/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210922.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, September 22, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 184
Headlines
15 EXTERIORS: Loses Bid to Quash Subpoenas In Stein Suit
1ST CHOICE: Fuller Class Cert Bid Must be Filed by Mar. 1, 2022
24 CAPITAL: Court Junks Peters Broadcast Suit
3M COMPANY: Braun Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
ACE AMERICAN: Settlement Class in Mayfield Provisionally Certified
ALPHA AND OMEGA: Bid to Dismiss Gray Suit Pending
ANNOVIS BIO: Faces Securities Class Action Over Alzheimer's Drug
ANNOVIS BIO: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline
ANNOVIS BIO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline
APPLE INC: Hacks Financial Account Info, Diep Class Suit Says
ATI PHYSICAL: Faces Burbige and Nie Putative Class Suit
ATI PHYSICAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 15 Deadline
AUSTIN CANCER: Data Breach Class Action Pending in Texas
BAGATELOS GLASS: Rodelas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CANTALOUPE INC: Consolidated Putative Suit Finally Resolved
CANTALOUPE INC: Putative Class Suit in Chester County Resolved
CARNIVAL PLC: Judge Rules on Ruby Princess Class Suit Waiver Issue
CARNIVAL PLC: Ruby Princess Int'l Passengers Can Join Class Action
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
CENTERSTATE BANK: Class Cert. Response Extension Sought in Grant
CENTERSTATE BANK: Extension of Class Certification Response Sought
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Class Action Over Robo Cash Sweeps
CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend Hernandez Putative Class Suit
CHICO'S FAS: Haldy Putative Class Suit Underway in California
CHUBB LTD: Beniak Appeals Judgment in Beniak Insurance Suit
CIMAREX ENERGY: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Parshall Says
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Tom's of Maine Toothpaste
COLUMBIA GAS: Lawrence Residents Still Awaiting Settlement Checks
DELL TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Class V Transaction Related Suit
DELL TECH: Trial in PSI Acquisition Related Suit Set for July 2022
EPIC SYSTEMS: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Suit Seeks to Certify Caregiver Class
FCA US: Kappler Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
FIELDALE FARMS: December 20 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Wilson Must File Class Cert Bid by Mar. 11, 2022
FIVE9 INC: Proxy Statement Misleading, Kent Class Suit Claims
GALERIE D'ORSAY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Camacho Alleges
GS ACQUISITION: Newman Seeks Separate Voting on Share Deal
GT MARKETING: Pastore Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls Ads
H.I.S. GUAM: Faces Igarashi WARN Suit Over Employee Terminations
HANNIBAL INDUSTRIES: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HERSHEY CO: Huston Files Deceptive Labeling Case Over Brownie Mix
HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Ross and Rogus Suit
HGST INC: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Serafica Suit Claims
HP INC: Appeal in Parziale Suit Dismissed
HP INC: Bid to Dismiss Mobile Emergency Housing Suit Pending
HP INC: Bid to Dismiss York County Putative Class Suit Pending
HP INC: Bid to Junk Electrical Workers Pension Fund Suit Pending
HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit Underway in Israel
HYRECAR INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
HYRECAR INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 26 Deadline
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Hi-Med Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
IN SPIRIT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
INDUS COMPANIES: Court OKs FLSA Notice & Consent in Nelson Suit
INTEGRATED PROTECTION: Faces Workers' Misclassification Class Suit
IQ BAR: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
IT WORKS: Faces Class Action Over Thermofight Weight Loss Formula
J75 INC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JACK IN THE BOX: Gessele Seeks Reconsideration of Cert. Denial
K.E.S. CONSTRUCTION: Gomez et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
KELLOGG SALES: Faces Kennard Suit Over Mislabeled Veggie Products
KHOSLA VENTURES: Umbright Seeks Separate Voting on Share Deal
KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Campos Files Suit in E.D. New York
KING COUNTY, WA: Class Action Notices Sent to Class Members
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Hill Suit Claims
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 10
LIFE STORAGE: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
LIVE VENTURES: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Oct. 12 Deadline
LOANDEPOT INC: Lako Hits Share Price Drop
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in Karri Class Action
MACH 1 GLOBAL: Castro Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
MANHATTAN HEMATOLOGY: Underpays File Clerks, Lopez Suit Claims
MARQUEZ HASS: Fails to Pay Delivery Workers' Wages, Guerrero Says
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Faces Zinsky Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Cohen Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MESOBLAST LIMITED: ADS Related Putative Class Suit Underway
MIDLAND CREDIT: McCaslin Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION: Bryant Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
NCINO INC: Putative Class Action Ongoing in North Carolina
NETFLIX INC: Nevada Court Grants Bids to Dismiss City of Reno Suit
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
NEW YORK, NY: Laroy Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
NEWREZ LLC: Court Extends Scheduling Order Deadlines in Cox Suit
NIAGARA COUNTY, NY: Sanders Files Suit in W.D. New York
NORDSON CORP: Settlement Reached in Ortiz Suit
OFFCOURT PRODUCTS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OKLAHOMA: Cole Voluntarily Dismisses Suit
OTAY LAKES: Faces Herrera Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
PATTERSON COMPANIES: MOA Reached in Plymouth County Retirement Suit
PENN NATIONAL: Lipari-Williams Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
PENNSYLVANIA: DOC Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Ruling in Stradford
PINTEREST INC: Court Tosses Copyright Claims From Harrington Suit
RIVER PALMS: Faces Suit Over Patients' Bill of Rights Violations
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Phillips Suit Remanded to San Diego Super. Court
SEQUIM ASSET: McCurdy FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina
SMG HOLDINGS: Class Certification Pretrial & Trial Dates Vacated
SMITH & WESSON: Appeals Ct. Refusal to Nix Negligent Design Claim
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
ST. JOSEPH'S/CANDLER: Betz Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
ST. JOSEPH'S: Faces Class Action Following Ransomware Attack
TD AMERITRADE: Class Certification Bids Extended to Nov. 15
TRIAD MANUFACTURING: Loses Bid to Send ERISA Suit to Arbitration
TYSON FOODS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 30 Deadline
UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: Settlement in Hilaire Suit Gets Initial Nod
UNITED JM CORP: Faces Aguilar Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: Air Force Veterans Sue Over Trauma Discharges
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Status
UTAH: Maxfield Files FLSA Suit in D. Utah
VIEW INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 18 Deadline
ZOOM VIDEO: Bid to Junk Data Privacy Related Suit Pending
ZOOM VIDEO: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set for Oct. 21
ZUORA INC: Discovery in Consolidated IPO Related Class Suit Ongoing
ZUORA INC: Discovery Ongoing in California Putative Class Suit
*********
15 EXTERIORS: Loses Bid to Quash Subpoenas In Stein Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC STEIN v. 15 EXTERIORS
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-05093-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David
W. Christel entered an order:
1. granting the Defendant's motion for extension of time to
file its reply; and
2. denying the Defendant's motion to quash.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff is correct that if any information
responsive to the subpoena is revealed to be confidential it can
easily be safeguarded by the existing Protective Order. The
Defendant argues the subpoenas are overbroad because they seek
information beginning February 5, 2017, whereas Plaintiff alleges
Defendant first called him in the Spring of 2018. However,
Defendant does not have standing to object to third party subpoenas
on grounds that the subpoena seeks irrelevant information or would
impose an undue burden, "especially where the non-party, itself,
has not objected." Notably, Defendant's own subpoenas, discussed
supra, seek records of calls made from numerous telephone numbers
(not just the one Plaintiff has identified as being called by
Defendant, beginning in February 2017). In sum, Defendant has not
met its burden of showing the subpoenas to LOGMEIN and Cole's
should be quashed.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) by making telemarketing calls to his
phone number and the numbers of other putative class members
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.
In May 2021 the Court granted a motion to quash Plaintiff's first
subpoena to third-party LOGMEIN Communications (LOGMEIN), which
sought: (1) records of all outbound calls by 15 Exteriors from
February 5, 2021 through the current date, and (2) records of all
outbound calls by any entity that used 360-718-2203 from February
5, 2021 through the current date, and (3) A declaration confirming
the authenticity of the same. The Court reasoned that because
Plaintiff sought information outside the dates Plaintiff alleges
Defendant called him, Plaintiff was "not seeking information
related to the calls made to Plaintiff by Defendant but to find a
lead plaintiff."
On July 30, 2021, Defendant filed another motion to quash. This
time, the Defendant seeks to quash two subpoenas Plaintiff served
upon third-parties LOGMEIN and Cole's Neighborhood. On August 11,
2021, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. On August 20,
2021, Defendant replied.
Meanwhile, on August 13, 2021, the Court signed the parties'
Stipulated Protective Order.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tYHwUn at no extra charge.[CC]
1ST CHOICE: Fuller Class Cert Bid Must be Filed by Mar. 1, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONISHA FULLER v. 1ST
CHOICE FAMILY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02771-MHW-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Kimberly Jolson entered a
scheduling order based upon the parties' Report pursuant to Rule
26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
-- The parties shall exchange initial disclosures by October
1, 2021.
-- There are no contested issues related to venue or
jurisdiction at this time.
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional
parties shall be filed by October 15, 2021.
-- The motion for Rule 23 class certification shall be filed
by March 1, 2022.
-- All discovery shall be completed by 90 days after the
Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for conditional
certification if the Motion is denied, or 150 days after
the close of the conditional certification notice period
if the Motion is granted.
-- Any dispositive motions shall be filed by 45 days after
the close of discovery.
-- Primary expert reports must be produced by 90 days after
the close of fact discovery.
-- Plaintiff will make a settlement demand by 30 days after
receiving the necessary time and payroll data to make a
settlement demand. Defendant will respond within 30 days
after Plaintiff's demand is made.
The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Conditional Certification of an
FLSA Collective Action on July 30, 2021. The Defendant's Response
was filed on August 20, 2021. The Plaintiff's Reply was filed on
September 3, 2021.
The Plaintiff brings class and collective claims against Defendant
for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
Ohio law. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant misclassified her and
other similarly situated employees as independent contractors and
did not pay them overtime for hours they worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.
The Defendant denies all of the Plaintiff's material allegations
and asserts that Plaintiff and all putative class and collective
members were properly classified and exempt from overtime
requirements.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tYQLnp at no extra charge.[CC]
24 CAPITAL: Court Junks Peters Broadcast Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETERS BROADCAST
ENGINEERING, v. 24 CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-03135-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Kimberly
A. Jolson entered an order that:
-- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.
-- Because the Plaintiff's underlying claims are not properly
before the Court, and must be dismissed, its amended
motion to certify class is denied as moot.
Accordingly, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants
regarding the RICO claim. And as the alleged basis for all
accompanying state-law claims is pendent jurisdiction, it
necessarily lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants for those
claims as well.
This action arises between Peters Broadcast and the Defendants
Capital 24 and Jason Sankov. All parties agree that Peters
Broadcast is an Indiana corporation. The r Defendants assert that
Peters Broadcast's principal place of business is in Fort Wayne,
Indiana, which Peters Broadcast does not dispute.
The Defendants further represent that 24 Capital is a New York
limited liability company with its principal place of business in
Long Island City, New York, and that Mr. Sankov is an individual
residing in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, none of which Peters
Broadcast disputes.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hQSnuA at no extra charge.[CC]
3M COMPANY: Braun Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY JAMES BRAUN, 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-02996-RMG
(D.S.C., September 16, 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 personal injury 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 firefighter
trainees, 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:
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
ACE AMERICAN: Settlement Class in Mayfield Provisionally Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MAYFIELD, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. ACE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02425-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order that:
-- Solely for purposes of Settlement, the following
Settlement Class is provisionally certified pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3):
"All persons who: (1) made claims under a group accident
insurance policy issued by ACE as part of an ERISA benefit
plan that contained a provision materially identical to
the Interest Clause; (2) whose claims were not paid or
denied by ACE within the deadlines set forth in the
Interest Clause; and (3) who were not paid interest on
benefits due and ultimately paid, but excludes Persons
meeting the foregoing criteria who timely exclude
themselves from the Class."
-- RG2 is appointed as Claims Administrator.
-- Neither Defendant nor its counsel shall be liable or
otherwise responsible for any actions or omissions of RG2
in connection with its performance of the duties required
pursuant to the Agreement and this Order.
-- Consideration of all other motions and deadlines pending
in this lawsuit is hereby stayed until further order of
Court.
-- This Court preliminarily determines that the distribution
of the Class Notice Package (as set forth in the
Agreement) is the best notice practicable under the
circumstances.
-- In the event that the Settlement is not finally approved
for any reason, Defendant shall, pursuant to the
Agreement, retain its rights to contest certification of
the Class.
ACE American operates as an insurance company. The Company offers
property and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zvs6b4 at no extra charge.[CC]
ALPHA AND OMEGA: Bid to Dismiss Gray Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August
30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit initiated by
Darryl Gray, is pending.
On March 19, 2020, Darryl Gray, a stockholder of the Company, filed
a putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the
Company and its management members made material misstatements or
omissions regarding the Company's business and operations,
including its export control practices relating to business
transactions with Huawei and its affiliates.
The Gray Action asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, as well as claims under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer. Among other remedies, the Gray Action seeks to
recover compensatory and other damages as well as attorney's fees
and costs.
On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff moved for an order appointing him as
Lead Plaintiff pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act and
approving Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the
putative class. On July 1, 2020, the Court entered an order
granting the Motion and requiring that: (i) Lead Plaintiff file an
amended complaint or designate the current complaint as operative
within sixty days; (ii) Defendants answer the complaint or
otherwise move within sixty days of such filing or designation;
(iii) Lead Plaintiff file an opposition, if any, within 45 days;
and (iv) Defendants file a reply, if any, forty-five days
thereafter.
On August 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
the same claims against the Defendants, and adding the Company's
Executive Vice President of Product Line as a defendant on both
claims.
On October 27, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the action in
its entirety. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 11, 2020
and Defendants filed their reply brief on January 25, 2021.
The Company believes the claims in the Gray Action are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation.
Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited (AOS) is a designer,
developer and global supplier of a broad range of power
semiconductors, including a wide portfolio of Power MOSFET, IGBT,
IPM and Power IC products.
ANNOVIS BIO: Faces Securities Class Action Over Alzheimer's Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Annovis
Bio, Inc. misled investors by making falsely positive claims while
failing to disclose that Alzheimer's patients participating in a
Phase 2a clinical drug trial were not showing significant
statistical improvement, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Obed Moroni Carrillo Cruz claims the share price of
Annovis Bio plummeted 60% once the truth came out, causing
shareholders who had believed the company's previously positive
statement about the trial to suffer significant losses.
Cruz wants to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who
purchased or otherwise acquired Annovis securities between the
period of May 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021.
Cruz claims Annovis committed federal securities law violations by
making false and misleading statements about the success of the
drug trial and failing to disclose material adverse facts related
to the company's business, operations, and prospects.
Annovis, a clinical stage pharmaceutical company, was conducting
Phase 2a clinical studies for a neurodegeneration therapeutic drug
called ANVS401, meant to help people suffering from Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease in Down
syndrome, according to the class action lawsuit.
Annovis Bio Lied About the Success of Alzheimer's Drug in Clinical
Trial, a New Class Action Lawsuit Claims
Cruz says Annovis issued a press release on May 21, 2021 saying, in
part, that "patients treated with ANVS401 for 25 days showed
statistically significant cognitive improvement as measured by the
Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale."
Cruz claims the press release was misleading and failed to disclose
to investors that the drug had not shown statistically significant
results across two patient populations.
The truth that the drug trial was not going as well as Annovis'
claimed finally came out in a press release sent out by the company
on July 28, which caused its stock to drop by more than $65,
according to the class action lawsuit.
Annovis' subsequent attempts to explain its findings and frame them
in a more positive light did not help its stock price recover, says
Cruz, who alleges the company ultimately violated Section 10(b),
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of The Securities Exchange Act.
Cruz is demanding a jury trial and seeking relief in the form of
compensatory damages for himself and all Class Members.
A similar class action lawsuit was filed this month by investors
who alleged Spectrum Pharmaceuticals failed to disclose adverse
facts about the efficacy of its white blood cell-stimulating drug,
Rolontis.
Did you invest in Annovis Bio, Inc. and lose money after the
results of its Phase 2a trials became public? Let us know in the
comments!
The plaintiff is represented by Jacob A. Goldberg and Gonen Haklay
of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Jeremy A. Lieberman and J.
Alexander Hood II of Pomerantz LLP.
The Annovis Bio Class Action Lawsuit is Cruz v. Annovis Bio, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-06770, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN]
ANNOVIS BIO: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Annovis Bio, Inc. ("Annovis" or the "Company")
(NYSE: ANVS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and docketed under 21-cv-04040, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Annovis securities between May
21, 2021 and July 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Annovis securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 18, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Annovis is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company that is
developing therapies addressing neurodegeneration, such as
Alzheimer's disease ("AD"), Parkinson's disease ("PD"), and AD in
Down syndrome. Its lead compound is ANVS401 (Posiphen), an orally
administrated drug which purportedly inhibited the synthesis of
neurotoxic proteins that are the main cause of neurodegeneration.
At all relevant times, the Company was conducting two Phase 2a
clinical studies. The trial conducted in collaboration with the
Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study examines twenty-four early AD
patients, whereas the AD/PD trial examines fourteen AD and
fifty-four PD patients. Both are double-blind, placebo-controlled
studies and were purportedly designed to measure not only target,
but also pathway validation in the spinal fluid of patients.
Annovis stated that if it could show both target and pathway
validation in two patient populations, it "believe[d] that [its]
opportunity for successful Phase 3 studies is better than if we
merely demonstrated target validation in one patient population."
The 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: (1) that Annovis's ANVS401 did not
show statistically significant results across two patient
populations as to factors such as orientation, judgement, and
problem solving; and (2) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On July 28, 2021, after the market closed, Annovis reported interim
clinical data from its Phase 2a trial. Among other things, the
Company reported that AD patients twenty-five days after treatment
failed to show statistically significant improvement compared to
the placebo. Annovis also reported that, although patients showed
cognitive improvements in certain areas, the results were not
statistically significant.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $65.94, or 60%, to
close at $43.50 per share on July 29, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
ANNOVIS BIO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Annovis Bio, Inc. (NYSE: ANVS)
between May 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important October 18, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Annovis Bio securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Annovis Bio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2148.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 18, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's ANVS401
(Posiphen), an orally administrated drug which purportedly
inhibited the synthesis of neurotoxic proteins that are the main
cause of neurodegeneration, did not show statistically significant
results across two patient populations as to factors such as
orientation, judgement, and problem solving; and (2) as a result,
defendants' statements about Annovis Bio's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Annovis Bio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2148.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
APPLE INC: Hacks Financial Account Info, Diep Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
HADONA DIEP, Individually, and on behalf of similarly-situated
persons v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-02359-CBD (D. Md., Sept.
16, 2021) is a class-action suit for damages under the federal and
state laws seeking legal remedy for the Defendant's breaches of
those same laws, in participating in and or allowing "hacking" and
"breach" of financial account information and actual theft of
personal financial assets, by authorizing a malicious application
in the "App Store" and maintaining the same, despite knowledge of
the criminal activity, and the Defendant's further failures to
notify Plaintiff and the Class Members that their financial
information had been compromised.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendant breached those duties through
act and omission by failing to properly vet the Toast Plus
application before providing it to the public, by failing to warn
the public of the actual risks of applications in the App Store, by
failing to remove Toast Plus from the App Store after learning of
its dangerous nature, and or by failing to warn or notify each
Toast Plus user of the danger after learning of the danger itself.
The Plaintiff makes her living as a full-time cyber-security IT
professional.
Apple is the largest, or at least one of the largest, mobile and
tablet application providers in the world, through its
universally-known "App Store."
Apple itself describes the App Store to consumers as, for over a
decade, having proved to be a safe and trusted place to discover
and download apps.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua G. Whitaker, Esq.
Edward N. Griffin, Esq.
ADELPHI LAW
2306 Wineberry Terrace
Baltimore, MD 21209
Telephone: (888) 367-0383
E-mail: whitaker@adelphilaw.com
griffin@adelphilaw.com
ATI PHYSICAL: Faces Burbige and Nie Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
ATI Physical Therapy said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 3, 2021, that
the company is facing a putative class action suit initiated by
Kevin Burbige and Ziyang Nie.
On August 16, 2021, two purported ATI shareholders, Kevin Burbige
and Ziyang Nie, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against ATI,
Labeed Diab, Joe Jordan, and Drew McKnight (collectively, the "ATI
Individual Defendants," as defined in the complaint), and Joshua
Pack, Marc Furstein, Leslee Cowen, Aaron Hood, Carmen Policy,
Rakefet Russak-Aminoach, and Sunil Gulati.
