/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211105.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, November 5, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 216
Headlines
3M CO: Attorneys Defend $51MM Legal Fees in Toxic Waste Class Suit
ACE AMERICAN: Court Denies MSP's Bid to Vacate August 3 Ruling
ALIERA COMPANIES: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Jackson Suit
ALKERMES PLC: Dismissal of Stockholders' Putative Suit Appealed
ALLBIRDS INC: Plans to Launch Sustainable IPO Amid Class Action
ALLIANCE COAL: Discovery Deadline in Branson Extended by 90 Days
AMARIN CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 23 Deadline
AMAZON RETAIL: Schneider Seeks to Certify Class Action
APPLE INC: Updates App Store Rules as Part of Class Settlement
ASIA SUPER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chen Suit Alleges
AXISPOINT LLC: Class Cert. Discovery in Camerman Due Feb. 24, 2022
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Berlinger Sues Over Drop in Share Price
BLUE DIAMOND: Biegel Suit Wins Final Approval of Settlement Deal
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Appeals Cert. Bid Denial in TCPA Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Class Certification of Claims in Celgene Suit Upheld
BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Abilify-Related Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS: Dismissal of CheckMate-026 Related Suit Under Appeal
BRISTOL-MYERS: Settlement Agreement Entered in HIV Treatment Suit
BUCKSTONE WEST: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers' Pay, Hill Says
CAL CENTRAL: Court Narrows Claims in Mayen Suit
CANADA: July 13, 2022 Indian Day School Settlement Deadline Set
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Approval of Settlement in Soileau Suit Appealed
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Mattera Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
COCA-COLA CO: Spaner TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
COLUMBIA PUBLIC: Seeks Dismissal of Mask Policy Class Action
COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: CLWDA Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CP SECURTIY: Grable Seeks to Certify Class of Security Officers
DEFENDERS INC: 13 Agents' Claims Dismissed With Prejudice in Archer
ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Litigation Over Insulin Products
ELI LILLY: Mosaic Health Initiated Purported Class Suit Ongoing
ELITE HEALTH: Lampton Seeks Dec. 16 Deadline for Class Cert. Bid
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Scheduling Order Amendment Sought in Linde
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Munguia-Brown Wins Bid to Junk Set-off Claims
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
FMC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Overwatch Herbicide
ILLINOIS: McFarland Seeks Approval of Amended Class Status Bid
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Bhambhani Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 18, 2022
IRAN: Burks Seeks Nov. 12 Extension to File Class Status Bid
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
MAYFLOWER TRANSIT: Seeks Denial of Greenley Class Status Bid
MCGRAW HILL: Add'l Filings to Be Made Under Flynn Consolidated Suit
MDL 2398: Plaintiffs' Bid to Reconsider June 23, 2021 Order Nixed
MDL 2913: East Troy Suit Consolidated in Product Liability Case
MDL 2913: Eaton Rapids Suit Consolidated in JUUL Labs Case
MONSANTO CO: Supreme Court Needs to Review $80MM Judgment
NAVIENT CORP: Tentative Deals Reached in Lord Abbett Funds Suit
NEW YORK TIMES: Isaacson Appeals Settlement Ruling in Moses Suit
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge-Related Suits
OAK RIDGE: Employees File Class Action Over Vaccine Policy
OLIVE WREN: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OMAZE INC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ONE BRANDS: Sebastian Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
PHILIP MORRIS: Blais Class Action Ongoing in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Semple Class Action in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Still Not Served
PHILIP MORRIS: Union Asset Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
PLUS500 ISRAEL: Tel Aviv Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
PLUTOS SAMA: Wallis Sues Over Exchange Act and RICO Violation
PORNHUB: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Abuse Footage
PYOD LLC: Moore Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida
RALLYUP.COM INC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REAL ESTATE: Ct. Enters Revised Class Cert. Deadlines in Baker Suit
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Hoffman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
RIO TINTO: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Wrongful Termination
RKB ABOVE: Ventura Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROMEO POWER: Yu Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Settles Class Action Over Children Arrests
RYDER SYSTEM: Decision on Bid to Nix Key West Policy Suit Reserved
SASOL LTD: Time to File Class Cert Discovery Response Extended
SECURITY PAVING: Midstate Barrier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Nemo-Sabree Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SITE 25 RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calel Alleges
