/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210929.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, September 29, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 189
Headlines
321 HENDERSON: Dockery Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in RICO Suit
3M COMPANY: Bageant Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Beasley Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Beyuka Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Gacki Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Hickey Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AETNA LIFE: Deighton Sues Over Denied Insurance Claims
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Trump Judges Reversed District Court Ruling
ANNOVIS BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 18 Deadline
ANNOVIS BIO: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 18 Deadline
AQ TEXTILES: Adam Appeals Product Liability Suit Dismissal
ASCENSION HEALTH: Weddington Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
AUTOFAIR INC: Bid for Preliminary Injunction in Daly Suit Denied
AVEMCO INSURANCE: HK Holdings Suit Remanded to Cir. Ct. in Hawaii
BANANA REPUBLIC: Shirts Not 100% Supima Cotton, Coglianese Says
BMO INVESTMENTS: Class Action Over Trailer Fees Can Proceed
BOSTON BEER: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 15 Deadline
BRADLEY COUNTY, TN: Fact Discovery in Eden Suit Due Dec. 15
BRECKENRIDGE GRAND: Conditional Certification Bid in McMahon Okayed
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Over Plum Organics Products
CANADA: Canadians Stranded in Morocco File Class Action
CERCA TROVA: Faces Barcenas Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Salomon Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Wage Slips
CLASSIC DINING: Pays Servers Sub-Minimum Hourly Wages, Suit Alleges
COMFORCARE SENIOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Morgan Claims
CONTACTUS LLC: Bunker Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
DROPBOX INC: December 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FIAT CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Defective Demon Hoods Tossed
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Dalrymple Class Cert. Bid Due July 15, 2022
GRAND CANYON: Little Loses Bid for Class Certification
HILLSIDE HOLISTIC: Faces Class Action Over Telemarketing Texts
HILLSIDE HOLISTIC: Golden Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Court Resolves Discovery Disputes in Gau Suit
HYATT CORP: Parties Seek to Vacate Cert. Reply & Hearing Date
JAMES LEBLANC: Court Certifies Class & Subclass in Tellis Suit
JEONG YOOK: Denied Kitchen Staff Proper Wages, Evaristo Says
JUUL LABS: CUSD to Join Class Action Lawsuit Over E-Cigarettes
KEITH GILL: Class Action Over Market Manipulation Pending
KIMPTON HOTEL: Thomas Suit Seeks Class Certification
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 15 Deadline
LANDSCAPING BY LEE: Underpays Landscapers, Campos Suit Claims
LIVE VENTURES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of October 12 Deadline
LIVE VENTURES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 12 Deadline
LOANDEPOT INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of November 8 Deadline
LONGEVERON INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of November 12 Deadline
LOS ANGELES, CA: Final Judgment Entered in Youth Justice Class Suit
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Bid to Toll Opt-In Period in Hanna FLSA Suit Denied
MONSANTO CO: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Snyder Class Suit
NOSTRAND AVENUE: D. Persaud's Suit Alleges Property Mismanagement
OMNICARE INC: $1M Class Settlement in Davis Suit Wins Final Nod
ONE TECHNOLOGIES: 5th Cir. Flips Arbitration Denial in Forby Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faulds Class Status Bid Due Dec. 10
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Appeals Remand Order in Jauregui Suit
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Averts Class Action Over Stock Trading Halt
S&W INVESTMENTS: Figuero Slams Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay
SAINT-GOBAIN: Jan. 2022 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
SESEN BIO: ClaimsFiler Reminds of October 18 Deadline
SESEN BIO: Gross Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline
SOCLEAN INC: Faces Class Action Over CPAP Sanitizing Products
SOUTH DAKOTA: Faces Class Action Over Sinkhole Damages
SRP INVESTMENTS: Court Dismisses Jovanovic TCPA Suit With Prejudice
STATE FARM: Whitman Wins Class Certification Bid
TESLA INC: To Honor Solar Roof Prices on Signed Contracts
UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: Class Settlement in Hilaire Suit Has Prelim. OK
VALENTINO U.S.A.: Rosario Loses Bid to Certify Collective Action
VIEW INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 18 Deadline
VOLTAGE PICTURES: Torys Attorneys Discuss Appeals Court Ruling
WALMART INC: Hollins Files 9th Cir. Appeal in False Ad Suit
WALT DISNEY: Disneyland Cast Members Join Wage Class Action
WATERBURY, CT: Vacation of Arbitration Award in Brass Suit Reversed
WATERDROP INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 15 Deadline
WATERDROP INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 15 Deadline
WATERDROP INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of November 15 Deadline
WATERDROP INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 15 Deadline
WATERDROP INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
WESTERN FLYER: Beissel Suit Moved From N.D. to W.D. Oklahoma
WYETH INC: California Medical Institutions Get Settlement Funds
[*] Winston & Strawn Launches Class Action Insider Blog
*********
321 HENDERSON: Dockery Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff LARRY G. DOCKERY filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled LARRY G. DOCKERY, On behalf of
himself and All others similarly situated v. STEPHEN E. HERETICK,
321 HENDERSON RECEIVABLES LLC, J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS LLC,
SENECA ONE FINANCE, INC., STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT INVESTMENTS, LP,
STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PURCHASER, JOHN DOE INC. PURCHASER DEFENDANTS
1-100, and JOHN DOE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 1-100, and NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, SYMMETRA
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOE INC. INSURORS 1-50, Nominal
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04114-MMB, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 20, 2021, Judge
Chad F. Kenney granted the Defendants' Motions for Summary
Judgment.
In this civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
case, the Plaintiff alleges the existence of an unlawful scheme
between companies who purchase future structured settlement annuity
payments, an attorney who represented those companies in connection
with such transactions, and other persons to obtain structured
settlement payments from unsophisticated beneficiaries on unfair
terms.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the order granting summary
judgment to the Defendants. He also requests the Court to review
the Order dated July 12, 2021, denying his motion to compel as
untimely, and Court's Order dated Sept. 1, 2021, denying his
amended motion for class certification.
The appellate case is captioned as Larry Dockery v. Stephen
Heretick, et al., Case No. 21-2753, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Sept. 21, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LARRY G. DOCKERY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jonathan Auerbach, Esq.
Jerome M. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & AUERBACH
1121 North Bethlehem Pike, Suite 60-242
Spring House, PA 19477
Telephone: (215) 885-2250
E-mail: auerbach@marcusauerbach.com
jmarcus@marcusauerbach.com
- and -
Thomas E.L. Dewey, Esq.
L. Lars Hulsebus, Esq.
David S. Pegno, Esq.
DEWEY PEGNO & KRAMARSKY
777 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 943-9000
Defendants-Appellees STEPHEN E. HERETICK, 321 HENDERSON RECEIVABLES
LLC, J G WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS LLC, and SENECA ONE FINANCE INC.
are represented by:
Kathleen M. Carson, Esq.
Jeffrey B. McCarron, Esq.
SWARTZ CAMPBELL
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, 38th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 299-4272
E-mail: jmccarron@swartzcampbell.com
- and -
Brian H. Callaway, Esq.
Joseph C. Crawford, Esq.
Samuel D. Harrison, Esq.
Charles S. Marion, Esq.
A. Christopher Young, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS
3000 Two Logan Square
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 981-4428
E-mail: crawfordjc@pepperlaw.com
- and -
Samuel W. Cortes, Esq.
Melissa E. Scott, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD
747 Constitution Drive, Suite 100
Exton, PA 19341
Telephone: (610) 458-4966
E-mail: scortes@foxrothschild.com
mscott@foxrothschild.com
Nominal Respondents NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. and METLIFE
INSURANCE CO. are represented by:
Stephen R. Harris, Esq.
Susan J. Stauss, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
1650 Market Street
One Liberty Place, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-4121
3M COMPANY: Bageant Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BAGEANT v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03079-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 22,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Bageant case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Beasley Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME BEASLEY JR., v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03065-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 22,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Beasley suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[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
3M COMPANY: Beyuka Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICKEY BEYUKA, JR., v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03051-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 22,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Beyuka suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Gacki Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN DAVID GACKI JR., v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03066-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 22,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Gacki suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[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
3M COMPANY: Hickey Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE THOMAS HICKEY, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03067-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 22,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Hickey suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[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
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 20 disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of securities of Aclaris Therapeutics,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRS):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
To: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ACLARIS
THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES BETWEEN MAY 8, 2018 AND AUGUST 12,
2019, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York that a hearing
will be held on November 30, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Lewis J. Liman, United States District Judge of the
Southern District of New York, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 15C, New York, New York 10007 for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$2,650,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses, and a Compensatory Award to Lead
Plaintiff should be approved; and (4) whether this Litigation
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement dated July 30, 2021 (the "Settlement Stipulation").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc.
("Aclaris" or the "Company") Securities between May 8, 2018 and
August 12, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including
the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating
to your ownership interest in Aclaris Securities. If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you
may obtain copies by visiting www.strategicclaims.net or by
contacting the Claims Administrator toll-free at (866) 274-4004 or
at info@strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form to the
Claims Administrator at: Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., c/o
Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street,
Suite 205, Media, PA 19063, Telephone: (866) 274-4004, Fax: (610)
565-7985, postmarked no later than December 7, 2021, or
electronically no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on December 7, 2021 at
www.strategicclaims.net, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than November 9, 2021, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
November 9, 2021, by each of the following:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Lead Counsel
Jeremy A. Lieberman
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, Floor 20
New York, NY 10016
Counsel For Defendants
Bruce G. Vanyo
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
575 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Jason C. Vigna
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
Chrysler Center 666 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may visit
www.strategicclaims.net or write to Lead Counsel at the above
address or call Lead Counsel at (212) 661-1100.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
Dated: August 18, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]
AETNA LIFE: Deighton Sues Over Denied Insurance Claims
------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA DEIGHTON, on his own behalf and on behalf of his beneficiary
son, C.D., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-07558 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 21, 2021) arises from the Defendant's unlawful conduct
in administering employer-sponsored health care plans, including
making coverage and benefit determinations under the terms and
conditions of the health care plans, that are governed by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The complaint alleges that Aetna breached their fiduciary duties to
the class members by relying on the incorrect standard when
reviewing class members' claims. Allegedly, the Defendant denied
the insurance claims for residential treatment for mental health
disorders submitted by Plaintiff and other class members in
violation of the terms of Plaintiff's Plan and the plans insuring
other class members.
By engaging in the alleged misconduct, including denying
Plaintiff's claims, Defendant caused itself and its corporate
affiliates to be unjustly enriched as they were not required to pay
benefit claims and/or claims under the relevant stop-loss policies,
added the suit.
The Plaintiff was at all relevant times a participant under a
self-funded Aetna Plan arranged through his employer, Fox
Entertainment Group, LLC. He brings this action on behalf of
himself, his minor son C.D., and all others similarly situated.
Aetna Life Insurance Company administers and makes benefit
determinations related to ERISA group health care plans around the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Omar G. Qureshi, Esq.
QURESHI LAW PC
1625 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Telephone: (213) 315-5442
Facsimile: (213) 277-8989
E-mail: omar@qureshi.law
- and -
L. David Russell, Esq.
RUSSELL LAW, PC
1500 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 500
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (323) 638-7551
E-mail: david@russelllawpc.com
- and -
Brian M. Adesman, Esq.
MILLER ADESMAN, PLC
355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 877-8142
E-mail: adesman@qureshi.law
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Trump Judges Reversed District Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Mincberg, writing for People for The American Way, reports
that Trump Third Circuit judge Paul Matey, joined by Trump judge
David Porter, reversed a district court and ruled that the court
must determine whether state law requires an Amazon driver to
arbitrate his individual claim and thus could not pursue a class
action contending that the corporation improperly treated drivers
as independent contractors and failed to pay them minimum wages and
overtime. The September 2021 decision was in Harper v Amazon.com
Services, Inc.
Robert Harper is a New Jersey driver who delivers packages for
Amazon. He filed a lawsuit against Amazon on behalf of himself and
similar "Amazon Flex" drivers in New Jersey, contending that Amazon
improperly treats them as independent contractors rather than
employees and fails to pay them minimum wages and overtime that
they should receive under New Jersey law. Amazon claimed that the
case could not proceed, and that Harper had to arbitrate his
individual claims against it pursuant to the standard agreement he
executed, which stated that all disputes were to be resolved by
arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The
district court rejected Amazon's motion and ordered limited
discovery to help determine whether the FAA did not apply to Harper
and other New Jersey drivers because they make deliveries across
state lines (principally to New York) so that the class action
could proceed. Amazon appealed.
In a 2-1 decision, Trump judges Matey and Porter reversed and ruled
for Amazon. They maintained that rather than ordering limited
discovery to quickly resolve the issue of whether Hodges could be
required to arbitrate under the FAA, the lower court should have
first determined whether the agreement "requires arbitration under
any applicable state law," and only then return to the FAA issue.
The result will clearly delay the resolution of whether the class
action can proceed as the court considers a "possibly challenging
set of legal questions," but according to the majority, is more
consistent with precedent and respect for the "balance of
authority" between state and federal law.
Judge Patty Shwartz firmly dissented. She explained that, contrary
to the majority's view, the district court had "followed the plain
language" of the agreement and "faithfully applied binding
precedent," rather than seeking now to resolve "tricky state law
issues" concerning arbitration. Specifically, she went on, the
agreement makes clear that the FAA and "federal law will govern"
any dispute between the parties, so it made sense for the district
court to follow precedent and determine first whether Hodges and
other class members are subject to the FAA, and only then look at
state law issues if necessary. Shwartz noted that in two other
cases concerning "the very agreement" with Amazon "at issue" in
this case, two other federal appellate courts had similarly
examined the FAA issue first, and one concluded that state law did
not apply so that the class action could proceed. The district
court's ruling, Shwartz concluded, should have been affirmed "in
all respects."
Instead, as a result of the decision by Trump judges Matey and
Porter, there will be at minimum a substantial delay before it is
determined whether Hodges' class action against Amazon for
violation of minimum wage and other laws can proceed, and a
troubling precedent has been set for future cases involving large
corporations that similarly insist on arbitration clauses in their
agreements with workers. The case is yet another example of the
importance, as part of our fight for our courts, of the Senate
continuing to promptly confirm Biden nominees to the Third Circuit
and elsewhere who will not seek to bend the law to favor
corporations over workers. [GN]
ANNOVIS BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Annovis Bio, Inc. ("Annovis Bio") (NYSE: ANVS)
between May 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/annovis-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19696&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Annovis Bio, Inc. NEWS - ANVS NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) Annovis'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 of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Annovis
Bio, you have until October 18, 2021 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Annovis Bio securities between May
21, 2021 and July 28, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/annovis-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19696&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
ANNOVIS BIO: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 19 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]
AQ TEXTILES: Adam Appeals Product Liability Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Elizabeth Adam and Rebecca Foley filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ELIZABETH ADAM and
REBECCA FOLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AQ TEXTILES LLC, and CREATIVE TEXTILE MILLS PVT. LTD.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00520-LCB-JLW, in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro.
The Plaintiffs bring this action under federal and state law
alleging that Defendants have "deceive[d] and [misled] consumers
into believing that Defendants' bedding and linen products had
higher thread counts than they really have." The Plaintiffs seek
relief on behalf of themselves and on behalf of putative classes
who are similarly situated.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated Aug. 6, 2021, dismissing their amended complaint
for lack of standing under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S.
Constitution.
The appellate case is captioned as Elizabeth Adam v. AQ Textiles
LLC, Case No. 21-2033, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on Sept. 21, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on Nov. 1, 2021; and
-- Response Brief is due on Dec. 1, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ELIZABETH ADAM, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; and REBECCA FOLEY, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Scott Crissman Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
501 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
Defendants-Appellees AQ TEXTILES LLC and CREATIVE TEXTILE MILLS
PVT. LTD are represented by:
Ryan Clifford Fairchild, Esq.
BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP
115 North 3rd Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Telephone: (910) 444-2000
E-mail: rfairchild@brookspierce.com
- and -
Andrew Leigh Rodenbough, Esq.
Jennifer K. Van Zant, Esq.
BROOKS PIERCE, LLP
P. O. Box 26000
Greensboro, NC 27420
Telephone: (336) 271-2570
E-mail: arodenbough@brookspierce.com
jvanzant@brookspierce.com
ASCENSION HEALTH: Weddington Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
LYNETTE WEDDINGTON on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. ASCENSION HEALTH SENIOR CARE d/b/a ASCENSION LIVING,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05033 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 22, 2021) seeks to recover
unpaid compensation (including overtime compensation), statutory
and liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate. pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Illinois' Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois' Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
The Plaintiff brings her FLSA cause of action individually and her
IMWL and IWPCA claims and causes of action on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt Associates of Defendant who worked in the State of
Illinois for purposes of obtaining relief under the said laws.
Allegedly, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system
that deprived current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Associates
of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each
workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time from said
employees' hours worked each workweek by impermissibly rounding
their recorded hours of work for its own benefit (and to the
detriment of said employees), and then compensating said employees
based on their rounded hours worked.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
125 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 300
Chicago, IL
Telephone: (224) 698-2630
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
AUTOFAIR INC: Bid for Preliminary Injunction in Daly Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN DALY, DAVID C. THOMAS, PAUL T. SILVA, and DIANE
INGRAM v. AUTOFAIR INC., HAVERHILL FORD, LLC, HAVERHILL SUBARU,
LLC, H. ANDREW CREWS, and DAVID HAMEL, Civil Action No.
21-10911-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the
Petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Introduction
Petitioners Ryan Daly, David Thomas, Paul Silva, and Diane Ingram
filed the action for declaratory relief asking the Court to issue
an emergency preliminary injunction staying a Massachusetts
Superior Court proceeding in which the class action representatives
have moved for final approval of a settlement of claims for unpaid
wages brought against Defendants AutoFair, Inc., Haverhill Ford,
LLC, Haverhill Subaru, LLC, H. Andrew Crews, and David Hamel.
Because the state court action is brought pursuant to Mass. R. Civ.
P. 23, which lacks an opt-out provision, the Petitioners argue that
their "claims for unpaid wages will be resolved without their
consent and also make moot their separate, individual arbitrations
in which they are pursuing these same claims pursuant to valid,
enforceable arbitration agreements." They assert that the
Defendants' offer to settle the claims of the class for unpaid
wages in the state court action is in violation of the express
terms of their valid, enforceable Mutual Arbitration Agreements for
Employees of AutoFair, "thus running afoul of the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq. (FAA) and federal
preemption law."
In response, the Defendants contend that petitioners' preemption
argument fails as the Arbitration Agreement makes clear that the
Massachusetts Arbitration Act, and not the FAA, governs. They also
contend that the petition for declaratory relief brought in the
federal district court is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA)
and, notwithstanding, the arbitrators in the Petitioners' cases
have found that "even if the FAA did apply, numerous courts have
held that their claims may still be resolved as part of a class
wide settlement."
Background
On May 22, 2018, Alexis Chechowitz, a former AutoFair, Inc. sales
employee, filed an action in Middlesex Superior Court against
AutoFair and others, on behalf of defendants' Massachusetts sales
associates and service advisors, alleging that the Defendants had
failed to properly compensate commissioned employees under the
Massachusetts Wage Act -- Chechowitz v. AutoFair, Inc., C.A. No.
1881-CV-01492. The parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending
decisions from the Massachusetts appellate courts in two cases
impacting Chechowitz's claims -- Laurita Sullivan v. Sleepy's LLC,
C.A. No. 17-12009-RGS (D. Mass. June 6, 2018) (questions certified
to the Supreme Judicial Court), and Cerulo v. Herbert G. Chambers,
C.A. No. 1681-CV-03749 (on appeal to the Massachusetts Appeals
Court). The Superior Court granted the parties' joint motion to
stay on Aug. 28, 2018.
In August of 2019, Chechowitz's counsel informed counsel for
petitioners in the case, Richardson and Cumbo (R&C), of the
Chechowitz class action and ongoing efforts to settle the case on a
class wide basis. Chechowitz's counsel and R&C communicated about
the case throughout 2020.
The Petitioners filed their demands for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) on April 1, 2020. Individual
arbitrations proceeded, and the parties engaged in discovery and
motion practice. On Jan. 2, 2021, the parties in Chechowitz
submitted a class wide settlement agreement to the Superior Court
for approval. AutoFair then moved to stay the Petitioners'
arbitrations pending approval of the class settlement. Each of the
individual arbitrators issued opinions staying their respective
proceedings in deference to the state court case, each noting that
claimants "may raise any concerns that the proposed class action
settlement in Chechowitz does not adequately protect their
interests by objecting to that settlement in the Massachusetts
Superior Court."
The Chechowitz parties moved for preliminary approval of the
settlement on Jan. 20, 2021, and the Petitioners moved to intervene
on Feb. 17, 2021, asking the Superior Court to stay the litigation
and compel arbitration. Judge Wall denied the motion on May 21,
2021, both as to right and permissive intervention, citing the
Petitioners' inaction and unfairness to the remaining class. The
Petitioners appealed the ruling on May 28, 2021, and filed the
action on June 1, 2021.
Discussion
The AIA provides that state court proceedings may be enjoined by
district courts in only three specific circumstances: "A court of
the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings
in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress,
or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or
effectuate its judgments." The AIA, which is based on the
"fundamental constitutional independence of the States," reflects
Congress' adoption of a policy "under which state proceedings
'should normally be allowed to continue unimpaired by intervention
of the lower federal courts, with relief from error, if any,
through the state appellate courts and ultimately the Supreme
Court.'"
On entering employment with AutoFair, the Petitioners signed the
Arbitration Agreement. In their Reply, the Petitioners argue that
the AIA permits the Court to enjoin the state court proceedings as
"necessary in aid of its jurisdiction."
However, Judge Stearns holds that the policy favoring arbitration
confines the role of the federal court in arbitration disputes to
issues of arbitrability and the confirmatory (and for the most
part, ministerial) approval of an award. As the purpose of the
Petitioners' lawsuit is to stay the Chechowitz (state court)
proceedings in favor of their individual arbitrations, there is no
jurisdiction in the Court and the AIA therefore applies.