The complaint asserts claims against: (i) the ATI Individual
Defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the ATI Individual Defendants and
the FVAC Defendants under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs purport to assert their claims on behalf of those ATI
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired their ATI shares
between April 1, 2021 and July 23, 2021, inclusive, and/or held
FVAC Class A common shares as of May 24, 2021 and were eligible to
vote at FVAC's June 15, 2021 special meeting.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the proxy materials for the
FVAC/ATI merger, as well as other ATI disclosures (including the
press release announcing ATI's financial results for the first
quarter of 2021), were false and misleading (and, thus, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act) because
they failed to disclose that: (i) ATI was experiencing attrition
among its physical therapists; (ii) ATI faced increasing
competition for clinicians in the labor market; (iii) as a result,
ATI faced difficulty retaining therapists and incurred increased
labor costs; (iv) also as a result, ATI would open fewer new
clinics; and (v) also as a result, the defendants' positive
statements about ATI's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Plaintiffs
seek money damages in an unspecified amount.
Plaintiffs have not yet served the complaint on any of the
defendants.
ATI Physical Therapy is an American provider of physical therapy
services based in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Founded by exercise
physiologist Greg Steil in 1996 as one clinic in Willowbrook,
Illinois, ATI has more than 860 locations in the United States.
ATI PHYSICAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds:
(a) purchasers of the securities of ATI Physical Therapy, Inc.
f/k/a Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. II (NYSE: ATIP) between
April 1, 2021 and July 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period");
and/or (b) investors who held Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. II
("FVAC") Class A common stock as of May 24, 2021 and were eligible
to vote at FVAC's June 15, 2021 special meeting, of the important
October 15, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased ATI securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the ATI class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2132.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 15, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) ATI was experiencing attrition
among its physical therapists; (2) ATI faced increasing competition
for clinicians in the labor market; (3) as a result of the
foregoing, ATI faced difficulties retaining therapists and incurred
increased labor costs; (4) as a result of the labor shortage, ATI
would open fewer new clinics; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about ATI's business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the ATI class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2132.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
AUSTIN CANCER: Data Breach Class Action Pending in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Abington Cole + Ellery disclosed that on August 27, 2021, Austin
Cancer Centers revealed that it experienced a data breach involving
unauthorized access to protected health information and other data
on its computer systems. According to Austin Cancer Centers, a team
of computer security investigators determined that the data breach,
which was discovered on August 4, 2021, actually began on July 21,
2021. In a data security breach report published on September 13,
2021, by the Attorney General of Texas, it was revealed that the
Austin Cancer Centers data breach affected 36,038 patients in
Texas.
According to Austin Cancer Centers, patient health data exposed
during the data breach may include, but is not necessarily limited
to: names of patients, patient addresses, patient Social Security
numbers, patient driver's license numbers, patient financial
information (for example, account numbers, credit card numbers
and/or debit card numbers), medical data, and health insurance
data.
Austin Cancer Centers has stated that in addition to Texas-wide
media broadcasts, and internet notices, it will mail data breach
notices directly to patients whose data was exposed in the data
breach. More information from Austin Cancer Centers about the data
breach may be found here: Austin Cancer Centers Data Breach News
Release.
If you believe you have been harmed by the Austin Cancer Centers
data breach, and would like to participate in a class action
lawsuit regarding this data breach, please submit your information
via the form on this webpage. This website is not associated with
nor authorized by Austin Cancer Centers or any affiliated
companies. [GN]
BAGATELOS GLASS: Rodelas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bagatelos Glass
Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cesar Rodelas, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bagatelos Glass Systems,
Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00308023-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 16, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Bagatelos Glass Systems, Inc. -- https://bagatelos.com/ -- is
premier provider of glazing solutions, building superior quality
exterior facades, safely and with integrity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Fax: (213) 232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
CANTALOUPE INC: Consolidated Putative Suit Finally Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cantaloupe, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the consolidated putative
class action suit with Docket No. 19-cv-04565 has been fully and
finally resolved.
On September 11, 2018, Stephane Gouet filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, Stephen P. Herbert, the then-current
Chief Executive Officer, and Priyanka Singh, the then-current Chief
Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
The class was defined as purchasers of the Company's securities
from November 9, 2017 through September 11, 2018.
The complaint alleged that the Company disclosed on September 11,
2018 that it was unable to timely file its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 (the "2018 Form
10-K"), and that the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors was in the process of conducting an internal
investigation of current and prior period matters relating to
certain of the Company's contractual arrangements, including the
accounting treatment, financial reporting and internal controls
related to such arrangements.
The complaint alleged that the defendants disseminated false
statements and failed to disclose material facts, and engaged in
practices that operated as a fraud or deceit upon Gouet and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of the
Company's securities during the proposed class period. The
complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
Two additional class action complaints, containing substantially
the same factual allegations and legal claims, were filed against
the Company, Herbert and Singh in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.
On September 13, 2018, David Gray filed a putative class action
complaint, and on October 3, 2018, Anthony E. Phillips filed a
putative class action complaint.
Subsequently, multiple shareholders moved to be appointed lead
plaintiff, and on December 19, 2018, the Court consolidated the
three actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and appointed lead
counsel for the consolidated actions (the "Consolidated Action").
On February 28, 2019, the Court approved a Stipulation agreed to by
the parties in the Consolidated Action for the filing of an amended
complaint within fourteen days after the Company filed its 2018
Form 10-K.
On January 22, 2019, the Company and Herbert filed a motion to
transfer the Consolidated Action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 5,
2019, the Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to
Transfer.
August 12, 2019, the University of Puerto Rico Retirement System
("UPR") filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company, Herbert, Singh, the Company's Directors at the relevant
time (Steven D. Barnhart, Joel Books, Robert L. Metzger, Albin F.
Moschner, William J. Reilly and William J. Schoch) (the
"Independent Directors"), and the investment banking firms who
acted as underwriters for the May 2018 follow-on public offering of
the Company (the "Public Offering"): William Blair & Company; LLC;
Craig-Hallum Capital Group, LLC; Northland Securities, Inc.; and
Barrington Research Associates, Inc. (the "Underwriters").
The class was defined as purchasers of the Company's shares
pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the Public Offering. Plaintiff sought to recover
damages caused by Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933, and specifically Sections 11, 12 and 15 thereof. The
complaint generally sought compensatory damages, rescissory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs. The UPR complaint was consolidated
into the Consolidated Action and the UPR docket was closed.
On September 30, 2019, the Court granted the motion to transfer and
transferred the Consolidated Action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket No.
19-cv-04565.
On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
asserted claims under both the 1933 Act and the 1934 Act.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 3, 2020. Before
briefing on the motions was completed, the parties participated in
a private mediation on February 27, 2020, which ultimately resulted
in a settlement.
On May 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed documents with the Court
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, with the defendants
supporting approval of the settlement. On June 9, 2020, the Court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement and issued a
scheduling order for further action on the settlement.
The settlement provides for a payment of $15.3 million that
includes all administrative costs and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses. The Company's insurance carriers paid approximately
$12.7 million towards the settlement and the Company paid
approximately $2.6 million towards the settlement. The settlement
payments were deposited into an escrow account in July 2020. Only
one putative class member submitted an objection to the settlement.
On October 30, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the motion for
final settlement approval and granted approval. Under the
settlement, payment of plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses may
be distributed within three business days of approval (subject to
being returned if the settlement is reversed based on any appeal).
Thirty days after the judgment, the remaining funds from the escrow
account were released to the plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement.
The deadline for filing an appeal has passed, so this case has been
fully and finally resolved.
Cantaloupe, Inc. is a digital payments and software services
company that provides end-to-end technology solutions for the
unattended retail market. The company is based in Malvern,
Pennsylvania.
CANTALOUPE INC: Putative Class Suit in Chester County Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cantaloupe, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the putative shareholder
class action suit with Docket No. 2019-04821-MJ has been fully and
finally resolved.
A putative shareholder class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer at
the relevant time, its directors at the relevant time, and the
Underwriters, in the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County,
Pennsylvania, Docket No. 2019-04821-MJ (the "State Securities Class
Action").
The complaint alleged violations of the 1933 Act. As also
previously reported, on September 20, 2019 the Court granted the
defendants' Petition for Stay and stayed the Chester County action
until the Consolidated Action reaches a final disposition.
On October 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania
Superior Court from the Order granting defendants' Petition for
Stay, Docket No. 3100 EDA 2019.
On December 6, 2019, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an
Order stating that the Stay Order does not appear to be final or
otherwise appealable and directed plaintiff to show cause as to the
basis of the Pennsylvania Superior Court's jurisdiction.
The plaintiff filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause on
December 16, 2019, and the defendants filed an Application to Quash
Appeal on December 26, 2019. On February 20, 2020, the Pennsylvania
Superior Court quashed the appeal.
This action has remained stayed pending final disposition of the
Consolidated Action.
After the final resolution of the Consolidated Action plaintiffs'
counsel agreed that the State Securities Class Action could not
proceed in light of the releases provided by the final judgment in
the federal action.
On February 17, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion seeking
approval from the Court to allow plaintiff to discontinue the State
Securities Class Action with prejudice.
On March 10, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the motion and
granted the relief requested. On March 19, 2021, plaintiff made a
filing to discontinue and end the action.
This case has been fully and finally resolved.
Cantaloupe, Inc. is a digital payments and software services
company that provides end-to-end technology solutions for the
unattended retail market. The company is based in Malvern,
Pennsylvania.
CARNIVAL PLC: Judge Rules on Ruby Princess Class Suit Waiver Issue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Carter, writing for Carter Capner Law, reports that the Ruby
Princess departed Sydney on 8 March 2020 for New Zealand and
returned on 19 March becoming the catalyst for the worst COVID-19
outbreak in the first phase of the pandemic.
Carnival -- the giant US cruise boat operator of Princess, Carnival
and P&O cruises -- was exonerated by the NSW Commission of Enquiry
notwithstanding the ship's crew were aware of the outbreak before
they docked let loose more than 2600 infected passengers into the
community.
A class action against Carnival by passengers alleges it even knew
of the likelihood of a Covid outbreak before setting off for New
Zealand and that that the cruise should have been cancelled for
that reason. The claims are in negligence and for breaches of
statutory warranties under the Australian Consumer Law.
Nearly 700 of their number purchased their cruise in North America
on "US terms" ie according to ticket conditions that only allow
lawsuits against Carnival to be filed in California and that
prohibit those passengers joining any class action.
Carnival petitioned the Federal Court in Sydney to stay the claims
of all "US terms passengers" in the class action so they could be
heard in the US with US law applied.
At the outset Justice Angus Stewart decided in relation to Patrick
Ho -- a resident of Canada and the representative of all US terms
passengers in the stay proceedings -- that the exclusive
jurisdiction and class action waiver clauses were not incorporated
into his cruise contract because they were contained in a document
issued by the cruise line after the contract of carriage had in
fact already been formed.
His Honour noted that each passenger's circumstances would have to
be separately examined to determine whether the same conclusion
could be drawn in their cases.
He went on to make other findings in case an appeal court decided
he had erred on the incorporation of contract terms point.
Justice Stewart was not prepared to hold that the exclusive US
jurisdiction clause was of itself an unfair term under the
Australian Consumer Law but had no hesitation in concluding that
the class-action waiver Carnival wanted to enforce was invalid for
that very reason.
He ruled that in those circumstances it was preferable to have the
US terms passenger claims heard in Australia specifically because
they would have the advantage of class-action representation here
that would be denied to them by a California court applying US
law.
It was undesirable in his view that litigation dealing with
"essentially identical claims" be "fractured" by being heard in two
different countries with potentially different outcomes being
reached.
Carnival also argued that Sydney was a "clearly an appropriate
forum". Not so, said the judge because the claims "have a
substantial connection with NSW" with breaches, conduct and
omissions having occurred less than 1 km away from the court at the
international cruise ship terminal at Circular Quay.
Further, because the ACL applied in many respects to the claims, it
was very appropriate that the proceedings - even for overseas
passengers - be conducted here.
The plaintiffs had argued that the court was prevented from staying
the ACL proceedings because Section 138 of the Competition and
Consumer Act 2010 confers jurisdiction on the FCA in respect of all
ACL matters. His Honour did not however accept the "implied
prohibition" contended for.
The court reserved the issue of the law that applied to the
negligence claims with Carnival asserting that they had to be
determined under US maritime law.
This decision is a big win not just for for Ruby Princess
passengers but for all Australian consumers. It is a powerful
demonstration of just how robust our consumer protections are and
how anti-consumer contract terms favoured by international
conglomerates like Carnival will not be allowed to flourish here as
they have elsewhere. [GN]
CARNIVAL PLC: Ruby Princess Int'l Passengers Can Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bywater, writing for nzherald.co.nz, reports that an
Australian court has ruled that international passengers of the
Ruby Princess will be able to be included in a class action against
the cruise ship's owners for damages connected to the deadly 2020
Covid outbreak.
Between 8 and 19 March the Ruby Princess visited New Zealand from
Sydney while passengers were contagious with Covid 19.
The sailing was linked to some of the largest clusters on both
sides of the Tasman during the pandemic's first wave.
Passenger Susan Karpik filed the lawsuit against parent company
Carnival PLC and operators Princess Cruise Lines in July, last
year.
Karpic was aboard the Ruby with her husband, who she claims
contracted Covid 19 on the ship.
The lawsuit includes 2700 passengers, family and representatives of
those who suffered mental harm and illness connected to the
sailing, some of whom subsequently died.
Initially Carnival claimed this class action should be limited to
guests from Australia and New Zealand, booking on the same terms as
Karpic.
Where to next?
However, on Sept. 10, the Australian Federal court ruled that
overseas passengers should be able to be represented in the class
action lawsuit.
Justice Stewart ruled that groups from the US, UK and Canada could
be heard as part of the lawsuit.
He noted that to insist that cases be tried in the countries where
passengers' tickets were booked could lead to drastically unequal
outcomes for essentially identical claims.
"Such a result is wasteful of parties' and judicial resources and
runs the risk of producing conflicting outcomes in different
courts, which would bring the administration of justice into
disrepute."
Vicky Antzoulatos, Class Action Practice Leader for Shine Lawyers
called it a "significant judgment", not just for Australia but
internationally.
"More than anything, it means we can continue to prosecute the
class action for all passengers," she said.
"Our clients are still traumatised by the loss of loved ones, and
many are struggling with ongoing health issues because of this
ill-fated voyage."
Over 700 cases of Covid 19 were linked to the sailing and 28
deaths, according to Shine.
The ship which toured New Zealand between 11 and 15 March 2020,
called in at Dunedin, Akaroa, Wellington and Napier before
returning to Australia.
This included a cluster of 25 cases in Hawke's Bay which was
eventually linked to a tour guide for cruise passengers.
A special inquiry was ordered in Australia after 2647 passengers
were allowed to disembark in Sydney.
A spokesperson for Carnival Australia said they had no comment at
this stage.
"We have been consistent in our approach of not offering a comment
on active litigation and we will continue in this approach on this
occasion."
The case was set to return to court on 17 September. [GN]
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Cassava Sciences, Inc.
("Cassava" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SAVA) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Cassava securities between February 2, 2021 and August 24,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/sava.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the quality and integrity of the scientific data
supporting Cassava Sciences' claims for simulfilam's efficacy had
been overstated; (2) the scientific data supporting Cassava
Sciences' claims for simulfilam's efficacy were biased; and (3) as
a result, defendants' positive statements during the Class Period
about Cassava Sciences' business metrics and financial prospects
and the likelihood of U.S. Food Drug Administration ("FDA")
approval were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/sava or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss
inCassava you have until October 26, 2021, to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
CENTERSTATE BANK: Class Cert. Response Extension Sought in Grant
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 granting enlargement of 21
days, or until October 25, 2021, for the Defendant to file its
response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification and to serve
its expert reports for class certification.
CenterState is a financial holding company, which engages in the
provision of consumer and commercial banking services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AsZn8e at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:
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
CENTERSTATE BANK: Extension of Class Certification Response Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRECISION ROOFING OF N.
FLORIDA INC. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CENTERSTATE BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352-BJD-JRK (M.D.
Fla.), the parties asks the Court to enter an order granting
enlargement of 21 days, or until October 25, 2021, for the
Defendant to file its response to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and to serve its expert reports for class
certification.
Precision Roofing of North Florida is a locally owned and operated
State Certified roofing company specializing in all types of
residential and commercial roofing and repairs.
CenterState is a financial holding company, which engages in the
provision of consumer and commercial banking services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tTzYCc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:
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
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Class Action Over Robo Cash Sweeps
--------------------------------------------------------
Jake Martin, writing for Advisor Hub, reports that a group of
investors have brought a proposed class action claim against a
Charles Schwab Corp. subsidiary over allegations it over-allocated
customers of its robo-advisor Schwab Intelligent Portfolios to
cash, bolstering the retail brokerage's income while costing
investors hundreds of millions in potential gains.
Charles Schwab Investment Advisory, which oversees the
robo-advisor, made "hundreds of millions of dollars in unwarranted
and unfair cash sweeps to Schwab" and customers "collectively
missed out on over $500 million in portfolio growth" since the
program's 2015 inception, according to a complaint filed on Sept.
10 in U.S. District Court in Northern California. The complaint
accuses the Schwab unit of violating its fiduciary duty, breach of
contract and violation of state laws.
"CSIA systematically kept the 'Intelligent Portfolios' accounts of
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class over-concentrated in cash during
the white-hot boom years of America's recent stock market," the
complaint said.
A spokeswoman for San Francisco-based Schwab declined to comment.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of Schwab's July report that it took
a $200 million charge in the second quarter pertaining to an
ongoing probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission that
"largely concerns historic disclosures" relating to Schwab
Intelligent Portfolios, according to a filing. The unit managed
nearly $64 billion in customer assets at the end of March, up 51%
year-over-year, the company said in the filing.
Schwab, unlike its many robo competitors that charge annual fees
based on account balance or flat monthly fees, charges no advisory
fees or commissions, and derives much of its revenue from net
interest margin on cash sweeps into Charles Schwab Bank, according
to the complaint.
It allocates between 6% to 30% of customer assets to Schwab's cash
sweep program, depending on the investment strategy the client
selects, their risk tolerance and time horizon, according to the
complaint, which also said customers can't opt out of the program.
"While Schwab indeed charges its retail investor clients no
investment advisory fees in connection with the SIP Program, the
program is not free for anyone to use, as certain Program marketing
suggests," the class action complaint said.
A smaller share of revenue comes from a portion of client
portfolios that may be invested in Schwab exchange-traded funds
(ETFs), from which the company earns management fees, according to
the complaint.
The named plaintiffs, Lauren M. Barbiero, of Terrytown, Louisiana,
and Kimberly J. Lopez and William K. Lopez of Walden, New York,
opened Intelligent Portfolios accounts with Schwab in March 2019,
April 2019 and October 2020, respectively. Barbiero closed her
account in March 2020, the same month the market plummeted from
widespread shutdowns caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, but Kimberly
Lopez and William Lopex have remained customers of the program.
The plaintiff Barbiero's Intelligent Portfolios account was to be
used for saving for her minor son, which the complaint said should
have called for taking on more risk in the portfolio.
"Despite the extensive investment horizon associated with Plaintiff
Barbiero's SIP Program account, CSIA kept Plaintiff Barbiero's
Schwab account invested in approximately 10% or more in cash," the
complaint said. "This, under these circumstances, is an imprudently
high cash allocation for a savings account of a beneficiary/client
like Plaintiff Barbiero's son, who is under 21 years of age."
Amounts invested with Schwab by each of the named plaintiffs were
not disclosed, although the complaint indicates they had as low as
9% and as high as 25% of their balances allocated to cash in any
given month they maintained their accounts.
In calculating the opportunity-cost of the sweep, the complaint
cited an August report from Backend Benchmarking that found Schwab
Intelligent Portfolios customers would have earned another 2% - or
$531 million collectively - if Schwab had charged a 0.30%
management fee and invested the cash allocation into the same
fixed-income assets that are held in the portfolio.
Backend Benchmarking, which publishes a quarterly report on
robo-advisor performance, based the simulated portfolio return on
the equity-only and fixed income-only returns of its Schwab
Intelligent Portfolio account, invested in a moderately aggressive
portfolio, according to the report.
The plaintiffs' lead attorney John T. Jasnoch, of law firm Scott +
Scott, declined to comment beyond the filing. [GN]
CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend Hernandez Putative Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Margarita Hernandez
v. Chico's FAS, Inc., et al.
In August 2021, the Company was named as a defendant in Margarita
Hernandez v. Chico's FAS, Inc., et al., a putative class action
filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County seeking to
represent a class of current and former nonexempt employees of
Chico's, WHBM and Soma stores in California.
The complaint alleges many of the same wage and labor violations as
the Mercedes Haldy, et al. v. White House Black Market, Inc., et
al. complaint, and seeks the same relief.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend the Haldy and Hernandez cases vigorously.
Chico's FAS said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of
the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses in either
case, the ultimate resolution of these matters could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or
consolidated financial statements."
Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also
sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS,
Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers,
Florida.
CHICO'S FAS: Haldy Putative Class Suit Underway in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Mercedes Haldy, et
al. v. White House Black Market, Inc. ("WHBM"), et al.