SIX FLAGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in BIPA Related Suit
SIX FLAGS: Credit Card Information Related Suits Dismissed
SIX FLAGS: Dismissal of OFPRS Class Suit Under Appeal
SIX FLAGS: Settlement in Park Members' Suit Gets Initial Nod
SIX FLAGS: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Wilson Seeks to Certify Flight Attendant Class
SOAPBOX SOAPS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOCLEAN INC: Lange Sues Over Falsely Marketed Defective Products
SOCLEAN INC: Pomianek Sues Over Damaging Levels of Ozone in Devices
SPECTRUM HEALTH: Court Dismisses Abernathy Suit Without Prejudice
ST. LOUIS, MO: Corizon's Bid to Quash Subpoena in Cody Suit OK'd
STATE FARM: McClure Seeks to Certify Class of Policy Owners
STEMILT AG: Seeks to Extend Response Time to Garcia Class Cert. Bid
STERLING SUGARS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barron Alleges
TASTY PICKS: Vasquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
TATSU RESTAURANT: Zamora Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
TAURUS INTERNATIONAL: Harman Suit Transferred to M.D. Alabama
TD AMERITRADE: Dec. 15 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Sought
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Dismiss Copaxone-Related Suit Pending
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Related to Patent Litigation Deal
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Mediation in Ontario Teachers Suit Ongoing
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Opioids Suits in State, Federal Courts Ongoing
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Prius HVAC Systems
TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Settings Under Appeal in 9th Cir.
TWITTER INC: Settlement Amount in Securities Suits Paid to Escrow
UNITI GROUP: Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
VICTOR ELEMENTARY: Crook Files Suit in C.D. California
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Class Action Over Defective Seat Latches
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Ct. Adjusts Class Cert. Deadlines in Garcia Suit
WAUKESHA SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over No Mask Requirements
WEAVER LEATHER: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] U.S. States Face Flurry of ADA Class Actions Over Curb Ramps
[*] UK Litigation Funding Market Faces Regulation Challenges
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Has $111MM Reserve Reestimates
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Faces 700 Claims at Sept. 30
*********
3M CO: Attorneys Defend $51MM Legal Fees in Toxic Waste Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Fleischauer, writing for DecaturDaily.com, reports that a
proposed class action settlement announced would provide $51
million in fees to the plaintiffs' attorneys but no monetary relief
to hundreds of thousands of north Alabamians included in the class,
a result the plaintiffs' attorneys say is justified by 20 years of
legal work that prompted 3M and others to begin cleaning up toxic
waste and commit to doing so in the future. [GN]
ACE AMERICAN: Court Denies MSP's Bid to Vacate August 3 Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, Plaintiff v. ACE
AMERICAN INSUANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-CIV-23749-SEITZ/REID (S.D. Fla.), Judge Patricia A. Seitz of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied
the Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate the Court's August 3rd Order
Pursuant to Mandate.
The Plaintiff contends that it should not be required to amend its
complaint following the Eleventh Circuit's remand to the Court and
that the Defendants should be required to answer the Complaint as
it stands. The Plaintiff's 35-page Third Amended Class Action
Complaint for Damages ("TAC") identifies three Class Representative
Claims Relating to a Medicare Part C Beneficiary. The TAC also
asserts that MMM Holdings, LLC, ("MMM") assigned Plaintiff MMM's
rights related to certain payments and claims.
However, in its Notice of Withdrawing Representative Claim, the
Plaintiff withdrew its representative claim for "D.G." and also
elected not to pursue any representative claims or allegations
related to MMM Holdings, LLC. Counts I and II of the TAC currently
incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs in the TAC
including those only related to the "D.G." representative claim,
and those related to MMM's assignment to the Plaintiff.
Although the Plaintiff is correct that the Eleventh Circuit ruled
that the Plaintiff's claims should not have been dismissed with
prejudice, Judge Seitz holds that the TAC is unnecessarily lengthy
(133 paragraphs) and contains allegations and paragraphs irrelevant
to the claims at issue. Thus, any Answer by the Defendants likely
will be confusing to the extent it corresponds to the TAC as
currently structured.
In short, without an amended Complaint, the Court will spend time
wading through unnecessarily lengthy and complex pleadings to
determine which paragraphs and allegations remain at issue -- a
waste of judicial resources. The Plaintiff's counsel is therefore
directed to assist the Court by streamlining the Complaint so that
the matter may be resolved in a non-confusing, expeditious manner
as to the remaining claims.