Moreover, Judge Stearns finds that the arbitrators in the
Petitioners' cases have ruled on the matter. While the Petitioners
may believe that these rulings are in error, Judge Stearns "'cannot
pass on an arbitrator's alleged errors of law and, absent fraud,
the Court has no business overruling an arbitrator because it gives
a contract a different interpretation.'"
Order
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Stearns denied the Petitioners'
motion for a preliminary injunction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/vvvekwkc from Leagle.com.
AVEMCO INSURANCE: HK Holdings Suit Remanded to Cir. Ct. in Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HK HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff v. AVEMCO INSURANCE
COMPANY; JOHN DOES 1-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE ENTITIES 1-20; DOE
INSURANCE ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants, Civ. No. 21-00233 HG-WRP (D.
Haw.), Judge Helen Gillmor of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
The lawsuit is remanded to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaii.
Background
Defendant AVEMCO is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Maryland with its principal place of business
in Maryland. On Oct. 18, 2019, Defendant AVEMCO issued an
Employment Practice Liability Insurance Policy to Plaintiff HK
Holdings for the policy period of Jan. 7, 2020 to Jan. 7, 2021. The
policy covers loss for a "Wrongful Employment Act."
On July 21, 2020, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed against
HK Holdings and several other restaurant owners in the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, Moskowitz v. Ho, et
al., Civ. No. 1CCV-20-0001040 ("Class Action Complaint").
The underlying state court lawsuit is a proposed class action
consisting of: "All past and present non-management employees of
the Restaurants who provided services in connection with the sales
of food and/or beverages at the Restaurants for which a service
charge or gratuity charge was: (a) applied by the Restaurants, (b)
not distributed 100% to said non-management employees as tip
income, and (c) charged to the purchaser of the services without
clear disclosure that the service charge was being used to pay for
costs or expenses other than wages and tips of the non-management
employees providing the services."
The Class Action Suit asserts violations of several Hawaii state
statutes including: (1) Chapter 481B of the Haw. Rev. Stat. for
Unfair and Deceptive Practices; (2) Chapter 480-2 of the Haw. Rev.
Stat. for Unfair Competition and Unfair or Deceptive Acts or
Practices in Trade or Commerce; (3) Chapter 388 of the Haw. Rev.
Stat. for Unlawful Withholding of Wages and Compensation.
Plaintiff HK Holdings tendered the Class Action Complaint to
Defendant AVEMCO seeking coverage pursuant to the Employment
Practice Liability Insurance Policy.
Defendant AVEMCO denied coverage asserting that the Class Action
Complaint did not allege a "Wrongful Employment Act" as defined in
the Insurance Policy and asserted that the claimed damages sought
by the employees did not constitute a "Loss" as defined in the
Policy.
On April 21, 2021, Plaintiff HK Holdings filed a Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment against Defendant AVEMCO in the Circuit Court
for the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. It seeks a declaratory
judgment that Defendant AVEMCO has a duty to defend and a duty to
indemnify HK Holdings against the Proposed Class Action Complaint
filed by its employees.
Defendant AVEMCO removed the Declaratory Judgment Complaint from
Hawaii State Court to the Court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.
Plaintiff HK Holdings filed a Motion to Remand. It asserts that
jurisdiction in the case is discretionary because it consists of
solely a request for declaratory relief and there are no
independent monetary claims. HK Holdings argues that this Federal
Court should decline jurisdiction to avoid needless determinations
of Hawaii state insurance law and to avoid duplicative litigation
with the on-going Class Action Complaint in State Court.
Discussion
I. Diversity Jurisdiction
As a preliminary matter, the Court must consider whether there is
statutory jurisdiction. A lawsuit seeking federal declaratory
relief "must also fulfill statutory jurisdictional prerequisites."
Defendant AVEMCO removed the action based on diversity
jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete
diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
Plaintiff HK Holdings is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of Hawaii with its principal place of
business in Hawaii. Defendant AVEMCO is incorporated in Maryland
with its principal place of business in Maryland. There is complete
diversity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant named in the
Declaratory Judgment Complaint. The case involves a dispute of more
than $75,000.
Judge Gillmor holds that the jurisdictional inquiry does not end
pursuant to diversity jurisdiction in the case. Federal
jurisdiction is discretionary, even when complete diversity is
present, when the complaint is limited to claims for declaratory
judgment.
II. Court's Discretion To Decline To Exercise Jurisdiction
Defendant AVEMCO issued an Employment Practices Liability Insurance
Policy to HK Holdings for a policy period of Jan. 7, 2020 to Jan.
7, 2021. In July 2020, HK Holdings was sued in a Class Action
Complaint by its employees for violations of Hawaii state statutes
involving unfair and deceptive trade practices, unfair competition,
and wage and hour laws.
HK Holdings tendered the Class Action Complaint to AVEMCO seeking
coverage pursuant to the Insurance Policy issued to it from AVEMCO.
AVEMCO denied coverage. It filed a Declaratory Judgment Complaint
seeking a declaration that AVEMCO has a duty to defend and a duty
to indemnify it in the Class Action Suit filed in Hawaii State
Court by its employees. HK Holdings seeks attorneys fees related to
the duty to defend the Class Action Complaint.
Defendant AVEMCO removed the Declaratory Judgment Complaint to the
Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff HK Holdings asks
this Court to remand the Declaratory Judgment Complaint to avoid
the Federal Court from making needless determinations of Hawaii
state insurance law and to avoid inconsistent rulings with the
Class Action Suit in Hawaii State Court.
A. Declaratory Judgment Complaint Does Not Contain A Breach Of
Contract Claim
As an initial matter, Defendant AVEMCO argues that the Court has
mandatory jurisdiction because it alleges that Plaintiff HK
Holdings' Complaint for Declaratory Relief should be construed as a
breach of contract claim.
Judge Gillmor holds that there is no claim for breach of contract
in the Complaint. She holds that Defendant AVEMCO's attempt to
recharacterize the Plaintiff's Declaratory Insurance Complaint as
one for breach of contract has been routinely rejected in the
District. She says, the Defendant's reliance on caselaw from
jurisdictions outside of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is not
persuasive.
HK Holdings' request for attorneys' fees in the Complaint does not
alter the analysis. Judge Gillmor holds that it is well settled
that a request for attorneys' fees relating to a duty to defend
pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 431:10-242 does not render the
exercise of jurisdiction mandatory. Moreover, Plaintiff HK
Holdings' Complaint is limited to declaratory relief. The Federal
District Court analyzes the three factors set forth by the United
States Supreme Court in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316
U.S. 491, 494 (1942) in evaluating whether to decline jurisdiction
over a complaint limited to declaratory relief.
B. The Brillhart Factors
A District Court is under no compulsion to exercise its
jurisdiction when the complaint is limited to declaratory relief.
It may decline jurisdiction based on its evaluation of whether
there is: (1) A Needless Determination Of State Law Issues; (2)
Forum Shopping; and, (3) Duplicative Litigation. The three
Brillhart factors require the District Court to balance concerns of
judicial administration, comity, and fairness.
First, Judge Gillmor holds that the underlying Class Action Suit
brought by HK Holdings' employees is a parallel state court
proceedings. Both the underlying Class Action Suit and the
Declaratory Judgment Complaint involve overlapping factual
circumstances. Both cases require factual determinations as to the
employment practices of Plaintiff HK Holdings. She also finds that
the second factor supports a finding that the federal proceeding
may involve the federal court making unnecessary determinations of
state law. In addition, there is no compelling federal interest in
the case.
Second, the Judge holds that the second Brillhart factor is
neutral. She finds that there is no evidence that the case is
brought merely for procedural fencing and there is no evidence that
Defendant AVEMCO's removal was reactionary or for an improper
purpose. Third, the third Brillhart factor weighs in favor of
declining jurisdiction and remanding proceedings. The Class Action
suit involves overlapping issues with respect to HK Holdings and
its employment practices. In total, the three Brillhart factors
favor the Court remanding proceedings.
C. The Dizol Factors
The Brillhart factors are not exhaustive. The Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals in Dizol explained that the district court should also
consider the following factors: (1) whether the declaratory action
will settle all aspects of the controversy; (2) whether the
declaratory action will serve a useful purpose in clarifying the
legal relations at issue; (3) whether the declaratory action is
being sought merely for the purposes of procedural fencing or to
obtain a res judicata advantage; (4) whether the use of a
declaratory action will result in entanglement between the federal
and state court systems; (5) the convenience of the parties; and,
(6) the availability and relative convenience of other remedies.
First, Judge Gillmor holds that the declaratory action in federal
court will not settle all aspects of the controversy. Proceeding in
federal court could lead to piecemeal litigation. Second, she says,
although the declaratory action would serve a useful purpose in
clarifying the legal relationship between HK Holdings and AVEMCO,
it will not serve to streamline the underlying Class Action
proceedings. Third, the state court forum would provide as
convenient of a forum to the Parties as the Hawaii federal court
and would avoid duplicative litigation. Finally, there are
procedural considerations of maintaining suits in two separate
forums that favor remanding proceedings.
Conclusion
Judge Gillmor concludes that both the Brillhart and Dizol factors
favor that the Court exercise its discretion to remand proceedings.
For these reasons, the Judge granted the Motion to Remand. The case
is remanded to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of
Hawaii for further proceedings. Defendant AVEMCO's Motion to
Dismiss is moot as the matter is remanded to the state court. The
Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the case and all files
herein to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yskpfd2k from Leagle.com.
BANANA REPUBLIC: Shirts Not 100% Supima Cotton, Coglianese Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Coglianese, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Conagra Brands, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-04147 (N.D. Ill., September 17, 2021), seeks to
recover actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs
for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
Banana Republic, LLC manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
Authentic SUPIMA(R) V-Neck T-Shirts purporting to be "100% Supima
Cotton" under the Banana Republic brand. Coglianese purchased said
shirt from Banana Republic's website. She claims that laboratory
analysis of the textile revealed that between most, and all fibers
were shorter than 1.2 and shorter than 1.08 inches, below the range
for Supima cotton and thus is not 100% Supima cotton and contains a
significant amount of less expensive shorter cotton fibers and/or
cotton byproduct fibers. [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
BMO INVESTMENTS: Class Action Over Trailer Fees Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that an
Ontario court has denied a motion from BMO Investments Inc. that
sought leave to appeal an earlier ruling, and the move allows for a
proposed investor class action -- over trailer fees paid to
discount brokers -- to go ahead.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion from BMO, which
specifically sought leave to appeal a decision in May that
certified a class action against the firm on behalf of discount
broker clients that owned BMO funds.
The court certified the case as a class action on May 18, alleging
that the funds in question improperly paid trailer fees to the
discount brokers. The court concluded that there there is a
potentially viable case.
None of the allegations have been proven.
Back in 2018, a series of class actions were filed against several
fund companies on the same grounds -- charging that they improperly
paid trailer fees to discount brokers, which don't provide advice
to investors. These cases have yet to be certified.
A similar case against TD Asset Management Inc. was also certified
as a class action in 2020, and the bank's bid to appeal that
certification decision also was rejected.
The Canadian Securities Administrators have taken action in this
area, adopting rules that ban discount brokers from receiving
trailers. Those rules take effect June 1, 2022. [GN]
BOSTON BEER: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 15 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Sept. 15 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
The Boston Beer Company, Inc. ("Boston Beer" or the "Company")
(NYSE: SAM) securities between April 22, 2021 and September 8,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Boston Beer investors have
until November 15, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Boston Beer investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On July 22, 2021, after the market closed, Boston Beer reduced its
full year 2021 guidance, expecting earnings per share between $18
and $22, down from a prior range of $22 and $26. The Company cited
softer-than-expected sales in the hard seltzer category and overall
beer industry and also stated that it had "overestimated the growth
of the hard seltzer category in the second quarter."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $246.54, or 26%, to
close at $701.00 per share on July 23, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On September 8, 2021, after the market closed, Boston Beer withdrew
its 2021 financial guidance, citing decelerating sales of hard
seltzer products. The Company also stated that it "expects to incur
hard seltzer-related inventory write-offs, shortfall fees payable
to 3rd party brewers, and other costs" for the remainder of fiscal
2021.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $21.09, or 3.7%, to
close at $538.31 per share on September 9, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Boston Beer's hard seltzer sales were
decelerating; (2) that, as a result, Boston Beer was reasonably
likely to incur inventory write-offs; (3) that the Company was
reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable to third party
brewers; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Boston Beer's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Boston Beer securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
BRADLEY COUNTY, TN: Fact Discovery in Eden Suit Due Dec. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRELL EDEN; RANDY BACON;
ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER BROWN; through personal representative Paula
Rhea Brown; ESTATE OF MARTIN CHOUINARD, through administrator ad
litem April Hancock; SANDRA CULBERTSON; ESTATE OF DENISE CULPEPPER,
through personal representative April Richard; LAURA FULLER; ESTATE
OF BRANDON GASH, b/n/k Harry and Sheryl Gash; BENJAMIN NEWTON
HANNAH, KRIS HOLDER, AMANDA LENNIE; SHELBY LONG; TERA MILLER; BRYAN
WAMPLER; and SHARON WATERS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and AVERY L. SHARP; CHELSEA COULTER; KENDRA
MICKEL; and ZACHARY GUINN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BRADLEY COUNTY, TENNESSEE; SHERIFF STEVE
LAWSON, in his official capacity; CAPTAIN JERRY JOHNSON, JR., in
his official capacity; ERIC WATSON, in his individual capacity; and
CAPTAIN GABRIEL THOMAS, in his individual capacity, Case No.
1:18-cv-00217-CH (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Christopher H. Steger
entered an order that:
1. The Fact Discovery deadline is Wednesday, December 15,
2021;
2. A Case Management Conference is set in Courtroom 1B on
Friday, December 17, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to determine the
process and briefing schedule for ruling on a class
certification motion.
3. All other deadlines and directives in the Second Amended
Scheduling Order and First Amended Scheduling Order not
expressly amended by this Order remain in full force
and effect.
Bradley County is a county located in the southeastern portion of
the U.S. state of Tennessee. As of the 2020 census, the population
was 108,620, making it the thirteenth most populous county in
Tennessee.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m7so3h at no extra charge.[CC]
BRECKENRIDGE GRAND: Conditional Certification Bid in McMahon Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARTHUR McMAHON, Plaintiff v. BRECKENRIDGE GRAND
VACATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-cv-00754-CMA-STV (D.
Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification and to Facilitate Notice.
Background
The case is a putative FLSA collective action. the Defendant
operates four shared ownership, or "timeshare," properties in
Breckenridge, Colorado. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a
"sales broker," assisting clients purchasing ownership interests in
one or more of its properties, beginning at some time between 1997
and 1999. The Defendant fired the Plaintiff in 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant incorrectly classified him
as an independent contractor rather than an employee, and that it
failed to pay him overtime wages and other benefits throughout his
employment. The Plaintiff also alleges that other workers
classified as independent contractors by Defendant may be similarly
situated to him.
The Plaintiff now moves the Court for an order conditionally
certifying the case as a class action on behalf of "all current and
former sales personnel of the Defendant working anywhere in the
United States between three years prior to the date the Complaint
was filed and the present."
The Plaintiff argues that class treatment is appropriate in this
case because the "Defendant's pay policies impact all sales
personnel in the same manner and all sales personnel have similar
job duties and compensation." The Defendant counters that the
Plaintiff has not provided enough information in his Complaint and
Motion to establish that he is similarly situated to anyone else
working for the Defendant currently or in the past.
Discussion
A. Conditional Certification
Judge Arguello finds that the Plaintiff has carried his minimal
initial burden to demonstrate that class treatment is appropriate
at this stage in the case. The Judge explains that to obtain
preliminary class-action certification under the FLSA, a plaintiff
need only assert "substantial allegations that the putative class
members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or
plan." She finds that the Plaintiff has done so in the case.
Specifically, Judge Arguello finds that the Plaintiff alleged in
his Complaint and Motion that the "Defendant's business practices
apply to and affect the members of the Class uniformly"; that the
Plaintiff's challenge of the Defendant's practices hinges on its
conduct with respect to the Class as a whole"; and that the
Defendant's "pay policies impact all sales personnel in the same
manner." In support of these allegations, the Plaintiff attached to
his Complaint and Motion copies of the Defendant's "Office Policy
Manual" and other forms sent to him by the Defendant that further
support the notion that its policies applied to most, if not all,
of its sales personnel, not just the Plaintiff.
Judge Arguello finds that the Plaintiff's allegations, in
combination with the supporting documents he has provided,
constitute "substantial allegations that the putative class members
were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan."
Therefore, conditional certification of a FLSA collective action is
appropriate in the case.
The Defendant's arguments against certification are unpersuasive.
The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiff failed to show that
he, or any member of the proposed class of plaintiffs, can be
classified as an employee under the FLSA.
Judge Arguello holds that this argument fails as a matter of law.
As established, she asys, at this early stage the Court "does not
weigh evidence, resolve factual disputes, or rule on the merits of
the plaintiffs' claims." Consequently, the Plaintiff does not need
to prove that he, or anyone else, should have been classified as an
employee under the law. Rather, he need only allege that a class of
potential employees exists and that those employees were impacted
by the same single decision, policy, or plan that allegedly
violates the FLSA. As discussed, he has done so. The Defendant's
arguments to the contrary are premature.
The Defendant next argues that even if the Plaintiff, or any
potential class member, could be classified as an employee, the
case would still not be appropriate for class treatment because
Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that he is similarly
situated to any potential class member.
This argument also fails, Judge Arguello finds. She says, the
burden on the Plaintiff at this stage is low. To meet this minimal
burden, the Plaintiff provided the Court with allegations of
Defendant's business practices, along with supporting documents
that, collectively, indicate a pattern of similar treatment by the
Defendant of all its sales personnel. Therefore, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiff has met the lenient standard at this stage of
the litigation and has provided "substantial allegations" that all
of the putative class members were "together victims of a single
decision, policy, or plan."
B. Notice
The Plaintiff also moves the Court to grant him 14 days after the
granting of this Motion to submit a proposed notice plan to the
Court, and for the Court to order the Defendant to produce a
computer-readable database with names and contact information of
the potential class members.
In light of her conclusion that conditional certification of a FLSA
collective action is appropriate in the case, Judge Arguello holds
that the Plaintiff may submit his proposed notice plan to the Court
for review. Upon submission of the notice plan, the Court will
review the proposed notice to ensure that it is fair and accurate
and no alterations to the notice are necessary.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Arguello granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification and to Facilitate Notice.
A FLSA collective action of the following individuals is hereby
conditionally certified: "All current and former sales personnel of
Defendant working anywhere in the United States between three years
prior to the date the Complaint was filed and the present."
The Plaintiff is authorized to submit his proposed notice plan to
the Court for review within 14 days of the date of entry of the
Order.
The Defendant is ordered to provide the Plaintiff with a list of
contact information for said individuals within 14 days of the date
of entry of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5k9bxu5u from Leagle.com.
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Over Plum Organics Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges certain Plum Organics baby and toddler foods
are misbranded in that the pouches' labels display nutrient content
claims that are strictly prohibited by the Food and Drug
Administration.
The 24-page case moreover alleges Plum Organics makers Campbell
Soup Company and Sun-Maid Growers of California have deceived
consumers by labeling the pureed products in a manner that leads
buyers to believe they're healthier than other toddler and baby
foods made for children under two years old. The plaintiff, a
Berkley, California resident, alleges the companies' apparent
misbranding of Plum Organics products has led consumers to pay a
premium price on the basis of unapproved health claims.
Per the complaint, Campbell Soup Company and Sun-Maid Growers of
California, in an ever-expanding baby and toddler food industry,
have turned to making nutrient content claims, such as, among
others, "3g Protein," "4g Fiber," "7 Essential Nutrients," "Good
Source of Vit. C," "Nutrient-Dense Blend," "24 mg choline," "200mg
Omega-3 ALA from Chia" and "Mighty Protein & Fiber," on the front
of product labels. The companies' advertising and label claims,
according to the suit, are "unlawful, misleading, deceptive, and
intended to induce consumers to buy the Products at a premium
price" given they create the false impression that the toddler and
baby foods will provide more nutrition benefits than those sold by
competitors.
Plum Organics pouches are labeled in this manner despite "a lack of
evidence that an increased intake for the nutrients advertised are
appropriate or recommended for infants and toddlers less than 2
years of age," the case says.
Under FDA nutrition content labeling regulations, "no nutrient
content claims may be made on food intended specifically for use by
infants and children less than 2 years of age," subject to certain
exceptions "not applicable here," the lawsuit says.
"The Products at issue in this case are intended for children 6
months and up," the complaint states, alleging the labels of the
Plum Organics products contain impermissible express nutrient
content claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent all persons in the United States who
bought any of the above-listed products between May 27, 2017 and
the present. [GN]
CANADA: Canadians Stranded in Morocco File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Logal Leo, writing for Queens Citizen, reports that hundreds of
permanent residents are still stranded in Morocco as Canada has
suspended direct flights from the Maghreb.
Montreal novel Benroywane, who experienced this situation, feels
that the Canadian government has disappointed its nationals.
So the lawyer decided to file a class action lawsuit.
The latter was in Morocco in late August with her three children.
After being vaccinated twice, the family learned that returning to
the country on Saturday evening would be banned the next day and
for a month.
"I still have nightmares that I'm still at the airport and I'm
going to lose my plane there, waking up my kids in a disaster," the
novel Benrovan said.
In her class action lawsuit against Transport Canada, the Montreal
attorney did not compete for the closure of the borders, but the
deadline to apply this measure.
So far, the government has given the pilgrims more time to return
to the country, his lawyer defended.
The applicant claimed $ 4000 in costs and refundable and ideal
damages reimbursement for return air tickets through third
countries. [GN]
CERCA TROVA: Faces Barcenas Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, FELIPE BARCENAS, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CERCA TROVA
STEAKHOUSE, L.P., OUT WEST RESTAURANT GROUP, and DOES 1 to 100,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00038689-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct.,
September 10, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from July 2019 to April
2021 as a line cook.
Throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees were allegedly not provided
compliant meal and rest periods by the Defendants. The Defendants
purportedly would automatically clock them out for breaks even if
they were not taking breaks. The Defendants also failed to provide
them with accurate wage statements. Moreover, the Defendants failed
to compensate them for all hours they had worked, including
overtime compensation at the mandatory overtime rate, says the
suit.