In February 2021, the Company was named as a defendant in Mercedes
Haldy, et al. v. White House Black Market, Inc. ("WHBM"), et al., a
putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California,
Orange County, and subsequently removed to the United States
District Court, Central District of California.
The complaint alleges numerous violations of California law related
to payment of wages and other compensation, meal periods, rest
periods, and wage statements, among other things.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former
nonexempt employees of WHBM and Chico's stores in California.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend the Haldy case vigorously.
Chico's FAS said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of
the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses in either
case, the ultimate resolution of these matters could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or
consolidated financial statements."
Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also
sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS,
Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers,
Florida.
CHUBB LTD: Beniak Appeals Judgment in Beniak Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Beniak Enterprises Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled BENIAK ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a
BENITO RISTORANTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. CHUBB LTD. and INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05536-KM-JBC, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' breach of contract.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all
similarly-situated policyholders who paid premiums to the
Defendants in exchange for an all-risk commercial property
insurance policy that included lost business income and extra
expense coverage, alleges that the Defendants refused to comply
with their contractual obligation to pay for business income losses
and other covered expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and Class
policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured
property from measures put in place by the civil authorities to
stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population.
According to the complaint, Chubb's insurance policies issued to
Plaintiff and the Class members are all risk commercial property
policies that cover loss or damage to the covered premises
resulting from all risks other than those expressly excluded.
Therefore, the Defendants should not have denied their business
interruption coverage claim because the efficient proximate cause
of Plaintiff's, and other Class members' losses, were precautionary
measures taken by the government to prevent the spread of COVID-19
in the future, not because coronavirus was found in or on
Plaintiff's and Class members' insured property.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated Aug. 26, 2021, granting Defendant's motion for judgment on
the pleadings.
The appellate case is captioned as Beniak Enterprises Inc. v. Chubb
Ltd, et al., Case No. 21-2683, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on September 9, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BENIAK ENTERPRISES INC, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, DBA Benito Ristorante, is
represented by:
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 693-9100
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
Defendant-Appellee INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA is
represented by:
Daren S. McNally, Esq.
CLYDE & CO
200 Campus Drive, Suite 300
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (908) 210-6700
E-mail: daren.mcnally@clydeco.us
CIMAREX ENERGY: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Parshall Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES PARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIMAREX ENERGY CO., THOMAS E. JORDEN, PAUL
N. ECKLEY, HANS HELMERICH, KATHLEEN A. HOGENSON, HAROLD R. LOGAN,
JR., FLOYD R. PRICE, MONROE W. ROBERTSON, LISA A. STEWART, and
FRANCES M. VALLEJO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01311-UNA (D.
Del., September 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, Cimarex filed a materially deficient
and misleading Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to convince Cimarex
stockholders to approve the proposed acquisition of Cimarex by
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation. The proxy is materially deficient and
misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material
information regarding Cimarex's and Cabot's financial projections
and the financial analyses performed by Cimarex's financial
advisor, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. 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 holders of the company's common stock, says the suit.
Cimarex Energy Co. is an oil and gas exploration and production
company, with its principal executive offices located at 1700
Lincoln Street, Suite 3700, Denver, Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 729-9100
E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.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
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Tom's of Maine Toothpaste
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Bradley-Smith, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
class action lawsuit alleging that Colgate falsely advertises Tom's
of Maine brand toothpaste as natural has been ended by the company
and the lead plaintiff, Angela Munsell.
The joint stipulation of dismissal, which followed mediation
between Munsell and Colgate, was a brief two pages and did not
contain much information, other than that the suit was dropped with
prejudice and without costs.
Tom's of Maine False Ad Claims
The class action lawsuit was originally filed in 2019 with Munsell
alleging that since at least the end of 2015, she regularly
purchased Tom's of Maine toothpaste because it was advertised as
"natural," but it in fact contains glycerin, propylene glycol,
sodium lauryl sulfate, aluminum chlorohydrate, xanthan gum,
sorbitol, ascorbic acid and xylitol.
The lawsuit was filed three years after Tom's of Maine settled a
class action lawsuit making similar claims, and as part of the
settlement, agreed to cease advertising the toothpaste as "all
natural," for a period of three years.
Munsell alleged that the toothpaste makers returned to old
marketing tactics as soon as legally allowed.
In May 2020, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton ruled that
Colgate must face the claims in court after Colgate filed a motion
to dismiss. Judge Gorton later sent the case to mediation.
Colgate isn't the only company that has faced legal action over the
advertising of toothpaste.
In March, customers who bought Crest whitening toothpaste
containing charcoal sued the company's owner, saying they were
misled to believe charcoal was safe and effective to clean your
teeth and gums with.
Plaintiff Belinda Housey claimed Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G) had
been promoting its Crest products as "enamel-safe whitening
toothpastes that gently clean, and that can promote healthier
gums," when there is no evidence charcoal has a whitening effect.
Munsell is represented by Edward F. Haber, Ian J. McLoughlin and
Adam M. Stewart of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.
The Tom's of Maine Toothpaste Class Action Lawsuit is Angela
Munsell v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-12512,
in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. [GN]
COLUMBIA GAS: Lawrence Residents Still Awaiting Settlement Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Betsy Badell, writing for NBC Boston, reports that it has been
three years since gas explosions rocked Merrimack Valley, but many
victims are still without compensation from a class action
settlement.
The Massachusetts communities of Lawrence, Andover and North
Andover were impacted. About 8,000 people were displaced, and
18-year-old Leonel Rondon was killed.
Columbia Gas was forced to pay more than $56 million in fines and
was barred from operating in Massachusetts after a lawsuit from
Attorney General Maura Healey.
The utility also settled a class action lawsuit for $143 million.
But while 11,000 residents have received checks from that
settlement, Telemundo Nueva Inglaterra has learned that many are
still waiting for them.
"I got a call from my wife saying that there was an explosion close
to the house," Jose Frias recalled. "Everyone was nervous,
panicking and everything. When I got home, my kids were crying."
"My daughter was nervous and screaming, asking me where I was,"
Eunice Acevedo said in Spanish.
Residents of low-income neighborhoods were left without power or
gas for weeks.
"I had nowhere else to stay because I have no family here,"
Evarista Maria said in Spanish.
Maria said she and her neighbors spent the first few nights
sleeping outside their homes in the dark. She recalled having to
spend $60 for food each day after the explosions.
When they learned they could be compensated for their losses
through the class action, she and her neighbors say they filed
immediately.
But she and others were denied.
"Almost a year later, I received a letter in the mail that I filled
out my application too late and I don't qualify," said Frias.
"That's all they said."
John Roddy, one of the lead attorneys on the class action lawsuit,
says thousands of people lost out on the money because they missed
the March 2020 deadline.
"We've got 2,700 people who missed that, and a lot of them said
because of COVID," Roddy said. "We don't want them to be penalized,
we would like to distribute that money to them."
Of the $143 million, $80 million has been distributed. After legal
fees, $11 million is left over and will now be paid out.
"Each claimant, even if they were late, would get a check for
approximately $904," Rody said.
The last round of checks will be sent out this fall. Those who
placed their claims on time received between $700 and $20,000,
depending on their circumstances, and will now receive an
additional $900 along with the late claimants.
"We take responsibility for this tragic event and the hardships it
brought. We witnessed the heart, strength and resilience of the
residents, heroic efforts of first responders and compassion of
community partners," NiSource, which owned Columbia Gas, said in a
statement. "While we no longer operate in Massachusetts, NiSource
remains committed to continue to support the community through the
NiSource Charitable Foundation Fund for Merrimack Valley."
An independent party is in charge of distributing the money. [GN]
DELL TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Class V Transaction Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In Re Dell
Class V Litigation (Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL).
On December 28, 2018, the Company completed a transaction (the
"Class V transaction") in which it paid $14.0 billion in cash and
issued 149,387,617 shares of its Class C Common Stock to holders of
its Class V Common Stock in exchange for all outstanding shares of
Class V Common Stock. The non cash consideration portion of the
Class V transaction totaled $6.9 billion. As a result of the Class
V transaction, the tracking stock feature of the Company's capital
structure associated with the Class V Common Stock was terminated.
The Class C Common Stock is traded on the NYSE.
Four purported stockholders brought putative class action
complaints arising out of the Class V transaction.
The actions were captioned Hallandale Beach Police and Fire
Retirement Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No.
2018-0816-JTL), Howard Karp v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action
No. 2019-0032-JTL), Miramar Police Officers' Retirement Plan v.
Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0049-JTL), and
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil
Action No. 2019-0115-JTL).
The four actions were consolidated in the Delaware Chancery Court
into In Re Dell Class V Litigation (Consol. C.A. No.
2018-0816-JTL), which names as defendants the Company's board of
directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, and certain stockholders of the
Company, including Michael S. Dell.
The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the former holders of Class V Common Stock in
connection with the Class V transaction by allegedly causing the
Company to enter into a transaction that favored the interests of
the controlling stockholders at the expense of such former
stockholders.
The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, a judicial declaration
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and an award of
damages, fees, and costs.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2019 making
substantially similar allegations to those described above.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action in September
2019.
The court denied the motion in June 2020 and the case is currently
in the discovery phase.
Trial is currently scheduled to begin on December 5, 2022.
Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company
offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors,
printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products.
Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies
Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock,
Texas.
DELL TECH: Trial in PSI Acquisition Related Suit Set for July 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2021, that trial in the
consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re: Pivotal
Software, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Civil Action No.
2020-0440-KSJM), is currently scheduled to begin on July 6, 2022.
On December 30, 2019, VMware, Inc. completed its acquisition of
Pivotal Software, Inc. from the Company by merger.
Two purported stockholders brought putative class action complaints
arising out of VMware, Inc.'s acquisition of Pivotal Software, Inc.
on December 30, 2019.
The two actions were consolidated in the Delaware Chancery Court
into In re: Pivotal Software, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Civil
Action No. 2020-0440-KSJM).
complaint names as defendants the Company, VMware, Inc., Michael S.
Dell, and certain officers of Pivotal.
The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the former holders of Pivotal Class A common
stock in connection with VMware, Inc.'s acquisition of Pivotal by
allegedly causing Pivotal to enter into a transaction that favored
the interests of Pivotal's controlling stockholders at the expense
of such former stockholders.
The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, a judicial declaration
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and an award of
damages, fees, and costs.
Trial is currently scheduled to begin on July 6, 2022.
Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company
offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors,
printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products.
Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies
Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock,
Texas.
EPIC SYSTEMS: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Mersol, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that only three years ago, the Supreme Court reversed the
holdings of a large number of lower courts and held that class
action waivers in arbitration agreements were enforceable. Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). With the Supreme
Court's ruling, many employers either adopted such agreements or
began to enforce their preexisting agreements more effectively.
Particularly in the realm of Fair Labor Standards Act litigation,
these agreements became an important part of the defense, providing
a counterbalance to courts' frequent application of the reduced
standards for "conditional certification" and the resulting undue
economic pressure placed on defendants to settle.
The plaintiffs' bar reacted immediately, and numerous efforts were
made at the state and federal levels to limit Epic Systems' reach.
We have blogged about many of those efforts here. Employment
arbitration again became an issue following the 2020 elections.
With the change in control of Congress, various bills were
introduced that would effectively make Epic Systems a nullity.
Those efforts may be coming to fruition. The House Education and
Labor Committee just released the text of labor legislation that
will become part of the $3.5 trillion spending package now being
prepared in Congress. A copy can be found here, with the labor
provisions beginning on page 114. This 296-page set of amendments
will become part of the even-larger spending bill that is still
under development and is expected to be enacted through the budget
reconciliation process for political reasons.
The language of the proposed legislation contains much to disfavor
employers, including adding penalties of $50,000 to $100,000 for
employer (not union) unfair labor practices and personal liability
for officers and directors who are found to have participated in or
failed to prevent unlawful conduct, prohibiting the hiring of
strike replacements and making the misclassification of a worker as
an independent contractor (at least in some cases) an unfair labor
practice. It will also mandate employer-funded IRAs or 401(k) plans
in addition to existing Social Security obligations.
With respect to the subject matter of this blog, the proposed
language prohibits the enforcement of arbitration agreements in
connection with class or collective actions.
"No employer shall . . . enter into or attempt to enforce any
agreement, express or implied, whereby prior to a dispute to which
the agreement applies, an employee undertakes or promises not to
pursue, bring, join, litigate, or support any kind of joint, class,
or collective claim arising from or relating to the employment of
such employee in any forum that, but for such agreement, is of
competent jurisdiction."
The bill would make the prohibition effective Jan. 1, 2022.
According to media sources, the bill is being fast-tracked, with a
goal of passage by Sept. 27, 2021. If this provision becomes
effective, employers using arbitration agreements will need to
consider necessary revisions and whether they continue to be
worthwhile given arbitration's costs. The so-called Byrd rule
prohibits the use of the budget reconciliation process in the
Senate for "extraneous measures," where there is no budgetary
effect or where there is one that is merely incidental to the
budget change. Given that the measures are expected to be placed in
effect through that mechanism, serious questions may arise as to
whether it is available for measures with so little budget impact.
The bottom line: The $3.5 trillion spending package targeted for
passage this month now also includes a provision that would
effectively bar the use of arbitration agreements in class or
collective actions. [GN]
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Suit Seeks to Certify Caregiver Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gwendoline Aboah and Tania
Stewart, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc. d/b/a BrightStar Care of
Fairfield & Southbury, and Peter R. Moore, Case No.
3:20-cv-00763-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), granting
their motion for conditional certification of the following
collective:
"All employees called Home Health Aides, a/k/a Caregivers who
worked at least one “live-in” shift for the Defendants,
Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc. d/b/a BrightStar Care of
Fairfield & Southbury, and Peter R. Moore in Connecticut
during any time between May 15, 2017, until the date of final
judgment."
Fairfield Healthcare is located in Norwalk, Connecticut and is part
of the Home Health Care Services Industry.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 15,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AEod4U
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
100 Pearl Street, 14 th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3007
Telephone: (860) 249-7180
Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com
FCA US: Kappler Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------
The case styled as Aaron Kappler, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 21CV1367-3
was removed from the Forsyth County Superior Court to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Sept.
16, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-RWS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
FCA US LLC -- http://www.fcausllc.com/-- designs, engineers,
manufactures, and sells vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Patrick O'Brien, Esq.
THOMPSON O'BRIEN KEMP & NASUTI
40 Technology Parkway South, Suite 300
Norcross, GA 30092
Phone: (770) 925-0111
Fax: (770) 925-8597
Email: PO'Brien@tokn.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas M. Mitchell, Esq.
CAROTHERS & MITHCELL, LLC
1809 Buford Highway
Buford, GA 30518
Phone: (770) 932-3552
Fax: (770) 932-6348
Email: thomas.mitchell@carmitch.com
FIELDALE FARMS: December 20 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Millitzer, writing for Nexstar Media Wire, reports that did you
buy chicken from 2009 through 2020? Then you may be eligible for a
payment from a class action settlement for $181 million. The
defendants include Fieldale Farms Corporation, George's, Mar-Jac
Poultry, Peco Foods, Pilgrim's Pride, and Tyson Foods.
Prosecutors in the Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation allege that
several corporations conspired to stabilize the price and supply of
chicken, a violation of federal and state consumer antitrust laws.
The law firm representing the plaintiff's posted notice of the
settlement on Sept. 10 with approval from United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. But, the settlements
need final approval by the court at a hearing on Dec. 20, 2021
before any money is paid.
Anyone who purchased fresh or frozen raw chicken (excluding meat
marketed as halal, kosher, free-range, or organic) within several
states is eligible. Those states include California, District of
Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.
How much money should you expect?
That figure is still to be determined, depending on how many
claimants sign on and the settlement total being finalized.
As far as the payouts involved, Tyson will pay $99,000,000,
Pilgrim's will pay $75,500,000, George's will pay $1,900,000, Peco
will pay $1,900,000, Fieldale will pay $1,700,000 and Mar-Jac will
pay $1,000,000 if the settlements are approved.
While the per-consumer payout isn't yet known, we do know how much
the class action settlement lawyers will get:
"Co-Lead Counsel will seek attorneys' fees of no more than 33.3% of
the Settlement Fund or $60,273,000, and the total amount of costs
sought will be no more than $8.75 million. Co-Lead Counsel will
also request service awards of up to $2,000 for each of the Class
Representatives."
Everything left after legal fees will be distributed to members of
the settlement class.
There are several exceptions to the eligibility. File your claim
and check your eligibility by Dec. 31, 2022 at
www.overchargedforchicken.com or call 1-877-888-5428.
Tyson, Perdue to pay $35M to settle with chicken farmers
Two of the industry's biggest poultry companies have agreed to pay
nearly $35 million to settle a lawsuit that accused them and
several other firms of conspiring to dominate the industry and fix
the prices paid to farmers who raise the chickens. Tyson Foods and
Perdue Farms agreed to the settlements without admitting any
wrongdoing while the lawsuit remains pending against several other
industry giants, including Pilgrim's Pride, Koch Foods and
Sanderson Farms. The lawsuit says the contract grower system the
meat companies created pushed them deep into debt to build and
maintain chicken barns that met company standards.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. [GN]
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Wilson Must File Class Cert Bid by Mar. 11, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRYTON WILSON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FIRST
ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No.
4:21-cv-06071-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough
entered a scheduling order related to class certification:
1. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or
before November 19, 2021.
2. Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed on or
before November 19, 2021.
3. The Court will not entertain any discovery motion absent
full compliance with Local Rule 37.1. In the event that a
teleconference is needed, email your request to the
Courtroom Deputy at Tracey_Richard@mow.uscourts.gov.
4. Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed
on or before March 11, 2022.
5. Defendant's opposition to class certification brief is due
on or before April 11, 2022.
6. Plaintiff's reply brief for class certification is due on
or before April 29, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39pTkVW at no extra charge.[CC]
FIVE9 INC: Proxy Statement Misleading, Kent Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT v. FIVE9, INC., MICHAEL BURDIEK, DAVID DEWALT, SUSAN
BARSAMIAN, JACK ACOSTA, ROWAN TROLLOPE, DAVID WELSH, KIMBERLY
ALEXY, MICHAEL BURKLAND, ROBERT ZOLLARS, and ANA PINCZUKCase No.
3:21-cv-07210 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2021) is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, against Five9 and
the members of Five9's Board of Directors for their violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, arising out of their attempt to
sell the Company to Zoom Video Communications, Inc. through Summer
Merger Sub, Inc. (the Proposed Transaction).
On July 16, 2021, Zoom and Five9 entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger pursuant to which, each Five9 stockholder will receive
0.5533 shares of Zoom Class A common stock for each share of Five9
common stock they own.
On August 26, 2021, Five9 filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy") with the SEC. Allegedly, the Proxy is
materially deficient and misleading because it fails to disclose
material information regarding the Company's financial projections
and the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisor, Qatalyst Partners LP.
The stockholder vote to approve the Proposed Transaction is
forthcoming. Under the Merger Agreement, following a successful
stockholder vote, the Proposed Transaction will be consummated. For
these reasons, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from
conducting the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless
and until the material information discussed below is disclosed to
the holders of the Company common stock, or, in the event the
Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from the defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Five9.
Five9 is an industry-leading provider of cloud contact center
solutions, bringing the power of cloud innovation to more than
2,000 customers worldwide and facilitating billions of customer
engagements annually. The Five9 Intelligent Cloud Contact Center
provides digital engagement, analytics, workflow automation,
workforce optimization, and practical artificial intelligence to
help customers reimagine their customer experience. The Individual
Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. No. 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
GALERIE D'ORSAY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Camacho Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON CAMACHO, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. GALERIE D'ORSAY, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05200
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2021) alleges that Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually-impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.
Because Defendant's website, https://www.galerie-dorsay,com/ is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
allegedly violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, added the
suit.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. The
website offers features which should allow all consumers to access
the goods and services offered by the Defendant and which Defendant
ensures delivery of such goods throughout the United States
including New York State. The goods and services offered by
Defendant include, but are not limited to, the following, which
allow consumers to: purchase artwork such as publications,
editions, collectors' items and other products available online for
purchase, and to ascertain information relating to pricing,
shipping, ordering merchandise and return and privacy
policies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
GS ACQUISITION: Newman Seeks Separate Voting on Share Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Newman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of GS Acquisition Holdings Corp. II, Plaintiff, v. GS
Acquisition Holdings Corp II, Thomas R. Knott, Raanan A. Agus,
Steven S. Reinemund, David M. Robinson, William H. Frist and Martha
Newman Sullivan, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0760, (D. Del.,
September 3, 2021), asserts a claim against GS Acquisition Holdings
Corp. II and its board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the Delaware General Corporation Law.
GS Acquisition Holdings is a dual-class special purpose acquisition
company, a non-operational shell company formed exclusively to
raise capital and then acquire a private company. On June 17, 2021,
the GS Acquisition announced that it had entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger to acquire Mirion Technologies, Ltd., wherein
Class B Common Stock will convert into tradable Class A Common
Stock, thereby providing the former with a return on its
investment.