Accordingly, Judge Seitz denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate
the August 3rd Order Pursuant to Mandate. The Plaintiff will file a
Fourth Amended Complaint (Following Remand) that sets forth the
relevant claims and facts in a concise manner in compliance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The Defendant will file its response to the
Fourth Amended Complaint (Following Remand) on Nov. 12, 2021.
The Court will issue a Scheduling Order setting Trial and Pretrial
deadlines by way of separate order. It will hold a Fed. R. Civ. P.
26 (f) discovery conference on Nov. 23, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. On Nov.
16, 2021, the Parties will confer and submit a written proposed
Discovery Plan as described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (f) (3). The
Parties will discuss minimizing costs associated with discovery and
will not propound any discovery prior to the Rule 26 (f)
conference.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/dne8pp2y from Leagle.com.
ALIERA COMPANIES: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Jackson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson, et al v. The
Aliera Companies Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01281 (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein entered a scheduling order on
the foregoing motions on November 10, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.:
(1) Motion to Strike Alieras Answer and Enter Default
Judgment after Class Certification or, in the
alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment;
(2) Motion to Certify Class; and
(3) Motion for Relief from Deadline and for Telephonic
Hearing
The nature of suit states diversity-insurance contract.[CC]
ALKERMES PLC: Dismissal of Stockholders' Putative Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2021, that oral arguments for the appeal
on the dismissal of the stockholders' putative class suit are
scheduled to be held on November 16, 2021.
In December 2018 and January 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class actions against the Company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York captioned Karimian v. Alkermes plc, et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-07410 and McDermott v. Alkermes plc, et al., No.
1:19-cv-00624, respectively.
In March 2019, the EDNY District Court consolidated the two cases
and appointed a lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in July 2019 naming one additional officer of the Company
and one former officer of the Company as defendants.
The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of July 31,
2014 through November 1, 2018 and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
clinical methodologies and regulatory submission for ALKS 5461 and
the FDA's review and consideration of that submission.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs.
In February 2021, the EDNY District Court entered a final judgment
and order dismissing the action in its entirety (the "Final
Judgment and Order").
In March 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal captioned In
re Alkermes Public Limited Co. Securities Litig., No. 21-801,
appealing the Final Judgment and Order to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oral arguments for the appeal are scheduled to be held on November
16, 2021.
Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
ALLBIRDS INC: Plans to Launch Sustainable IPO Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
California News Times reports that Allbirds is a self-proclaimed
ethical shoe maker that recently announced plans to launch its
first "sustainable initial public offering," retreating some of its
ESG commitments prior to its planned market debut.
San Francisco-based start-ups will comply with the August IPO
Prospectus, a "Sustainability Principles and Objectives Framework"
developed in collaboration with a group of consultants advised by
scholars, rating agencies and charities. Stated.
However, in an update to the prospectus submitted to the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the company removed some important
references to the framework. The number of references to the "SPO
framework" in the document has been halved from 65 to 33.
In the latest version of the documentation, Allbirds has removed
the claim that "we are doing this offering according to the SPO
framework" and also removed the warning that doing so could
increase the cost of the IPO.
Producing wool and eucalyptus-based shoes that have proven to be
particularly popular with Silicon Valley technicians, Allbirds was
the first company to use the concept of "SPO" in an IPO.
In previous versions of the prospectus, Allbirds wanted other
companies to use the SPO framework, with investors "public
companies working on the sustainability and positive results of all
stakeholders. He said it would help "identify more properly."
However, the latest filing removes references to other companies
and only states that the framework will help investors better
understand Allbirds.
The company declined to comment.
Allbirds was valued at $ 1 billion in the latest private funding
round last September.The company is one of the waves supported by
venture capital Consumer companies planning to go public This fall,
we will focus on ESG credentials.
Eyeglass maker Warby Parker After completing its direct listing, it
was valued at as high as $ 6 billion. Clothing rental service Rent
the Runway also released a prospectus for an upcoming IPO.
Allbirds is faced with questions about the true sustainability of
its business. The company claims that the sneakers are made of
naturally derived materials and that making each pair has about 30%
less carbon impact than its rivals.
However, despite transporting the material several times around the
world during the manufacturing process, the carbon footprint
calculation does not include the impact of the transport.