The Corporate Defendants operate restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Rose, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, #2074
Calabasas, CA 91302
Tel: (818) 914-3433
Fax: (818) 914-3433
E-mail: adam@frontierlawcenter.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Salomon Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Wage Slips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bobyrobson Salomon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Charter Communications, LLC, and Does 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV34308 (Cal. Super.,
September 17, 2021), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for
failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition
Law of the California Business and Professions Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders including wrongful
termination in violation of public policy and anticipatory breach
of contract.
Salomon worked as a non-exempt, hourly Customer Service
Representative for Charter Communications in Sonoma County,
California. He claims not to receive final wages at the time of his
termination, worked without meal and rest periods, nor compensation
in lieu thereof, worked in excess of eight hours per workday or in
excess of forty hours per workweek without receiving compensation
at a rate of one and one half the regular rate of pay, received
inaccurately itemized and deficient wage statements, and not paid
in a timely manner pertaining to the waiting time penalties. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Telephone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
Email: Roman@OLFLA.com
CLASSIC DINING: Pays Servers Sub-Minimum Hourly Wages, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Constance Amos, Seanetta Johnson, Chris Lanpher, Magdelyne Looper,
Crystal Ross, and Brian Pettingill, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Classic
Dining Group, LLC, an Indiana corporation; Classic Dining Kentucky
Ave, Inc., an Indiana corporation; Classic Dining of Daleville,
LLC, an Indiana Corporation; Classic Dining of Greenwood, Inc., an
Indiana Corporation; Classic Dining Post Road, Inc., an Indiana
Corporation; and Ken Kilberger, Case No. 1:19-cv-03193-JRS-DLP
(S.D. Ind., Sept. 22, 2021) alleges that Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees all earned
minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have a policy or
practice of paying their employee servers sub-minimum hourly wages
under the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA.
Under the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA, an employer of tipped
employees may, under certain circumstances, pay those employees
less than the minimum hourly wage and take a "tip credit" against
its minimum wage obligations.
The Defendants employed Plaintiffs to perform various tipped and
non-tipped duties, including, but not limited to, serving drinks
and food to customers, cleaning, busing tables, washing dishes,
fulfilling online take-out and delivery orders, and other side
work.
Defendant Kilberger owns and operates approximately 29 Denny's
restaurants, which are the subject of this lawsuit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
E-mail: cliff@bswages.com
- and -
James L. Simon,Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road, Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
E-mail: james@bswages.com
COMFORCARE SENIOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Morgan Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
TANISHA MORGAN, individually and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
COMFORCARE SENIOR SERVICES, and MIKE SLUDER, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00709 (M.D. Tenn., September 10, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants to provide
in-home caregiving services to the Defendants' clients and
customers at the Defendants' direction ad control, alleges that the
Defendants failed to properly compensate her and other similarly
situated employees for all hours they had worked. Despite regularly
working more than 40 hours during the regular workweek, the
Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff adds.
ComforCare Senior Services provides in-home caregiving services to
customers in the middle Tennessee areas. Mike Sluder is the
President of ComforCare. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark T. Freeman, Esq.
FREEMAN & FUSON
2126 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37212
Tel: (615) 298-7272
Fax: (615) 298-7274
E-mail: mark@freeanfuson.com
CONTACTUS LLC: Bunker Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAYLENE BUNKER, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CONTACTUS, LLC, d/b/a CONTACTUS COMMUNICATIONS c/o
James G. Ryan, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04501-EAS-CMV (S.D.
Ohio, September 10, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective
action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a call center
representative from October 2018 through January 2019.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated call center representatives frequently worked more than 40
hours per week. However, the Defendant failed to count pre-shift
work performed by call center representatives as "hours worked"
even though this unpaid work is an integral and indispensable part
of other principal activities performed by the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated call center representatives. In addition, the
Defendant did not compensate them for the time spent working while
not logged into call programs or any other time spent working to
log into or out of the computer systems, applications, and/or phone
system. As a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated call center
representatives were not properly compensated for all hours worked,
including overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep, and
preserve records of the unpaid work performed by its call center
representatives, the suit alleges.
ContactUs, LLC d/b/a ContactUs Communications operates call centers
in the customer service industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Blvd.
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
DROPBOX INC: December 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 15 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Dropbox, Inc.
(NASDAQ: DBX):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO:
All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Dropbox, Inc. ("Dropbox") common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Registration Statement and Prospectus (the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with Dropbox's March 22, 2018
initial public offering:
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action,
Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II)
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $1,375,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims asserted
or that could have been asserted in the Action.
A hearing will be held on December 2, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Beth Labson Freeman at the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California,
95113, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the
Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated May 14, 2021 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.strategicclaims.net/Dropbox. You may also obtain copies of the
Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at In
re Dropbox, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205, Media, PA
19063, 1-866-274-4004.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than
December 29, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than November 12, 2021,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice no later
than November 12, 2021.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Dropbox, or
its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
Nicholas Porritt, Esq.
1101 30th Street, Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 542-4290
nporritt@zlk.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In re Dropbox, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
(866) 274-4004
www.strategicclaims.net/Dropbox
By Order of the Court [GN]
FIAT CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Defective Demon Hoods Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Perez, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
California judge dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against
Fiat Chrysler, parent company of Dodge, that alleged the company
knew its 2018 Challenger SRT Demon hood scoops were defective.
The lead plaintiff, Brian Garlough, bought a 2018 Dodge Challenger
SRT Demon in July 2018, which features an Air Grabber hood scoop.
Garlough claimed the hood scoop expands, contracts, warps, and
vibrates when the car is in motion, allegedly causing damage to the
car's original factory paint. The class action lawsuit claimed that
Fiat Chrysler knew about this defect, but concealed it in order to
continue to sell the car.
Garlough had already filed three amendments of the class action
lawsuit before this dismissal.
Claims Against Dodge Demon Hood Scoop Too Weak for Court
Garlough's complaint alleged that Dodge advertised the Demon hood
scoop as the largest functional cold air intake hood, which
contradicts Garlough's experience of the hood vibrating and
chipping the paint.
However, Judge Mendez ruled that Fiat Chrysler's statements about
the "hood's general functionality are the kind of generalized,
vague, and unspecific assertions that constitute non-actionable
puffery." Such promotional exaggeration cannot be the basis for
fraud or negligence claims per California law, concluded the judge.
Further, Mendez ruled that not only does chipped paint not pose a
safety hazard, but that such a cosmetic issue does not have to be
disclosed by Fiat Chrysler.
Do you own a Dodge Challenger SRT Demon? Have you experienced any
issues with the hood scoop? Let us know in the comments below!
The plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices of Connor W.
Olson.
The Dodge Demon Hood Scoop Class Action Lawsuit is Garlough, et
al., FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01879-JAM-AC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN]
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Dalrymple Class Cert. Bid Due July 15, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY DALRYMPLE and
WILLIAM SMILING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-00279-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Conrad,
Jr. entered a pretrial order and case management plan as follows:
-- Rule 26 Disclosures: September 17, 2021
-- Discovery Completion: August 15, 2022
-- Expert Reports: April 15, 2022 (plaintiff)
May 16, 2022 (defendant)
-- Mediation: September 1, 2022
-- Class Certification Motion: July 15, 2022
-- Dispositive Motions: September 15, 2022
-- Oral Argument on MSJs: On or before Oct 17, 2022
-- Jury Trial: January 3, 2023
FirstSource Advantage a large debt collection agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iisuUO at no extra charge.[CC]
GRAND CANYON: Little Loses Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carson Little v. Grand
Canyon University, Case No. 2:20-cv-00795-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and appointment of class representative and
class counsel without prejudice.
The Court says Plaintiff proposed the same class definition as in
the complaint and made no attempt to narrow the definition until he
realized that he was not a member of the class as proposed. The
Court declines to craft new definitions on its own without proposed
alternative definitions from Plaintiff. In light of the Court's
determination that Plaintiff is not a member of the proposed
classes and that the current class definition is overbroad, the
parties' remaining arguments are moot, and the Court need not
examine them.
On April 24, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against GCU alleging that 23 university failed to provide proper
refunds of housing expenses, meal plans, and student fees after GCU
sent students home in response to the COVID-19 pandemic during thev
Spring 2020 semester.
The Plaintiff's complaint sought to bring claims on behalf of two
classes: (1) those who paid room and board fees to GCU and (2)
those who paid fees during the Spring 2020 semester.
The complaint brought claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and conversion.
January 29, 2021, the Court ruled on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint.
In its ruling, the Court allowed Plaintiff's breach of contract and
unjust enrichment claims to proceed while dismissing the conversion
claim.
The Plaintiff is a GCU student who paid the cost of room and board
and fees for the Spring 2020 semester. While Plaintiff lists in his
complaint fees which students pay, he did not specify which ones he
paid for the 2019–2020 academic year.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39Inowf at no extra charge.[CC]
HILLSIDE HOLISTIC: Faces Class Action Over Telemarketing Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Hello
Cannabis Vista has been hit with a proposed class action that
alleges the dispensary has unlawfully sent telemarketing text
messages without first securing consumers' consent to do so.
According to the case out of California, defendant Hillside
Holistic, who does business as Hello Cannabis Vista, has violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal law that
prohibits the use of automated dialing equipment to send
non-emergency telemarketing calls and text messages unless the
sender has obtained the recipient's prior express permission to be
contacted.
The lawsuit alleges Hello Cannabis's unlawful telemarketing
campaign has "harm[ed] thousands of consumers" who've received
unsolicited texts advertising the cannabis dispensary's products
and services.
Behind the case is an Orange County, California resident who claims
to have received the following advertisement texts from Hello
Cannabis in May and July 2021:
According to the case, the plaintiff has never provided the
defendant with his express written consent to receive the texts,
which were allegedly sent from the numbers 760-478-2118 and
760-478-2145.
Moreover, the lawsuit claims the plaintiff's cell phone number has
been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since October
2009. Per the suit, it is a violation of the TCPA to place more
than one telemarketing call within a 12-month period to a number
listed on the Do Not Call Registry without the recipient's
consent.
The plaintiff claims to have suffered "actual harm, including
invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion," not to mention inconvenience
and a disruption of his daily life, as a result of the texts. [GN]
HILLSIDE HOLISTIC: Golden Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v HILLSIDE HOLISTIC d/b/a HELLO CANNABIS VISTA,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01591-TWR-BLM (S.D. Cal., September 10,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received numerous
telemarketing text messages from the Defendant on his cellular
telephone number ending in 7424 on or about May 21, 2021, May 28,
2021, and July 20, 2021. The Defendant's text messages purportedly
constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future
purchase of the Defendant's cannabis products. The Plaintiff
asserts that he did not provide the Defendant with his express
written consent to be contacted on his cellular telephone number
that has been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry
since October 21, 2009, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited text messages,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have
suffered actual harm. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals
seeking an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
unsolicited text messaging activity. The Plaintiff also seeks for
actual and statutory damages from the Defendant, as well as
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
deems necessary.
Hillside Holistic d/b/a Hello Cannabis Vista sells cannabis
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Court Resolves Discovery Disputes in Gau Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD SCOTT GAU, et al., Plaintiffs v. HILLSTONE
RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08250-SVK (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California issued an order on the
disputes over written discovery and the contents of the
Belaire-West notice.
Judge van Keulen held a discovery hearing by Zoom on Sept. 14,
2021, on the disputes over written discovery and the contents of
the Belaire-West notice in the case. Her rulings on the written
discovery disputes are contained in Exhibit A.
Judge van Keulen ordered the Parties to promptly submit a
stipulation incorporating the Court's rulings on the record
regarding the Belaire-West notices. Should disputes arise during
the 30(b)6 deposition on, the Parties are to meet and confer and
submit a joint statement not to exceed three pages.
At the hearing, the Plaintiffs requested a 60-day extension of the
deadlines for the class certification motion, which the Court will
treat as an administrative motion to change time pursuant to Civil
Local Rule 6-3. The Defendant may file a response, not to exceed
three pages.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/na6xts96 from Leagle.com.
HYATT CORP: Parties Seek to Vacate Cert. Reply & Hearing Date
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE CRUMP,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v. HYATT
CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-00295-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order vacating the reply and hearing date on
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On May 6, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class
certification with declarations from putative class members and two
experts.
On July 15, 2021, the Defendant filed its opposition with
declarations from putative class members and one expert.
The parties have reached a proposed settlement and are working on
drafting and finalizing the settlement agreement and approval
motion.
The parties agree that the reply deadline and hearing date on
Plaintiff's motion for class certification should be vacated so
that the parties can focus their resources on drafting and
finalizing the settlement agreement and approval motion.
Hyatt Hotels is an American multinational hospitality company
headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago that manages
and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and vacation
properties.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 20, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ocGHpQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:
R. Rex Parris, Esq.
Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 10th Street West
Lancaster, CA 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
E-mail: rrparris@parrislawyers.com
awheeler@parrislawyers.com
kszeto@parrislawyers.com
rcrist@parrislawyers.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant Hyatt Corporation:
Brian P. Long, Esq.
Michael Afar, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com
mafar@seyfarth.com
JAMES LEBLANC: Court Certifies Class & Subclass in Tellis Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY TELLIS, ET AL., v.
JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL., Case No. 5:18-cv-00541-EEF-MLH (W.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Erny Foote entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and subclass.
-- Class of all prisoners who are or will be subjected to
extended lockdown at David Wade Correctional Center; and
-- subclass consisting of all individuals on extended
lockdown at David Wade Correctional Center who have or are
perceived as having a qualifying disability related to
mental health, as defined within the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Court says that the Plaintiffs have established the
requirements to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2). Because
Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(2).
This is a suit for injunctive relief, not money damages. Before the
Court is a motion for class certification, filed by Plaintiffs
Bruce Charles, Carlton Turner, Larry Jones, and Ronald Brooks.
David Wade Correctional Center (DWCC) is prison located in
Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. The facility is divided into two
compounds -- the North Compound and the South Compound.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3idCjTZ at no extra charge.[CC]
JEONG YOOK: Denied Kitchen Staff Proper Wages, Evaristo Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Gervacio Evaristo, Julio Reyes, and Ricardo Mendez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jeong Yook
Inc. and Jae Yong Son, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05171 (E.D. N.Y.,
September 17, 2021), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to
recover unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated
damages, statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
Defendants operate a Korean restaurant named "Jeong Yook Korean
BBQ," where Plaintiffs worked as kitchen workers. They claim that
they did not receive the statutory minimum wage, overtime pay for
hours worked over forty per week or spread-of-hours pay and,
additionally, did not receive wage notices, or wage statements at
the end of each pay period. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Galen C. Baynes, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 583-9500
Fax: (212) 308-8582
Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
baynes@pechmanlaw.com
JUUL LABS: CUSD to Join Class Action Lawsuit Over E-Cigarettes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Sain, writing for SaTan Sun News, reports that the Chandler
Unified School District is joining more than 100 others across the
country in going after the vaping industry.
The Governing Board voted at its Aug. 25 meeting to join current
litigation against Juul Labs, the largest seller of e-cigarettes in
the U.S.
"The purpose of the litigation is to compensate school districts
for their damages, and expenses, enforcing their rules that prevent
electronic cigarettes, and vaping inside schools and near school
grounds," said Joel Sannes, a lawyer at Udall Shumway which is
working with the district.
Sannes told the board at the meeting the three law firms behind the
litigation approached the district to see if they wished to be part
of it. About 160 districts around the country, including several in
Arizona, have already agreed to join the lawsuit
The three law firms working together in this case are Keller
Rohrback, Grant Woods, and the Law Office of Joseph C. Tann.
They claim Juul marketed its products to teens and children. As a
result, youth nicotine use has been on the rise. The use of tobacco
products fell by 73 percent among high school students from 2000 to
2017. That changed after Juul started selling its products in 2015.
In 2017 and 2018 the number of American teens using tobacco jumped
40 percent.
A Stanford University School of Medicine study concluded Juul's
advertising was "patently youth oriented" with vivid colors,
youthful models and candy-like flavors.
It claimed there was an 80 percent increase in high school students
vaping. It also found a 50 percent increase in the number of middle
school students using e-cigarettes.
Lawsuits already filed against Juul say company founders Adam Bowen
and James Monsees set out on a path to "refresh the magic and
luxury of the tobacco category" and reach "consumers who aren't
perfectly aligned with traditional tobacco products" in order to
recreate the lost "ritual and elegance that smoking once
exemplified."
"By design, a cornerstone of the product's commercial success is
its addictive nature," the suit states. "JUUL is, in many ways, the
paradigmatic start-up. It has all the markings of Silicon Valley
success: staggering profit margins, meteoric growth and status as a
cultural phenomenon."
Indeed, the company in three months reached a valuation of $10
billion, according to the suit, which cited statements Monsees has
given in interviews that said internal documents he obtained from
lawsuits against tobacco product manufacturers helped the company
design equally addictive products.
Specific numbers for the Chandler Unified School District were not
available. CUSD Spokesman Terry Locke said the person who compiled
that information recently left for another opportunity.
Locke said the district wants to be compensated for its prevention
and treatment programs, detection devices, as well as time school
resource officers have devoted to enforcement. It also wants to be
compensated for programs designed to help students catch up because
of time missed because of vaping.
He said the district also loses money for every absence caused by
vaping, whether it be because of health issues or suspensions.
The questions the Governing Board asked during the hearing focused
on possible legal costs they would have to pay if the courts ruled
in Juul's favor.
Sannes told them that is a possibility, but not much of one.
"It's highly unlikely, as far as you can get on the scale of highly
unlikely, (that) the District might be required to pay attorneys'
fees if it didn't prevail."
Sannes said it is slightly more possible the District might have to
pay court costs if it ends up on the losing side, but still said
that it unlikely. He said the most likely scenario is this case
will end up being settled out of court.
Juul also faces litigation from a number of state attorneys
general, including Arizona's. The reason it is the main target is
because it controls about 70 percent of the e-cigarette market.
The company has claimed its products are for adult use only.
Critics say it tried to appeal to youth by offering flavors such as
mango, fruit, creme and cucumber.
University of California San Francisco researchers found five to
eight times more nicotine in a Juul pod than in other tobacco
products.
"There should be no easy access to school-age children for
marketing and distribution of vaping products," Locke said.
In a lawsuit joined by Kyrene School District two years ago,
attorneys said, "It is not an overstatement to say that JUUL has
changed the educational experience of students across the nation."
"JUUL use has completely changed school bathrooms - now known as
'the JUUl room' . . . The ubiquity of JUUL use in high school
bathrooms has generated numerous online spoofs about 'the JUUL
room.'
"Kids have also coined the term 'nic sick' - which, as one high
school student explained to CBS News, 'kinda seems like a really
bad flu, like, just out of nowhere. Your face goes pale, you start
throwing up and stuff, and you just feel horrible.'"
The suit says "rampant JUUL use has effectively added another
category to teachers' and school administrators' job descriptions;
many now receive special training to respond to the various
problems that JUUL use presents, both in and out of the
classroom."
"Some schools have responded by removing bathroom doors or even
shutting bathrooms down and schools have banned flash drives to
avoid any confusion between flash drives and JUULs.
"Schools have also paid thousands of dollars to install special
monitors to detect vaping, which they say is a small price to pay
compared to the plumbing repairs otherwise spent as a result of
students flushing vaping paraphernalia down toilets. Other school
districts have sought state grant money to create new positions for
tobacco prevention supervisors, who get phone alerts when vape
smoke is detected in bathrooms."
It also notes that JUUL even targeted summer camps with kids as
young as 8 in an effort to push its vaping products. [GN]
KEITH GILL: Class Action Over Market Manipulation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Luke Plunkett, writing for Kotaku, reports that the last we saw of
DeepFuckingValue, aka Roaring Kitty, aka Keith Gill, he was giving
testimony to Congress and standing accused of market manipulation
over his part in hyping up GameStop stocks earlier this year. Now
his former employer, MassMutual, has been fined over Gill's conduct
while working there.
As The New York Times reports, Gill's, "relentless cheerleading for
shares of GameStop," while employed at MassMutual, was in part the
company's problem. State officials said the company, "failed to
adequately supervise his and other agents' trading and online
activity," and that, "Mr. Gill was carrying out trades on behalf of
three other people not affiliated with MassMutual without the
insurer's approval."
William F. Galvin, the secretary of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts says, "As far as MassMutual is concerned they were
obviously totally at fault for not supervising him. I mean, it was
beyond a small matter of negligence. It was complete and
thorough."
Gill had been working at MassMutual while initially giving GameStop
stock advice on platforms like Reddit and YouTube, and didn't
resign his position until January. In addition to MassMutual not
"adequately supervising" his conduct, he also stood accused of
trading on behalf of three other people without getting his
employer's approval, something a broker needs to do.
This state investigation didn't lead to any charges, and didn't
directly involve Gill. Instead MassMutual has accepted a $4 million
fine, along with agreeing to "an independent compliance review and
other measures," while at the same time refusing to admit guilt or
deny the charges. A separate inquiry into Gill himself and his own
actions remains underway in Massachusetts, as does a class-action
lawsuit.
Gill and others made names for themselves on the WallStreetBets
subreddit for GameStop's stock, which had been in the tank since
the rise of digital game sales starting in mid-2019. Other
observers began to notice that GameStop stock was massively shorted
by some big hedge funds. This would go on to create a feedback loop
by which investors, including amateur traders on commission-free
platforms like Robinhood, could propel the price upward simply by
purchasing more and more of it.
These market dynamics, combined with hype on WallStreetBets, the
ease of making trades on your phone, and moves by big institutional
investors, eventually turned GameStop into a meme stock bubble that
peaked at over $450 in late January, before plummeting back down to
earth in early February. [GN]
KIMPTON HOTEL: Thomas Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAKE THOMAS, SALVATORE
GALATI and JONATHAN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01860-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for class certification on
behalf of:
-- The California Class
"All persons residing in California who booked rooms at
any of Defendant's hotels from the time period of June 11,
2016 to March 9, 2017."