Newman contends that holders of a class of stock are entitled to a
separate class vote on an amendment to a certificate of
incorporation that increases the amount of authorized shares of
that class. Delaware General Corporation Law permits a corporation
to opt out of the requirement of a separate class vote for
increases in authorized shares by expressly providing in its
charter that an increase in the authorized shares of a class
requires the approval of the holders of a majority of the stock of
the corporation entitled to vote. Newman further contends that GS
Acquisition does not have such an opt out provision, therefore, the
holders of its Class A Common Stock must be entitled to a separate
class vote on the Class A Share Increase Amendment.
Newman seeks to halt plans to conduct the stockholder vote on the
Share Increase Amendment by aggregating the votes of all
outstanding shares of common stock, without also conducting a
separate class vote on the Share Increase Amendment. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Jordan Cafritz, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: (202) 524-4290
Fax: (202) 333-2121
- and -
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
1204 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 803-4600
Email: rernst@bk-legal.com
GT MARKETING: Pastore Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN A. PASTORE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GT MARKETING GROUP USA INC., a
Florida Corporation, d/b/a ECCENTRY HOLIDAYS, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-cv-01483-PGB-DCI (S.D. Fla., September 20, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed numerous prerecorded
calls to his cellular telephone ending in 6666 on February 11, 26
and March 2, 2021 in an attempt to market and advertise its
business and services. The Plaintiff answered to a voice recording
thanking him for choosing "Marriot Hotels' followed by telling him
that he won a complementary stay. The Plaintiff asserts that he
never provided his cellular number to the Defendant through any
medium, nor did he consent to receive such unsolicited calls.
Additionally, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since March 17,
2020.
GT Marketing Group USA Inc. provides marketing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 524-2820
Fax: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
- and –
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Tel: (954) 889-3359
Fax: (954) 889-5913
E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com
H.I.S. GUAM: Faces Igarashi WARN Suit Over Employee Terminations
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSAMU IGARASHI v. H.I.S. GUAM INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025 (D.
Guam, Sept. 16, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated who were employees of Defendant H.I.S.
and who were "affected employees" subject to an "employment loss,"
as a result of the circumstances, acts and facts related to
employee terminations effected by Defendant on May 31, 2020,
without the notices required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.
The Plaintiff worked at H.I.S. performing various functions,
including working as an airport counter customer service
representative.
On March 3, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) continued its
warnings about the spread of COVID-19, and warned of particular
risks to frontline workers. The WHO declared that "doctors, nurses
and other frontline workers dangerously ill-equipped to care for
COVID-19 patients, due to limited access to supplies such as
gloves, medical masks, respirators, goggles, face shields, gowns,
and aprons."
On March 5, 2020, WHO leadership warned that the COVID-19 epidemic
"can be pushed back, but only with a collective coordinated and
comprehensive approach that engages the entire machinery of
government."
On March 11, 2020, the WHO explained that it "has been assessing
this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by
the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming
levels of inaction. We have therefore made the assessment that
COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic."
On March 14, 2020, Governor Leon Guerrero issued Executive Order
2020-03 declaring a Public Health Emergency for the Island of Guam
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
RAZZANO WALSH & TORRES, P.C.
Pan American Building, Suite 100
139 Murray Blvd.
Hagatna, Guam 96910
Telephone: (671) 989-3009
Facsimile: (671) 989-8750
HANNIBAL INDUSTRIES: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hannibal Industries,
Inc. The case is styled as Perez Elias Manriquez Pedro Lopez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hannibal Industries, Inc., Case No. 21STCV34035 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 15, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Hannibal Industries, Inc. -- https://hannibalindustries.com/ --
provides metal fabrication products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Fax: (213) 232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
HERSHEY CO: Huston Files Deceptive Labeling Case Over Brownie Mix
-----------------------------------------------------------------
April Huston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Conagra Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-04147 (C.D. Ill., September 4, 2021), seeks to recover actual
damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs for breaches of
express warranty, and implied warranty of merchantability under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
Conagra Brands manufactures, packages, distributes, advertises,
markets, and sells "Chewy Fudge Brownie Mix." Its packaging,
labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the
impression that they are buying a product containing fudge.
However, Huston claims that the product lacks ingredients essential
to fudge, namely cream and whole milk and substitutes vegetable
oil, skim milk and whey on its chocolate brownies. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cutter Mill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Tel: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Ross and Rogus Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3,
2021, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Ross and Rogus v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.
On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging
that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically
lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing
substantially similar work.
The complaint alleges various California state law claims,
including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing
Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a
California-only class of female employees employed in certain
"Covered Positions."
The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs. On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer
to all causes of action and an alternative motion to strike
portions of the complaint.
On July 2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims
of the putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims
of the individual plaintiffs.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.
HGST INC: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Serafica Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS SERAFICA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HGST, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21CV386574 (Cal. Sup. Ct., September 9, 2021) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendants for its alleged violations
of the California Labor Code and the California Business &
Professions Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an operator from
about September 2017 to about January 2021.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants jointly and severally,
have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to
pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked,
filing to provide off-duty meal breaks, failing to timely pay wages
upon separation of employment, and failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements to its employees in the State of
California. The Plaintiff seeks damages and/or penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief the Court may deem just
and proper.
HGST, Inc. manufactures hard disk drives, solid-state drives, and
external storage products and services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
- and –
B. James Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Charles Swanston, Esq.
Laura L. Franklin, Esq.
FITZPATRICK & SWANSTON
555 South Main Street
Salinas, CA 93901
Tel: (831) 755-1311
Fax: (831) 755-1319
HP INC: Appeal in Parziale Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2021, that the appeal in Parziale v. HP Inc., has
been dismissed by plaintiff with prejudice.
On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed
against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California
arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet
printers. The complaint alleges two causes of action under Florida
Consumer Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. Sections 501.201
et seq., and (2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement
Law, F.S.A. Sections 817.41 et seq.
The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of "all
United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of
limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to
reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges."
On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
three causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030 et seq., (2) trespass
to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations.
Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
On December 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied
in part HP's motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed plaintiff's causes of action under the Florida
Consumer Protection statutes, as well as the tortious interference
with business relations claim and four of the five claims under the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
The Court denied HP's motion to dismiss on the remaining claims and
on the request for injunctive relief and granted plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint.
On June 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on
behalf of both a nationwide class and a Florida subclass alleging
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and trespass to
chattels.
Plaintiff sought class relief, injunctive relief, damages,
including punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
On September 29, 2020, the Court granted HP's motion to dismiss,
dismissing the case in full with prejudice.
The plaintiff appealed and the parties subsequently reached a
settlement. On August 2, 2021, the plaintiff dismissed the appeal
with prejudice.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
HP INC: Bid to Dismiss Mobile Emergency Housing Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2021, that the company's motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint captioned Mobile Emergency Housing Corp., et al.
v. HP, Inc., is pending.
On December 17, 2020, a putative consumer class action was filed
against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California
arising out of the use of Dynamic Security firmware updates.
The complaint alleges seven claims under federal and California
law: (1) violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
("CFAA") for allegedly causing "damage without authorization" to
the plaintiffs' printers; (2) violation of the California
Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"); (3)
violation of the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (4)
violation of the "fraudulent" prong of the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"); (5) violation of the "unfair" prong of the
UCL; (6) violation of the "unlawful" prong of the UCL; and (7)
trespass to chattels.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide injunctive-relief class
of "all persons in the United States who own a Class Printer" and a
monetary relief subclass of those who experienced an error message
due to third-party cartridge incompatibility resulting from a
firmware update, defining "Class Printers" to include the "HP Color
LaserJet Pro M254, HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M280, HP Color
LaserJet Pro MFP M281, and all other models affected" by the
firmware updates described in the complaint.
On February 10, 2021, HP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
and in response, on March 2, 2021, plaintiffs amended their
complaint. The amended complaint added an additional named
plaintiff, a California state consumer subclass, and a California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim seeking injunctive relief on
behalf of the new plaintiff and the state consumer subclass.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed Second and Third Amended Complaints
respectively on March 19 and April 8, 2021.
The Third Amended Complaint adds allegations pertaining to data
collection—specifically, that HP allegedly collected data on the
type of third-party cartridges that Plaintiffs used on their
printers without their knowledge, in violation of the FAL and UCL
and in a manner giving rise to a trespass of chattels.
The Third Amended Complaint also pleads new claims under the CFAA
and CDAFA based on these data collection allegations, as well as a
new claim under the CDAFA based on the theory that HP lacked
authorization to issue the firmware updates at issue.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive
relief against alleged unfair business practices, and other relief.
On May 24, 2021, HP filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
HP INC: Bid to Dismiss York County Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss filed in the
putative class action suit initiated by York County, is pending.
On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York
Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against
HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the
Northern District of California. On February 11, 2021, the court
appointed Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund as Lead
Plaintiff.
On April 21, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint,
which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Richard
Bailey. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from
November 5, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named current and
former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by concealing material information and making false statements
about HP's printing supplies business, including information about
HP's channel inventory management and sales practices. Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages and other relief.
On June 21, 2021, HP and the named officers filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. That motion is anticipated to be fully
briefed on October 4, 2021.
On May 17, 2021, stockholder Scott Franklin filed a derivative
complaint against certain current and former officers and directors
in federal court in the District of Delaware.
Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of HP, which he
has named as a nominal defendant, and it makes substantially the
same factual allegations as in the York County securities
complaint, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
violations of securities laws.
The derivative plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, governance
reforms, and other relief. By court order following stipulations by
the parties, the case was transferred to the Northern District of
California on June 22, 2021, and on July 1, 2021, the case was
stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in York County.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
HP INC: Bid to Junk Electrical Workers Pension Fund Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the putative class
action suit initiated by Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local
103, I.B.E.W., is pending.
On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103,
I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion
Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in the U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of California.
On May 20, 2020, the court appointed the State of Rhode Island,
Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees'
Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint
Funds as Lead Plaintiffs.
On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
additionally named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph
Schell. On October 2, 2020, HP and the named officers filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. On March 19, 2021, the court granted
HP's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the
complaint.
On May 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint,
which no longer names Christoph Schell as a defendant.
The second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from
February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
false or misleading statements about HP's printing supplies
business, including alleged statements made about changes to HP's
channel inventory management and sales practices, and stabilization
of printing supplies revenue.
It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated
Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling
shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of
material, non-public adverse information about HP's printing
supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other
relief.
On June 4, 2021, HP and the named officers filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
The motion is fully briefed and oral argument in front of the court
is scheduled for September 9, 2021.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit Underway in Israel
---------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit in Israel entitled, Gensin v. HP
Inc.
On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned
Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem
against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain
OfficeJet printers.
The petition and motion for certification as a class action
alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law,
5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of
the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5)
improper enrichment.
The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide
classes comprised of anyone who "owns an HP printer that has been
blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink
cartridges not manufactured by HP" or who "purchased ink cartridges
not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers."
Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and
attorneys' fees.
On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was
filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v.
HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in
certain OfficeJet printers.
The petition and motion allege similar causes of action on behalf
of similar nationwide classes.
After the Dror case was consolidated with the Gensin case in
Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24, 2018 dismissed the Dror
case and designated Gensin as the lead matter.
On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed
nationwide class to be comprised of "all persons who have an HP
printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP
with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP" and "all persons who
purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the
Blocked Printers."
On July 2, 2020, HP filed its response to the amended petition.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
HYRECAR INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 26 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 filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or acquired the securities of HyreCar, Inc.
("HyreCar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HYRE) from May 14, 2021
through August 10, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934.
If you purchased HyreCar securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit HyreCar Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877)
779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com
According to the complaint, HyreCar issued materially false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and financial
condition, which were known to, or recklessly disregarded by, the
Defendants as follows: (a) that HyreCar had materially understated
its insurance reserves; (b) that HyreCar had systematically failed
to pay valid insurance claims incurred prior to the Class Period;
(c) that HyreCar had incurred significant expenses transitioning to
its new third-party insurance claims administer nd processing
claims incurred from prior periods; (d) that HyreCar had failed to
appropriately price risk in its insurance products and was
experiencing elevated claims incidence as a result; (e) that
HyreCar had been forced to dramatically reform its claims
underwriting, policies and procedures in response to unacceptably
high claims severity and customer complaints; and (f) that, as a
result of the foregoing, HyreCar's operations and prospects were
misrepresented because the Company was not on track to meet the
financial estimates provided to investors during the Class Period,
and such estimates lacked a reasonable basis in fact, including
HyreCar's purported gross margin, EBITDA and net loss
trajectories.
On August 10, 2021, HyreCar announced disappointing results for the
quarterly period ending on June 30, 2021, including a net loss of
$9.3 million. HyreCar also disclosed it had incurred skyrocketing
costs of revenue during the quarter primarily as a result of
significantly higher insurance claims incidence.
On this news, the price of HyreCar shares fell almost 50%, to close
at $9.85 per share on May 12, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 26, 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 HyreCar securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/hyrecarinc-hyre-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-434/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Rujul Patel
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
rpatel@bernlieb.com [GN]
HYRECAR INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds HyreCar
Inc. (NASDAQ: HYRE) ("HyreCar") investors that a securities fraud
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired HyreCar securities betweeen May 14, 2021 and
August 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021
Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/hyrecar-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=hyrecar
Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
Toll free (844) 887-9500
HyreCar operates a web-based marketplace that allows car and fleet
owners to rent their cars to Uber, Lyft and other gig economy
service drivers. HyreCar operates a platform that connects gig
drivers with automobiles, while also providing insurance and
tactical support. HyreCar earns revenues from two revenue share
fees (one from the driver and one from the owner) as well as fees
for driver insurance, with the insurance fee representing a large
(if not majority) percentage of the revenue generated by each
transaction.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, which
were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1)
HyreCar had materially understated its insurance reserves; (2)
HyreCar had systematically failed to pay valid insurance claims
incurred prior to the Class Period; (3) HyreCar had incurred
significant expenses transitioning to its new third-party insurance
claims administrator and processing claims incurred from prior
periods; (4) HyreCar had failed to appropriately price risk in its
insurance products and was experiencing elevated claims incidence
as a result; (5) HyreCar had been forced to dramatically reform its
claims underwriting, policies and procedures in response to
unacceptably high claims severity and customer complaints; and (6)
as a result of the above, HyreCar's operations and prospects were
misrepresented because the company was not on track to meet the
financial estimates provided to investors during the Class Period,
and such estimates lacked a reasonable basis in fact, including
HyreCar's purported gross margin, earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) and net loss trajectories.
HyreCar investors may, no later than October 26, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Hi-Med Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 1, 2021,
that on September 1, 2021, iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. issued a
press release disclosing that the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with respect to (i) various shareholder class action claims
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors alleging violations of U.S. securities laws;
and (ii) a complaint filed by Hi-Med LLC against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging
violations of U.S. securities laws and other state-law claims.
The plaintiffs may move for leave to file proposed second amended
complaints by September 30, 2021.
A copy of the press release is available at
https://bit.ly/39nUFgg.
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. owns and operates licensed cannabis
cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities throughout the
United States, providing investors diversified exposure to the U.S.
regulated cannabis industry. The company is based in New York, New
York.
IN SPIRIT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against In Spirit Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. In Spirit Group, Inc. doing
business as: Drnxmyth, Case No. 1:21-cv-05156 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
In Spirit Group, Inc. doing business as DRNXMYTH --
https://drnxmyth.com/ -- is a modern take on delicious handcrafted
cocktails made with premium ingredients by real bartenders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
INDUS COMPANIES: Court OKs FLSA Notice & Consent in Nelson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY NELSON, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. INDUS COMPANIES.,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00982-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge James L. Graham entered an order granting the parties' joint
motion to approve the Fair Labor Standards Act proposed notice and
consent.
Indus Companies, Inc. is located in Columbus, Ohio and is part of
the traveler accommodation industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XK0d27 at no extra charge.[CC]
INTEGRATED PROTECTION: Faces Workers' Misclassification Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles labor law attorneys at Zakay Law Group, APLC and
JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against
Integrated Protection Corp. and Special Services Tactical Group for
failure to properly classify its employees. The Integrated
Protection Corp. and Special Services Tactical Group class action
lawsuit, Case No. 21STCV28920, is currently pending in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of
the Complaint can be read here.
According to the lawsuit, Integrated Protection Corp. and Special
Services Tactical Group allegedly violated and continue to violate
the California Labor Code protections applicable to California
employees because Integrated Protection Corp. and Special Services
Tactical Group have misclassified its California employees as
independent contractors. As a result of the alleged
misclassification, Integrated Protection Corp. and Special Services
Tactical Group allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections
Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 221, 226, 226.7, 226.8, 510, 512,
1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay minimum
wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal and rest
periods; (4) provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5)
reimburse employees for required expenses; and (6) provide wages
when due.
The lawsuit also alleges Integrated Protection Corp. and Special
Services Tactical Group violated the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"), which gives rise to civil penalties as a result of
Integrated Protection Corp.'s and Special Services Tactical Group's
conduct. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file a lawsuit to
recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees,
and the State of California for Labor Code violations. An
"aggrieved employee" is defined as "any person who was employed by
the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged
violations was committed." Cal. Lab. Code section 2699(c). PAGA
allows aggrieved employees to become "deputized" as private
attorneys general to enforce the Labor Code.
If you would like to know more about the Integrated Protection
Corp. and Special Services Tactical Group lawsuit, please contact
Attorney Jackland K. Hom today by calling (619) 255-9047.
Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are employment and
labor law firms with offices located in California that dedicate
their practices to helping employees and consumers fight back
against employers and corporations for unfair employment practices.
If you need help with collecting unpaid wages, wrongful
termination, discrimination, harassment, and other unlawful
workplace conduct, contact one of their attorneys today.
Media Contact
Jackland K. Hom, Zakay Law Group, APLC, (619) 255-9047,
jackland@zakaylaw.com [GN]
IQ BAR: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IQ Bar, Inc. The case
is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. IQ Bar, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05157 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
IQ Bar -- https://www.eatiqbar.com/ -- make Keto, Plant-based,
Brain & Body nutrition bars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
IT WORKS: Faces Class Action Over Thermofight Weight Loss Formula
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that It
Works Marketing, Inc. deceives consumers about the effectiveness of
its Thermofight brand weight loss formula, a new class action
lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Aileen Brooks claims It Works fraudulently markets the
Thermofight weight loss formula as "a safe and effective fat burner
and rapid weight loss solution," both on its website and on
Amazon.com.
Brooks wants to represent herself and a nationwide Class of
consumers who purchased Thermofight weight loss formula in the
United States between Sept. 1, 2017 and the present.
It Works Marketing's Thermofight Formula Doesn't Work
Brooks claims she purchased Thermofight weight loss formula from
the It Works website in May 2020, believing the company's claims it
would boost her metabolism, help her burn fat, and lead to rapid
weight loss.
The Thermofight weight loss formula ended up not producing any
positive results, according to the class action lawsuit. Brooks
claims she used the product as directed and thus feels duped by It
Works Marketing.
Brooks says It Works Marketing makes deceptive and unlawful claims
on both Thermofight's packaging and on its website, which includes
statements such as that it is "designed to boost your metabolism
and melt away fat," and that it "accelerates ketosis by supporting
rapid ketone generation."
The deceptive claims about its effectiveness makes Thermofight
misbranded under Cal. Health & Saf. Code Sec. 110100, the It Works
Marketing lawsuit alleges.
Brooks also claims that Thermofight's bottle is misbranded because
it lacks "adequate directions for use," given it claims to treat
conditions that are not receptive to self diagnosis.
"Directions are not and likely cannot be written such that a
layperson can safely use this product to treat those conditions,"
states the class action lawsuit.
Brooks alleges It Works is in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.
Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and seeking relief in the form
of $500 in restitution, damages and interest, a $2,000 incentive
award, and at least $5 million to be distributed amongst all Class
Members.
A class action lawsuit filed last year against Arena
Pharmaceuticals alleged the company sold Belviq brand diet pills
that led to a higher risk of developing cancer.
Have you purchased Thermofight weight loss formula and felt let
down by the results you achieved? Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiff is represented by Gregory S. Weston of The Weston
Firm.
The Thermofight Weight Loss Class Action Lawsuit is Brooks v. It
Works Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-at-00838, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN]
J75 INC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J75, Inc. The case is
styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. J75, Inc. doing business as:
Corpus, Case No. 1:21-cv-07708 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Corpus -- https://corpusnaturals.com/ -- is natural deodorant
redefined and refined.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
JACK IN THE BOX: Gessele Seeks Reconsideration of Cert. Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY
ORTIZ, NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA TETRAULT, and CHRISTINA MAULDIN, both
on behalf of themselves individually and, in addition, on behalf of
the other similarly situated employees, v. JACK IN THE BOX INC.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01092-HZ (D. Or.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for reconsideration of its previous denials of certification of the
Unpaid Break class.