Allbirds face A civil class action lawsuit in the Southern District
Court of New York alleging that the brand misleads consumers with
its sustainability claims. Filed a motion to dismiss the
proceedings.
Allbirds is not the only company facing the growing scrutiny of
green claims. In September, the SEC wrote to a number of companies
expressing concern about climate change-related disclosures. [GN]
ALLIANCE COAL: Discovery Deadline in Branson Extended by 90 Days
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDY BRANSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. ALLIANCE COAL,
LLC, ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS, L.P., ALLIANCE RESOURCES OPERATING
PARTNERS, L.P., WEBSTER COUNTY COAL, LLC, WARRIOR COAL, LLC, and
RIVER VIEW COAL, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
4:19-CV-00155-JHM (W.D. Ky.), Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for reconsideration of the
Court's March 17, 2021 Order and their request for an extension of
the discovery deadline.
Background
The Plaintiffs allege that three Alliance coal mines in western
Kentucky systemically underpaid their employees for several years.
Employees of these coal mines brought the collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a class action under the
Kentucky Wage and Hour Act (KWHA) to recover unpaid wages and
overtime.
On March 17, 2021, the Court denied Defendant Alliance Resource
Operating Partners' ("AROP") Motion to Dismiss for lack of Personal
Jurisdiction, but granted limited discovery on the issue of
personal jurisdiction solely concerning the relationship between
AROP and its parent company, Alliance Resource Partners, L.P.
("ARLP"). In that same order, however, the Court prohibited
jurisdictional discovery into the relationship between AROP and its
subsidiaries: Webster County Coal, LLC; Warrior Coal, LLC; and
River View Coal, LLC.
Now Plaintiffs Randy Branson, et al. have filed a Motion for
reconsideration of that order, asking to expand jurisdictional
discovery into the relationship between AROP and its subsidiaries.
The Plaintiffs also request an extension of the discovery deadline
by 90 days.
The Plaintiffs argue that the availability of new evidence supports
a decision to grant the Motion for reconsideration. Specifically,
they list a series of revelations from the deposition of R. Eberly
Davis, AROP's corporate designee, and argue that these findings
show that AROP and its subsidiaries are so intertwined as to be
essentially one entity for purposes of personal jurisdiction.
The most relevant of these allegations which the Plaintiffs now
raise are: (1) that AROP holds most of the bank accounts in the
Alliance organization and, as Alliance's holding company, funds the
operations of the subsidiary coal mines; (2) that purchasers of
coal from the subsidiary coal mines send payment directly to AROP;
(3) that Mr. Davis, who is responsible for the day-to-day business
decisions of AROP, is responsible for health benefits and workers'
compensation for the subsidiaries of Alliance; (4) that the
officers of AROP's Managing General Partner -- MGP II LLC -- also
serve as officers for the subsidiaries; and (5) that two of these
officers, Mr. Davis and Mr. Craft, have offices and residences in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Discussion
Judge McKinley opines that the Plaintiffs' newly uncovered evidence
-- specifically the assertions regarding AROP holding most of the
bank accounts in the Alliance organization, receiving the payments
from coal purchasers, and AROP's role in overseeing health benefits
and worker's compensation among the subsidiaries -- is sufficient
to grant further discovery. Most of these new revelations were not
available to the Plaintiffs previously, thus further inquiry at
this juncture is permissible under Rodriguez.
While the Plaintiffs' new evidence learned from Mr. Davis'
deposition, without more, may not satisfy the alter-ego tests under
federal and state law, this evidence is more than sufficient to
allow the Plaintiffs to discover more information about AROP's
relationship with its subsidiaries. The fact that AROP receives the
payments for coal purchases from the subsidiary mines suggests that
AROP is more closely intertwined with Alliance's Kentucky coal
mines than previously thought. Expanded jurisdictional discovery
into this relationship will better aid the Court in determining
whether it can be characterized as one of "unity of interest and
ownership" under the federal standard and whether it rises to the
level of "dominance" or "a high degree of control" under the
Kentucky standard.
Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge McKinley granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for reconsideration and their request for an
extension of the discovery deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bxxfrjkv from
Leagle.com.
AMARIN CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm and Roche Freedman LLP announced on Oct. 25
that they have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Dang v.