-- The Colorado Class:
"All persons who booked rooms at any of Defendant's hotels
in Colorado from the time period of June 11, 2016 to March
9, 2017;"
-- The Maryland Class
"All persons who booked rooms at any of Defendant's hotels
in Maryland from the time period of June 11, 2016 to March
9, 2017;"
-- The Pennsylvania Class
"All persons who booked rooms at any of Defendant's hotels
in Pennsylvania from the time period of June 11, 2016 to
March 9, 2017;"
-- The New York Class
"All persons who booked rooms at any of Defendant's hotels
in New York from the time period of June 11, 2016 to March
9, 2017;" and
-- The Texas Class
"All persons who booked rooms at any of Defendant's hotels
in Texas from the time period of June 11, 2016 to March 9,
2017."
Between August 10, 2016 and March 9, 2017, the Defendant Kimpton
suffered a data breach which resulted in a loss of valuable
personal data for thousands of customers.
The Plaintiffs have filed the instant class action against Kimpton
alleging that Kimpton breached its contracts with its customers and
violated state consumer protection laws by failing, through its
ostensible agent, Sabre GLBL, Inc., to institute basic minimum
protections for its systems, such as by requiring multi-factor
authentication.
Kimpton Hotel is a San Francisco, California based hotel and
restaurant brand owned by the Intercontinental Hotels Group.
Founded in 1981 by Bill Kimpton and led by Chief Executive Officer
Mike DeFrino, the group was the largest chain of boutique hotels in
the United States in 2011.
A copy of the Plainitffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Y6hCCu
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Class are:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Robert J. Dart, Esq.
Jesse Chen, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12 th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com
jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of CorMedix Inc. (NASDAQ:
CRMD), Koninklijke Philips N.V. (NYSE: PHG), and Sesen Bio, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SESN). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.
CorMedix Inc. (NASDAQ: CRMD)
Class Period: July 8, 2020 to May 13, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 20, 2021
On March 1, 2021, CorMedix issued a press release "announc[ing]
that the [FDA] cannot approve the [new drug application ("NDA")]
for DefenCath . . . in its present form." CorMedix informed
investors that the "FDA noted concerns at the third-party
manufacturing facility after a review of records requested by FDA
and provided by the manufacturing facility."
On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $5.98 per share, or
39.87%, to close at $9.02 per share on March 1, 2021.
Then on March 13, 2021, CorMedix announced that "[b]ased on our
analyses, we have concluded that additional process qualification
will be needed with subsequent validation to address the
deficiencies identified by FDA."
On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
19.97%, to close at $6.05 per share on May 14, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (ii) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath NDA for
catheter-related bloodstream infections ("CRBSIs") in its present
form; (iii) Defendants had downplayed the true scope of the
deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the
facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the CorMedix class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CRMD
Koninklijke Philips N.V. (NYSE: PHG)
Class Period: February 25, 2020 to June 11, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 15, 2021
On June 14, 2021, Philips issued a voluntary recall of certain of
its Bi-Level PAP and CPAP devices, as well as mechanical
ventilators, after finding that the sound abatement foam used in
the devices can degrade and become toxic, potentially causing
cancer.
On this news, Philips' stock price fell $2.25 per share, or 3.98%,
to close at $54.25 per share on June 14, 2021.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Philips
had deficient product manufacturing controls or procedures; (ii) as
a result, the Company's Bi-Level PAP and CPAP devices and
mechanical ventilators were manufactured using hazardous materials;
(iii) accordingly, the Company's sales revenues from the foregoing
products were unsustainable; (iv) the foregoing also subjected the
Company to a substantial risk of a product recall, in addition to
potential legal and/or regulatory action; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
For more information on the Koninklijke Philips class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PHG
Sesen Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: SESN)
Class Period: December 21, 2020 to August 17, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021
On December 21, 2020, the Company announced that it had submitted
its Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for Vicineum for the treatment of
BCG-unresponsive NMIBC.
On August 13, 2021, Sesen Bio announced that the FDA declined to
approve its BLA for Vicineum in its current form. The FDA provided
certain "recommendations specific to additional
clinical/statistical data and analyses in addition to Chemistry,
Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) issues pertaining to a recent
pre-approval inspection and product quality."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.80, or 57%, to
close at $2.11 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Then, on August 16, 2021, Sesen Bio further revealed that "it
appears that [the Company] will need to do a clinical trial to
provide the additional efficacy and safety data necessary for the
FDA to assess the benefit-risk profile, which is the basis for
approval." As a result, the Company expected that it could not
resubmit its BLA until 2023.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.89, or 42%, to
close at $1.22 per share on August 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Then, on August 18, 2021, before the market opened, the health and
medicine news site STAT published an article entitled "Sesen Bio
trial of cancer drug marked by misconduct and worrisome side
effects, documents show." Citing "hundreds of pages of internal
documents" and "three people familiar with the matter," the article
detailed that the clinical trial for Vicineum was "marked by
thousands of violations of study rules, damning investigator
conduct, and worrying signs of toxicity the company did not
publicly disclose."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.20, or 13%, to
close at $1.31 per share on August 18, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Sesen Bio's clinical trial for Vicineum had
more than 2,000 violations of trial protocol, including 215
classified as "major"; (2) that three of Sesen Bio's clinical
investigators were found guilty of "serious noncompliance,"
including "back-dating data"; (3) that Sesen Bio had submitted the
tainted data in connection with the BLA for Vicineum; (4) that
Sesen Bio's clinical trials showed that Vicineum leaked out into
the body, leading to side effects including liver failure and liver
toxicity, and increasing the risks for fatal, drug-induced liver
injury; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's BLA
for Vicineum was not likely to be approved; (6) that, as a result
of the foregoing, there was a reasonable likelihood that Sesen Bio
would be required to conduct additional trials to support the
efficacy and safety of Vicineum; and (7) 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.
For more information on the Sesen Bio class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SESN
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
LANDSCAPING BY LEE: Underpays Landscapers, Campos Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDSCAPING BY LEE, LLC and LEE LEGENZOWSKI,
Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-07581 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2021)
is a collective and class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from 1998 until April
13, 2021 to perform landscaping work.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated landscaping
workers regularly worked more than 40 hours in a given work week
for the Defendants. However, the Defendants allegedly did not pay
them their lawfully earned wages at the applicable overtime rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the
Defendants failed to provide them with a wage statement and with a
notice or paystub in accordance with Section 195 of the NYLL, the
suit asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and for others
similarly situated workers seeking to recover compensatory damages
against the Defendants, as well as liquidated damages, pre-judgment
interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief
that the Court deems just and proper.
Landscaping by Lee, LLC is a company that provides landscaping
services operated and owned by Lee Legenzowski. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (212) 571-0700
Fax: (212) 505-2001
E-mail: michael@fishertaubenfeld.com
LIVE VENTURES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of October 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Sept. 20 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ:PLL)
Class Period: March 16, 2018 - July 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2021
The complaint alleges that during the class period Piedmont Lithium
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Piedmont has not, and would not,
follow its stated steps or timeline to secure all proper and
necessary permits; (2) Piedmont failed to inform relevant people
and governmental authorities of its actual plans; (3) Piedmont
failed to file proper applications with relevant governmental
authorities (including state and local authorities); (4) Piedmont
and its lithium business does not have "strong local government
support"; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in PLL:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?id=19702&from=1
Live Ventures Incorporated (NASDAQ:LIVE)
Class Period: December 28, 2016 - August 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 12, 2021
During the class period, Live Ventures Incorporated allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: 1) Live's earnings per share for FY 2016 was
actually only $6.33 per share; (2) the Company used an artificially
low share count to boost the earnings per share by 40%; (3) Live
had overstated pretax 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) Live's
acquisition of ApplianceSmart did not close during first quarter
2017; (5) using December 30, 2017 as the "acquisition date" and
recognizing income therefrom did not conform to generally accepted
accounting principles; (6) 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) 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 of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Learn about your recoverable losses in LIVE:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/live-ventures-incorporated-loss-submission-form?id=19702&from=1
Annovis Bio, Inc. (NYSE:ANVS)
Class Period: May 21, 2021 - July 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021
The complaint alleges Annovis Bio, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Annovis'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 of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Learn about your recoverable losses in ANVS:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/annovis-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?id=19702&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
LIVE VENTURES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Live Ventures Incorporated ("Live Ventures") (NASDAQ:
LIVE) between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. To
get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/live-ventures-incorporated-loss-submission-form?prid=19634&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Live Ventures Incorporated NEWS - LIVE NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: 1) Live's earnings
per share for FY 2016 was actually only $6.33 per share; (2) the
Company used an artificially low share count to boost the earnings
per share by 40%; (3) Live had overstated pretax 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) Live's acquisition of ApplianceSmart did
not close during first quarter 2017; (5) using December 30, 2017 as
the "acquisition date" and recognizing income therefrom did not
conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (6) 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) 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 of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Live
Ventures, you have until October 12, 2021 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Live Ventures securities between
December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/live-ventures-incorporated-loss-submission-form?prid=19634&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
LOANDEPOT INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of November 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against loanDepot, Inc. ("loanDepot" or the "Company")
(NYSE: LDI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and docketed under 21-cv-01513, is on behalf of an
expanded class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired loanDepot pursuant
or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
(together, the "Offering Documents") issued in connection with the
Company's February 16, 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO" or
the "Offering"), seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased loanDepot securities during
the Expanded Class Period, you have until November 8, 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.
loanDepot is an independent retail mortgage lender that provides
residential loans, refinance loans, and personal loan products
nationwide.
The complaint alleges that, the Offering Documents was negligently
prepared and omitted to disclose material adverse facts.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company's refinance originations had already declined
substantially at the time of the IPO due to industry over-capacity
and increased competition; (2) that the Company's gain-on-sale
margins had already declined substantially at the time of the IPO;
(3) that, as a result, the Company's revenue and growth would be
negatively impacted; (4) that the Company had already been forced
to embark on a significant expense reduction plan due to the
significantly lower growth and refinance originations that the
Company was experiencing; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis; and (6) that the Company's business, prospects
and ability to achieve growth had been materially impaired by the
time of the IPO as a result of adverse industry, sales and earnings
trends.
By August 17, 2021, loanDepot's stock fell to $8.07 per share, a
more than 42% decline from the IPO price of $14 per share, having
plummeted in response to information reflecting the materialization
of significant risks misrepresented and omitted from the Offering
Documents as alleged in the complaint.
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]
LONGEVERON INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of November 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 15 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Longeveron Inc. (NASDAQ: LGVN) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of those who purchased Longeveron sotck: (1)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about February 12, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (2)
between February 12, 2021 and August 12, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period").
According to the Complaint, the Offering documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Offering documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Lomecel-B, a
cell-based therapy product which is derived from culture-expanded
medicinal signaling cells that are sourced from the bone marrow of
young healthy adult donors, was not as effective in treating aging
frailty as defendants had led investors to believe; (ii)
accordingly, Lomecel-B's clinical and commercial prospects with
respect to aging frailty were overstated; (iii) as a result of all
the foregoing, Longeveron's financial and business prospects were
also overstated; and (iv) 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.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Longeveron
should contact the Firm prior to the November 12, 2021 lead
plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Final Judgment Entered in Youth Justice Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YOUTH JUSTICE COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY
OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-07932-VAP-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice all
the claims against the City and all the Defendants to the action.
The dismissal is entered pursuant to the Settlement Agreement
between the Plaintiffs and Defendant City of Los Angeles, and the
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs previously granted by the
Court.
Judgment is issued in favor of the Defendants.
As agreed by the Plaintiffs and the City in the Settlement
Agreement and approved by the Court, the Court will retain
jurisdiction over the action for a period of three years from the
date of the Order for the sole purpose of enforcing the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.
The case is closed. Any remaining hearings are vacated. The Clerk
is directed to close the file.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ymwp6twj from Leagle.com.
PETER BIBRING, MELANIE P. OCHOA, ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, in Los Angeles, California, Counsel for the
Plaintiffs.
JACOB S. KREILKAMP -- Jacob.Kreilkamp@mto.com -- LAURA D. SMOLOWE
-- Laura.Smolowe@mto.com -- MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, in Los
Angeles, California.
JOSHUA GREEN, THE CONNIE RICE INSTITUTE FOR URBAN PEACE, in Los
Angeles, California, Counsel for the Plaintiffs.
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Bid to Toll Opt-In Period in Hanna FLSA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMEH HANNA, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00325 (M.D. Tenn.),
Judge Eli Richardson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Toll Statute of Limitations for Opt-In Plaintiffs.
Background
The Plaintiff filed the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") suit on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated on March 29, 2018,
and filed an amended complaint on April 24, 2018 "to redress the
Defendants' alleged failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 in a work
week (overtime work)." On Nov. 6, 2018, the matter was transferred
to Judge Richardson soon after he took the bench. No dispositive
motions were filed before this time.
The Defendants are a hospitality enterprise that provides lodging,
food, beverage, and other services to the public. The Plaintiff
alleges that he and all other similarly situated banquet staff were
"regularly required" to work overtime hours -- an average of 50 to
60 hours each work week. The Banquet Staff consists of about 300 to
400 employees. The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants is for
unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA.
The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Nov. 26,
2018. On Dec. 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion for
conditional class certification. On Feb. 5, 2019, the Court granted
the Plaintiff's motion for merits discovery prior to ruling on the
Defendants' then-pending summary judgment motion. On March 29,
2019, the Magistrate Judge administratively terminated the
Defendants' pending summary judgment motion and gave the Defendants
a response deadline of May 14, 2019 to respond to the Plaintiff's
then-pending motion for conditional class certification. After
additional briefing, the motion for conditional class certification
became ripe for review on June 28, 2019.
Because of the Court's caseload, the Court was unable to rule on
the motion for conditional class certification until Feb. 11, 2020.
At that time, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion in part and
conditionally certified a class (also known in the FLSA context as
a "collective") of all banquet staff employees of Defendants in
Tennessee who: "(1) worked more than 40 hours per week for the
Defendants in the three-year period preceding the Court's entry of
that order; (2) were classified as 'exempt' by the Defendants
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 207(i); and (3) were compensated
through the fixed hourly rate plus service charge distribution
compensation plan under which the Plaintiff was paid."
Thereafter, the parties filed and fully briefed motions to
amend/correct the scope of the certified class. On May 7, 2020, the
Court limited the conditionally certified class to include all
banquet staff employees of Defendants at the Gaylord Opryland
Resort and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee who met the
listed requirements. After multiple filings, the Court granted
approval of the parties' FLSA Collective Action Notice on Aug. 5,
2020. The window for the potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the
action ended on Oct. 26, 2020.
The Plaintiff now asks the Court to toll the limitations period for
the opt-in plaintiffs in the case from Dec. 11, 2018 (the date the
Plaintiff moved for conditional certification) to Oct. 26, 2020
(the end of the opt-in period).
Discussion
Via the Motion, the Plaintiff requests the Court to "toll the
statute of limitations applicable to the Plaintiffs that have opted
in to the collective action from Dec. 10, 2018 through Oc. 26,
2020." Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that "unanticipated and
unavoidable delays ultimately pushed back notice to the potential
opt-in plaintiffs until August 2020" and "the individuals that have
now decided to join the lawsuit did not cause or contribute to the
delays."
The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's "reliance on delay
inherent in the litigation process is not sufficient" and that "the
opt-in plaintiffs knew or should have known the basis for their
misclassification claim." They further contend that the Plaintiff
"is in large part responsible for the amount of time required to
resolve conditional certification", by seeking a "nationwide
collective action, thus instigating a wave of discovery and
briefing."
Judge Richardson concludes that although there were many delays in
the case, those delays did not affect the opt-in plaintiffs because
(as the Plaintiff himself states) they were unaware of the action.
Accordingly, if the opt-in plaintiffs were interested in asserting
their rights under the FLSA, they could have (and indeed should
have) filed respective actions of their own within the applicable
limitations period. Primarily because they did not do so, the
Plaintiff fails to meet his burden on the Motion.
Order
For these reasons, Judge Richardson denied the Plaintiff's Motion
to Toll Statute of Limitations for Opt-In Plaintiffs. An
appropriate order will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ennwbycb from Leagle.com.
MONSANTO CO: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Snyder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY SNYDER, Plaintiff v. DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
INCLUSIVE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-08419-KAW (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California grants the motions to
dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend.
The motions were filed by Defendants Monsanto Co., PBI-Gordon
Corp., and The Dow Chemical Co. ("TDDC").
Background
The Plaintiff filed the putative class action on behalf of truck
drivers exposed to the chemical benzene while driving "trucks
commercially in and around refineries, plants, and other commercial
and governmental entities, who were diagnosed with a medical
condition related to benzene poisoning."
From October 1989 through July 1997, the Plaintiff worked as a
union truck driver in Texas, Louisiana, and California, and worked
as an herbicide applicator in Oregon. During this time, the
Plaintiff used and came into contact with dangerous chemicals
containing benzene which were manufactured and marketed by the
Defendants, including Roundup (manufactured by Defendant Monsanto),
Trimec and Amine 400 (manufactured by Defendant PBI-Gordon), and 2,
4-D developed by Defendant TDDC.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knew of the dangers of
benzene exposure, but they failed to warn and advise truck drivers
and herbicide applicators, such as the Plaintiff and the Class
Members, of the danger, so they were not advised to wear
respirators and other protective gear when hauling and dispersing
the Defendants' products. Frequently, the Plaintiff and the Class
Members wore no protective gear at all. In fact, when the Plaintiff
reported any safety concerns to management throughout his career
regarding exposure to dangerous products, management brushed him
off as a direct result of Defendants' failure to warn regarding
exposure.
The Plaintiff further alleges that "neither the Plaintiff's
employers nor the Plaintiff and the persons similarly situated knew
or could have known of the nature and extent of the danger to their
bodies and health, including the risk for cancer and leukemia,
caused by exposure to the Defendants' benzene containing products
and/or vapors therefrom." The Plaintiff was diagnosed with multiple
myeloma in November 2019, and he has been undergoing regular
chemotherapy since January 2020.
On Feb. 18, 2021, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which
were very similar in substance. On March 4, 2021, the Plaintiff
filed substantially similar oppositions. On March 11, 2021, the
Defendants filed their respective replies.
Discussion
On Feb. 18, 2021, Defendants Monsanto, PBI-Gordon, and TDCC filed
separate motions to dismiss the first amended complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).
A. Whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).
All the Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
Judge Westmore says California's long-arm statute authorizes
specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the
full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution. Accordingly, the jurisdictional analyses under
state law and federal due process are the same. To satisfy due
process, a defendant must have sufficient "minimum contacts" with
the forum state that "maintenance of the suit does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." The two
recognized bases for exercising personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant are "general jurisdiction" and "specific
jurisdiction." The Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that
the court has jurisdiction over Defendant.
First, Judge Westmore holds that the Plaintiff is deemed to have
conceded that, at least for the purposes of the motion, there is no
specific jurisdiction. This does not preclude the Plaintiff from
alleging facts to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction in
the amended complaint. Second, the Judge finds that the complaint
fails to satisfy Rule 8, because it does not contain "a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction."
As a result, Judge Westmore finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently allege a basis for general jurisdiction over the
movant defendants, and, therefore, dismisses the complaint under
Rule 12(b)(2).2This deficiency, however, may be remedied through
amendment, so the first amended complaint is dismissed with leave
to amend.
B. Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(6)
The Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleges five causes of
action for strict liability, failure to warn, negligence, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and fraudulent concealment.
i. Preemption
The Defendants all separately argue that the complaint must be
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the state law
claims are preempted by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act
("FHSA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1261, and/or the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act ("HMTA"), 49 U.S.C. Section 5101. Since the
motions are being granted with leave to amend for lack of personal
jurisdiction, Judge Westmore need not address this argument.
Notwithstanding, the Judge is not convinced that the FHSA and HMTA
preempt common law torts based on strict liability and failure to
warn. She notes that Defendant Monsanto was the party who
unsuccessfully argued for preemption in Hardeman, the order for
which the undersigned finds to be well-reasoned.
ii. Claims
Alternatively, the Defendants each move to dismiss all causes of
action for failure to state a claim.
As an initial matter, Judge Westmore holds that all of the
Plaintiff's claims suffer from the same deficiency -- the failure
to allege specific conduct committed by each named defendant, and,
in fact, the FAC does not identify any of them by name, opting
instead to lump them together. Furthermore, the Judge says, the
Plaintiff merely provides formulaic recitations of the elements of
each cause of action, which is inadequate.
While these deficiencies are sufficient to dismiss the complaint,
to provide guidance to the Plaintiff in amending, Judge Westmore
addresses each individual claim.
a. Strict Liability and Failure to Warn
The Plaintiff's first two causes of action are for strict liability
and failure to warn. Generally, "California recognizes strict
liability for three types of product defects -- manufacturing
defects, design defects, and warning defects."
Judge Westmore holds that as Monsanto argues, the Plaintiff does
not specifically allege what type of products liability theory he
is proceeding under. Despite the identification of this issue, the
Plaintiff's opposition provides little clarity by merely implying
that he is alleging a warning defect. Thus, in addition of being
devoid of factual allegations, the Plaintiff has not adequately
alleged which type of product liability he is claiming.
Consequently, the Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient
facts to allege strict product liability or a failure to warn.
Because amendment is not futile, the Judge dismisses the first and
second causes of action with leave to amend. That said, if the
Plaintiff is only alleging strict liability under a failure to warn
theory, he should not plead a separate failure to warn cause of
action.
b. Negligence
A claim for negligence requires the plaintiff to show a defect that
caused the injury complained of, and that the defect was caused by
the defendant's negligence. Based on the Plaintiff's opposition, he
is alleging negligence based on the failure to warn. The Plaintiff
third cause of action, however, suffers from the same deficiency to
specifically plead facts pertaining to each named defendant.
Despite the Plaintiff's protestations to the contrary, it is not
enough to provide common factual allegations, because each cause of
action must contain "simple, concise, and direct" allegations.
Accordingly, Judge Westmore dismisses the third cause of action
with leave to amend.
c. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
The Plaintiff's fourth cause of action is for negligent infliction
of emotional distress. Negligent infliction of emotional distress
requires that a plaintiff show (1) serious emotional distress, (2)
actually and proximately caused by (3) wrongful conduct (4) by a
defendant who should have foreseen that the conduct would cause
such distress. Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an
independent tort, but the tort of negligence.