The Plaintiffs originally moved to certify four classes in this
case: the Workers' Benefit Fund (WBF) class, the Shoe class, the
Franchise Transfer class, and the Unpaid Break class.
Certification of the Unpaid Break class turned on the
interpretation of Oregon's statutes and Administrative Rules
pertaining to paid and unpaid breaks.
On June 12, 2017, the Court certified the first three classes, but
not the Unpaid Break class, which was defined as:
"all current and former employees at Oregon stores operated
by Jack in the Box, Inc. who clocked out for one or more
breaks for which they were not paid (between 20 and 30
minutes in Kronos or time codes LBU, SMB, SGM, SGMPR or GAP
in Jack's Timekeeping), during any workweek the regular
payday for which was on or after August 13, 2004."
Jack in the Box is an American fast-food restaurant chain founded
February 21, 1951, by Robert O. Peterson in San Diego, California,
where it is headquartered. The chain has over 2,200 locations,
primarily serving the West Coast of the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 15,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XILQLE
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are representedv by:
Jon M. Egan, Esq.
JON M. EGAN, PC
547 Fifth Street
Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
Telephone: (503) 697-3427
Facsimile: (866) 311-5629
E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com
K.E.S. CONSTRUCTION: Gomez et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
FAUSTINO GOMEZ, RAFAEL VILLEGAS, and LUIS RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. K.E.S.
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. and ABBAS G. MALIK, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-07524 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2021) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their
alleged intentional and willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Faustino Gomez has worked as a foreman, caulker, and
scaffold worker for the Defendants from approximately 2014 through
May 18, 2021. Plaintiffs Rafael Villegas and Luis Rodrigues have
worked as caulkers and scaffold workers from approximately 2013
through May 18, 2021 and from approximately 2014 through May 18,
2021, respectively.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated construction workers were denied by the Defendants of
their lawfully earned overtime wages. Throughout their employment
with the Defendants, the Defendants paid them on a per-day worked
basis. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendants
failed to furnish them with weekly wage statements accurately
reflecting all of their hours worked and wages paid, alleges the
suit.
K.E.S. specializes in masonry restauration, roofing, paver systems,
waterproofing, concrete patching, bricklaying and replacements,
weather coating, exterior façade cleaning, pointing and caulking,
and stone work. Abbas G. Malik is Chief Executive Officer of the
K.E.S. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
KELLOGG SALES: Faces Kennard Suit Over Mislabeled Veggie Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA KENNARD, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, Case No.
3:21-cv-07211 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2021) alleges that Kellogg
prominently represents that the Veggie Products are "Veggie," but
this representation is false or at least highly misleading because
the predominant non-water ingredient in all of the Veggie Products
is not vegetables -- or even vegetable-based -- but instead, grain
or oil.
Kellogg is the manufacturer and seller of Morningstar Farms
"Veggie" products, including different varieties of "Veggie
Burgers," "veggie Dogs," "Veggie Chik'n," "Veggie Meal Starters,"
"Veggitizers," and "Veggie Breakfast" (the "Veggie Products").
The Plaintiff brings this action to enjoin Kellogg from continuing
to falsely advertise the Veggie Products in this manner, and to
recover restitution and damages for herself and other purchasers.
Allegedly, the Veggie Products' "Veggie" labeling violates both
federal food labeling laws, and California Health and Safety Code
sections 09875, et. seq. (the Sherman Law), which has expressly
adopted the federal food labeling requirements as its own.
Over the last decade, as many consumers have reduced or ceased
their meat consumption, food manufacturers have introduced a
variety of plant-based, meat-alternative products to the market,
which can be made from a variety of primary ingredients, such as
beans (e.g., black-bean burger), tofu, grains, and vegetables.
Manufacturers of meat-alternative foods typically call out the
primary ingredient to help consumers distinguish and choose among
different options. Consumers understand ingredient call-outs in
product names for meat-alternatives to comprise the product's
primary ingredient; for example, consumers understand a product
marketed as a "bean-burger" to be made primarily from beans, and a
"tofurkey" dog to be made primarily from tofu.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
Melanie Persinger, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
- and -
Sidney W. Jackson, III, Esq.
Christian Harben, Esq.
JACKSON & FOSTER LLC
75 St. Michael Street
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 433-6699
E-mail: sid@jacksonfosterlaw.com
christian@jacksonfosterlaw.com
KHOSLA VENTURES: Umbright Seeks Separate Voting on Share Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Umbright, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of Khosla Ventures Acquisition Co. II,
Plaintiff, v. Khosla Ventures Acquisition Co. II, Enrico Gaglioti,
Samir Kaul, Anita Sands and Dmitri Shklovsky, Defendants, Case No.
2021-0762, (D. Del., September 3, 2021), asserts a claim against
Khosla Ventures Acquisition Co. II and its board of directors for
breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Delaware General
Corporation Law.
Khosla is a dual-class special purpose acquisition company, a
non-operational shell company formed exclusively to raise capital
and then acquire a private company. Its board was seeking
stockholder approval of an amendment to its Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation to increase the authorized shares of
Class A Common Stock from 200 million shares to 2.5 billion shares.
In seeking this approval, the board is attempting to force the
Khosla's Class A Common Stockholders to vote together with the
Class B Common Stockholders. Delaware General Corporation Law,
however, provides the Class A Common Stockholders the right to vote
as a separate class on the proposed Share Increase Amendment, notes
the complaint.
On July 6, 2021, Khosla announced that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger to acquire Nextdoor, Inc. which will
result in Khosla Sponsor's shares to convert to stock worth more
than $100 million and the resulting entity requires that the
company be recapitalized. Said merger is cross-conditioned on
stockholder approval of the Share Increase Amendment and the other
amendments.
Umbright seeks to halt plans to conduct the stockholder vote on the
Share Increase Amendment by aggregating the votes of all
outstanding shares of common stock, without also conducting a
separate class vote on the Share Increase Amendment. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
Douglas E. Julie, Esq.
Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
Anisha Mirchandani, Esq.
PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP
200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10166
Tel: (212) 725-1000
- and -
David A. Jenkins, Esq.
Neal C. Belgam, Esq.
Kelly A. Green, Esq.
Jason Z. Miller, Esq.
SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
1000 West Street, Suite 1501
P.O. Box 410
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 652-8400
Email: djenkins@skjlaw.com
nbelgam@skjlaw.com
kgreen@skjlaw.com
jmiller@skjlaw.com
KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Campos Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kilolo Kijakazi. The
case is styled as Laquana Campos, on behalf of herself and her
minor child K.C.; TOSHA ADAMS; NORMAN MARSH; and BETTI
RODNYANSKAYA, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social
Security, Case No. 1:21-cv-05143 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative
Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.
Kilolo Kijakazi is the acting commissioner of the United States
Social Security Administration.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sheila Sabrina Boston
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019-9710
Phone: (212) 836-8000
Email: sheila.boston@arnoldporter.com
KING COUNTY, WA: Class Action Notices Sent to Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Legal Services on Sept. 13 disclosed that on August 10,
2021, a court granted preliminary approval of a class action
settlement seeking to provide monetary compensation for some people
who were held in solitary confinement in King County's adult jails
as children or young adults. The settlement provides $500 per each
day class members were held in solitary confinement while they were
under the age of 18 years old and/or $500 per each day they were 18
years of age or older and covered under a local ordinance
prohibiting the use of solitary confinement. Class action notices
were mailed to eligible class members on September 14th. If you are
a class member, those notices contain details about when you must
take action to be included or excluded from the settlement. Please
pay attention to those dates carefully.
For more information, if you have questions, or to receive an
additional copy of your notice, please call or text 360-499-6068.
These documents contain more detailed and precise information about
the settlement and the definition of the class. Columbia Legal
Services' motion for approval of its attorney fees and costs will
be added to this website on around November 13, 2021. [GN]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Hill Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH A. HILL, and HEATHER HILL, and MAXWELL HILL, by his next
friends and parents JOSEPH A. HILL and HEATHER HILL, 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. 1:21-cv-02454-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Sept. 17, 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," says the suit.
According to the complaint, 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, 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.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages based on, inter alia,
Philips' alleged breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties, misrepresentations, omissions, and breaches of state
consumer protection laws in connection with its manufacture,
marketing and sales of devices containing PE-PUR Foam on behalf of
themselves and the proposed Class Members. In addition, Plaintiffs
seek 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
affect.
The Plaintiffs purchased and used the CPAP devices for personal use
as they related to a sleep apnea diagnosis. All Plaintiffs were
harmed and suffered damages, the suit alleges.
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Miller, Esq.
SAEED & LITTLE LLP
133 West Market St., #189
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Telephone: (317) 721-9214
Facsimile.: (888) 422-3151
E-mail: david@sllawfirm.com
- and -
Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
Andrea L. Barient, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
24110 Eden Street
Post Office Drawer 71
Plaquemine, LA 70765-0071
Telephone: (225) 687-6396
Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
abarient@pbclawfirm.com
- and -
John M. Deakle, Esq.
Russell L. Johnson, Esq.
Rome V. Johnson, Esq.
DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
802 N. Main Street
Post Office Box 2072
Hattiesburg, MS 39403
Telephone: (601) 544-0631
Facsimile: (601) 544-0699
E-mail: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com
rljohnson@djlawms.com
rvjohnson@djlawms.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Koninklijke Philips N.V. (NYSE:
PHG) between February 25, 2020 and June 11, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important October 15, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Philips securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Philips class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2147.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 15, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had deficient
product manufacturing controls or procedures; (2) as a result, the
Company's Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure ("Bi-Level PAP") and
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ("CPAP") devices and mechanical
ventilators were manufactured using hazardous materials; (3)
accordingly, the Company's sales revenues from the foregoing
products were unsustainable; (4) the foregoing also subjected the
Company to a substantial risk of a product recall, in addition to
potential legal and/or regulatory action; and (5) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Philips class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2147.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCDONOUGH v. LEOPOLD &
ASSOCIATES, PLLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00375 (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an granting motion for
extension of time to complete unopposed motion for extension of
time to complete discovery.
The case management order is amended as follows:
-- First Phase of Discovery to be completed by Oct. 20, 2021;
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification due by
Nov. 10, 2021;
-- The Defendants' response to motion due by Dec. 1, 2021;
and
-- All other deadlines set forth in the Case Management Order
remain in full force and effect.
Leopold & Associates is the firm of choice for mortgage servicers,
banks,. and investors seeking experienced litigation and mediation
counsel.
The suit alleges of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
involving consumer credit.[CC]
LIFE STORAGE: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Storage LP. The
case is styled as Portia Mason, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Life Storage LP., a Delaware limited
partnership, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-07433 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Life Storage -- http://www.lifestorage.com/-- is a real estate
investment trust headquartered in Williamsville, New York that
invests in self-storage units.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
LIVE VENTURES: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Oct. 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Sept. 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Live Ventures Incorporated
("Live Ventures" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LIVE) securities
between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Live Ventures investors have until October 12, 2021 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.
On August 3, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") filed a complaint against Live Ventures, its Chief
Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging
"multiple financial, disclosure, and reporting violations related
to inflated income and earnings per share, stock promotion and
secret trading, and undisclosed executive compensation."
Specifically, the SEC alleged that Live Ventures had recorded
income from a backdated contract, which increased pre-tax income
for fiscal 2016 by 20%, and understated its outstanding share
count, which overstated earnings per share by 40%.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $29.08, or 46%, to
close at $33.50 per share on August 4, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $7.74, or 23%,
over the next four consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.76
per share on August 10, 2021.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Live's earnings per share for FY 2016 was
actually only $6.33 per share; (2) that the Company used an
artificially low share count to boost the earnings per share by
40%; (3) that Live had overstated pre-tax income for fiscal 2016 by
20% by including $915,500 of "other income" related to certain
amendments that were not negotiated until after the close of the
fiscal year; (4) that Live's acquisition of ApplianceSmart did not
close during first quarter 2017; (5) that using December 30, 2017
as the "acquisition date" and recognizing income therefrom did not
conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (6) that, by
falsely stating that the acquisition closed during the quarter,
Live recognized bargain purchase gain, which enabled the Company to
report positive net income in what would otherwise have been an
unprofitable quarter; (7) that between fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2018,
Live's CEO received approximately 94% more in compensation than was
disclosed to investors; and (8) 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 Live Ventures securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than October 12, 2021 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Live Ventures securities, have information
or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
LOANDEPOT INC: Lako Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------
Eljon Lako, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Loandepot, Inc., Anthony Hsieh, Patrick
Flanagan, Nicole Carrillo, Andrew C. Dodson, John C. Dorman, Brian
P. Golson, Dawn Lepore, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, BOFA Securities,
Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Market Inc., Jefferies LLC,
UBS Securities LLC, William Blair & Company, LLC, JMP Securities
LLC, Piper Sandler & Co., Raymond James, & Associates, Inc., Nomura
Securities International, Inc., Amerivet Securities, Inc., and Does
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01449, (C.D.
Cal., September 3, 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.
loanDepot is an independent retail mortgage lender that provides
residential loans, refinance loans, and personal loan products
nationwide. On February 16, 2021, loanDepot announced the pricing
of its initial public offering of 3,850,000 Class A shares at a
price of $14 per share.
In its IPO, loanDepot sold 3,850,000 shares of its Class A common
stock to the public at a price of $14.00 per share for total
proceeds of approximately $54 million, net of underwriting
discounts and commissions.
Lako alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection
with the IPO omitted to disclose that the company's refinance
originations had already declined substantially at the time of the
IPO due to industry over-capacity and increased competition and
that the company's gain-on-sale margins had already declined
substantially at the time of the IPO.
By August 17, 2021, loanDepot's stock fell to $8.07 per share, a
more than 42% decline from the IPO price, having plummeted in
response to information reflecting the materialization of
significant risks misrepresented and omitted from the Registration
Statement as alleged herein. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in Karri Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumentum Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended July 3, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD.
On December 10, 2018, the company completed a merger with Oclaro,
Inc., a provider of optical components and modules for the
long-haul, metro and data center markets. Oclaro's products provide
differentiated solutions for optical networks and high-speed
interconnects driving the next wave of streaming video, cloud
computing, application virtualization and other bandwidth-intensive
and high-speed applications.
In connection with the company's acquisition of Oclaro, seven
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging
the proposed merger. Two of the seven suits were putative class
actions filed against Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Prota Merger
Sub, Inc. and Prota Merger, LLC: Nicholas Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California (filed May 24, 2018); and
Adam Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (filed
June 9, 2018). Both the Neinstat Lawsuit and the Franchi Lawsuit
were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC, Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et
al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC, Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al.,
No. 5:18-cv-03203-EJD, Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
5:18-cv-03262-VKD, and SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May
29, 2018, May 30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018,
respectively.
These five Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants
only and did not name Lumentum. The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and
Garcia Lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff,
Ryan, and Walker dismissals were with prejudice. The Karri Lawsuit
has not yet been dismissed. The Ryan Lawsuit was, and the Karri
Lawsuit is, a putative class action.
The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and
its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by
disseminating an incomplete and misleading Form S-4, including
proxy statement/prospectus.
The Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper
control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.
The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to
seek, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff
and any class, if a class is certified, and litigation costs,
including attorneys' fees. A lead plaintiff and counsel has been
selected, and an amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2019,
which also names Lumentum as a defendant.
A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and
denied in part by the court on October 8, 2020. On December 1,
2020, defendants answered the amended complaint.
On December 23, 2020, defendants filed a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's October 8 order on the
motion to dismiss, which was denied on January 29, 2021.
The Karri Lawsuit remains pending with the parties currently in
discovery. Defendants intend to defend the Karri Lawsuit
vigorously.
Lumentum Holdings Inc. manufactures and sells optical and photonic
products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments,
Optical Communications and Commercial Lasers. Lumentum Holdings
Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Milpitas,
California.
MACH 1 GLOBAL: Castro Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARCELINO CASTRO, ROBERT SASSER and BRYCE DIXON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MACH
1 GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-5, Case No. RG21099380, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California County
of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on September 16, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-07166 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 wages,
failure to provide rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof,
failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage
statement, unfair business practices, failure to reimburse business
expenses, and failure to pay final wages.
Mach 1 Global Services, Inc. is a provider of freight and cargo
transportation services, headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian T. Ashe, Esq.
Timothy M. Hoppe, Esq.
Jonathan D. Martin, Esq.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: bashe@seyfarth.com
thoppe@seyfarth.com
jmartin@seyfarth.com
MANHATTAN HEMATOLOGY: Underpays File Clerks, Lopez Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANHATTAN HEMATOLOGY ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES,
P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07558 (S.D.N.Y., September 9,
2021) brings this collective and class action complaint seeking
redress for underpayment and late payment of minimum and overtime
wages against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from February 2019 until
March 2020 as a full-time File Clerk.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to post and/or keep
posted a notice explaining employees' rights under the FLSA.
Although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
worked more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant paid them on an
hourly basis only without overtime payments at the federally
mandated overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
Moreover, the Defendant paid them bi-weekly throughout their
employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff adds.
Manhattan Hematology Oncology Associates, P.C. provides medical
and/or healthcare services for its clients/patients in and around
the City of New York and its metropolitan area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Wims, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11233
Tel: (646) 393-9550
MARQUEZ HASS: Fails to Pay Delivery Workers' Wages, Guerrero Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MARQUEZ HASS HOLDINGS LLC (D/B/A DULCE VIDA LATIN
BISTRO A/K/A DULCE VIDA CAFE), and MARIA MARQUEZ, Case No.
1:21-cv-07769 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2021) seeks to recover for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was ostensibly employed
as a delivery worker, waiter and food runner. However, he was
required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing
non-tipped duties, including but not limited to washing dishes,
preparing food and cooking, ("non-tipped duties").
The Plaintiff 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, says the suit.
The Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Guerrero
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, the Defendants failed to pay him the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day,
the Plaintiff added.
Mr. Guerrero is a former employee of the Defendants.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Latin American
restaurant, located at 1219 Lexington Avenue New York, New York
under the name "Dulce Vida Latin bistro a/k/a Dulce Vida
Cafe."[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
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Faces Zinsky Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ZINSKY and SCOTT CASE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04932 (N.D. Ill., September 16, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Mr. Zinsky worked for the Defendant as a tool and die maker in
Mundelein, Illinois until 2021.
Mr. Case worked for the Defendant as a maintenance technician in
Mundelein, Illinois until 2019.
Medline Industries, Inc. is a medical consulting and supply
company, headquartered in Northfield, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
Lauren Miller, Esq.
HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 580-0100
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Cohen Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment
Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Bartholomew Cohen, individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-16977 (D.N.J., Sept. 15,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Mercantile Adjustment Bureau -- https://mercantilesolutions.com/ --
is recognized as a leader in receivables management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
THE MUHLSTOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 974-9400
Fax: (516) 345-1635
Email: todd@muhlstocklaw.com
MESOBLAST LIMITED: ADS Related Putative Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mesoblast Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit initiated by purchasers or
acquirers of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADS).
In October 2020, in light of the Complete Response Letter released
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the decline in the
market price of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADS), a
purported class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Federal
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers or acquirers of the company's ADSs against the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and its
Chief Medical Officer for alleged violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The Company will vigorously defend this and any other
similarly-based litigation should it arise.
Mesoblast said, "The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the
possible outcome or cost to us from the lawsuit, particularly as it
is at an early stage, nor how long it may take to resolve such
lawsuit. Thus, the Company has not accrued any amounts in
connection with such legal proceedings other than ongoing
attorney's fees."
Mesoblast Limited is in the business of developing allogeneic
(off-the-shelf) cellular medicines. The Company has leveraged its
proprietary mesenchymal lineage cell therapy technology platform to
establish a broad portfolio of commercial products and late-stage
product candidates. The company is based in Melbourne, Australia.
MIDLAND CREDIT: McCaslin Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Keely McCaslin, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01613-CAB-MSB (S.D. Cal., Sept.
15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jitesh Dudani, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: jdudani@brlfirm.com
MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION: Bryant Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled OSCAR BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.,
dba TRILLIUM; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB
2121529, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on September 16,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01588-PA-KK 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 unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and unfair business practices.
Midwest Construction Services, Inc., doing business as Trillium, is
a provider of staffing services, headquartered in Kalamazoo,
Michigan. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq.
Timothy B. Nelson, Esq.
Kyle W. Owen, Esq.
MEDINA McKELVEY LLP
925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95678
Telephone: (916) 960-2211
Facsimile: (916) 742-5488
E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com
tim@medinamckelvey.com
kyle@medinamckelvey.com
NCINO INC: Putative Class Action Ongoing in North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
nCino, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
On March 12, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina.
The sole class representative in the suit is one individual
alleging a contract, combination or conspiracy between and among
the Company, Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. and Apiture LLC not to
solicit or hire each other's employees in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and N.C. Gen Stat. Sections 75-1 and 75-2.
The complaint seeks treble damages and additional remedies,
including restitution, disgorgement, reasonable attorneys' fees,
the costs of the suit, and pre-judgment and post judgment interest.