Amarin Corporation PLC, et. al., (Case No. 21-cv-19212), on behalf
of plaintiff Vincent Dang and a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Amarin Corporation, plc ("Amarin"
or "the Company") (NASDAQ: AMRN) securities between December 5,
2018, and June 21, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Amarin securities during the
Class Period, you have until December 23, 2021, to move the Court
to serve as Lead Plaintiff. If you suffered a loss on your Amarin
investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing
claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws,
click here to participate.
You can also contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880
Century Park East, Suite 404, 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.
Amarin is a biopharmaceutical company whose lead product since 2008
is Vascepa®, a prescription grade ultra-pure omega-3 fatty acid
derived from fish oil. The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
Amarin's business and patent portfolio. Specifically, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) there was an increasingly high risk that certain of
Amarin's patents would be invalidated; (ii) once certain of
Amarin's patents were invalidated by the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, there was little to no chance of
reversing that ruling; (iii) the Company's litigation was
preventing it from effectuating a successful takeover; (iv)
Defendants were downplaying the true threat the ongoing Abbreviated
New Drug Application ("ANDA") litigation posed to the Company's
business and future prospects; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
The truth about the strength of Amarin's patent portfolio was
partially revealed on March 30, 2020, when the Company announced
that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
had "rul[ed] in favor of the generic companies in the company's
patent litigation against two filers of . . . ANDAs . . . for
Amarin's VASCEPA® (icosapent ethyl) capsule franchise." On this
news, the Company's share price plummeted over 70.5% on heavy
trading volume.
On September 2, 2020, as the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit heard oral arguments for Amarin's patent litigation, and
the next day, affirmed the District Court's ruling, the Company's
share price fell over 34.5% on heavy trading volume.
Then, on April 12, 2021, Amarin announced the retirement of
Defendant John F. Thero, the Company's President and CEO. On this
news, the Company's share price fell over 14.3% to close at $5.08
on April 13, 2021, on heavy trading volume.
Finally, on June 21, 2021, investors learned "that the Supreme
Court rejected the [C]ompany's bid to revive Vascepa® patents." On
this news, Amarin's share price fell 8.3% on heavy trading volume.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Amarin securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. The
Class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park
East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, by email
at brian@schallfirm.com, or the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com.
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]
AMAZON RETAIL: Schneider Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOLLY SCHNEIDER, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. AMAZON RETAIL LLC; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-05174-PA-MAA (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
the case as class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
The plaintiff class consists of the following:
1. Meal/Rest Regular Rate Class:
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employee
employed by Defendant at Amazon Fresh grocery stores in
California at any time from May 5, 2017, through the date
notice is mailed to a certified class who received "hero
pay" during pay periods in which the employee was paid a
meal or rest period premium wage."
2. Overtime Regular Rate Class:
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employee
employed by Defendant at Amazon Fresh grocery stores in
California at any time from May 5, 2017, through the date
notice is mailed to a certified class who received "hero
pay" during pay periods in which the employee was paid
overtime wages and whose regular rate did not include the
hero pay when Defendant calculated the overtime wage."
3. Indemnification Class:
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employee
employed by Defendant at Amazon Fresh grocery stores in
California who did not receive indemnification to
reimburse them for cell phone use during onboarding at any
time from May 5, 2017 1 , through the date notice is
mailed to a certified class or to clock in and out after
April 27, 2020, through the date notice is mailed to a
certified class.
4. Retro Shift Pay Class:
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employee
employed by Defendant at Amazon Fresh grocery stores in
California at any time from May 5, 2020, through the date
notice is mailed to a certified class who Defendant
provided wage statements for Retro Shift Pay which failed
to set forth the hourly rate or number of hours worked for
the Retro Shift Pay."
5. Inaccurate Wage Statement Class:
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employee
employed by Defendant at Amazon Fresh grocery stores in
California at any time from May 5, 2020, through the date
notice is mailed to a certified class who Defendant
provided wage statements which stated a higher number of
hours worked for Hero Pay than the number of hours worked
during the pay period."
6. Digital Wage Statement Class:
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employee
employed by Defendant at Amazon Fresh grocery stores in
California at any time from May 5, 2020, through the date
notice is mailed to a certified class."
7. Waiting Time Class:
"All former hourly non-exempt employees employed by
Defendant at Amazon Fresh grocery stores in California at
any time from May 5, 2020, through the date notice is
mailed to a certified class who earned hero pay during a
pay period the employee received overtime wages or meal or
rest period premiums and the hero pay was not included in
calculating the employees' regular rate of pay."
