as Kiomy Encarnacion, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Workers Credit Union, Does
1-100, Case No. 4:21-cv-40077-TSH (D. Mass., July 23, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
Workers Credit Union -- https://www.wcu.com/ -- is a
state-chartered credit union headquartered in Littleton,
Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christine M. Craig, Esq.
SHAHEEN & GORDON, P.A.
107 Storrs Street
PO Box 2703
Concord, NH 03302-2703
Phone: (603) 749-5000
Fax: (603) 749-1838
Email: ccraig@shaheengordon.com
XTO ENERGY: Harmon Seeks Unpaid Construction Managers' OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANA HARMON, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. XTO ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-02323
(S.D. Tex., July 16, 2021) brings this collective action complaint
against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Construction
Manager from approximately July 2018 until November 2019.
The Plaintiff claims that despite frequently working 10 or more
hours a day, she and other similarly situated Construction Managers
were not paid their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, the Defendant paid
them a flat day rate regardless of the number of hours they worked
in a week, including the hours worked in excess of 40 per week, the
Plaintiff asserts.
XTO Energy, Inc. is an international natural gas and oil producer
operating throughout five division in the U.S., Western Canada, and
South America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
[*] Celebrity Attorney Reluctant on Donald Trump's Big Tech Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Rawnsley and Asawin Suebsaeng at thedailybeast.com reports
that Alan Dershowitz has long been the go-to lawyer for prominent
MAGA - world figures who are having trouble with the law - from
legal advice to legal punditry. But when it comes to former
President Donald Trump's class-action lawsuit against the social
media giants who booted him off their platforms, even Dershowitz is
currently keeping his distance this time.
And that's not from a lack of trying from Trump's legal team.
Two people familiar with the matter tell The Daily Beast that
lawyers for the Trump class-action lawsuit against big tech
companies reached out to Dershowitz in an attempt to enlist his
support in the case. Specifically, the sources say, Trump's legal
team has asked the celebrity attorney if he would write a filing
for the lawsuit, potentially an affidavit, in support of the First
Amendment and free speech arguments leveled against the companies.
But lately, Dershowitz has been acting less than enthusiastically
about the prospect, the sources said.
His reluctance marks another bump in the road for a legal crusade
that legal scholars call a fundraising "stunt" doomed to eventual
dismissal in federal court.
Dershowitz has pitched in to advise a host of Trumpworld figures
over the past few years in the course of their legal troubles. He's
supported Trump with constitutional arguments against impeachment
and the Special Counsel's Russia investigation, signed on to advise
MAGA pillow magnate Mike Lindell and his lawyers in his fight
against Dominion Voting Systems' defamation lawsuits, and offered
advice to Rudy Giuliani and his attorneys in the criminal
investigation into possible unregistered foreign lobbying.
And yet, on this one, Dershowitz isn't even jumping at the chance
to submit an affidavit, at least for now.
Reached for comment, Dershowitz told The Daily Beast that he "can't
discuss any conversations that may or may not have happened" on the
matter.
John P. Coale, an attorney representing former President Trump in
the case, declined to comment when reached by The Daily Beast.
Although Dershowitz won't comment on the filing, he's already
signaled skepticism of the legal theory underpinning Trump's social
media lawsuits in public comments.
At the heart of Trump's class-action suit against social media tech
giants is the argument that the companies' legal status "rises
beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor,"
according to complaints filed in the case, because of civil
liability granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
and pressure from congressional Democrats to remove right-wing
election and COVID-19 misinformation.
Dershowitz helped craft a similar argument advising MyPillow
founder Lindell in his lawsuit against Dominion Voting Systems.
Regarding that suit, he's publicly argued that "Dominion is the
government for the purposes of the First Amendment" because it
provides technology and services in the administration of
elections.
In an opinion piece for The Hill, Dershowitz wrote that while he
was generally critical of social media companies' content
moderation practices, he didn't necessarily buy the argument that
"being exempted from some government regulation" turns a private
institution into a state actor. He also wondered aloud whether the
"proposed remedy" of declaring tech companies to be state actors
subject to further government control "is more dangerous than the
disease of too much censorship power in the hands of too few
unaccountable media oligarchs."
Trump announced the lawsuit earlier this month after Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube suspended his accounts, citing the risk of
violence in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection. The lawsuit, he
said, marked "a very beautiful development for our freedom of
speech" and an attempt at "an end to the shadow-banning, a stop to
the silencing, and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and
cancelling that you know so well."
The suit asks for Trump and his co-plaintiffs to receive
compensation, punitive damages, a reinstatement of their accounts,
and demands that a federal judge rule Section 230 as
unconstitutional-a key demand of conservatives seeking to punish
big tech companies for their content moderation choices.[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 ***