Judge Westmore finds that the operative complaint "is absent of any
facts pertaining to the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's
emotional or mental suffering," and, therefore, fails. Thus, this
claim is dismissed without leave to amend. Specific facts
pertaining to negligent infliction of emotional distress may be
plead under the negligence cause of action.
d. Fraudulent concealment
The fifth cause of action is for fraudulent concealment. Fraud
claims are subject to the heightened pleading requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). To satisfy Rule 9(b), a
pleading must identify the who, what, when, where, and how of the
misconduct charged, as well as what is false or misleading about
the purportedly fraudulent statement, and why it is false.
The Plaintiff does not describe specific misconduct by the
Defendants, and, as with the other causes of action, he does not
identify any of the defendants by name. Rather, the Plaintiff
vaguely alleges that all of the Defendants were in a fiduciary
relationship with Plaintiff, intentionally failed to disclose the
danger of benzene exposure, and the Plaintiff and the putative
class members could not have discovered the danger on their own. In
opposition, the Plaintiff argues that the fraud allegations are
sufficiently pled at this juncture, because the Plaintiff cannot
provide all material details related to his claims prior to
discovery.
Judge Westmore holds that the Plaintiff's failure to differentiate
between the individual defendants requires that the claim be
dismissed. Accordingly, she says, the Plaintiff's fifth cause of
action is dismissed with leave to amend to plead fraud with
particularity, including the specific misconduct by each defendant,
when it occurred, and when the fraud was discovered. If the
Plaintiff is unable to plead fraud with particularity, he should
not amend at this time. Should the Plaintiff later obtain discovery
to support a claim of fraudulent concealment, he can move for leave
to amend at that juncture.
C. Class Allegations
Since the Plaintiff has not established personal jurisdiction over
the movant Defendants, but has been granted leave to amend, Judge
Westmore declines to address whether the class allegations are
subject to dismissal.
Conclusion
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Westmore granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend. The Plaintiff
will file a second amended complaint within 21 days of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/fbsryyjn from Leagle.com.
NOSTRAND AVENUE: D. Persaud's Suit Alleges Property Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Davie Persaud, individually and as a member of Nostrand Avenue 724
LLC and all other shareholders of the Nostrand Avenue 724 LLC
similarly situated, and in the Right of the Nostrand Avenue 724
LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Nostrand Avenue 724 LLC and Rajesh Persaud,
Defendants, Case No. 523703/2021 (N.Y. Sup., September 17, 2021),
accuses Rajesh Persaud with the misappropriation of assets of
Nostrand Avenue 724 LLC. The lawsuit asserts conversion, breach of
fiduciary duty, self-dealing, and improper diversion of assets and
fraud. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement by Rajesh Persaud
individually and through Nostrand Avenue 724 LLC for the expenses
of this action, including costs, disbursements and reasonable
attorneys' fees, and for breach of fiduciary duty.
Nostrand Avenue 724 LLC owns the real property and improvements
situated at address 724 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York and is
encumbered by a mortgage with Flushing Bank that has an outstanding
principal balance of approximately $500,000. It reportedly
defaulted in its payment of its mortgage and the property risks
being in foreclosure.
Since August 22, 2016, Davie Persaud holds a 25% interest in said
property. Rajesh Persaud is the estranged husband of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff's divorce action against Rajesh is pending before the
Supreme Court, Suffolk County. Davie Persaud accuses Rajesh Persaud
of mismanaging said property, i.e. neglecting to competently manage
the property and to rent out residential and commercial space and
missing out on potential rent income and failing to pay the
mortgage and allowing it to go into default.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth T. Wasserman, Esq.
WASSERMAN PLLC
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7710
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 244-3399
Fax: (212) 244-0980
OMNICARE INC: $1M Class Settlement in Davis Suit Wins Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL DAVIS, individually and on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMNICARE, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-CV-142-REW (E.D. Ky.), Judge Robert
E. Wier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, grants the parties' joint
motion for final certification of the Rule 23 class and the FLSA
collective, and final approval of the proposed settlement
agreement.
Background
Mr. Davis initiated the putative collective and class action
against Defendant Omnicare and three of its subsidiary pharmacies.
Davis sues on behalf of himself and others that performed delivery
or dispatch services for the Defendants. Relevant in the case is
that, on Sept. 11, 2020, after more than two years of sharply
adversarial litigation, the parties submitted a joint motion for
settlement approval (and proposed agreed order) in which the
Defendants would provide a common settlement fund of $1 million to
settle federal and state claims held by members of the putative
Rule 23 class and FLSA collective.
Settlement agreements involving an FLSA collective and/or Rule 23
class require judicial approval. In accordance with the requisite
approval process, the parties jointly sought: 1) preliminary
approval of the Settlement Agreement; 2) preliminary certification
of the Rule 23 Settlement Class and FLSA collective (both, for
settlement); 3) preliminary appointment of Plaintiff Daniel Davis
as Class Representative; 4) preliminary approval of Goodwin &
Goodwin, LLP, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, PC, and Craig Henry PLC as
Class Counsel; 5) approval of the Notice of Settlement to
Settlement Class Members; and 6) approval of the proposed schedule
and procedure for the final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
The Court granted preliminary certification of the Rule 23 class;
conditionally certified the FLSA collective; granted the request to
preliminarily appoint Daniel Davis as class representative;
preliminarily appointed the Plaintiff's counsel as the class
counsel; preliminarily approved the designation of Kentucky Legal
Aid as the cy pres beneficiary, and granted the request (pending
conforming amendments) to the proposed notice to Settlement Class
Members and the proposed schedule and procedure for final approval.
The Court made all predicate rulings necessary to ready the case
for final resolution.
Pursuant to that Order, the parties made the modifications as the
Court directed and the agreed upon settlement administrator, Rust
Consulting, set about identifying and contacting class members. On
April 9, 2021, the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Notice and
corresponding Class List was mailed to the offices of all 50 state
attorney generals, the United States Attorney General; and the
office of the Kentucky Secretary of State. On June 1, 2021, the
Settlement Administrator sent the Class Notice to 183 Class
Members. That same day, the Settlement Administrator also opened a
website for Class Members to submit their claims electronically.
Notice of the settlement was also published appropriately in the
Lexington Herald Leader (June 1-3, 2021), the Ashland Daily
Independent (June 2-4, 2021), and the Beattyville Enterprise (June
2, 9, and 16, 2021).
At the time of the parties' joint motion for final approval, the
Settlement Administrator had received 89 (supplemented to 91)
Claims forms--amounting to roughly 44% (supplemented to 45%) of all
known Class Members whose collective claims aggregate to nearly 75%
of the funds allocated for distribution to claimants. The parties
also state that 43 of the individuals who did not respond (roughly
21% of the known class) would have been entitled to only $100 (the
minimum payout). In total, the participating settling class members
will share a total payout of roughly $560,000, with $535,000 (95%)
going to the claimants from the participants from the 192
Settlement Class Members who worked as delivery drivers.
Consistent with the conditionally approved proposal, the delivery
drivers will be paid based on the number of miles that the claimant
drove during the class period relative to the class-wide total
adjusted mileage as calculated by the Plaintiff's expert (with
negotiated and approved modifications to account for class members
who were also FLSA opt-in members and drivers whose mileage
calculations are unavailable). About $25,000 will go to
participants from the approximately twelve class members who worked
as dispatchers only. Based on the submitted claims forms, the
average settlement award is more than $4,600, 55 participants will
receive more than $1,000 and the highest single payout will be more
than $31,000. Davis will receive a $5,000 service award. The Pavlik
supplement details the payouts.
The scope of release is tailored so that settlement class members
and existing opt-ins release their state and federal claims arising
only from the facts alleged in this complaint for the period of
Feb. 19, 2013 through March 25, 2018. Class members who do not
submit a valid claim form and do not opt-out of the settlement
release only their state law claims from the Feb. 19, 2013 to March
25, 2018 window. The release scope is properly circumscribed. The
Plaintiffs' counsel, consistent with the contingency fee agreement,
seeks $333,333.33 in attorneys' fees -- equal to one-third of the
Gross Settlement Amount. Counsel separately seek $59,500 in
reimbursement for one-half of their litigation fees and expenses
(which they estimate as $119,000) from the Gross Settlement Fund.
Discussion
A. Final Certification of the FLSA Collective
Judge Wier finds that final certification is not contested. The
parties jointly stipulate for settlement purposes that the
Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated because
"they had substantially similar job requirements, worked for
Omnicare in Kentucky via the same courier company, Act Fast, and
were all classified as independent contractors and required to
perform work without overtime compensation and without being
reimbursed for all work expenses. Moreover, they were all subject
to the same (or similar) allegedly unlawful payroll deductions."
For the motion stated reasons, and as discussed previously, the
Plaintiffs suffered from the same alleged FLSA-violating policies
and are therefore similarly situated, thus warranting final
certification at step two. Accordingly, final certification of the
proposed collective is granted.
B. 28 U.S.C. Section 1715
The proposed settlement also meets the requirements set by the
Class Action Fairness Act. Judge Wier explains that CAFA requires
that each defendant participating in the proposed settlement serve
specified documents upon "the appropriate federal and state
officials within 10 days after a proposed settlement of a class
action is filed in court." Further, an order giving final approval
of a proposed settlement may not be issued earlier than 90 days
after the later of the dates on which the appropriate Federal
official and the appropriate State official are served with the
notice required under subsection (b). In the case, the CAFA notice
went out on April 9, 2021. Accordingly, Judge Wier says, the
present Order is not premature.
C. Final Certification of the Rule 23 Class
The parties also jointly seek final certification of the Rule 23
class. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires parties to
obtain court approval of class-action settlements." To ensure those
requirements are met, "approval is a three-step process: (1) the
court must preliminarily approve the proposed settlement, i.e., the
court should determine whether the compromise embodied in the
decree is illegal or tainted with collusion; (2) members of the
class must be given notice of the proposed settlement; and (3) a
hearing must be held to determine whether the decree is fair to
those affected, adequate and reasonable. The Court earlier
conditionally certified the class. Accordingly, Judge Wier proceeds
to whether final certification is merited under Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3).
Judge Wier finds that (i) Rust diligently endeavored to serve every
potential claimant effectively; (ii) the notice complied fully with
Rule 23(c); (iii) final approval is merited under Rule 23(a); and
(iv) given the financial stakes and litigation burdens, the clear
balance of the cost-benefit for the Class Members lies in favor of
taking the proposed payout instead of controlling and engaging in
individual litigation.
D. The Settlement Fund
Having finally certified the Rule 23 class and FLSA collective,
Judge Wier turns to final approval of the settlement agreement,
relative to the presented claims, itself. In doing so, the Judge
must determine: (1) whether the FLSA settlement is a fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions,
Crawford v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov't, No. 06-cv-299-JBC,
2008 WL 4724499, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 23, 2008) (citing Lynn's Food
Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir.
1982)); and (2) whether the Rule 23 settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
First, Judge Wier opines that the settlement resolves a bona fide
dispute. The hard-fought case presented multiple contested matters
critical to both sides -- the dispute was bona fide. Second, the
Judge finds that the settlement is also fair, reasonable, and
adequate as measured by the seven UAW factors: (1) the risk of
fraud or collusion, (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration
of the litigation, (3) the amount of discovery engaged in by the
parties, (4) the likelihood of success on the merits, (5) the
opinions of class counsel and class representatives, (6) the
reaction of absent class members, and (7) the public interest.
Third, the Judge finds that the Class Members will receive a
meaningful payout that they otherwise might not have, the putative
hourly rate is reasonable; the counsel were working on a
contingency fee basis; the compensation will benefit society by
encouraging other lawyers to take action on alleged violations of
state and federal labor laws; as previously discussed, the
litigation is complex; and, as shown by the record, the counsel for
both sides acted with high levels of professional, skill, and
competence in pursuing the matter, first at the adversarial stage,
and now through settlement negotiations. Accordingly, the
settlement agreement is approved.
Fourth, in light of the full record, the amount of work performed
on a contingency basis, and the benefit now delivered to the Class
Members, the fee award the Plaintiff's counsel seeks -- $333,333.33
in attorneys' fees, which is equal to one-third of the Gross
Settlement Amount -- is reasonable. Fifth, the $59,500 in
reimbursement for half of the Plaintiff's counsel's litigation
costs (which they estimate as $119,000), is reasonable cost request
in the amount documented by the lawyer declarations.
Sixth, Judge Wier also finds that the payment scheme as to claims
administration expenses, which are being split in this matter 50/50
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are reasonable and
properly payable, per the Settlement Agreement mechanics. Seventh,
the proposed $5,000 service award for Davis is appropriate. Eighth,
the Judge finds that the cy pres arrangement with Kentucky Legal
Aid is reasonable.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, and per the justifications offered in
the joint motion, Judge Wier granted the parties' joint motion. The
Judge finally approved the settlement agreement.
The provisionally certified Kentucky class is now finally certified
pursuant to Federal Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, for purposes of settlement The conditionally
certified FLSA collective is now finally certified pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), for purposes of settlement.
Judge Wier approved the attorney fees, costs and expenses, claims
administration expenses, and service award provided for in the
proposed agreement per the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
the substantiating documentation.
The cy pres beneficiary is approved.
Judge Wier will enter Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's
complaint, and all claims therein, with prejudice, per the terms,
scope, and dictates of the Settlement Agreement (though the Court
will retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the Agreement's
terms).
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/j6kkkava from Leagle.com.
ONE TECHNOLOGIES: 5th Cir. Flips Arbitration Denial in Forby Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICKIE FORBY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated in Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ONE
TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.; ONE TECHNOLOGIES MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; ONE
TECHNOLOGIES CAPITAL, L.L.P., Defendants-Appellants, Case No.
20-10088 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit reverses the district court's order denying One Tech's
motion to compel arbitration and remands for further proceedings.
Background
In July 2014, Forby signed up for a free credit report on
Scoresense.com, a website operated by One Tech. She entered her
credit card information, authorizing a $1 charge ostensibly to
verify her identity and obtain her report. The website required
Forby to navigate through five enrollment pages, each containing a
hyperlink to the Terms and Conditions. She had to check a box to
agree to the terms before completing the process. The terms include
the arbitration clause.
Ms. Forby claims she did not realize she was enrolled in a
negative-option program until discovering multiple monthly charges
of $29.95. She also claims One Tech ignored her request to be
removed from the program. Forby filed a class action lawsuit in
Illinois, claiming violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.
505/1 et seq., and also unjust enrichment under Illinois law. ICFA
is "a broad regulatory and remedial statute intended to protect
consumers, borrowers, and business persons against fraud, unfair
methods of competition, and other unfair and deceptive business
practices."
Ms. Forby alleged her experience was typical of other proposed
class members, originally defined as "all persons in Illinois whom
One Tech enrolled in its credit monitoring program from 2008 to
April 24, 2015."
One Tech removed the case to the Southern District of Illinois,
which transferred it to the Northern District of Texas. It then
moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that its
website was not deceptive, that it did not engage in unfair
conduct, and that Forby had at most alleged a breach of contract.
The district court granted One Tech's motion as to Forby's unjust
enrichment claim but denied it as to her ICFA claim. Only then did
One Tech move to compel arbitration. The district court granted the
motion, but the Fifth Circuit reversed on appeal, concluding One
Tech had waived its right to arbitrate.
Ms. Forby was then granted leave to file a second amended
complaint. In it she added a new claim under the Credit Repair
Organizations Act ("CROA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1679 et seq., a
consumer protection statute that "regulates the practices of credit
repair organizations" in various ways. Forby alleged One Tech
violated CROA by deceptively offering consumers "free" access to
their credit scores without disclosing they would be enrolled in a
monitoring program for $29.95 per month. Forby also alleged One
Tech violated CROA by: (1) charging consumers for services before
fully performing them, Section 1679b(b);3 (2) failing to give
consumers notice of their rights, as required by Sections 1679c(a)
and 1679e(b);4 and (3) trying to get consumers to waive their CROA
rights, in violation of Section 1679f(b).
One Tech again moved to compel arbitration. It argued that because
Forby's second amended complaint had "significantly reshape[d] and
broadened the case," One Tech's waiver should be rescinded. Relying
on Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 654 F.3d 1194, 1202-03 (11th
Cir. 2011), One Tech contended that a waived arbitration right may
be "revived" if an amended complaint "changes the scope or theory
of the plaintiff's claims." Alternatively, citing Collado v. J & G
Transportation, Inc., 820 F.3d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 2016), One
Tech argued it should at least be able to arbitrate the CROA claim
because it "could not possibly have waived its right to arbitrate"
that new claim, which was raised after the previous waiver
occurred.
Adopting the magistrate's report, the district court denied One
Tech's motion. It reasoned that their circuit had not adopted
Krinsk and that, even if it had, Forby's second amended complaint
"did not alter the scope or theory of the underlying litigation in
an unforeseeable way." To the contrary, the added CROA claim turned
on "the same core of operative facts" underlying the ICFA claim.
Moreover, "the potential class" was not "significantly expanded by
Forby's CROA claim."
One Tech filed an interlocutory appeal of the order denying
arbitration, over which the Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction.
Discussion
On appeal, One Tech presses only the argument that its prior waiver
of arbitral rights does not extend to the federal claims Forby
raised for the first time in her second amended complaint.
The Fifth Circuit agrees with One Tech that it has not waived its
right to arbitrate these new claims. It finds that One Tech has
never tried to litigate Forby's CROA claims. To the contrary, once
Forby amended her complaint to add those federal claims, One Tech
moved to compel their arbitration. One Tech, then, has not taken
any "overt act in court that evinces a desire to resolve the
arbitrable dispute through litigation rather than arbitration,"10
nor has it attempted to "seek a decision on the merits of the CROA
claims before attempting to arbitrate them." Therefore, One Tech
has not waived its right to arbitrate Forby's CROA claims and the
district court erred by concluding otherwise.
The Fifth Circuit finds instructive the Eleventh Circuit's decision
in Collado v. J & G Transportation, 820 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2016).
The plaintiff initially brought an FLSA claim but, before trial,
filed an amended complaint raising related state law claims. The
defendant conceded it had waived its right to arbitrate the FLSA
claim but argued it could still compel arbitration of the state
claims.
The sister circuit agreed. It held the defendant "did not waive the
right to arbitrate the state law claims raised in the second
amended complaint because those claims were not in the case when it
waived by litigation the right to arbitrate the FLSA claim." It
also rejected the argument that the defendant "must have known" the
state claims were "lurking in the case": to the contrary, "a
defendant will not be held to have waived the right to insist that
previously unasserted claims be arbitrated once they are asserted."
Otherwise, defendants would be "in an awkward if not absurd
position." Even if willing to litigate pled claims, the defendants
would have to specify they were not waiving arbitration as to "all
of the possible claims that could have been but weren't pleaded
against them."
The present case presents the flip side of Collado, Judge Fifth
Circuit holds. There, waiver as to originally-asserted federal
claims did not extend to later-pled state claims. In the case,
waiver as to originally-asserted state claims does not extend to
later-pled federal claims. Either way, the result is the same: "One
Tech did not waive the right to arbitrate the CROA]claims raised in
the second amended complaint because those claims were not in the
case when it waived by litigation the right to arbitrate the ICFA
claim."
Disposition
Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, writing for the Fifth Circuit, holds that
One Tech did not waive its right to arbitrate Forby's CROA claims.
It therefore reverses the district court's order denying One Tech's
motion to compel arbitration and remands for further proceedings
consistent with the Fifth Circuit's Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bt8e2vf2 from Leagle.com.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faulds Class Status Bid Due Dec. 10
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY FAULDS and TY
CARERUN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Case No.
3:21-cv-00274-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Conrad,
Jr. entered n pretrial order and case management plan as follows:
-- Rule 26 Disclosures: September 24, 2021
-- Discovery Completion 1 : November 10, 2022
-- Expert Reports: July 11, 2022 (plaintiff)
Aug. 10, 2022 (defendant)
-- Mediation: November 10, 2022
-- Class Certification Motion: December 10, 2022
-- Dispositive Motions: January 10, 2023
-- Oral Argument on MSJs: On or before Feb. 10, 2023
-- Jury Trial: May 1, 2023
PRA is a debt buyer and debt collector based in Norfolk Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3maeOMu at no extra charge.[CC]
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Appeals Remand Order in Jauregui Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled GRISELDA
JAUREGUI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-04657-RGK-PD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 15, 2021, the case
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on June 7, 2021.
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 meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
The Defendant now seeks a review of the Order dated Sept. 8, 2021
wherein the Court concluded that Defendant has failed to meet its
burden to establish that the Court has jurisdiction, and therefore
granted Plaintiff's Motion and remanded the case to the state court
from which it was removed.
The appellate case is captioned as Griselda Jauregui v. Roadrunner
Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. 21-80100, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Sept. 21,
2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., an
unknown business entity, is represented by:
Jennifer Hinds, Esq.
Amberly A. Morgan, Esq.
Frederic William Norris, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90072
Telephone: (213) 337-6567
E-mail: jennifer.hinds@huschblackwell.com
amberly.morgan@huschblackwell.com
Plaintiff-Respondent GRISELDA JAUREGUI, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:
Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Averts Class Action Over Stock Trading Halt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Perez, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a Florida
federal judge denied class certification for a class action lawsuit
that would have included Robinhood customers who were allegedly
burned by the company's failure to inform them of a trading halt,
resulting in massive investment losses.
The class action lawsuit, with Shterna Pinchasov as lead plaintiff,
claims that Robinhood shirked its fiduciary duty -- the
responsibility to act in customers' best interests -- when it
failed to notify customers of its trading halt on Hertz Corp. in
March 2020.
The complaint focused on Florida law, while Robinhood's fiduciary
duty is governed by California law, concluded U.S. District Judge
Cecilia M. Altonaga.
"Because plaintiff has not briefed the court with the correct law,
she has failed to meet her burden of proof in establishing the
propriety of class certification," stated the order denying
certification of a Class of Robinhood investors. "Plaintiff is not
entitled to the extraordinary remedy of class certification."
Pinchasov's counsel plan to file a motion for reconsideration of
the order, reports Law360.