8. Derivative Classes:
"Plaintiff's complaint also includes claims pursuant to
Labor Code sections 204, 226 and Business and Professions
Code section 17200, et seq. These claims are entirely or
partially derivative of the putative class claims at issue
in this Motion and should be certified along with them."
In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint her as Class
Representative. The Plaintiff also request that the Court appoint
their counsel, Joseph Lavi, Jordan D. Bello, Vincent Granberry, and
Melissa Huether of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jVntlG
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Melissa A. Huether, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
jbello@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
mhuether@lelawfirm.com
APPLE INC: Updates App Store Rules as Part of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
India Today Tech reports that Apple on Oct. 22 released its new App
Store payment policy which will allow developers to contact users
directly about payments. As per the new rules, developers will now
be able to contact consumers directly about alternative payment
methods, bypassing Apple's commission of 15 or 30 per cent. Apple
noted that developers will be able to ask users for basic
information, such as names and e-mail addresses, as long as the
request remains optional. Previously, Apple did not allow app
makers to direct users through email to their websites to pay for
digital products.
"To give developers even more flexibility to reach their customers,
Apple is also clarifying that developers can use communications,
such as email, to share information about payment methods outside
of their iOS app," Apple said in a statement. "As always,
developers will not pay Apple a commission on any purchases taking
place outside of their app or the App Store. Users must consent to
the communication and have the right to opt-out."
"By informing customers of alternative payment options, developers
can avoid paying Apple's commissions and, moreover, exert
competitive pressure on Apple to discipline its pricing," NBC
quoted lawyers for the plaintiffs as noting in a court filing.
Apple updated its App Store rules as part of the settlement for a
class-action lawsuit from developers who claimed that Apple
monopolised distribution for iOS apps and in-app purchases, leading
to commission overcharges.
Separately, a judge in the Epic vs Apple case in September had
ruled that Apple can not stop developers from offering third-party
payments that avoid the fees that it charges for in-app purchases.
The change in Apple's payment policy still does not allow
developers to have an independent payment method, the reason for
which Epic Game's Fortnite was kicked out of the App Store last
year, but according to the ruling, Apple cannot stop developers
from including external links that direct customers to purchasing
mechanisms that allows developers to communicate with customers
through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers
through account registration. For Epic and others, the ability to
redirect users to an out-of-app payment method is not enough: it
wants players to be able to pay directly without leaving the game.
[GN]
ASIA SUPER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chen Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
FENG CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASIA SUPER MARKET BUFFALO LLC; ROCKEY REN;
LING LI REN; QING LI; JOHN DOE; and JANE DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 5:21-cv-01157-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2021) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Chen was employed by the Defendants as shelf stocker.
ASIA SUPER MARKET BUFFALO LLC owns and operates a grocery store in
Buffalo, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jin Huang, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIN HUANG
36-09 Main Street, Suite 10A
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 321-2911
Email: jhlawoffices@gmail.com
AXISPOINT LLC: Class Cert. Discovery in Camerman Due Feb. 24, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Camerman v. Axispoint LLC,
et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-60907 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag
Singhal entered an order that the Plaintiff shall complete his
class certification and damages-related discovery by February 24,
2022, at which time Plaintiff may file his motion for default
judgment and supporting documentation against defaulted Defendant
Axispoint LLC.
The nature of suit states Other Statutory Actions.[CC]
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Berlinger Sues Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID F. BERLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC.;
JEAN-JACQUES BIENAIME; BRIAN R. MUELLER; DANIEL SPIEGELMAN; and
HENRY J. FUCHS, Defendants, Case 3:21-cv-08254 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 22,
2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired BioMarin securities between January
13, 2020 and September 3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, on November 7, 2018, BioMarin shared
pre-clinical data of BMN 307, which demonstrated lifetime Phe
corrections in mouse models, and announced that the Company was
planning to file an investigational new drug application ("IND")
for BMN 307 with the United States Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") in the second half of 2019. On January 13, 2020, the
Company announced that the FDA granted IND status for BMN 307 for
the treatment of PKU. On September 24, 2020, the Company announced
that it had dosed the first human participant in the global
Phearless Phase 1/2 study of BMN 307.