The complaint does not allege any specific damages.
nCino said, "Although there can be no assurance with respect to the
outcome of this matter, the Company believes the alleged claims are
not meritorious and intends to defend itself vigorously."
nCino, Inc. is a leading global provider of cloud-based software
for financial institutions. The company empowers banks and credit
unions with the technology they need to meet ever-changing client
expectations and regulatory requirements, gain increased visibility
into their operations and performance, replace legacy systems, and
operate digitally and more competitively. The company is based in
Wilmington, North Carolina.
NETFLIX INC: Nevada Court Grants Bids to Dismiss City of Reno Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF RENO, NEVADA, Plaintiff v. NETFLIX, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00499-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge
Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss.
Background
The Plaintiff, the City of Reno, Nevada, has brought a class action
lawsuit against Defendants Netflix and Hulu, LLC, alleging that the
Defendants -- as "video service providers" -- have failed to pay
franchise fees to various cities and counties in violation of
Nevada Revised Statutes ("NRS") Section 711.670.
NRS Section 711.670(1) provides in part that a "local government
may require a video service provider to pay a franchise fee to the
local government based on the gross revenue that the provider
receives from its subscribers within the jurisdiction of the local
government." Under the general provisions, "video service provider"
is defined as "any person that provides or offers to provide video
service over a video service network to subscribers in this
State."
"Video service" means the provisions of multichannel video
programming generally considered comparable to video programming
delivered by a television broadcast station, cable service or other
digital television service, whether provided as part of a tier,
on-demand or on a per-channel basis, without regard to the
technology used to deliver the video service, including, without
limitations, Internet protocol technology or any successor
technology." The term, however, does not include "any video content
provided solely as part of, and through, a service which enables
users to access content, information, electronic mail or other
services that are offered via the public Internet."
Further relevant to the Order, NRS Section 711.850 sets forth the
enforcement of the Video Service Law. This includes the following
relevant paragraphs:
1. A video service provider or a local government may file
with the Bureau of Consumer Protection a written complaint alleging
a violation of the provisions of this chapter.
2. Upon a written complaint filed by a video service provider
or a local government pursuant to this section, the Consumer's
Advocate may commence in a district court an action to enforce the
provisions of this chapter and seek equitable or declaratory
relief.
3. If such an action is commenced against a video service
provider and the district court determines that the provider has
violated any provision of this chapter, the court will issue an
order to the provider directing the provider to take corrective
action. . . .
6. As used in this section: (1) Bureau of Consumer Protection
means the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the Office of the
Attorney General. (2) Consumer's Advocate means the Consumer's
Advocate of the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Additionally, NRS Section 711.410 establishes the duties and powers
of the Secretary of State, regulations, and the limitations on the
power of local governments. It provides in part that "for the
purposes of bringing about fair and reasonable competition for
video service, the Secretary of State has the exclusive authority
to issue a certificate of authority to a person to provide video
service and construct and operate a video service network in any
service area in this state."
Moreover, NRS Section 711.680 provides for the review and audit of
video service providers. Subsection 4 states that "any action to
recover a disputed underpayment of the franchise from a video
service provider must be commenced and prosecuted by the Attorney
General on behalf of the affected local governments.
Plaintiff the City of Reno -- as a local government -- alleges that
Defendants are in violation of NRS Section 711.760 as they provide
"video services" and are "video service providers." Thus, the
Defendants are required to obtain a certificate of authority from
the Nevada Secretary of State and pay a franchise fee to local
governments, neither of which Defendants have done. The Plaintiff
brings this action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) on behalf of all
Nevada cities and counties in which Defendants Netflix and Hulu
provide video services to their subscribers.
The Plaintiff alleges that subscribers of Netflix and Hulu can view
video programing such as television shows, movies, and
documentaries. Both Defendants primarily "offer online streaming of
a library of films and television series or programs." Hulu
additionally provides "online streaming of live video programming."
Subscribers can access these offerings "using an
Internet-connected device." Typically, subscribers use broadband
internet connection -- such as Digital Subscriber Line ("DSL") or
fiber optic cables -- to access the Defendants' video services and
they provide those services via broadband wireline facilities,
which are located in part in public rights-of-way. The Plaintiff
further alleges that the Defendants compete with other video
service providers by offering video programming that is "comparable
to that provided by cable companies and television-broadcast
stations."
Discussion
The Defendants advance several overlapping arguments as to why this
action should be dismissed. Because Judge Du finds the arguments
that (1) the Defendants do not provide "video services" and (2) the
Plaintiff does not have a private right of action under the Video
Service Law to be dispositive, Judge Du declines to resolve the
Defendants' other arguments. As such, she sets forth the legal
standard for statutory interpretation, then addresses the parties'
arguments with respect to the two dispositive issues and concludes
by granting the Defendants' Motions.
1. Video Service Provider
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants do not fall within the
video service exclusion, NRS 711.141(3)(a), and thus are video
service providers. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that (1) the
Defendants do not provide their video content "as part of" a
service since their video content is the "entire" service they
provide, and (2) the Defendants are not offering their video
services via the "public Internet" as their services are offered
only to paying subscribers.
Hulu counters that its business provides more than just stream
videos and a restriction on access is immaterial to whether
something is "public." Netflix counters that "public," by common
meaning and definition, is being accessible to all members of a
community, and paying a fee does not necessarily make something
less public.
Judge Du finds the Defendants' arguments more persuasive. She finds
that the Defendants' services fall within the exception under NRS
Section 711.141(3)(a). The Judge says, the Plaintiff's argument
that the Defendants' video content is the "entire" and not "part
of" the services provided, and therefore not excluded, does not
persuade the Judge to agree that the Defendants are video service
providers. She also finds that, as Netflix points out in their
reply, and the Judge agrees, public parks are for the use and
benefit of all, and merely requiring an individual to pay an
entrance fee for park access does not make it less -- or not --
"public." The Plaintiff therefore cannot seek franchise fees under
the Video Service Law. Accordingly, the Judge will grant the
Defendants' Motions.
2. Private Right of Action
Even if the exception found at NRS Section 711.141(3)(a) does not
apply to the Defendants' services, Judge Du agrees with the
Defendants that the Video Service Law does not provide for local
governments like the Plaintiff to assert their claims. The parties
dispute as to whether Plaintiff and local governments have a
private right of action under the statute. The dispute centers on
the language of Section 711.680 and Section 711.850.
Judge Du finds that because the general provisions of the Video
Service Law provide no guidance on the term, nor does legislative
history shine light on the ambiguity, she construes the statute
according to "reason and public policy would indicate the
legislature intended" with respect to giving local governments a
private right of action. She thus looks to NRS Section 711.850.
NRS Section 711.850(1) states that a "video service provider or a
local government may file with the Bureau of Consumer Protection a
written complaint alleging a violation of the provisions of this
chapter." If a written complaint is filed by a video service
provider, "the Consumer's Advocate may commence in a district court
an action to enforce the provisions of this chapter." The
Consumer's Advocate therefore is not required to file an action,
nor would they be tasked with representing providers as the
Plaintiff argued.
Judge Du finds for the reasons stated and in recognizing the public
policy reasons for uniformity, the Nevada Legislature intended the
State via the Office of the Attorney General to enforce actions,
remedies, and penalties for violation of the provisions of the
chapter. Accordingly, local governments -- including the City of
Reno -- do not have a private right of action.
Conclusion
Judge Du notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to
several cases not discussed. She has reviewed these arguments and
cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do
not affect the outcome of the Motions before the Court.
She, therefore, ordered that Defendant Netflix's motion to dismiss
is granted. She further ordered that Defendant Hulu's motion to
dismiss is granted. The City of Reno's complaint is dismissed.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to
close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/8fzrsv9m from Leagle.com.
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sojung Jeong, Esq., Lesley Pietras, Esq., and Howard Shapiro, Esq.,
of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for JDSupra, report that in
Sacerdote v. New York University, a class of university employees
who participated in Defendant's 403(b) plans brought ERISA breach
of fiduciary duty claims against Defendant, challenging the
administration of its retirement plans. The district court
dismissed two claims and proceeded to a bench trial on the
remainder, and ultimately found in favor of Defendant. On appeal,
Plaintiffs raised, among others, questions of whether the trial
judge should have been disqualified, whether Plaintiffs actually
waived their jury demand, and whether the district court erred in
dismissing their share-class claim alleging Defendant breached its
duty of prudence by offering retail-class shares of certain mutual
funds rather than institutional-class shares of the same funds that
had lower costs.
The Second Circuit recently vacated the district court's dismissal
of Plaintiffs' share-class claim. Sacerdote v. New York Univ., 2021
U.S. App. LEXIS 24252 (2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2021). To begin, the Court
observed that the notion that "'prudent fiduciaries may very well
choose to offer retail class shares over institutional class
shares' because retail shares offer greater liquidity provides no
basis to dismiss pleadings that otherwise generate plausible
inferences of the claimed misconduct." The Court found "[s]uch an
argument 'goes to the merits [of the case] and is misplaced at
th[e] early stage'" of a motion to dismiss. The Court found
important that Plaintiffs specifically alleged 63 of the funds
included in the 103-fund Faculty Plan and 84-fund Medical Plan
charged excessive retail-share fees. The Court observed Plaintiffs'
complaint alleged in detail that the cost differentials of
specified basis points for the funds were included in the fund
prospectuses and, therefore, available to the fiduciaries when
making their decision, and that an adequate investigation would
have revealed the readily apparent superior alternative
investments. Noting that the district court's dismissal was partly
based on its finding that the fees of those 63 funds were still
lower than cost ranges previously permitted by several circuits in
other cases, the Court stated cost ranges from other ERISA cases
should not be overrelied upon as benchmarks. The Court opined that,
due to the context-specific nature of assessing each ERISA
complaint, such comparisons had limited utility, and that charging
"fees . . . lower than a fee found not imprudent in another case"
cannot rule out the possibility of imprudence.
The Court also disagreed with the district court's focus on whether
the percentage of those 63 funds was high enough to taint each plan
as a whole, noting that while a holistic assessment of the plans is
relevant to a share class claim, "[f]iduciaries cannot shield
themselves from liability - much less discovery - simply because
the alleged imprudence inheres in fewer than all of the fund
options." Finding that "[i]f prudence of a particular investment
offering will become clear only in the context of the portfolio as
a whole," a breach of the duty of prudence claim cannot be resolved
on a motion to dismiss. The Court found Plaintiffs plausibly
alleged it was imprudent to offer retail-class shares over
institutional-class shares.
In further analysis, the Court disapproved the district court's
apparent expectation that Plaintiffs must both prove the loss and
the amount of damages from a breach of fiduciary duty. The Court
clarified that, between the fiduciaries and those covered by the
employee benefit plans, the burden of proof first lay upon
Plaintiffs and then on the fiduciaries: "Although plaintiffs bear
the burden of proving a loss, the burden under ERISA shifts to
defendants to disprove any portion of potential damages by showing
that the loss was not caused by the breach of fiduciary duty."
As for Plaintiffs' argument that they were deprived of their
Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury, the Second Circuit
affirmed the district court's decision to strike the jury demand.
The Court noted that not only did Plaintiffs fail to timely oppose
Defendant's motion or provide justification for their failure, but
they also failed to move for reconsideration or object at the
pretrial conference, which showed Plaintiffs waived their right to
a jury trial.
The Second Circuit also affirmed the entry of judgment for
Defendant on the tried claims, agreeing that Defendant did not
breach its fiduciary duty of prudence by failing to consolidate
recordkeepers any faster than it did. The Court further agreed that
Defendant did not breach its duty of prudence by failing to remove
two funds from the plans, noting they had been retained based on
the strength of their performance against appropriate benchmarks.
Finally, the Court affirmed the denial of Plaintiffs' motion for a
new trial, rejecting Plaintiffs' argument that the trial judge
(Judge Forrest) was biased. Among other things, Plaintiffs alleged
the chairman of the law firm that Judge Forrest rejoined after
resigning from the bench a few weeks after issuing her trial
findings in this case was a member of Defendant's Board of
Trustees, and that Judge Forrest would not have wished to strain
her relationship with him. The Court denounced Plaintiffs' theories
as "too far-fetched," as the chairman was but one of 61 voting
Board members and more than 80 partners at the law firm, did not
have a financial stake in the case, and was not even a member of
Defendant's Retirement Committee. Observing that Plaintiffs failed
to raise these arguments before Judge Forrest ruled against them,
the Court stated, "parties who dislike court rulings cannot later
rely upon first-time assertions of tenuous, preexisting alleged
conflicts of interest to avoid those rulings." [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Laroy Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN LAROY, MARCO GIRAO, and CHARLES VALICENTI, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, Case No. 1:21-cv-0777 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2021) is an
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to
recover earned but unpaid overtime compensation owed to the
Plaintiffs and members of the Putative Collective for services
performed while employed by the Defendant.
Beginning in September of 2018 and continuing to the present, the
Defendant allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of failing to
pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated overtime at the proper
rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs have initiated this action on behalf of themselves
and a putative collective comprised of herself and all persons
similarly situated to recover the overtime compensation that they
were deprived of, plus interest, damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
Michele Moreno, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
NEWREZ LLC: Court Extends Scheduling Order Deadlines in Cox Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH COX and DENA COX,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No.
3:20-cv-00859 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert C. Chambers
entered an order granting joint motion to extend scheduling order
deadlines as follows:
1. Discovery:
The parties shall complete all discovery requests by June
6, 2022, and all fact depositions by July 21, 2022.
2. Expert Witnesses:
The party bearing the burden of proof on an issue shall
make the disclosures of information required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) for that issue to all other
parties or their counsel no later than August 15, 2022.
3. Class Certification:
The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
certification by February 7, 2022, with responses and
replies filed according to the Local Rules.
4. Dispositive Motions:
All dispositive motions, except those filed under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b), together with depositions, admissions,
documents, affidavits or other exhibits, and a memorandum
in support of such motions shall be filed by November 21,
2022.
5. Settlement Meeting and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)
Disclosures:
No later than January 5, 2023, counsel and any
unrepresented parties shall meet to conduct settlement
negotiations. Lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs shall
take the initiative in scheduling the meeting; all other
counsel shall cooperate in the effort to achieve a
successful negotiation and settlement.
6. Proposed Integrated Pretrial Order:
Counsel for the plaintiffs shall prepare their portion of
the pretrial order and submit it to counsel for the
defendant no later than January 12, 2023.
7. Pretrial Conference:
A final pretrial conference shall be held on January 30,
2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Huntington. Lead counsel and any
unrepresented parties shall appear fully prepared to
discuss all aspects of the case.
8. Proposed Charge to Jury:
No later than February 6, 2023, counsel and any
unrepresented parties shall submit to the presiding judge
proposed jury instructions in charge form on substantive
theories of recovery or defense, on damages, and on
evidentiary matters peculiar to the case, and special
interrogatories, if any be appropriate.
9. Final Settlement Conference:
A final settlement conference, attended by lead trial
counsel and any unrepresented parties, shall be held on
February 13, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. in Huntington.
10. Trial:
Trial of this action shall commence on February 14, 2023,
at 8:30 a.m. in Huntington.
11. Failure to Appear or Negotiate:
At least one attorney for each party and all unrepresented
parties participating in any conference before trial shall
have authority to make decisions as to settlement,
stipulations, and admissions on all matters that
participants reasonably anticipate may be discussed.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cw0nJd at no extra charge.[CC]
NIAGARA COUNTY, NY: Sanders Files Suit in W.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Niagara County, et
al. The case is styled as Travis D. Sanders, and those similarly
situated at Niagara County Jail v. Niagara County; PrimeCare
Medical Inc.; Michael J. Filicetti, Niagara County Sheriff; Chief
Greenwald, Chief Admin Officer; Case No. 6:21-cv-06585-FPG
(W.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Niagara County -- https://www.niagaracounty.com/ -- is located in
the north-west corner of New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
NORDSON CORP: Settlement Reached in Ortiz Suit
----------------------------------------------
Nordson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit initiated by a former employee named Ortiz have
agreed to settle the dispute, subject to the execution of a written
settlement agreement and court approval.
On February 22, 2019, a former employee, Mr. Ortiz, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior
Court, California, against Nordson Asymtek, Inc. and Nordson
Corporation, alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for
unpaid wages, actual, consequential and incidental losses,
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Following mediation in June 2020, the parties agreed to settle the
lawsuit, subject to the execution of a written settlement agreement
and court approval.
Nordson said, "If the settlement agreement is approved, the class
action lawsuit will be resolved. Management believes, based on
currently available information, that the ultimate outcome of the
proceeding described above will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition or results of operations."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Nordson Corporation engineers, manufactures, and markets products
and systems to dispense, apply, and control adhesives, coatings,
polymers, sealants, biomaterials, and other fluids worldwide.
Nordson Corporation was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in
Westlake, Ohio.
OFFCOURT PRODUCTS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Offcourt Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Offcourt
Products, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07710 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
OffCourt -- https://offcourt.com/ -- is an athletic personal care
brand that creates performance products for active lifestyles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
OKLAHOMA: Cole Voluntarily Dismisses Suit
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN L. COLE, for
himself and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. SCOTT
CROW, Director, O.D.O.C., et al., Case No. CIV-20-655-G (W.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge Charles B. Goodwin entered an order
accepting the Plaintiff's notice of dismissal and otherwise
adopting the recommended disposition of the Report and
Recommendation issued July 30, 2021 as follows:
(1) Plaintiff's Claim Two, as well as any claim for relief
within Plaintiff's Claim Three premised upon the
existence of a state-created liberty interest in the
earning of sentence credits, is dismissed without
prejudice;
(2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot; and
(3) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied.
The Plaintiff Steven L. Cole, a state prisoner, brings this action
under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging violations by Defendants of
his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. This
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M.
Purcell in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1).
On July 30, 2021, Judge Purcell issued a Report and Recommendation,
in which he recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be
granted and that Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be
denied.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XxyH7Q at no extra charge.[CC]
OTAY LAKES: Faces Herrera Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HERRERA individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OTAY LAKES DENTAL GROUP LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-01629-LAB-AHG (S.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2021) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited telemarketing text messages wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant is a full-service dental clinic. To promote its
services, Defendant allegedly engages in aggressive unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory 14
damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
PATTERSON COMPANIES: MOA Reached in Plymouth County Retirement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 27, 2021, that
the company had signed a memorandum of understanding to settle the
previously disclosed securities class action litigation entitled
Plymouth County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc. and
Scott P. Anderson, No. 0:18-cv-000871 MJD/SER.
On August 27, 2021, Patterson Companies, Inc. signed a memorandum
of understanding to settle the previously disclosed securities
class action litigation entitled Plymouth County Retirement System
v. Patterson Companies, Inc. and Scott P. Anderson, No.
0:18-cv-000871 MJD/SER pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.
Under the terms of the settlement, Patterson will pay $63 million
to resolve the case. Although Patterson has agreed to settle this
matter, it expressly denies the allegations of the complaint and
all liability.
Patterson's insurers have consented to the settlement and are
expected to contribute an aggregate of $35 million to fund the
settlement and to reimburse Patterson for certain costs and
expenses of the litigation.
The settlement is subject to court approval of a stipulation of
settlement to be drafted by the parties.
Patterson Companies Inc. distributes dental products, veterinary
supplies for companion pets, and rehabilitation supplies. The
Company sells and markets to dental clinics and laboratories,
veterinarians, and to the physical and occupational therapy
markets. The company is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.
PENN NATIONAL: Lipari-Williams Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINA R. LIPARI-WILLIAMS,
MARISSA T. HAMMOND, and LUCINDA M. LAYTON, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC.,
et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06067-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
a. Certifying the Rule 23 Classes under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) defined as;
(1) Nationwide ERISA Class -- Failure to Provide Notice of
a Reasonable Alternative Standard:
"All participants in PNG's group health plan for plan
years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 who had a
tobacco surcharge deducted from their wages;" and
(2) Nationwide ERISA Sub-Class -- Failure to Provide a
Reasonable Alternative Standard or Notice of the Same:
"All participants in PNG's group health plan for plan
years 2019 and 2020 who had a tobacco surcharge
deducted from their wages;"
b. Appointing the Plaintiffs Hammond and Layton as
representatives of the Rule 23 Class;
c. Appointing Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and McClelland Law
Firm, P.C. as class counsel for the class; and
d. Granting such further relief as the Court deems
appropriate.
The Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant Penny National Gaming,
Inc. (PNG), alleging that its employee health plan collected an
unlawful tobacco surcharge in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1182
of ERISA.
Penn National is an operator of casinos and racetracks based in
Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. It operates 44 facilities in the United
States and Canada, many of them under the Hollywood Casino brand.
The company also owns a 36% stake in Barstool Sports.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kn5zJk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com
PENNSYLVANIA: DOC Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Ruling in Stradford
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LACEY
STRADFORD, et al. v. JOHN WETZEL, SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, Civil Action No. 2-16-cv-02064, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 23, 2021, Chief
District Judge Juan R. Sanchez granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, and denied the Department of Corrections' motion
for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs Stradford, William Nettles, Jesse Stroud, William Scott,
and Richard Richardson are all offenders with sex offense
classifications who are, or were formerly, incarcerated in State
Correctional Institutions in Pennsylvania. They bring the putative
class action and assert an equal protection claim against Defendant
Wetzel, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania DOC.