Robinhood Stock Halts Prompt Class Action Lawsuits by Investors
A series of stock halts by Robinhood has prompted legal action by
investors who say they lost money to the unilateral actions of the
online trading platform.
Indeed, Robinhood recently made another bid to dump a class action
lawsuit, this one claiming restrictions imposed during January's
"meme stock" trading hysteria involving GameStop and other stocks
of high volatility cost investors billions.
Earlier this month, a Robinhood investor filed a class action
lawsuit against the investment company and its partner trading firm
accusing them of failing to act in investors' best interests by
employing a payment for order flow revenue system that denied
customers the best possible trading prices. [GN]
S&W INVESTMENTS: Figuero Slams Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janay Brodhurst-Figuero, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S&W Investments, Inc.,
Logisticare Solutions, LLC and James Mooney, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-03007 (D. S.C., September 17, 2021), seeks to recover damages
with interest, costs and attorney's fees as well as all such other
relief resulting from unpaid overtime and for other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants are in the business of providing non-emergency transport
of medical patients to and from hospitals or health care provider
offices. Figuero was employed as a Patient Transporter for
Defendants until August 10, 2021, when she was constructively
discharged. She claims to be misclassified as an independent
contractor, thus did not receive overtime wages despite working a
mandatory six days, and over forty hours, per week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Casey M. Martens, Esq.
Molly R. Hamilton Cawley, Esq.
MHC LAW, LLC
1250 Folly Road
Charleston, SC 29412
Tel: (843) 225-8651
Email: casey@mhc-lawfirm.com
molly@mhc-lawfirm.com
SAINT-GOBAIN: Jan. 2022 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Willard, writing for WAMC, reports that in July, a settlement
with companies involved in a class action lawsuit related to PFAS
contamination in the area of Hoosick Falls, New York was given
preliminary approval in court.
Three companies blamed for the pollution of water supplies in and
around the Rensselaer County village have agreed to the $65 million
settlement.
The suit against companies Saint-Gobain, Honeywell International,
3M and DuPont came after the contamination of the village's water
supply was first discovered in 2014. DuPont is not part of the
settlement.
Residents now have until January 2022 to submit a claim form to
receive benefits.
WAMC's Lucas Willard spoke with Hoosick Falls Village Mayor Rob
Allen about the approved settlement on Midday Magazine.
For more information visit:
http://www.hoosickfallspfoasettlement.com/[GN]
SESEN BIO: ClaimsFiler Reminds of October 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Coinbase Global Inc. (COIN)
Class Period: Purchase of shares issued in connection with the
April 2021 Direct Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 20, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-coin/
Sesen Bio, Inc. (SESN)
Class Period: 12/21/2020 - 8/17/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 18, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-sesn/
PayPal Holdings, Inc. (PYPL)
Class Period: 2/9/2017 - 7/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-pypl-2/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
SESEN BIO: Gross Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Sesen Bio, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SESN).
Shareholders who purchased shares of SESN during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/sesen-bio-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19612&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: December 21, 2020 to August 17, 2021
ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sesen Bio's clinical trial for
its cancer treatment product, Vicineum, had more than 2,000
violations of trial protocol, including 215 classified as "major";
(2) three of Sesen Bio's clinical investigators were found guilty
of "serious noncompliance," including "back-dating data"; (3) Sesen
Bio had submitted the tainted data in connection with the Biologics
License Application ("BLA") for Vicineum; (4) Sesen Bio's clinical
trials showed that Vicineum leaked out into the body, leading to
side effects including liver failure and liver toxicity, and
increasing the risks for fatal, drug-induced liver injury; (5) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's BLA for Vicineum was not
likely to be approved; (6) as a result of the foregoing, there was
a reasonable likelihood that Sesen Bio would be required to conduct
additional trials to support the efficacy and safety of Vicineum;
and (7) 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.
DEADLINE: October 18, 2021 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/sesen-bio-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19612&from=5
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of SESN during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is October 18, 2021. There
is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
SOCLEAN INC: Faces Class Action Over CPAP Sanitizing Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the makers of SoClean,
alleging that popular devices used to clean and sanitize CPAP,
BiPAP and mechanical ventilation machines release ozone gases at
dangerously high levels.
The complaint was filed by Anthony Sakalarios on September 3 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
indicating false and misleading claims have been made about the
SoClean 2 CPAP Sanitizing Machine, SoClean 2 Go CPAP Sanitizing
machine and related products sold in recent years.
SoClean devices work by generating ozone to sterilize and deodorize
CPAP breathing machines, which are used treat sleep apnea. However,
the lawsuit notes that to be effective at sanitizing the devices,
SoClean devices must emit levels of ozone that are higher than can
be safely tolerated by humans or animals.
Sakalarios indicates he, and other similarly situated owners the
SoClean machines, were misled by false advertising, which claimed
the devices used "activated oxygen," instead of telling consumers
that it releases dangerous levels of ozone that exceed acceptable
federal safety standards. In the company's advertisements, it never
mentions the use of ozone, and in some cases denies the devices are
emitting ozone when asked directly, according to the complaint.
In fact, the advertisements claim the devices release no "harsh
chemicals" at all, and Sakalarios' lawsuit maintains that ozone is,
in fact, considered a harsh chemical.
"The foregoing false claims deceive consumers into believing that
the SoClean devices do not generate ozone, do not release ozone
into the atmosphere, and are safe, healthy, and suitable for use in
consumer's bedrooms," the lawsuit states. "SoClean's falsehoods
have allowed it to command a ninety-percent share of the market for
CPAP sanitizing/sterilization devices."
In late February, the FDA issued safety communication, indicating
patients and healthcare professionals should not use what the
agency considers illegally marketed ozone gas or ultraviolet (UV)
light cleaning devices to disinfect or sanitize CPAP machines. The
warning came following nearly a dozen reports of patients suffering
respiratory complications.
Individuals reportedly experienced coughing, difficulty breathing,
nasal irritation, headaches and asthma attacks after using these
types of devices.
Just a few months later, in June, a massive Philips CPAP machine
recall was issued, following the discovery that a polyester-based
polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement foam inside the machines may
degrade and release toxic particles directly into the air
pathways.
Philips has suggested that use of SoClean and other similar
cleaning devices involving ozone and UV light may exacerbate the
foam's degradation, which could worsen respiratory side effects for
users of the CPAP machines. The company now faces a mounting number
of CPAP machine lawsuits and class action claims, indicating that
users have been diagnosed with cancer, severe respiratory problems
and other health complications.
Sakalarios' lawsuit seeks class action certification for citizens
of Mississippi who purchased SoClean devices to clean and sanitize
their CPAP, BiPAP or mechanical ventilation breathing machines. He
presents claims of breach of warranty, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, failure to warn, and calls for the manufacturer
to provide medical monitoring for the devices' users. [GN]
SOUTH DAKOTA: Faces Class Action Over Sinkhole Damages
------------------------------------------------------
Darsha Nelson, writing for NewsCenter1, reports that residents in
Hideaway Hills seeing progress in their pursuit of a class-action
lawsuit, saying the State of South Dakota is responsible for
damages incurred as a result of sinkholes, which forced more than a
dozen families to abandon their homes.
Attorneys representing the homeowners say supervised drilling will
be scheduled in two weeks.
Core sampling had already begun on private property and in the
easement area of the mine collapse, but was halted when the
Northdale Sanitary District Council raised concerns about drilling
in the road.
On Sept. 14, the firm brought a drilling plan before the NSD -
which was approved - paving the way for the necessary tests to
occur.
"Core sampling, along with the drilling is the only way to
determine precisely what is going on with the land in Hideaway
Hills and why it's subsiding and collapsing," says Kathleen Barrow,
equity partner with Fox Rothschild LLP.
Barrow and the firm hope the core sampling will solidify their
evidence when they present their next motion to the courts within
the next month.
That motion - to certify the lawsuit as class action - requires
lawyers to prove the homeowners have a common claim before it can
move forward.
"Understanding the nature and the scope of the disturbance of soil
and the movement of soil at Hideaway Hills is relevant to that
inquiry," Barrow says.
Barrow says residents will be notified of the date and time
drilling is scheduled to take place.
Results of the drilling analysis are expected in October. [GN]
SRP INVESTMENTS: Court Dismisses Jovanovic TCPA Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Djordje Jovanovic, Plaintiff v. SRP Investments LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-21-00393-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.), Judge
John J. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona grants Defendants SRP Investments, LLC and Stephanie Rose
Polydoroff's Motion to Dismiss.
Background
On March 8, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his original Complaint,
bringing a putative class action, alleging the Defendants violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") 47 U.S.C. Section
227. The Defendants thereafter filed their first Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint, citing the precise infirmity at issue in the instant
motion -- the insufficiency of the Plaintiff's allegations that the
Defendants used an automated telephonic dialing system (ATDS) to
text him.
In response and pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B), the Plaintiff timely
filed an Amended Complaint on May 6, 2021. As the Plaintiff notes
in his Notice of Filing First Amended Complaint, the sole changes
to the Amended Complaint -- now the operative Complaint -- were
additional allegations regarding the Defendants' use of an ATDS.
The Defendants thereafter filed the instant second Motion to
Dismiss, arguing that the Amended Complaint fails to remedy the
deficiency in allegations regarding use of an ATDS.
The Plaintiff alleges that on Jan. 19, 2021, he received an
unsolicited text message on his cellular phone from the Defendants,
sent from the telephone number (408) 613-4013. The message read,
"How are you Djordje? Sorry to catch you off guard but would you be
interested in liquidating any real estate here in Az? Thanks - Kat
reply STOP to end."
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants sent the text message via an
automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"), with the capacity to
store or produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential
number generator and the ability to dial such numbers. He also
alleges the Defendants utilized an ATDS system with technology
integration with public records, like property ownership and
cellular telephone number records, allowing the ATDS to send what
appeared to be a personalized message that included his first
name.
Further, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants utilized ATDS with
data aggregation technology integration combined with cellular
telephone number ownership records to randomly and sequentially
send automated text messages with his name. And the Plaintiff
alleges the Defendant included the words "reply STOP to end" to
utilize the automated technology integration. Finally, the
Plaintiff states he was never Defendants' customer, did not provide
them with his cellular telephone number, and never gave the
Defendants his express consent to receive unsolicited text
messages.
The Plaintiff brings two Causes of Action. First, he claims the
Defendants negligently violated the TCPA. Second, he claims the
Defendants knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA. The
Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim for relief.
Analysis
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim
because he did not allege sufficient facts to show the text message
in question was sent by ATDS. They also argue that the inclusion of
the Plaintiff's name in the message suggests the message was not
sent using an ATDS. In response, the Plaintiff, contends his
complaint adequately explained how the allegedly personalized
message could have been sent by an ATDS and that he stated a viable
cause of action.
Judge Tuchi holds that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a
violation of the TCPA. He says, while the Plaintiff provides some
factual support for the use of an ATDS, these allegations are not
enough to state a plausible claim for relief. The Plaintiff alleges
the text message included "reply STOP to end" and that he was never
the Defendants' customer, never provided his cellular phone number
to the Defendants, and never gave his prior express consent to
receive unsolicited messages. However, these allegations alone are
insufficient for the Court to reasonably infer beyond "a sheer
possibility" that the Defendants used ATDS to send the text
message. Judge Tuchi holds that when a complaint "pleads facts that
are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it `stops
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief.'"
The Plaintiff also alleges facts that cut against the inference
that the Defendants used an ATDS. Most prominently, he alleges he
received a personalized message that included his first name.
Targeted messages "weigh against an inference that ATDS was used."
Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants sent only one
unsolicited text message and alleges that the message was sent from
a long code phone number. These allegations, according to Judge
Tuchi, make it less plausible that the Defendants used an ATDS. The
Plaintiff also does not allege that the Defendants sent identical
messages to multiple numbers simultaneously.
Considering all facts alleged in the complaint, Judge Tuchi holds
that the Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to allow the
court to infer that the Defendants used an ATDS. Because the
Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to raise a plausible
claim that Defendants used an ATDS, the Judge will grant the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff already has amended
his Complaint once in an attempt to remedy the precise infirmity at
issue, but failed to do so, and Judge Tuchi concludes further
amendment would be futile; he thus will dismiss with prejudice.
Disposition
Judge Tuchi grants Defendants SRP Investment, LLC and Stephanie
Rose Polydoroff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17). He dismisses the
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
The Judge denies denying Defendants SRP Investment, LLC and
Stephanie Rose Polydoroff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/x6byntx5 from Leagle.com.
STATE FARM: Whitman Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM T. WHITMAN,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Case
No. 3:19-cv-06025-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Jacobs
Rothstein entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court certifies a class of
plaintiffs consisting of:
"all persons who own or owned a universal life insurance
policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the State of
Washington whose policy was in-force on or after January 1,
2002 and who was subject to at least one monthly deduction"
for each of Plaintiff's claims."
Excluded from the class are: State Farm; any entity in which State
Farm has a controlling interest; any of the officers, directors, or
employees of State Farm; the legal representatives, heirs,
successors, and assigns of State Farm; anyone employed with
Plaintiff's counsel's firms; any Judge to whom this case is
assigned, and his or her immediate family; and policies that
insured males with an age of zero and terminated in the first
policy year.
The Court certifies the same class of plaintiffs pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) for Plaintiff's claim for declaratory and injunctive
relief (Count V) only.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EZOs8D at no extra charge.[CC]
TESLA INC: To Honor Solar Roof Prices on Signed Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------
Fred Lambert, writing for Electrek, reports that in communications
shared with the court, Tesla has agreed to finally honor the solar
roof prices given to customers who had signed contracts.
Back in March, Tesla added a new "roof complexity" factor to its
solar roof prices that resulted in drastically increasing the price
of its solar roof.
The price of solar roof projects increased between 30% to 150% for
some.
That's an incredible price increase in itself, but the strangest
part of the situation is that Tesla decided to even apply the new
price hike to customers who already had a signed contract for their
upcoming solar roof project.
In some cases, customers who had signed a contract for Tesla a year
ago were asked to fork as much as 100% more for their new roof even
though they had a signed contract with Tesla.
Unsurprisingly, this resulted in several legal actions, which were
consolidated into a class action.
However, in a new filing, Tesla's lawyers informed the plaintiffs
in the consolidated case that the company started "a program for
customers who signed Solar Roof contracts before the April 2021
price changes to return those customers to their original
pricing."
The court communicated Tesla's statement in the filing:
On September 13, 2021, counsel for Tesla informed counsel for
Plaintiffs that Tesla had recently launched a program for customers
who signed Solar Roof contracts before the April 2021 price changes
to return those customers to their original pricing (if they were
subject to a price increase in April 2021). Plaintiffs' counsel
have requested additional details and advised counsel forTesla that
they believe settlement discussions should commence immediately in
order to consider, clarify, and formalize certain terms of relief.
The plaintiffs have 30 days to explore this new "program" and make
sure that it satisfies them before the legal action can be
terminated. [GN]
UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: Class Settlement in Hilaire Suit Has Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 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, Plaintiffs v. UNDERWEST
WESTSIDE OPERATING CORP., MOSHE WINER, MARTIN TAUB, AVI GOLAN, AND
ELAD EFORATI, Defendants, Civil Action Case No. 19-CV-3169
(S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
motion for preliminary approval of settlement.
Before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement, Approval of the Settlement Under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), Certification of the Settlement Class,
Appointment of Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel, Appointment of
Class Representatives, and Approval of Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice
of Settlement and Fairness Hearing and Settlement Claim Form and
Release.
Based upon the Court's review of the Declaration of Avi
Mermelstein, and all other papers submitted in connection with the
Implementing Order for Preliminary Approval, Judge Lehrburger
grants preliminary approval of the Settlement memorialized in the
Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release. He concludes that the
notice to the Class is appropriate and the Claim Form and Release
to the Class is appropriate. He finds that the Settlement Agreement
is the result of extensive, arms-length negotiations conducted
through a third-party mediator.
Judge Lehrburger approves the settlement of the FLSA collective
action. He provisionally certifies 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."
Steven Arenson, Esq. and Avi Mermelstein, Esq., of Arenson, Dittmar
& Karban located at 200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700, New York, New York
10166, telephone number (212) 490-3600, are appointed as the Class
Counsel because Arenson Dittmar & Karban meets all of the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
Judge Lehrburger preliminarily approves the Class Counsel's
reasonable costs and fees, to be paid from the Settlement Fund, in
an amount to be determined if and when the Court grants final
approval of the settlement.
Judge Lehrburger also appoints Named 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 the Class Representatives.
Judge Lehrburger approves the Notices and Claim Form and Release
attached as exhibits to the Settlement Agreement, and directs the
Notice and Claim Form's distribution to the Class as mutually
agreed upon by the Parties and submitted to Court for review.
The Notice will be distributed to the Class in English, Spanish,
French, and Haitian-Creole.
Judge Lehrburger sets the following settlement procedure:
a. 30 days after entry of Implementing Mailing of Class Notice
and WhatsApp Order: Messaging - Oct. 15, 2021
b. 60 days after date of mailing of Last day for Class Members
to "opt out" Notice of Proposed Class Action of the Settlement or
to submit written Settlement: objections to the Settlement - Nov.
15, 2021
c. 60 days after date of mailing of Last day for Class Members
to qualify as a Notice of Proposed Class Action Claimant by filing
claim form to join the Settlement: settlement - Nov. 15, 2021
d. 10 days prior to Fairness Hearing Date for parties to file
proposed Final Order, summary of claims made and application in
support of proposed Final Settlement - Feb. 4, 2022
e. Final Settlement approval hearing - Feb. 14, 2022
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5x4cdaem from Leagle.com.
VALENTINO U.S.A.: Rosario Loses Bid to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIANA ROSARIO, as
Administratrix for the Estate of Josefina Benitez, ZION BRERETON,
ALICIA LEARMONT, JAMES CHOI, and ANDREYA CRAWFORD, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VALENTINO U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11463-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil entered an order denying motion to certify collective
action.
The Court says that this time it declines to make any factual
determinations regarding whether Mr. Choi, Ms. Crawford, Ms.
Beneitez, or Ms. Bereton were in fact misclassified during their
time at Valentino. The Court adds that it cannot grant conditional
certification because Plaintiffs fail to establish a cognizable
common policy or scheme, or similar job responsibilities, that
could support conditional certification.
The Plaintiffs Damiana Rosario, as Administratrix for the Estate of
Josefina Benitez, Zion Brereton, Alicia Learmont, James Choi, and
Andreya Crawford, bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), against
Defendant Valentino.
The Plaintiffs allege that Valentino purposefully misclassified
their employees as overtime-exempt and denied overtime wages per
this misclassification when they were in fact non-exempt employees.
The Plaintiffs contend that as a result of this misclassification,
they are entitled to backpay for unpaid wages and move to certify
this putative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b) on behalf of other similarly situated employees.
The Plaintiffs seek to extend the class to all current and former
non-executive corporate and retail employees who were previously
classified as exempt and are now non-exempt.
Valentino is located in New York and is part of the clothing stores
industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ugDZke at no extra charge.[CC]
VIEW INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 19 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
PLL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19694&wire=1
VIEW Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/view-inc-f-k-a-cf-finance-acquisition-corp-ii-loss-submission-form?prid=19694&wire=1
HYRE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19694&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ:PLL)
PLL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 16, 2018 -
July 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19694&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Piedmont
Lithium Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Piedmont has not, and would
not, follow its stated steps or timeline to secure all proper and
necessary permits; (2) Piedmont failed to inform relevant people
and governmental authorities of its actual plans; (3) Piedmont
failed to file proper applications with relevant governmental
authorities (including state and local authorities); (4) Piedmont
and its lithium business does not have "strong local government
support"; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
View, Inc. f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II (NASDAQ:VIEW)
VIEW Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 30,
2020 - August 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/view-inc-f-k-a-cf-finance-acquisition-corp-ii-loss-submission-form?prid=19694&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, View,
Inc. f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
View had not properly accrued warranty costs related to its
product; (2) there was a material weakness in View's internal
controls over accounting and financial reporting related to
warranty accrual; (3) as a result, the Company's financial results
for prior periods were misstated; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
HyreCar Inc. (NASDAQ:HYRE)
HYRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 14, 2021 -
August 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19694&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, HyreCar
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (a) HyreCar had materially understated its
insurance reserves; (b) HyreCar had systematically failed to pay
valid insurance claims incurred prior to the Class Period; (c)
HyreCar had incurred significant expenses transitioning to its new
third-party insurance claims administrator and processing claims
incurred from prior periods; (d) HyreCar had failed to
appropriately price risk in its insurance products and was
experiencing elevated claims incidence as a result; (e) 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) as a result, 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 (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization), and net loss trajectories.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines 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.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
VOLTAGE PICTURES: Torys Attorneys Discuss Appeals Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Gotowiec, Esq., Alexandra Peterson, Esq., and William
Mazurek, Esq., of Torys LLP, disclosed that in Salna v Voltage
Pictures, LLC, 2021 FCA 176 the Federal Court of Appeal overturned
a lower court's decision to refuse certification of a "reverse"
class action. A reverse class action is where one plaintiff seeks
to bring a claim against a representative defendant and have the
result bind all other similarly situated defendants.
What you need to know
The underlying case is an application for infringement of Voltage's
copyright in five different movies. Voltage sought to certify a
class of respondents who are all alleged to have downloaded the
same movies, with Mr. Salna as the representative respondent.
The Federal Court dismissed Voltage's certification motion, finding
that it met none of the requirements for certification. The Court
of Appeal reversed that decision, and sent the case back to the
Federal Court for further consideration of whether a class action
was the preferable procedure and whether the respondent was a
suitable representative.
The Court of Appeal determined that:
The "novelty" of the reverse class action was not a reason to deny
certification. While the Court of Appeal acknowledged the proposed
proceeding "may ultimately flounder", it was an error to presume
that would happen at an early stage in the case.
Although online copyright infringement may raise novel issues, the
threshold question of whether the pleadings disclose a cause of
action should not be resolved by resort to expert evidence; all a
court must do at this stage is determine whether the moving party
should be precluded from advancing the argument at trial. Novel but
arguable claims, supported by sufficient material facts, should be
allowed to proceed.