The DOC operates halfway houses known as Community Corrections
Centers or Community Contract Facilities ("CCCs"). CCCs are
governed and operated by the DOC's Bureau of Community Corrections
("BCC"). The BCC places individuals in and discharges them from any
and all CCCs. The BCC's goal is to assist parolees and reentrants
with their transition into society. It decides whether a parolee is
placed in a CCC, which CCC the parolee is placed, and when that
placement occurs.
The Plaintiffs claim that although they have been granted parole,
their release from prison and placement into DOC-operated halfway
houses has been significantly delayed because of the DOC's policy
of considering community sensitivity to a criminal offense in
making these placements. Because the consideration of community
sensitivity disproportionately delays the placement of parolees
with a sex offense classification, the Plaintiffs have been subject
to prolonged incarceration following a grant of parole which
individuals without a sex offense classification do not have to
endure.
Because there are no legitimate bases for delaying sex offenders'
release to CCCs, and any potential justifications are not
rationally related to the policy, Judge Sanchez denied the DOC's
motion for summary judgment.
For the same reasons, Judge Sanchez granted the Plaintiffs' motion.
Because he concludes the DOC's policy is not rationally related to
a legitimate government interest, the policy violates the Equal
Protection Clause and is unconstitutional. Judge Sanchez entered
an order enjoining the DOC from considering community sensitivity
to an offense when determining placement of offenders in CCCs.
The Defendant seeks a review of the order.
The appellate case is captioned as Lacey Stradford, et al. v.
Secretary Pennsylvania Department, Case No. 21-2655, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Sep. 8,
2021.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS is represented by:
Kelly J. Hoke, Esq.
Timothy A. Holmes, I, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Telephone: (717) 728-7749
Plaintiffs-Appellees LACEY STRADFORD, WILLIAM NETTLES, JESSE
STROUD, WILLIAM SCOTT, RICHARD RICHARDSON, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated, are represented by:
Donald Driscoll, Esq.
COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 434-6012
- and -
Alexandra Morgan-Kurtz, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
247 Fort Pitt Boulevard, 4th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 434-6175
- and -
Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
718 Arch Street, Suite 304 South
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 925-2966
PINTEREST INC: Court Tosses Copyright Claims From Harrington Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLAINE HARRINGTON III, Plaintiff v. PINTEREST, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-05290-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J.
Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, grants Pinterest's motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend.
The Defendant moved to dismiss Counts II and III of the First
Amended Complaint ("FAC"), for contributory copyright infringement
and violation of the Digital Millennial Copyright Act ("DMCA").
Background
Plaintiff Harrington is a professional travel photographer and is
the sole copyright owner of his photographic works. Harrington
gives the JPEG file of his Works an identifying name and adds
metadata to his images. The metadata is known as EXIF and/or IPTC.
The EXIF/IPTC is wrapped up and encoded into the image file, using
an encoding format known as Adobe XMP. Specifically, Harrington's
digital works are embedded with a description; the creator; a
copyright notice; and a credit line source. Harrington also embeds
his address, phone, email, website, instructions, and "rights/use
terms."
Pinterest is a social media platform that allows its users to
create and share virtual bulletin boards to which they have posted,
or "pinned," digital images that have been uploaded. A user's main
Pinterest page is called a "home feed." The Pins in a user's "home
feed" consist of not only Pins the user has selected, but also Pins
displayed by Pinterest. The Pins displayed by Pinterest are Pins
from Pinterest's library of hundreds of billions of images
consisting of Pins by users. The images Pinterest displays to the
user are personalized based on the user's boards, recent activity
on Pinterest, and favorite topics. The images users see on their
home feed are integrated with advertisements designed to appear
similar to or within the same theme as the user's Pins. Pinterest
also distributes images directly to the user by email and/or
through the Pinterest app. Pinterest generates its revenues through
advertisements.
Mr. Harrington alleges that Pinterest does not have in place a
system for screening Pins for copyright notices or other indicia of
copyright ownership associated with the "pinned" images. Rather,
Pinterest deliberately removes indicia of copyright ownership from
pinned images "to render its paid advertisement more effective and
to actively thwart the efforts of copyright owners, like
Harrington, to police the misuse of their works on and through
Pinterest's website and app."
Pinterest allegedly strips the images of visible identifying source
and/or copyright management information ("CMI"), as well as
metadata. When a user "pins" or uploads an image, Pinterest renames
the image with a new JPEG name and strips the EXIF/IPTC from the
image before storing and displaying that image. As a result,
Pinterest is the source of "rampant infringement by third parties."
Harrington has tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of
images on Pinterest. His Works have been displayed without his
consent by Pinterest to advertise a wide range of goods and
services.
Based on these allegations, Harrington filed this putative class
action suit, asserting claims for (1) direct copyright
infringement; (2) contributory infringement; and (3) violation of
the DMCA.
Discussion
Pinterest seeks dismissal of Count II for contributory infringement
and Count III for violation of the DMCA. As to Count II, Pinterest
contends that Harrington fails to plead facts demonstrating that
Pinterest: (1) (a) had actual knowledge of any specific instance of
third-party direct infringement; and (b) materially contributed to
that infringement by failing to employ simple measures for removing
or halting it; or (2) induced users to use its service for the
express purpose of promoting copyright infringement. As to Count
III, Pinterest argues that Harrington fails to plead facts
plausibly showing the requisite mens rea.
A. Count II: Contributory Copyright Infringement
Mr. Harrington's contributory infringement claim is premised on
allegations that Pinterest materially contributed to the alleged
infringement of his works by users who either (1) uploaded those
images to Pinterest without authorization; or (2) downloaded them
after they were uploaded by others.
To establish a claim for contributory copyright infringement, a
plaintiff "must establish that there has been direct infringement
by third parties." Once this threshold issue has been established,
a plaintiff must also allege that the defendant "(1) has knowledge
of another's infringement and (2) either (a) materially contributes
to or (b) induces that infringement."
Judge Davila holds that Harrington has failed to allege sufficient
facts to satisfy the knowledge requirement for pleading a claim for
contributory copyright infringement. He finds that (i) Harrington
does not allege that he ever notified Pinterest about these two
instances of alleged infringement or any other instances of
infringement of his other Works; (ii) generalized complaints from
other photographers about infringement of their works does not show
Pinterest's "willful blindness" to infringement of Harrington's
Works; and (iii) a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is a proper procedure for
testing the legal sufficiency of a claim at the pleading stage. The
claim is accordingly dismissed with leave to amend.
B. Count III: Violation of the DMCA
For purposes of this motion only, Pinterest assumes that Harrington
adequately alleges actual removal of information that qualifies as
CMI under the DMCA. Pinterest contends that the DMCA claim must
nevertheless be dismissed because mere removal is not actionable
and Harrington fails to allege Pinterest "knew" or had "reasonable
grounds to know" that any alleged actions regarding CMI "will
induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement."
Mr. Harrington's allegations, construed in the light most favorable
to him, establish nothing more than the "possibility of encouraging
infringement." He alleges that "by removing the CMI, Pinterest
ensures that copyright owners cannot easily identify their works on
Pinterest's website and app, thereby preventing them from
submitting to Pinterest comprehensive take down notices."
Harrington alleges that he cannot use simple keyword searches to
locate his images and instead "must hire services like Pixsy to
conduct reverse engine searches, then conduct expensive and/or
time-consuming research to track down the infringers."
Absent, however, Judge Davila finds, are any allegations that he
actually used CMI metadata to prevent or detect copyright
infringement, much less a "pattern of conduct" or "modus operandi"
by him involving policing infringement by tracking metadata.
Rather, Harrington alleges that he successfully removed
unauthorized use of two of his Works on Pinterest "by engaging an
attorney and making a cease and desist demand." A plaintiff
bringing a Section 1202(b)(1) claim must offer more than a bare
assertion that when CMI metadata is removed, copyright infringement
plaintiffs lose an important method of identifying a photo as
infringing.
In sum, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain sufficient facts, which accepted as true, state a
plausible claim. The FAC fails to do so.
Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge Davila granted Pinterest's motion
to dismiss Counts II and III of the FAC. Although Harrington has
amended his complaint once already, the Judge grants him one last
opportunity to amend. Harrington may file and serve an amended
complaint no later than September ___, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2kbmyf2t from Leagle.com.
RIVER PALMS: Faces Suit Over Patients' Bill of Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Garcia, writing for Biz New Orleans, reports that from the
law firm of Garcia & Artigliere:
In the aftermath of alleged abuses related to Hurricane Ida, Law
firm Garcia & Artigliere said it has filed a class action lawsuit
in Orleans Parish against seven Louisiana nursing homes, their
management company and owner on behalf of victims and their
families. The lawsuit alleges violations of Louisiana's Patients'
Bill of Rights designed to protect elderly and infirm residents of
Louisiana skilled nursing facilities.
The seven skilled nursing facilities named as defendants in the
action are:
River Palms Nursing and Rehab in Orleans Parish
South Lafourche Nursing and Rehab in Lafourche Parish
Maison Orleans Healthcare Center in Orleans Parish
Park Place Healthcare Nursing Home in Jefferson Parish
West Jefferson Health Care Center in Jefferson Parish
Maison DeVille Nursing Home in Terrebonne Parish
Maison DeVille Nursing Home of Harvey in Jefferson Parish [GN]
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Phillips Suit Remanded to San Diego Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN PHILLIPS, EKATERINI CAMPOS, ROBERT JELLINEK, and
JANINE HARRISON, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs v. ROYAL APPLIANCE MFG. CO., d/b/a Hoover,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-987-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q.
Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an order:
a. denying as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Class
Action Complaint and Motion for a More Definite Statement;
and
b. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.
Defendant Royal Appliance "is a manufacturer of products and
advertises that its products are sold with express warranties."
Royal Appliance "makes a warranty registration form available
online and includes warranty registration cards with the packaging
of its products." In 2019, the Plaintiffs each viewed an
advertisement by Royal Appliance for a vacuum or carpet cleaner,
which "advertised that the Product was accompanied by Defendant's
express warranties." The advertisements "did not contain any other
terms, conditions, exclusions or limitations with respect to the
warranty availability." The Plaintiffs relied on the warranty
promises and purchased the Royal Appliance products.
When the Plaintiffs opened the product packaging, they discovered
that the Products did not come with a warranty as the Plaintiffs
were led to believe." The online warranty registration form and the
warranty card registration included with the packaging "failed to
inform the Plaintiffs that it was for product registration only,
and did not inform them that failure to complete the online form
did not diminish their warranty rights as required by California
Civil Code Section 1793.1. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful
and deceitful business practices, the Defendant is able to chill
warranty claims and benefit economically by duping consumers into
thinking that they do not have warranty rights unless they fill out
the form and provide their personal information to the Defendant.
Consumers actually do not have the warranties that were promised to
them when they purchased their products as they must now register
their warranties, a requirement that was not disclosed at the time
of purchase. If the exterior packaging of the products the
Plaintiffs purchased "disclosed that the warranty was contingent on
their registration providing their personal information, the
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Products, or alternative
would not have paid a premium for the Products.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent the following classes:
a. All persons who purchased one or more of Defendant's
products within California during the four (4) years immediately
preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of class
certification, which were accompanied by a warranty or product
registration card or form, or an electronic online warranty or
product registration form, to be completed and returned by the
consumer, which do not contain statements, each displayed in a
clear and conspicuous manner, informing the consumer that: i) the
card or form is for product registration, and ii) informing the
consumer that failure to complete and return the card or form does
not diminish his or her warranty rights.
b. All persons who purchased one or more of Defendant's
products within California during the three (3) years immediately
preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of class
certification, which were advertised as being accompanied with an
express warranty but which do not contain a warranty, and/or
contain warranty activation, confirmation or registration cards
requiring persons to provide their personal data or take additional
steps in order to receive a warranty.
The Plaintiffs bring the following claims against Royal Appliance:
(1) violation of California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,
Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1790, et seq.; (2) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections
1750, et seq.; and (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. The Plaintiffs
seek declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages,
restitution "in an amount equal to the total amounts paid and
payable for the Class products," a civil penalty of two times the
amount of actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.
On April 6, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint
against Defendant Royal Appliance in the San Diego County Superior
Court. (Compl., Ex. A to Notice of Removal ("NOR"). They bring
consumer claims against Defendant Royal Appliance under California
state law arising from Royal Appliance's alleged unlawful warranty
practices.
On May 24, 2021, Royal Appliance removed the action to the Court
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b) and "28 U.S.C. Section 1332 based
on diversity of citizenship of the parties. In the Notice of
Removal, Royal Appliance asserts that each named Plaintiff is "a
citizen of the State of California" and is diverse from Royal
Appliance, which is "incorporated in the State of Ohio, with its
principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina." Royal
Appliance asserts that the Statement of Damages filed by the
Plaintiffs demonstrates that "the amount in controversy, exclusive
of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000."
On June 1, 2021, Royal Appliance filed a Motion to Dismiss Class
Action Complaint and Motion for a More Definite Statement. It moves
to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure for failure to allege fraud with particularity.
In the alternative, Royal Appliance moves for a more definite
statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
On June 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand. They
move to remand the case to the San Diego County Superior Court, or,
in the alternative, "remand at least their equitable claims." They
contend that Royal Appliance fails to demonstrate that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Plaintiffs further contend that
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their equitable
claims pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834
(9th Cir. 2020), because the "Defendant does not demonstrate, nor
even allege, that the Plaintiffs' legal remedies are inadequate."
On June 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion
to Dismiss. On June 28, 2021, Royal Appliance filed a Reply in
support of the Motion to Dismiss.
On July 2, 2021, Royal Appliance filed an Opposition to the Motion
to Remand. It contends that the action meets the requirements for
diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), because the parties are minimally diverse, there are more
than 100 putative class members, and the aggregate amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million. Royal Appliance further contends
that Sonner is inapplicable, and it would be premature for the
Court to remand the Plaintiffs' equitable claims.
On July 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of the
Motion to Remand. They contend that Royal Appliance fails to
provide sufficient evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million under CAFA.
Discussion
The Plaintiffs assert that Royal Appliance removed this action on
the basis of traditional diversity jurisdiction and "did not remove
under CAFA." They assert that Royal Appliance fails to meet its
burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. They contend that Royal Appliance's assertion that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is speculative, and "the mere
assertion in the Statement of Damages that the Plaintiffs are
seeking up to a certain amount in punitive damages is insufficient
to establish that the requisite amount in controversy is met." They
contend that the fact that they may alternatively seek up to nine
times the amount received by each Plaintiff in punitive damages
does not disclose to either the Court nor the Defendant the initial
amount being multiplied nor the final amount in controversy being
requested.
Royal Appliance asserts that this action "is properly removed under
Section 1332(d)" -- CAFA -- and "the requirement that there be
$5million in controversy is clearly met in the case." It contends
that in the Notice of Removal, the "Defendant cited generally to
section 1332, which of course includes subsection (d)." Royal
Appliance contends that the "Plaintiffs seek restitution of the
purchase price of the products, and direct-to-consumer sales of the
products in question in California during the relevant period far
exceed $5 million." Royal Appliance contends that "class action
CLRA cases are frequently the subject of verdicts and settlements
of more than $5 million," and the Statement of Damages demonstrates
that the "Plaintiffs intend to seek punitive damages in the amount
of $100 million or nine times actual damages, whichever is
greater."
On Reply, the Plaintiffs assert that Royal Appliance fails to
demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. They
contend that the Declaration submitted by Royal Appliance "does not
state what portion of sales were for products which were subject to
the warranty registration cards or online forms which are the crux
of the suit and which define the classes," and "the proposed
classes are likely a much smaller subset and would likely have a
much smaller sales figure."
In the case, Judge Hayes finds that the amount in controversy is
not apparent from the face of the Complaint. The Plaintiffs
challenge Royal Appliance's assertion that "the amount in
controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, exceeds $75,000."
Both parties had "the opportunity to place evidence on the record
supporting their respective positions as to the amount in
controversy." Royal Appliance is the only party that submitted
evidence, consisting of the Plaintiffs' Statement of Damages
attached to the Notice of Removal and the Declaration of the
Director of Finance for Royal Appliance attached to the Opposition
to the Motion to Remand.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek the following monetary
relief: restitution in an amount "equal to the total amounts paid
and payable for the Class products;" "actual damages;" a "civil
penalty of two-times actual damages;" "punitive damages;"
"restitution and disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment
that Defendant obtained from Plaintiffs;" and attorneys' fees and
costs. Plaintiff Phillips alleges that he purchased a $90 vacuum
manufactured by Royal Appliance. Plaintiff Jellinek alleges that he
purchased a $120 vacuum manufactured by Royal Appliance. Plaintiff
Harrison and Plaintiff Campos allege that they each purchased a
$198 carpet cleaner manufactured by Royal Appliance. In the
Statement of Damages, the Plaintiffs "reserve the right when
pursuing a judgment against the Defendant to seek punitive damages
in the amount of $100 million or nine times the amount received by
each class member, whichever is greater." The Director of Finance
for Royal Appliance states in a Declaration that "between May 1,
2017 and April 30, 2021, Royal Appliance had direct-to-consumer
sales in the amount of $9,912,346.98 in the state of California,"
which, on information and belief, "were accompanied by express
warranties."
Judge Hayes finds that the highest amount allegedly paid by any
named Plaintiff for a Royal Appliance product in the case was $198.
The amount of any actual damages from the alleged breach of
warranty obligations is speculative, so the amount of any civil
penalty is speculative. The Judge holds that the allegations in the
Complaint and the evidence presented by Royal Appliance do not
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the potential
recovery for any named Plaintiff exceeds $75,000. He concludes that
Royal Appliance has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that
removal in this case was proper.
Conclusion
Judge Hayes granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. The case is
remanded to the San Diego County Superior Court, where it was
originally filed as Case No. 37-2021-00015486-CU-BT-NC.
The Judge denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Class
Action Complaint and Motion for a More Definite Statement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4e2vdusk from Leagle.com.
SEQUIM ASSET: McCurdy FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas McCurdy, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Sequium Asset Solutions LLC, Case No.
21CVS460 was removed from the Person County Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on
Sept. 16, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00721 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Sequium Asset Solutions LLC -- http://www.sequium.com/-- is a debt
collection agency located in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David A. Grassi, Jr., Esq.
THE ECHOLS FIRM, LLC
PO Box 12645
Rock Hill, SC 29731
Phone: (803) 329-8982
Email: david.grassi@theecholsfirm.com
SMG HOLDINGS: Class Certification Pretrial & Trial Dates Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCarty, et al., v. SMG
HOLDINGS, I, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06232 (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order vacating all remaining
pretrial and trial dates pending the Court's order on the motion
for class certification.
The Court also ordered to terminate the civil case.
The nature of suit states Labor -- other labor litigation.
SMG Holdings is headquartered in the United States. The company's
line of business includes holding or owning securities of companies
other than banks.[CC]
SMITH & WESSON: Appeals Ct. Refusal to Nix Negligent Design Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the company's motion
for leave to appeal the court's refusal to strike the negligent
design claim with the Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, is pending.
The company is a defendant in a putative class proceeding before
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. The
action was filed on December 16, 2019.
The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages,
CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in
an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs.
The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place
in Toronto on July 22, 2018 and their family members. One victim
was shot and injured during the shooting. The other suffered
unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting.
The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes
that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting
and their immediate family members.
The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. The
case has not been certified as a class action.
On July 13, 2020, the company filed a Notice of Motion for an order
striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety. On
February 11, 2021, the court granted the company's motion in part,
and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in public nuisance and strict
liability.
The court declined to strike the negligent design claim, and
ordered that the claim proceed to a certification motion.
The certification motion is scheduled to be heard in March of 2022.
On March 2, 2021, the company filed a motion for leave to appeal
the court's refusal to strike the negligent design claim with the
Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
No hearing date for that motion has yet been set.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. manufactures firearms. The Company
offers pistols, revolvers, rifles, handcuffs, and other related
products and accessories for consumers, law enforcement, and
security agencies. Smith & Wesson Brands serves customers in the
United States. The company is based in Springfield, Massachusetts.
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 1 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
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Spectrum" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: SPPI) from December 27, 2018 through August 5, 2021 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1934.
If you purchased Spectrum securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Spectrum Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877)
779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com.
According to the complaint, Spectrum issued materially false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts
pertaining to the quality and integrity of the scientific data
supporting the company's claims of efficacy for its drug ROLONTIS
(eflapegrastim), a novel long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating
factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, which were known to,
or recklessly disregarded by, the Defendants as follows: (a) the
ROLONTIS manufacturing facility maintained deficient controls
and/or procedures; (b) the foregoing deficiencies decreased the
likelihood that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would
approve the ROLONTIS Biologics License Application ("BLA") as
submitted in December 2018 in its current form; (c) Spectrum had
therefore materially overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval
prospects; and (D) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On August 6, 2021, Spectrum announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the ROLONTIS BLA.
The CRL cited deficiencies related to manufacturing and indicated
that a reinspection of the Company's manufacturing facility will be
necessary.
On this news, the price of Spectrum shares fell $0.70 per share, or
21.54%, to close at $2.55 per share on August 6, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 1, 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 Spectrum securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/spectrumpharmaceuticalsinc-sppi-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-437/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Rujul Patel
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
rpatel@bernlieb.com [GN]
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("Spectrum" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SPPI) and certain of
its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Spectrum securities between December 27, 2018 and August
5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/sppi.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the manufacturing facility of ROLONTIS (eflapegrastim), a
long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for
chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, maintained deficient controls
and/or procedures; (2) the foregoing deficiencies decreased the
likelihood that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would
approve the ROLONTIS Biologics License Application (the "ROLONTIS
BLA") in its current form; (3) Spectrum had therefore materially
overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval prospects; and (4) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
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/sppi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Spectrum you have until November 1, 2021, to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
ST. JOSEPH'S/CANDLER: Betz Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Joseph's/Candler
Health System, Inc. The case is styled as Heather Erica Betz, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. St.
Joseph's/Candler Health System, Inc., Case No.
4:21-cv-00260-WTM-CLR (S.D. Ga., Sept. 14, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Default.
St. Joseph's/Candler -- https://www.sjchs.org/ -- is the leading
health system in Savannah, Ga., offering comprehensive services and
state-of-the-art medical technologies in the region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constance Cooper, Esq.
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (912) 650-3973
Email: ccooper@lowtherwalker.com
ST. JOSEPH'S: Faces Class Action Following Ransomware Attack
------------------------------------------------------------
Raisa Habersham, Savannah Morning News, reports that Daniel
Elliott, a Georgia resident and patient of St. Joseph's/Candler
Hospital Health System, has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf
of himself and the 1.4 million patients, professionals, and clients
whose personal, financial and health information may have been
compromised in the ransomware attack against the hospital's IT
systems.
Filed on Aug. 28, by the Savannah-based personal injury firm of
Harris Lowry Manton LLP, the lawsuit alleges that SJ/C, the
region's largest health care system, violated its privacy policy
and acted negligently when it failed to adequately secure patients'
information and take preventive measures to avoid the ransomware
attack and data breach, which was detected on June 17. Subsequent
investigations revealed that the unauthorized party gained access
to the hospital system's IT network between Dec. 18, 2020, and June
17, 2021.
According to the lawsuit, patients suffered an increased risk of
identity theft and medical identity theft, and "have been forced to
expend, and must expend in the future, to monitor their financial
accounts, health insurance accounts, and credit files as a result
of the data breach." No specific instances of identity theft were
cited in the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs further allege the hospital neglected to "design, adopt,
implement, control, direct, oversee, manage, monitor and audit
appropriate data security process, controls, policies, procedures,
protocols and software and hardware systems" to protect patients'
information. That information could include, according to a letter
sent by CEO Paul Hinchey on Aug. 10, a patient's name, address,
birth date, social security and driver's license numbers, billing
accounts, health insurance plans, and medical records, among other
personal and financial details. In the letter, Hinchey said the
hospital had returned to "fully operational" status.
Emails and phone calls to the law firm that filed the suit were not
returned. St. Joseph's/Candler's spokesperson, Scott Larsen, said
that the hospital does not comment on pending litigation.
Soumitra Bhuyan, assistant professor at the Edward J. Bloustein
School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University,
previously told the Savannah Morning News, on average it takes
about 96 days to identify the data breach. In some cases, it can
take longer.
"There are hospitals that did not identify that a breach happened
for a year," she said.
The health care system is offering patients a one-year membership
to Experian's IdentityWorks, which helps detect possible misuse of
personal info.
The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit are seeking a jury
trial, unspecified amount of monetary relief for punitive damages,
restitution and disgorgement, and payment of attorney fees. [GN]
TD AMERITRADE: Class Certification Bids Extended to Nov. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00396 (D. Neb.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis entered an order granting
unopposed motion to extend the following class certification bids
by November 15, 2021:
-- the Defendants shall respond to the renewed motion for
class certification; and
-- Appointment of Class Representative, and Appointment of
Class Counsel.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, fixed income investments,
margin lending, and cash management services.[CC]
TRIAD MANUFACTURING: Loses Bid to Send ERISA Suit to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Stone, writing for Law360, reports that the Seventh Circuit
rejected a Triad Manufacturing Co.'s push to send a would-be class
action from workers who say they were overcharged for company stock
to individual arbitration, saying a "rare" exception to federal law
applied. [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Tyson Foods, Inc. ("Tyson" or
the "Company") (NYSE: TSN) and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Tyson
securities between March 13, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/tsn.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Tyson knew, or should have known, that the highly
contagious COVID-19 was spreading throughout the globe; (2) Tyson
did not in fact have sufficient safety protocols to protect its
employees in its facilities; (3) as a result, Tyson employees
contracted and spread COVID-19 within the facilities; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Tyson would face negative impact to its
production, including complete shutdowns of certain facilities; (5)
due to the failure to protect its employees, Tyson would suffer
financial harm related to its lowered production; and (6) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
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/tsn or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Tyson you
have until September 30, 2021, to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: Settlement in Hilaire Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN HILAIRE, JEAN
FRESNEL, SUALIO KAMAGATE, JEAN VERTUS, FOUSSEIMI CAMARA, JEAN
MOROSE, NOE PEREZ, EDGAR ESPINOZA, BOLIVIO CHAVEZ, BRAULIO
MATAMORES FLORES, JEORGE VENTURA CONCEPCION, ANGEL SANDOVAL, CARLOS
DE LEON CHIYAL, and LESLY PIERRE on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated who were employed by Underwest West Side
Operating, v. UNDERWEST WESTSIDE OPERATING CORP., MOSHE WINER,
MARTIN TAUB, AVI GOLAN, AND ELAD EFORATI, Case No.
1:19-cv-03169-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger
entered an order that:
1. granting preliminary approval of the Settlement
memorialized in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and
Release;
2. provisionally certifying the proposed Class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), for settlement purposes as
defined in the Settlement Agreement as follows:
"Each former non-exempt employee of Underwest Westside
Operating Corp. who worked during the period of April 9,
2013 through June 2, 2019";
The Plaintiffs meet all of the requirements for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b)(3) for settlement purposes;"
3. appointing the following attorneys as class counsel
because Arenson Dittmar & Karban meets all of the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g):
Steven Arenson, Esq.
Avi Mermelstein, Esq
Arenson, Dittmar & Karban
200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 490-3600; and
4. appointing Plaintiffs Jean Hilaire, Jean Fresnel, Sualio
Kamagate, Jean Vertus, Fousseimi Camara, Jean Morose, Noe
Perez, Edgar Espinoza, Bolivio Chavez, Braulio Matamores
Flores, Jeorge Ventura Concepcion, Angel Sandoval, Carlos
De Leon Chiyal, and Lesley Pierre as Class
Representatives;
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hQATi3 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED JM CORP: Faces Aguilar Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS AGUILAR, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
UNITED JM CORPORATION, JULIO ALVAREZ individually, and LUIS DAVID
HERNANDEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-v-23259-FAM
(S.D. Fla., September 9, 2021) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Law and
Breach of Contract.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to perform job duties
such as carpentry forming, demolition, and rebar work. The
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants for approximately 12 weeks
before deciding to quit due to the Defendant's alleged wage theft
violation.
According to the complaint, despite working more than 40 hours per
week, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated construction
workers were not paid by the Defendants at the proper overtime rate
at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendants
failed to compensate them for all of their hours worked. The
complaint further claims that Plaintiffs and the class members did
not receive payment for their last week of work between July 26 and
July 30, 2021.
United JM Corporation operates as a general contractor and performs
construction services. Julio Alvarez is believed to be the owner
and licensed contractor in charge of United. Luis David Hernandez
is a subcontractor of United. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL PA
1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd. #329
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Tel: (786) 708-7550
E-mail: rer@sorondorosenberg.com
UNITED STATES: Air Force Veterans Sue Over Trauma Discharges
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Kime, writing for Military.com, reports that two former
Air Force airmen have filed a proposed class-action lawsuit to
compel the service to review thousands of less-than-honorable
discharges awarded since 9/11 to members with a traumatic brain
injury or mental health issue.
The suit, known as Johnson v. Kendall, follows two other lawsuits
settled against the Army and Navy this year that alleged those
services wrongly discharged troops for misconduct linked to a
military trauma such as a combat- or training-related head injury
or sexual assault.
During a press conference on the lawsuit on Sept. 13, advocates
said the Air Force Discharge Review Board, a panel of officers and
senior enlisted personnel who consider administrative dismissals,
has rejected 72% of upgrade requests from former service members
with post-traumatic stress disorder or head injuries and 60% of
appeals from victims of military sexual assault.
The denials also have been issued with "boilerplate language" and
didn't follow legal requirements to review all cases individually,
according to Alexis Kallen, a Yale Law student who works for Yale
Veterans Legal Services Clinic, representing the two airmen.
"This leaves veterans without the critical support they need to
navigate the world," Kallen said.
More than 10,000 former Air Force members could be affected by the
case if the class action is approved.
In 2014, in response to concern that the military had dismissed
service members for behavior and infractions that may have been
related to post-traumatic stress disorder, then-Defense Secretary
Chuck Hagel issued guidance to the military records boards to
improve the rate of approvals for discharge upgrades -- ostensibly
a second chance to consider extenuating circumstances tied to the
departure of service members.
The instruction was later clarified to ensure that the requester
did not have to have an official mental health diagnosis at the
time of their misconduct or discharge and only needed to provide
"sufficient evidence" that they suffered from an issue.
Despite the guidance, the services continued to reject appeals,
spawning a lawsuit in late 2017 against the Army that challenged
its approval rate.
That case was settled earlier this year, with the Army agreeing to
review all other-than-honorable discharges since April 17, 2011,
for eligible service members. That included an estimated 3,500
active-duty, Reserve and National Guard troops affected by
post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychiatric conditions,
trauma related to sexual assault, or brain injury.
The Army also agreed to notify soldiers who received
other-than-honorable discharges from Oct. 7, 2001, to April 16,
2011, of their ability to apply for an upgrade or to appeal a
previous denial.
The new lawsuit challenges the Air Force's handling of similar
cases. The case's named plaintiff, former Airman 1st Class Martin
Johnson, served as an F-16 Fighting Falcon crew chief and deployed
to Iraq in 2007 where, he said, a car bomb exploded near his base,
"shaking everything" and triggering a deep depression.
Johnson said he became sensitive to loud noises and other sensory
stimulation and also had relationship issues and behavioral
problems after his return home.
Despite earning multiple awards and accolades, Johnson engaged in
"minor misconduct -- failing to keep his lawn fully mowed was one
of the charges" and was given a general discharge under honorable
conditions, according to Shariful Khan, a student intern at Yale
Veterans Legal Services Clinic.
"I wasn't able to get the help I immediately needed in the Air
Force," Johnson said at the press conference, his voice quavering
as he grew emotional. "I've tried going through established
channels to get my discharge upgraded, but it's been [a] letdown by
the Air Force. I feel as though I have no other option other than
[to] bring this complaint on behalf of myself and other U.S. Air
Force veterans."
The other plaintiff, known as former Airman 1st Class Jane Doe,
served from 2013 to 2016. She was raped during her military service
and later developed post-traumatic stress disorder, which also
manifested itself in misconduct, according to Khan. She was awarded
an other-than-honorable discharge, which denied her a host of
benefits, including medical services, disability compensation, and
burial and education benefits.
"Veterans like these agreed to put their country above themselves
and, in return, the country promised to take care of them should
anything happen," Garry Monk, executive director of the National
Veterans Council for Legal Redress, said during the event. "Sure
enough, they developed mental health disabilities or experienced
military sexual trauma . . . and the Air Force broke its promise."
While general discharges and other-than-honorable discharges, also
known as "bad paper" discharges, limit veterans' access to
Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, they also can affect a
veteran's long-term earning power, since many employers will not
hire anyone with less than a good-conduct discharge.
More than 51,400 discharges under other-than-honorable conditions
were issued for active-duty personnel from fiscal 2010 through
2020, according to the Defense Manpower Data Center.
A similar case was filed against the Navy for decisions made by the
Navy Discharge Review Board, which also oversees Marine Corps
discharges. That suit was settled this summer, but details of the
agreement have yet to be released.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said on Sept. 13 in a press
release that he supports the legal action to hold the Air Force
accountable to fairly review these discharge review requests.
He noted that while 2% of all World War II veterans and 7% of
Vietnam veterans received other-than-honorable discharges, 15% of
service members who have left the military since 9/11 have such
discharges.
"And they're repeatedly victimized when they're denied jobs and
educational opportunities benefits from the VA," Blumenthal said.
"This situation is an outrage." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Title Does 1, et al., v.
United States of America, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03254-RGK-MAR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
2. granting in part and denying in part the Government's
motion to dismiss, and denying Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction;
3. dismissing the Plaintiffs third, fourth, and fifth claims,
and deferring ruling on the Government's motion to dismiss
as it pertains to the Plaintiffs' first and second claims;
4. directing the parties to file a joint status report by no
later than September 27, 2021.
On April 15, 2021, six Plaintiffs proceeding under the pseudonyms
Doe 1, Doe 2, Doe 3, Doe 4, Doe 5, and Doe 6 filed a complaint
against the United States of America and Merrick Garland in his
official capacity as U.S. Attorney General.
The Plaintiffs allege claims for return of property pursuant to
Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure and for
violation of their Fourth and Fifth Amendments rights.
The Plaintiffs' claims arise from the Government's seizure and
search of their personal property located in six safe deposit boxes
on the premises of non-party US Private Vaults. Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of "All persons and/or entities who maintained a
safe deposit box at US Private Vaults, located at 9182 West Olympic
Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 during the month of March
2021."
A copy of the Court's civil minutes -- order dated Sept. 15, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tYyx5n at no
extra charge.[CC]
UTAH: Maxfield Files FLSA Suit in D. Utah
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utah Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, et al. The case is styled as Lynnette
Leeanne Maxfield, Jay Clayton, Cheree Kahrs, Jodi Rowley, Barbara
Adams, Michael Wyrick, Victoria Bower, Heather Dawn Hart, Boyd
Brothersen, Sammi Wilcox, Alison Cicala, Calvin Ockey, Lisa Ockey,
an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, as a subdivision
and/or, Cade Meier, Tiffany Clason, Jeff L. Colvin, Salvador
Petilos, Angela Micklos, Ruthanne Oakey Frost, Timothy Beardall,
Man Diep, John Barrand, individuals, Case No. 4:21-cv-00099-DN (D.
Utah, Sept. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.
The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control --
https://abc.utah.gov/ -- is a state government agency of the U.S.
state of Utah. It has its headquarters in Salt Lake City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chase A. Adams, Esq.
HOSMAN ADAMS
765 E 9000 S STE A1
Sandy, UT 84094
Phone: (801) 816-3999
Email: chase@hosmanadams.com
- and -
Ephraim C. Olson, Esq.
14858 SADDLE LEAF CT
Draper, UT 84020
Phone: (213) 500-9105
Email: ephraimols@protonmail.com
- and -
Erika M. Larsen, Esq.
STEELE ADAMS HOSMAN
765 E 9000 S STE 1
Sandy, UT 84111
Phone: (385) 247-4182
Fax: (435) 730-7175
Email: erika@sahlegal.com
VIEW INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 13 disclosed that
purchasers of View, Inc. f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II
securities between November 30, 2020 and August 16, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), have until October 18, 2021 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the View class action lawsuit. The
View class action lawsuit (Mehedi v. View, Inc. f/k/a CF Finance
Acquisition Corp. II, No. 21-cv-06374) charges View and certain of
its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. The View class action lawsuit was commenced on August 18,
2021 in the Northern District of California and is assigned to
Judge Beth Labson Freeman.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the View class action
lawsuit you can 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 View class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than October 18, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II was a special
purpose acquisition company ("SPAC" or "blank check company")
formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock
exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or
similar business combination with one or more businesses. On March
8, 2021, CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II and View combined via a
business combination with View as the surviving, public entity.
The View class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) View had not properly accrued warranty costs
related to its product; (ii) there was a material weakness in
View's internal controls over accounting and financial reporting
related to warranty accrual; (iii) as a result, View's financial
results for prior periods were misstated; and (iv) consequently,
defendants' positive statements about View's business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
On August 16, 2021, View announced that it "began an independent
investigation concerning the adequacy of the company's previously
disclosed warranty accrual." On this news, View's share price fell
more than 24%, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task
Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek
redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced
litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task
Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf
of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses
unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP's SPAC
Task Force represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty,
and justice in this rapidly developing investment arena.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased View
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the View 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 View class action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the View class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the View action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
URL: http://rgrdlaw.com[GN]
ZOOM VIDEO: Bid to Junk Data Privacy Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action suit related to
the company's false and misleading statements and omissions of
material fact about the company's data privacy and security
measures, is pending.
On April 7, 2020 and April 8, 2020, securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and two of its officers
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The plaintiffs are purported stockholders of the
Company.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions of
material fact about the company's data privacy and security
measures.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.
On May 18, 2020, the actions were consolidated.
On November 4, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On
December 23, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
May 20, 2021. Plaintiff filed an opposition to our motion to
dismiss on July 9, 2021.
The company's reply in support of the motion to dismiss was due
August 9, 2021.
On August 23, 2021, the judge took the motion under submission
without oral argument.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first
communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally
changes how people interact. The company connects people through
frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and
enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a
single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company
is based in San Jose, California.
ZOOM VIDEO: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set for Oct. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that court has set a
hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement for October 21, 2021.
Beginning on March 30, 2020, multiple putative class actions have
been filed against the company in various U.S. federal district
courts and state courts relating to its alleged privacy and
security practices, including alleged data sharing with third
parties (the "U.S. Privacy Class Actions").
The company had also been sued under the DC private attorney
general statute on behalf of members of the general public.
The plaintiffs claim violations of a variety of state consumer
protection and privacy laws, and also assert state constitutional
and common law claims, such as negligence and unjust enrichment.
The U.S. Privacy Class Actions seek to certify both nationwide and
state-specific classes of individuals using our services in certain
time periods.
The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary
relief, including restitution, statutory and actual damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
The federal cases have been transferred to and consolidated in the
NDCA with our consent; lead plaintiffs' counsel have been
appointed; and plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated
class action complaint on October 28, 2020.
On March 11, 2021, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
the company's motion to dismiss, and gave plaintiffs leave to
amend.
On July 30, 2021, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs to settle the action on a classwide basis, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement with the court on July 31, 2021.
Under the terms of the settlement, if the court preliminarily
approves it, the company would pay $85.0 million into an escrow
account that would be used to pay claims filed by settlement class
members, attorneys' fees and expenses, administrative costs, and
service payments to plaintiffs.
The court has set a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement for October 21, 2021.
Zoom said, "We recorded an aggregate legal settlement charge of
$66.9 million net of amounts estimated to be covered by insurance
as a general and administrative expense in our condensed
consolidated statement of operations for the six months ended July
31, 2021."
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first
communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally
changes how people interact. The company connects people through
frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and
enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a
single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company
is based in San Jose, California.
ZUORA INC: Discovery in Consolidated IPO Related Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the
consolidated putative class action suit related to the company's
initial public offering (IPO).
In April and May 2020, two putative securities class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants Zuora and
certain of its current and former officers, its directors and the
underwriters of Zuora's Initial Public Offering (IPO).
The complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Zuora's securities pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with Zuora's IPO and allege claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The suits seek
unspecified damages and other relief.
In July 2020, the court entered an order consolidating the two
lawsuits, and the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same claims. In October 2020, the court
denied defendants' demurrer as to the Section 11 and Section 15
claims and granted the demurrer as to the Section 12(a)(2) claim
with leave to file an amended complaint.
In November 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint.
Defendants' demurrer to the Section 12(a)(2) claim was sustained
with leave to amend.
Discovery in this case is ongoing.
Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management
platform. The company provides software that enables companies
across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or
transform to a subscription business model. Architected
specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models,
the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent
subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the
entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and
revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo,
California.
ZUORA INC: Discovery Ongoing in California Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the
putative securities class suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.
In June 2019, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming Zuora and certain of its officers as defendants.
The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Zuora's securities between April
12, 2018 and May 30, 2019.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Zuora's business, operations and prospects in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs.
In November 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same claims.
In April 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
On March 15, 2021, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to certify
a class consisting of persons and entities who purchased or
acquired Zuora common stock between April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019
and who were allegedly damaged thereby.
Discovery in this case is ongoing.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management
platform. The company provides software that enables companies
across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or
transform to a subscription business model. Architected
specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models,
the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent
subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the
entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and
revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo,
California.
*********
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 ***