The fact that the monetary consequences for each class member may
be low, and therefore provide little incentive to defend, does not
mean that no suitable representative respondent exists. If that
were the case, it would undermine the plaintiff's ability to pursue
individually non-viable claims. This would conflict with the
purpose of class actions.
Although the Court acknowledged that the proposed representative
respondents raised a number of "substantive concerns", it would be
premature to allow these issues to defeat certification. If those
concerns were to materialize, decertification "remains an option".
The underlying dispute
Voltage Pictures LLC sought to certify an application for copyright
infringement as a respondent class proceeding, also known as a
"reverse class action". Voltage alleged that the purported class of
respondents were directly and indirectly infringing its copyright
in five films, through downloading and uploading those films on
peer-to-peer file sharing protocol sites like BitTorrent. Voltage
had previously obtained a Norwich order compelling certain ISPs to
disclose the identity of alleged infringers, including the
defendant Mr. Salna. His IP address was selected because his
account had offered to "seed" (or upload) all five films at some
point.
The Federal Court dismissed Voltage's motion for certification
because it held that Voltage had not met any of the five criteria
required to certify a class action in the Federal Courts Rules.
Voltage appealed.
The Federal Court of Appeal decision
In a unanimous decision, the Federal Court of Appeal returned the
certification motion to the Federal Court for reconsideration.
Although the Court of Appeal had sufficient evidence to conclude
that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, that an
identifiable class existed, and that there were common questions,
it held that the other factors in the test for certification
required additional fact-finding to resolve.
The applicable law
The five requirements that must be met for a judge to certify a
class action are codified in Rule 334.16 of the Federal Courts
Rules. They are:
-- the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action;
-- there is an identifiable class of two or more persons;
-- the claims of the class members raise common questions of law
of fact, whether or not those issues predominate;
-- a class proceeding is the preferable method of resolving the
common issues; and
-- there is a suitable representative of the class.
A reasonable cause of action
Overturning the certification judge's decision, the Federal Court
of Appeal decided that Voltage's pleadings disclosed a reasonable
cause of action. Voltage's statement of claim alleged three
separate causes of action: direct infringement, secondary
infringement and authorizing infringement. In conducting his
analysis, the certification judge assessed the strength of the
direct infringement claim, relying on expert evidence about the
nature of BitTorrent. The Court of Appeal concluded that was an
error, and the Federal Court should have only considered the
pleaded facts in assessing the causes of action. The Court of
Appeal did that analysis and concluded that direct infringement and
authorizing infringement were properly pleaded, but agreed with the
Federal Court that secondary infringement was not.
An identifiable class
The Federal Court had not been satisfied with Voltage's evidence
that there was a class of two or more people. The Court of Appeal
concluded that the judge had applied the civil standard of evidence
to this question, rather than the less onerous "some basis in fact"
test.
Voltage had claimed that it was in possession of "thousands of IP
addresses" that had allegedly infringed its copyrights. But this
statement was simply a footnote in its legal argument. The Federal
Court of Appeal agreed with the Federal Court that it was not
evidence.
However, the Court of Appeal nonetheless concluded there was "some
basis in fact" to support the existence of a class of two or more
people. This came from an affidavit Voltage had filed and
accompanying cross-examination where the affiant stated that the
proposed respondent Mr. Salna's IP address "had been chosen". The
Court of Appeal said this statement "suggests that more than one IP
address was identified, meaning there was more than one internet
account subscriber in the proposed class." The Court of Appeal
acknowledged this was a "thin reed on which to stand" but concluded
it met the "some basis in fact" test.
Common questions
In conducting its analysis of this branch of the certification
test, the Federal Court had focused on whether there were common
answers to the proposed common questions. The Court of Appeal held
this analysis was improper. The correct inquiry was whether the
resolution of a proposed question would be common to the proposed
class members. The Court of Appeal said that the primary question
to be answered was whether certification would advance the
principal goals of a class proceeding: judicial economy, behaviour
modification, and access to justice. The Court of Appeal held that
resolving even a single issue among many may achieve these goals.
The "speculative concerns" that had been raised by Mr. Salna about
certain of the proposed common issues were not persuasive.
Whether a class proceeding would be the preferable method of
resolving the claims
The Court of Appeal sent the case back to the Federal Court to
redetermine preferability. The evidence about the size and shape of
the class was weak, and certain of the Federal Court's conclusions
(including that joinder of multiple actions would be preferable)
were not adequately explained. It was therefore impossible for the
Court of Appeal to determine whether a class proceeding would be
preferable.
In conducting its preferability analysis, the Court of Appeal
touched on the unique character of "reverse" class actions. The
Federal Court was concerned that class defendants could and would
opt out of the class, reducing the class to a miniscule size. It
used this possibility to conclude that a class proceeding was not
the preferable procedure. The Court of Appeal was skeptical of this
reasoning. It hypothesized that a class action could be good for
the respondents because it would allow them to share defense costs
and would reduce the pressure on them to settle. It accepted the
possibility of opt-outs, but concluded that if every member opted
out of the class, it could be decertified. Until then, concerns
about the size of the class were premature.
A suitable class representative
The Court of Appeal also remitted the question of whether the
respondent was a suitable representative to the lower court for
reconsideration. The record did not contain sufficient evidence,
and the Federal Court's reasons had insufficient analysis, for the
Court to determine if the criterion had been met.
At the motion for certification, the Federal Court had concluded
the respondent was not a suitable representative because he was not
sufficiently incentivized to defend the action. Under the Copyright
Act, at most Mr. Salna would be liable for $5,000 in statutory
damages. Hence, there would be little reason for him to bear the
cost of vigorously defending the action.
The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the lower court's reasoning
because it would lead to the conclusion that no respondent class
proceedings would ever have a suitable representative plaintiff
respondent where the monetary consequence for each class member was
low. This consequence, the Court of Appeal held, would be
incompatible with the purpose of class actions, which is to allow
recovery of individually nonviable claims. The principle of
encouraging access to justice applies in both "regular" and
"reverse" class actions.
Conclusion
Whether this case will ultimately move forward as a class action
will have to await a further decision from the Federal Court, and
possibly another trip to the Court of Appeal. As a result, it will
likely be some time before we know whether a reverse class action
is a viable method for a copyright owner to bring infringement
claims.
This publication is a general discussion of certain legal and
related developments and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
If you require legal advice, we would be pleased to discuss the
issues in this publication with you, in the context of your
particular circumstances.
For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact
Janelle Weed. [GN]
WALMART INC: Hollins Files 9th Cir. Appeal in False Ad Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Darlene Hollins, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ANGELA DIAMOS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05526-SVW-GJS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought for unjust enrichment, breach of contract and for
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California False Advertising
Law in connection with the sale of Spring Valley brand glucosamine
sulfate.
Plaintiff Angela Diamos purchased a bottle of Spring Valley brand
glucosamine sulfate, which states in large font on the label that
each serving contains 1000 mg of glucosamine sulfate per tablet.
However, laboratory testing confirms that the product actually
contains Glucosamine Hydrochloride and does not contain Glucosamine
Sulfate. Walmart is selling a dietary supplement that simply is not
what it claims to be. Plaintiff brought this class action on behalf
of all purchasers of Spring Valley Glucosamine Sulfate in
California because Walmart breached a contract to sell glucosamine
sulfate, and was unjustly enriched when it sold a product that it
labelled as glucosamine sulfate when, in fact, it was glucosamine
hydrochloride, requiring restitution. Plaintiff demanded a
combination of damages and injunctive relief.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated Aug.
17, 2021, granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and
denying motion for sanctions; and Order dated June 9, 2021,
granting in part Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as Darlene Hollins, et al. v.
Walmart Inc., et al., Case No. 21-56031, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Sept. 21, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Marie Angeline Falcone, Darlene Hollins, Christian
Lemus and Alain Michael Mediation Questionnaire was due on Sept.
28, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by Oct. 18, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on Nov. 16, 2021;
-- Appellants Marie Angeline Falcone, Darlene Hollins, Christian
Lemus and Alain Michael opening brief is due on Dec. 27, 2021;
-- Appellees International Vitamin Corporation and Walmart Inc.
answering brief is due on Jan. 27, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DARLENE HOLLINS, CHRISTIAN LEMUS, ALAIN
MICHAEL, and MARIE ANGELINE FALCONE, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
Carl L. Stine, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 451-9621
E-mail: minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com
cstine@wolfpopper.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9154
E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com
Defendants-Appellees WALMART INC. and INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN
CORPORATION are represented by:
Steven Alagna, Esq.
Darci F. Madden, Esq.
Ann Elizabeth Sternhell Blackwell, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER, LLP
211 N Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2045
E-mail: steven.alagna@bclplaw.com
dfmadden@bclplaw.com
liz.blackwell@bclplaw.com
- and -
Jean-Claude Andre, Esq.
Simren K. Gill, Esq.
Jennifer A. Jackson, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Telephone: (310) 576-2148
- and -
Jon A. Pfeiffer, Esq.
PFEIFFER FITZGIBBON & ZIONTZ LLP
233 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 451-5800
WALT DISNEY: Disneyland Cast Members Join Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
DisneyFanatic.com reports that the low pay for many Disneyland Cast
Members along with the high cost of living near Anaheim, California
has been causing housing and food insecurities for a number of
years, and now the majority of Cast Members are joining a class
action lawsuit against the resort in hopes of gaining a living
wage.
The 25,000 (of Disneyland's total 32,000) Cast Members involved in
the suit allege that the company is legally obligated to pay them a
living wage, and the ability to "live" hours away from their place
of employment on top of food insecurities and the inability to
consider having children does not quite constitute living.
Unions and Cast Members began to feel added pressure on wages when
Disneyland changed the way certain roles are paid. For instance,
some tipped positions like valet attendants recently had their
roles modified so that they would no longer be handling luggage.
But handling luggage is the way that many valet Cast Members make
enough money to live on where their role is otherwise paid minimum
wage or close to it.
Because of their low pay, some Disneyland Cast Members are
experiencing food insecurities, while others are having to put off
having children and buying a home. Some are even opting to sleep in
their cars, because while affordable housing projects have helped
some Cast Members make it work, others have not been able to find a
solution close enough to work to justify the drive and the job.
Many Cast Members also believe that leaving their positions,
despite the fact they many do not want to as they are there because
they love what they do for work, will not help. While the COVID-19
crisis may present a different picture, Disneyland has not
historically had a difficult time filling frontline hospitality
roles, so many fear if they were to leave the positions would
simply be filled by those willing to accept the low pay and the
problem would never be resolved.
A 2018 study conducted by Occidental College and the Economic
Roundtable reported that 11% of Disneyland Cast Members have
experienced homelessness, while 68% felt food insecurities and 73%
stated that they do not earn enough to cover their basic living
expenses.
Some Cast Members have taken on second jobs to offset their
Disneyland pay, but many find it difficult to do so given their
requirement to have full availability at Disneyland. Even part
timers have a hard time working a second job because of the varying
shifts they get scheduled in the park. Some have turned to
rideshare jobs and delivery services that are easier to work on
their own time.
The cost of housing has gone up throughout Orange County as well,
and many Cast Members believe rents are raised whenever possible
because landlords understand the benefits of living close to the
park and assume people will do what they can to be able to pay
them.
The suit is also pointing to tax subsidies that the Walt Disney
Company gets for the Anaheim property, claiming that those are
extra dollars available that could be put towards giving the people
who make the magic at the resort a living wage. Additional
complications have been noted with revenue from the Mickey and
Friends parking structure, which is a garage the City of Anaheim
has ownership of though it is located on Disney property. "Measure
L" as the involved Cast Members and union leaders are referring to
this point in the suit, asks that the company increase wages to at
least $18/hour plus any adequate increases to match the cost of
living by 2022.
Currently Disneyland starts Cast Members at $15/hour, one dollar
over the $14 minimum wage required by the state of California.
There are plenty of perks and benefits to being a Disneyland Cast
Member, too, but at the end of the day perks cannot compete with a
living wage. As far as benefits, Cast Members do have access to
public transportation cost subsidies, childcare, elder care, added
paid sick time during COVID, and free access to educational
programs (from GED courses to Master's programs) all entirely
covered up-front by the company.
Ultimately, Cast Members choose to work at Disneyland despite the
low wages, because they want to be there. They enjoy creating
happiness for Guests from all over the world and they truly have a
passion for what they do- They would just like to be paid
accordingly for it. [GN]
WATERBURY, CT: Vacation of Arbitration Award in Brass Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRASS CITY LOCAL, CONNECTICUT ALLIANCE OF CITY POLICE
v. CITY OF WATERBURY ET AL, AC 43328 (Conn. App.), the Appellate
Court of Connecticut reverses the judgment of the trial court
vacating the arbitration award in favor of the Plaintiff.
Background
The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a collective
bargaining agreement (agreement). Article III Section 2(b) of the
agreement authorized the superintendent of police to make vacancy
appointments of eligible persons "to positions on an acting basis,
due to the non-existence of a civil service promotional list for a
period no longer than nine months." Subsection (b) of Section 2
further provided that the Defendant "may allow a person to continue
in such a position for more than nine months only if all eligible
persons have already held the position for nine months or have
refused assignment to the position after it has been offered."
On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class action grievance
alleging that the Defendant had violated Article III Section 2(b)
of the agreement on the ground that it failed to replace police
officers holding acting basis appointments after nine months of
service. Specifically, the grievance stated that "there are several
employees filling acting positions in excess of nine months in
violation of Article III Section 2(b) of the agreement between the
Defendant and the Plaintiff." The Defendant denied the grievance.
Pursuant to the grievance procedures set forth in the agreement,
the matter was submitted to the panel. The agreement provided that
the authority of the panel as arbitrators was "limited to the
interpretation and application of the provisions" of the agreement
and that the panel did not have "authority to add to, or subtract
from, or otherwise modify" the agreement. The issue submitted to
the panel was: "Did the Defendant violate Article III Section 2 (b)
of the agreement when it failed to appoint acting positions for
less than nine months and if so, what will the remedy be?"
On Feb. 28, 2017, the parties were heard and presented evidence
before the panel. Thereafter, at the request of the panel, the
parties submitted posthearing briefs proposing remedies for the
alleged violation of the agreement. In its July 31, 2017
posthearing brief, the Plaintiff proposed the remedy of "back pay
and benefits for those members affected by the Defendant's alleged
violation of the agreement on or after May 16, 2016, and not
before." In its July 31, 2017 posthearing brief, the Defendant
ultimately maintained that, "even if the grievance were sustained,
any financial remedy would be an unwarranted punitive penalty and
would constitute an improper windfall to the Plaintiff and its
members."
On Sept. 5, 2017, the panel sustained the Plaintiff's grievance.
Specifically, the panel decided: The Defendant did violate Article
III Section 2(b) of the collective bargaining agreement when it
failed to appoint acting positions for less than nine months. The
Defendant is ordered to stop the practice of maintaining persons in
acting basis positions for more than nine months consistent with
the terms of Article III Section 2 (b). The Defendant is further
ordered to provide the Plaintiff with written evidence that its
practice has ended, including the names of all persons who have
held acting basis positions for longer than nine months, the
positions held, and the beginning and end dates of their service in
an acting capacity." The panel found that "an award of monetary
damages is inappropriate."
On Oct. 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed in the Superior Court a one
count complaint and a motion to vacate the arbitration award. The
Plaintiff's complaint alleged that the panel had "exceeded its
powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and
definite award upon the subject matter was not made" in violation
of General Statutes Section 52-418(a)(4). Accordingly, the
Plaintiff requested that the arbitration award be vacated. The
Defendant filed an objection to the Plaintiff's motion to vacate
the arbitration award, in which it disagreed with the Plaintiff's
characterization of the arbitration award and argued that the panel
"did decide the issues presented to them, they just didn't give the
plaintiff the remedy it desired." Thereafter, the parties submitted
additional briefing in support of their respective positions.
In a Feb. 27, 2019 memorandum of decision, the court, M. Taylor,
J., first concluded that the submission to arbitration was
unrestricted because "there was no agreement in the submission of
the parties to restrict the scope of the remedy imposed by the
panel." As such, the court recognized three grounds for vacating an
arbitration award, as set forth by state Supreme Court in
Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins.
Co., 273 Conn. 86, 94, 868 A.2d 47 (2005): "(1) the award rules on
the constitutionality of a statute (2) the award violates clear
public policy and (3) the award contravenes one or more of the
statutory proscriptions of Section 52-418." The court further noted
that Section 52-418 (a)(4) provides that an arbitration award will
be vacated if "the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so
imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award
upon the subject matter submitted was not made." The court then
proceeded to consider the Plaintiff's arguments that the second and
third grounds for vacating an arbitration award apply.
With respect to the third ground for vacating an arbitration award
pertaining to the statutory proscriptions of Section 52-418, the
court stated that it "could not determine that the decision of the
panel manifests an egregious or patently irrational application of
the law and is an award that should be set aside pursuant to
Section 52-418(a)(4)." With respect to the second ground for
vacating an arbitration award pertaining to public policy, the
court concluded that "ignoring relevant evidence should not form
the basis of a violation of public policy."
Notwithstanding these conclusions, however, the court remanded the
matter to the panel for clarification of the following questions:
(1) "Did the panel take into consideration the fact that the
Defendant had reestablished the promotions list and, therefore, the
rotation of acting positions for nine months pursuant to Article
III Section 2(b) had ended at the time of its award?"; (2) "If the
answer to question number one is yes, would the panel explain in
greater detail its rationale for denying damages?"; And (3) "If the
answer to question number one is no, would consideration of this
fact have changed the conclusion of the panel in denying damages?"
On April 12, 2019, the panel issued a response. With respect to the
first and third questions posed by the court, the panel stated that
it "did not take into consideration the fact that the Defendant had
reestablished the promotions list and, therefore, the rotation of
acting positions for nine months pursuant to Article III Section
2(b) had ended at the time of the award. Consideration of this fact
would have resulted in an award making all eligible employees whole
due to the failure to replace those holding acting basis
positions." Following the panel's response to the court's order,
the parties submitted supplemental briefing on the motion to vacate
the arbitration award.
In an Aug. 7, 2019 memorandum of decision, the court reversed its
earlier decision with respect to the third ground for vacating an
arbitration award and agreed with the Plaintiff that the
arbitration award was "so imperfectly executed that a mutual, final
and definite award upon the subject matter was not made," in
violation of Section 52-418(a)(4). Accordingly, the court granted
the Plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award. The appeal
followed.
On appeal, the Defendant claims that the court erred by granting
the Plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award. In light of
the court's determination that (1) the submission to arbitration
was unrestricted, (2) the panel's award was not illogical or
inconsistent with the plain language of the agreement, and (3) the
panel did not violate clear public policy to warrant vacating the
arbitration award, the Defendant argues that "controlling law
required that the motion to vacate the award be denied" and that
"further inquiry on remand was neither required nor permitted." We
agree with the defendant.
Discussion
The party challenging the award bears the burden of producing
evidence sufficient to demonstrate a violation of Section 52-418.
The issue submitted to the panel was: "Did the Defendant violate
Article III Section 2(b) of the agreement when it failed to appoint
acting positions for less than nine months and if so, what will the
remedy be?"
With respect to the appropriate remedy, the panel determined that
"an award of monetary damages is inappropriate" and, instead,
ordered the Defendant to discontinue the improper practice and to
provide the Plaintiff with evidence of its discontinuation. The
Appellate Court opines that this award conforms to the submission.
Thus, it is clear that the panel did not exceed its authority.
In its Feb. 27, 2019 memorandum of decision, the court specifically
determined that "the conclusion of the panel to deny an award of
damages was neither inconsistent with the plain language of the
agreement nor was it inconsistent with logic and reason for it to
deny payment for work not performed." Moreover, it determined that
the panel did not violate clear public policy to warrant vacating
the arbitration award.
In light of these conclusions, with which the Appellate Court
agreed, applying the general rule of deference to an arbitrator's
award, and making every reasonable presumption and intendment in
favor of the arbitral award and of the panel's acts and
proceedings, the Appellate Court concludes that the court erred
when it thereafter granted the Plaintiff's motion to vacate the
arbitration award. The panel's award was a mutual, final and
definite award and there was no basis for the court to remand the
matter for further consideration of the evidence or the legal
questions involved. Rather, the court should have denied the
Plaintiff's motion in light of the conclusions set forth in its
Feb. 27, 2019 memorandum of decision.
Disposition
Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment
and remanded the case with direction to deny the Plaintiff's motion
to vacate the arbitration award. In the Opinion, the other judges
concurred.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/56s4j5xp from Leagle.com.
Daniel J. Foster -- dfoster@wilkefleury.com -- corporation counsel,
for the Appellant (Named Defendant).
Marshall T. Segar -- marshalllawusa@gmail.com -- for the Appellee
(Plaintiff).
WATERDROP INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Sept. 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased or
otherwise acquired Waterdrop Inc. ("Waterdrop" or the "Company")
(NYSE: WDH) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the offering
documents issued in connection with Waterdrop's May 2021 initial
public offering (the "IPO"). Investors have until November 15, 2021
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
On June 17, 2021, Waterdrop issued a press release announcing
Waterdrop's financial results for the quarter conducted before the
IPO. In doing so, Waterdrop reported that its operating costs and
expenses had ballooned over 75%, or RMB579.1 million, to RMB1,343.9
million (US$205.1 million). As a result, Waterdrop suffered an
operating loss for the quarter of RMB460.6 million (US$70.3
million), compared with operating loss of RMB111.1 million for the
same period of 2020 - a more than four-fold increase. This rapid
increase in operating expenses was due largely to the cessation of
Waterdrop's mutual aid business and growing customer acquisition
costs.
Then, on August 11, 2021, multiple news sources reported that
China's banking and insurance watchdog, the China Banking and
Insurance Regulatory Commission, had issued an order directing
insurance companies to cease improper marketing and pricing
practices rampant in the industry and enhance their user privacy
protections. Failure to comply would reportedly result in the
offenders being "severely punished" by Chinese authorities. As
Bloomberg reported, "[r]egulators have since moved to shutter some
operations including mutual aid healthcare platforms operated by
Waterdrop." The article continued: "he latest move will stymie
growth in an industry that had been expected to grow to 2.5
trillion yuan ($385 billion) in a decade."
Finally, on September 8, 2021, Waterdrop revealed that its
operating losses for the quarter ended June 30, 2021 had continued
to accelerate, totaling RMB815.4 million (US$126.3 million),
compared with an operating profit of RMB7.2 million for the same
period of 2020. This was once again due to a sharp increase in
Waterdrop's operating costs and expenses, as Waterdrop's operating
costs and expenses during the quarter increased by RMB1,081.1
million, or 160.5% year over year, to RMB1,754.7 million (US$271.8
million) from RMB673.6 million for the same period of 2020.
On September 13, 2021, Waterdrop ADSs dropped to a low of just $3
per ADS –75% below the price at which Waterdrop ADSs were sold to
the investing public just four months previously.
The Complaint alleges that the IPO's Registration Statement failed
to disclose that Waterdrop was the subject of an intense regulatory
investigation and pending crackdown by Chinese authorities because
of a variety of market abuses perpetrated by Waterdrop used to
artificially inflate Waterdrop's short-term financial results in
the lead up to the IPO, including, among other things: (i)
operating insurance platforms without proper governmental
authorizations; (ii) mispricing risks for consumers; and (iii)
illicitly using client information. The Waterdrop class action
lawsuit further alleges that, unbeknownst to investors, the reason
that Waterdrop had discontinued its mutual aid segment was because
it had been ordered to do so by Chinese regulators. Furthermore,
Waterdrop had suffered rapidly accelerating operating losses in the
first quarter of 2021 which was completed weeks before the IPO.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Waterdrop shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
WATERDROP INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Sept. 15 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Waterdrop Inc. ("Waterdrop" or the "Company") (NYSE: WDH) American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's May 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO").
Waterdrop investors have until November 15, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Waterdrop investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
In May 2021, Waterdrop completed its IPO, selling 30 million ADSs
at $12.00 per share.
Then, on June 17, 2021, Waterdrop reported its financial results
for the quarter that closed before the IPO, disclosing among other
results, that the Company's operating costs and expenses had
increased over 75%, or around RMB579.1 million, to RMB1,343.9
million, (US$205.1 million). As a result, the Company reported an
operating loss for the quarter of RMB460.6 million (US$70.3
million), a four-fold increase over the prior year period.
Then, on August 11, 2021, media outlets reported that the China
Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission directed insurance
companies to terminate improper marketing and pricing practices and
improve their user privacy protections. Bloomberg reported that
"[r]egulators have since moved to shutter some operations including
mutual aid healthcare platforms operated by Waterdrop."
Then, on September 8, 2021, Waterdrop announced that its operating
losses for the quarter ended June 30, 2021 had continued to
increase, totaling RMB815.4 million (US$126.3 million), compared
with an operating profit of RMB7.2 million for the same period of
2020.
On September 13, 2021, the Company's ADSs dropped to a low of just
$3 per ADS, or 75% below the IPO price.
The complaint filed alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) Waterdrop had achieved a substantial portion of
its historical revenue growth through illicit means that ran afoul
of Chinese rules and regulations governing the insurance industry;
(2) Waterdrop had been ordered by the Chinese government to shut
down its mutual aid platform because of its failure to comply with
Chinese law; (3) Waterdrop was under investigation by regulatory
authorities for continued violations of Chinese law; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, there existed a material undisclosed risk
and substantial likelihood that Waterdrop would face severe adverse
reactions by regulatory authorities following the IPO; (5)
Waterdrop's operating losses had increased more than four-fold in
the first quarter of 2021 as a result of the cessation of its
mutual aid business and rapidly growing customer acquisition costs;
and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the registration statement's
representations regarding Waterdrop's historical financial and
operational metrics and purported market opportunities did not
accurately reflect the actual business, operations, and financial
results and trajectory of the Company in the lead up to the IPO,
were materially false and misleading, and lacked a factual basis.
If you purchased Waterdrop ADSs, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
WATERDROP INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of November 15 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Sept. 20
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against Waterdrop Inc. (NYSE: WDH) ("Waterdrop") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Waterdrop American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in or traceable to Waterdrop's May 2021
initial public offering (the "IPO").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Waterdrop
ADSs in or traceable to the IPO may, no later than November 15,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453; toll free at (844)
887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/waterdrop-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=waterdrop
Waterdrop operates an insurance technology platform and is based in
Beijing, China. Waterdrop has historically operated three business
segments: (i) an insurance marketplace that matches consumers with
health and life insurance products; (ii) medical crowdfunding,
which enables people to provide donations to people with
significant medical costs; and (iii) mutual aid, which enabled
people suffering from over 100 types of critical illness to spread
their medical cost burdens. Waterdrop discontinued its mutual aid
segment in March 2021, shortly before the IPO.
On April 16, 2021, Waterdrop filed a registration statement on a
Form F-1 for the IPO, which, after an amendment, was declared
effective on May 6, 2021 (the "Registration Statement"). On May 7,
2021, Waterdrop filed a prospectus for the IPO on a Form 424B4,
which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement.
The Registration Statement was used to sell to the investing public
30 million Waterdrop ADSs at $12 per ADS. The complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement failed to disclose that Waterdrop
had suffered ballooning losses in the first quarter of 2021 and
violated numerous Chinese laws and regulations governing the
insurance industry.
The truth began to emerge on June 17, 2021, when Waterdrop issued a
press release announcing its financial results for the quarter
ended March 31, 2021, the quarter conducted before the IPO.
Waterdrop reported that its operating costs and expenses had
ballooned over 75%, or RMB579.1 million, to RMB1,343.9 million
(US$205.1 million). As a result, Waterdrop suffered an operating
loss for the quarter of RMB460.6 million (US$70.3 million),
compared with an operating loss of RMB111.1 million for the same
period of 2020 - a more than four-fold increase.
Then, on August 11, 2021, multiple news sources reported that
China's banking and insurance watchdog, the China Banking and
Insurance Regulatory Commission, had issued an order directing
insurance companies to cease improper marketing and pricing
practices rampant in the industry and enhance their user privacy
protections. Failure to comply would reportedly result in the
offenders being "severely punished" by Chinese authorities.
Finally, on September 8, 2021, Waterdrop issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the quarter ended June 30,
2021. The release stated that Waterdrop's operating losses had
continued to accelerate, totaling RMB815.4 million (US$126.3
million) for the quarter, compared with an operating profit of
RMB7.2 million for the same period of 2020. This was once again due
to a sharp increase in Waterdrop's operating costs and expenses, as
the company's operating costs and expenses during the quarter
increased by RMB1,081.1 million, or 160.5% year over year, to
RMB1,754.7 million (US$271.8 million) from RMB673.6 million for the
same period of 2020.
On September 13, 2021, the day before the complaint was filed,
Waterdrop ADSs dropped to a low of just $3 per ADS, 75% below the
price at which Waterdrop ADSs were sold to the investing public.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose that Waterdrop was engaged in a variety of market abuses
used to artificially inflate Waterdrop's short-term financial
results in the lead up to the IPO, including: (1) operating
insurance platforms without proper governmental authorizations; (2)
mispricing risks for consumers; and (3) illicitly using client
information. Indeed, unbeknownst to investors, the reason that
Waterdrop had discontinued its mutual aid segment was because it
had been ordered to do so by Chinese regulators.
Waterdrop investors may, no later than November 15, 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]
WATERDROP INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 15
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Waterdrop
Inc. (NYSE: WDH) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering conducted in May 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). A
class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
15, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Waterdrop ADSs pursuant and/or traceable
to the IPO 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 Waterdrop class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2158.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 November 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, the IPO's
registration statement featured false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Waterdrop had achieved a
substantial portion of its historical revenue growth through
illicit means that ran afoul of Chinese rules and regulations
governing the insurance industry; (2) Waterdrop had been ordered by
the Chinese government to shut down its mutual aid platform because
of its failure to comply with Chinese law; (3) Waterdrop was under
investigation by regulatory authorities for continued violations of
Chinese law; (4) as a result of the foregoing, there existed a
material undisclosed risk and substantial likelihood that Waterdrop
would face severe adverse actions by regulatory authorities
following the IPO; (5) Waterdrop's operating losses had increased
more than four-fold in the first quarter of 2021 as a result of the
cessation of its mutual aid business and rapidly growing customer
acquisition costs; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the IPO
registration statement's representations regarding Waterdrop's
historical financial and operational metrics and purported market
opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business,
operations, and financial results and trajectory of the Company in
the lead up to the IPO, were materially false and misleading, and
lacked a factual basis. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Waterdrop class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2158.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.
Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
WATERDROP INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 15 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Waterdrop Inc. ("Waterdrop" or "the Company") (NYSE: WDH) for
violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in May
2021 (the "IPO") are encouraged to contact the firm before November
15, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Waterdrop achieved its past revenue
growth through illicit means likely to draw the attention of
Chinese regulators for violating their rules. The Company was
ordered by the Chinese government to shut down its mutual aid
platform because it did not comply with Chinese law. The Company's
operating losses increased significantly in the first quarter of
2021 based on shutting down the mutual aid platform and increased
customer acquisition costs. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about Waterdrop,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
WESTERN FLYER: Beissel Suit Moved From N.D. to W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW BEISSEL, an individual, J&B ENTERPRISES, INC.,
a Colorado Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTERN FLYER EXPRESS, LLC, an
Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
20-CV-638-TCK-SH (N.D. Okla.), Judge Terence C. Kern of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma issued an
Opinion and Order:
a. denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as it relates to
venue;
b. granting the Defendant's alternative Motion to Transfer;
and
c. denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as it relates to
the Plaintiff's Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(ODTPA) claims, with leave to refile after case is
transferred.
Background
On Nov. 13, 2019, Plaintiff Beissel and his closely held
corporation, J&B Enterprises, Inc., entered into a Vehicle Lease
Agreement with R.W. Timms Leasing, LLC, for the lease of a
commercial truck, with a purchase option at the expiration of the
lease. Upon signing the lease-purchase agreement, the Plaintiff
simultaneously signed an Independent Contractor Agreement with the
Defendant to provide long haul truck driving services for its
customers. The Vehicle Lease Agreement and the Independent
Contractor Agreement were part of a nation-wide "Driving
Opportunity" marketing scheme by the Defendant to recruit
commercial truck drivers to lease trucks through its leasing
affiliate (R.W. Timms Leasing) and then have those drivers
transport cargo as independent contractors for the Defendant.
Each week, the Defendant would pay the truck drivers per-mile
driven for the week, less leasepayment deductions, fuel, and other
equipment-related charges. At the expiration of the truck lease
agreement, truck drivers had the option to purchase the truck for
$1 or lease a new truck.
The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the Court on Dec.
7, 2020, alleging fraud, negligence, and violations of the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act and ODTPA. While the Complaint addresses
the entire Driving Opportunity scheme, the Plaintiff's claims arise
out of his Independent Contractor Agreement with the Defendant.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts four different theories to
establish venue in the District. First, Pthe laintiff alleges venue
is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b), stating that the
Defendant "has its headquarters and offices, conducts business, and
can be found in the District, and the causes of action set forth
herein have arisen and occurred in part of the District." Second,
he claims that venue is proper under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(e)(2)
because the Defendant has "substantial business contacts within the
state of Oklahoma and in the District." Third, the Plaintiff
reasserts 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 as the statutory basis for venue
and alleges that "a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to Beissel's claims occurred in this judicial
District." Fourth, the Plaintiff claims that venue is proper in
this District "because agreements between the Defendant and all
Drivers provide for all disputes to be litigated in Oklahoma County
state or federal courts."
The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, challenging venue and the
Plaintiff's ODTPA claim. With respect to venue, the Defendant urges
the Court to dismiss the Complaint or, in the alternative, to
transfer the case to the Western District of Oklahoma. It argues
that the Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) based on
a forum selection clause in its Independent Contractor Agreement
with the Plaintiff (Agreement). The relevant Agreement contains a
forum selection clause.
The Western District of Oklahoma is located in Oklahoma County.
Accordingly, the Defendant urges the Court to dismiss the Complaint
because there is no claim for which this Court may grant relief. It
then provides a request in the alternative to transfer the case to
the Western District of Oklahoma, in accordance with the terms of
the parties' contractual forum selection clause.
The Plaintiff states that the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion is
"procedurally misguided." Specifically, he argues that "dismissal
under either 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a) or Rule 12 is only proper if
venue in the federal courts is 'wrong.'" To that end, the Plaintiff
asserts that the proper mechanism for enforcing the forum selection
clause is a transfer under Section 1404(a); however, the Plaintiff
nevertheless claims that the forum selection clause should not be
enforced because the public-interest factors under a Section
1404(a) analysis disfavor transfer to the Western District.
Importantly, the Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of the
Agreement, the enforceability or validity of the forum selection
clause in the Agreement, or that venue is not improper in the
Western District of Oklahoma.
Discussion
The parties' forum selection clause specifies that disputes arising
from their Agreement "shall be brought exclusively in Oklahoma
County." The clause includes the word "shall" and "exclusively,"
which evince the mandatory nature of the clause, and the parties do
not dispute that the forum selection clause in the Agreement is
mandatory. Accordingly, that clause is mandatory and will be
enforced in the absence of a showing of exceptional circumstances
or that transfer would be unreasonable.
Forum selection clauses are presumed to be valid and will be
enforced absent a showing of fraud or overreaching or that
enforcement would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The
party resisting enforcement of a forum selection clause "carries a
heavy burden of showing that the provision itself is invalid due to
fraud or overreaching or that enforcement would be unreasonable and
unjust under the circumstances." In the case, Judge Kern holds that
the Plaintiff's arguments and authorities evince no facts
demonstrating the provision is invalid.
1. Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6)
The Defendant first seeks to enforce the forum selection clause by
dismissing the Complaint in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(6). It
argues that, assuming all facts as pleaded in the Complaint are
true, the Court can afford no relief because it is not located in
the county previously contemplated by the parties.
Judge Kern finds that the Defendant acknowledges there is no Tenth
Circuit precedent in regard to whether a forum selection clause may
be enforced through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. And to that
end, the Judge declines to forge new law in the Circuit when
transfer under Section 1404 will serve to enforce the parties'
forum-selection clause. Accordingly, the Judge denies the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
2. Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a)
The Defendant alternatively requests the Court transfers the case
to the Western District of Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a). A forum selection clause may be enforced by a motion to
transfer under Section 1404(a). Under Section 1404(a), a court may
transfer a case to any judicial district in which it could
originally have been filed "for the convenience of parties and
witnesses."
In his Response, the Plaintiff argues that public interest factors
militate against enforcement of the Agreement's forum-selection
clause. He cites a "reduction" of case filings in the Northern
District of Oklahoma in 2020 and the fact that the Western District
of Oklahoma had significantly more filings than the Northern
District over the same period. The Plaintiff also references the
Defendant's "fraudulent advertising reaching across the state of
Oklahoma" as well as its expansive employment and revenue for
Oklahoma that gives the "community members in the Northern District
an important interest in this litigation." He lastly points out
that the Defendant "is at home" in the District because it "uses
Oklahoma's infrastructure as an essential ingredient to the ongoing
operation" of employing Oklahomans and generating revenue for the
state.
Judge Kern is not persuaded that the public-interest factors weigh
substantially against giving effect to the parties' forum selection
clause. As a preliminary matter, the Judge opines that the District
has treated the public interest factors as neutral when
transferring a case to another Oklahoma district. Moreover, he
says, the Plaintiff's reliance on the fewer case filings in the
Northern District is misplaced because it fails to account for the
fact that there are twice as many Article III judges in the Western
District, and therefore, the case distribution per judge is far
greater in the Northern District.
Finally, the Plaintiff's characterization that the Defendant is at
home in the District belies its repeated references to its conduct
from its headquarters in Oklahoma City -- which is located in the
Western District of Oklahoma. While all reasonable inferences and
factual conflicts are resolved in Plaintiff's favor, Judge Kern
finds the public-interest factors for transfer in the case are
neutral. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that
"extraordinary circumstances clearly disfavor transfer."
Because the Plaintiff has not shown that public-interest factors
weigh strongly against transferring the case to the Western
District of Oklahoma, Judge Kern finds that the parties'
forum-selection clause should be enforced by transferring the case
to the district in which the parties contemplated. Accordingly, the
Defendant's Motion to Transfer is granted.
3. ODTPA
The parties entered into a contract where they agreed that their
disputes would be litigated in Oklahoma County. Thus, Judge Kern
declines to decide the Defendant's argument for dismissal on the
merits. To that end, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's ODTPA claim based on his failure to allege
"competition" with the Defendant, is denied with leave to renew
after the case is transferred.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kern denied the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss as it relates to venue, granted the Defendant's
alternative Motion to Transfer, and denied the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss as it relates to the Plaintiff's ODTPA claims, with
leave to refile after case is transferred. The Court Clerk is
directed to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/32retcay from Leagle.com.
WYETH INC: California Medical Institutions Get Settlement Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Beasley Allen Firm is pleased to announce their involvement in
an exciting program that will fund cutting-edge research at six
prestigious California medical institutions. Over $142 million in
residual funds from a Class Action settlement have been awarded to
Scripps Health - MD Anderson, San Diego, the University of
California, Davis, the University of California, San Diego, the
University of California, San Francisco, the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA Health), and the University of
Southern California Keck Medicine. The six medical institutions
will use the funds for medical research programs and community
health projects that focus on the detection, treatment, prevention,
and cure of breast cancer, women's cardiac issues, Alzheimer's, and
early-onset dementia; with additional emphasis on the care and
treatment of such diseases for marginalized and diverse women in
California communities that historically lack such care and
treatment.
Beasley Allen attorneys Andy Birchfield, Leigh O'Dell and David
Byrne, along with Eileen McGeever and Gary Holt, served as Class
Counsel in the long-running case, which alleged that Wyeth, Inc.,
violated California consumer protection laws by conducting a
long-term, systematic and widespread marketing campaign designed to
misrepresent the benefits and health risks associated with their
hormone replacement therapy ("HRT") drugs (Premarin, Prempro, and
Premphase). Specifically, the Class Representative, April Krueger,
asserted that Wyeth's marketing campaign misrepresented to
California consumers that its HRT drugs lowered cardiovascular,
Alzheimer's and/or dementia risk, and did not increase breast
cancer risk.
In September 2020, U.S. District Judge John A. Houston (S.D. of
Calif.) issued an Order granting final approval of a $200
million-dollar settlement that provided refunds to qualifying Class
members who purchased Wyeth's HRT drugs between January 1995 and
January 2003. The Court's Order also provided that any excess
settlement funds would be distributed to major California medical
institutions specializing in the detection, treatment, prevention,
and cure of breast cancer, women's cardiac issues, Alzheimer's, and
early-onset dementia.
Following the Court's final approval Order, Beasley Allen solicited
research proposals from a number of California medical institutions
and interviewed key research scientists involved in the individual
projects. Additionally, Beasley Allen helped develop the concept of
an Annual Conference, that will allow funded faculty, researchers,
and project leaders to meet in a collaborative fashion, discuss the
results of their work, and share ideas to advance the study,
treatment, and cure for breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease,
dementia, and cardiovascular disease in women. Both the Court and
the medical institutions enthusiastically supported this novel idea
and over the next 6-years (beginning in the first quarter of 2022),
each institution will host the conference on a rotating basis.
Scripps Health San Diego's $22,127,500 award will be used to fund
research targeting breast cancer, heart disease, and dementia
treatments; as well as community health programs designed to treat
and educate marginalized communities in and around San Diego
County.
The University of California, Davis will use its $24,000,000 award
to create unique research and care initiatives in breast cancer,
cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's, and early-onset dementia --
all within one of the most geographically broad and ethnically
diverse populations in California.
The University of California, San Diego, will apply its $24,000,000
distribution to fund groundbreaking research aimed at the
prevention, detection and treatment of breast cancer,
cardiovascular disease and neurological disorders in women.
The University of California, San Francisco's $24,000,000 award
will help create numerous interlinked research and community health
projects related to overuse, misuse and unequal use of health care
related to the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, cardiac
disease and dementia.
UCLA Health's $23,999,510 cy pres distribution will provide
important care to underserved communities across Los Angeles County
and fund critical research in the areas of breast cancer,
cardiovascular disease in women, and neuroscience.
The University of Southern California Keck Medicine's $23,999,487
award will fund a number of exciting projects designed to advance
the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and cure of Alzheimer's
disease, breast cancer and cardiovascular disease in women, with
particular emphasis on mitigating the impact of these devastating
conditions for women from disadvantaged communities with major
health disparities.
"We are delighted to partner with these six prestigious California
medical institutions, particularly given their longtime commitment
to women's health research and care for underserved communities,
"said Beasley Allen attorney and Class co-counsel, David Byrne.
"The funding provided by this important consumer-protection case,
will benefit the health and well-being of our Class members and all
California women – possibly for generations to come", said
Byrne.
About Beasley Allen Law Firm
Founded in 1979, Beasley Allen Law Firm is a leader in complex
plaintiff litigation nationwide. We work with attorneys and clients
nationwide and have offices located in Atlanta, Georgia,
Montgomery, Alabama, and Mobile, Alabama. Our award-winning
attorneys live by our creed of "helping those who need it most."
For more information about our firm, please visit us online at
www.beasleyallen.com. [GN]
[*] Winston & Strawn Launches Class Action Insider Blog
-------------------------------------------------------
Winston & Strawn LLP on Sept. 21 announced the launch of its blog
covering the latest class action law issues impacting companies in
the United States and abroad. The Class Action Inside blog will
provide timely, brief, and relevant updates on what is happening in
the courts.
Winston & Strawn class action attorneys have a consistent record of
success in handling class action cases in state and federal courts,
at both the trial and appellate levels. The practice is anchored by
several seasoned class action lawyers, many of whom have been
recognized by Chambers Global, Chambers USA, and other ranking
organizations as being top practitioners in their field. The group
has been recognized by U.S. News & World Report-Best Law Firms as
"Law Firm of the Year" in the Mass Tort Litigation/Class
Actions-Defendants category and recently received a First Tier
ranking in U.S. News-Best Lawyers(R) "Best Law Firms" 2021.
*********
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 ***