On September 5, 2021, BioMarin issued a press release announcing
"that the [FDA] placed a clinical hold on the BMN 307 Phearless
Phase 1/2 study", which "is evaluating BMN 307, an investigational
AAV5-phenylalanine hydroxylase (PAH) gene therapy, in adults with
[PKU]." BioMarin advised investors that "[t]he FDA's clinical hold
was based on interim safety findings from a pre-clinical, non-GLP
pharmacology study."
On this news, BioMarin's stock price fell $7.14 per share, or 8.4%,
to close at $77.81 per share on September 7, 2021, the next trading
day.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) BMN 307 was less safe than BioMarin had led
investors to believe; (ii) BMN 307's safety profile made it likely
that the FDA would place a clinical hold on the Phearless Phase 1/2
study; (iii) accordingly, the Company had overstated BMN 307's
clinical and commercial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. develops and commercializes
therapeutic enzyme products. The Company has applied its
proprietary enzyme technology to develop products for lysosomal
storage diseases and for the treatment of serious burns. BioMarin
Pharmaceutical through its subsidiaries provides analytical and
diagnostic product
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
BLUE DIAMOND: Biegel Suit Wins Final Approval of Settlement Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lauren Biegel, Greg
Maroney, Ryan Cosgrove, Clive Rhoden, Stephen Bradshaw, Angela
Farve and Christina Henderson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Blue Diamond Growers, Case No.
7:20-cv-03032-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel entered an
order granting final approval of settlement, award of incentive
awards to the class representatives and costs to the co-lead class
counsel:
-- The Court grants final approval of the Settlement
Agreement in full, including but not limited to the
releases therein and the procedures for distribution of
monetary payments to Settlement Class Members.
-- All Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final
Approval Order and Judgment.
-- The Court grants final approval to the appointment of
Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives and concludes that
they have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement
Class and shall continue to do so.
-- The Court grants final approval to the appointment of
Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP, Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan
& Associates, P.C., and Kevin Laukaitis of Shub Law Firm
LLC as counsel for the Settlement Class.
-- Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the
Settlement Class and shall continue to do so.
-- The Court awards Plaintiffs' Counsel $6,869.20 in
reimbursement expenses.
-- The Court will issue a separate order regarding attorneys'
fees after conclusion of the claims period and Co-Lead
Counsel have filed a renewed motion for payment of fees no
later than January 15, 2022.
-- The Court awards each of the Plaintiffs $2,500 (for a
total of $17,500) as Incentive Awards. The Court finds
this amount is justified by Plaintiffs' service to the
Settlement Class.
Blue Diamond is a California agricultural cooperative and marketing
organization that specializes in almonds. Founded in 1910 as the
California Almond Grower's Exchange, the organization claims to be
the world's largest tree nut processing and marketing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GENaki at no extra charge.[CC]
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Appeals Cert. Bid Denial in TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kenneth Johansen filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled KENNETH JOHANSEN, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS
UNLIMITED, INC., Case No. 9:20-cv-81076-RS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The lawsuit is a class action complaint brought against Defendant
for its alleged illegal telemarketing calls in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received numerous calls from
Defendant's Caller ID numbers (216) 279-5134 or (419) 458-5578 --
one on May 26, 2020, six calls on May 27, 2020, and two calls on
June 2, 2020 -- to his residential telephone number of (614)
XXX-1037. Allegedly, Defendant uses telemarketing to promote their
services by illegally calling residential numbers listed on the
national Do Not Call Registry.
On February 18, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification seeking to certify a class of thousands of individual
proposed class members.
On April 15, 2021 a court-ordered mediation was conducted at which
time the parties were not able to resolve the lawsuit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 11, 2021, the
Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order denying a motion for class
certification. The Court held that, "Most concerning, during his
deposition in the present lawsuit, Plaintiff admits that he
believes that engaging in deception is appropriate behavior for a
class representative. Based on the foregoing, the Court has serious
concerns about the Plaintiff's credibility, honesty,
trustworthiness, and motives in bringing forth this putative class
action. Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is an inadequate
class representative."
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the denied class certification
motion.
The appellate case is captioned as Kenneth Johansen v. Bluegreen
Vacations Unlimited, Inc., Case No. 21-90026, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on October 14,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner KENNETH JOHANSEN, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, is represented by:
John William Barrett, Esq.
Benjamin Hogan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
209 Capitol St
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
Defendant-Respondent BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC. is
represented by:
Veronica Louise De Zayas, Esq.
Grace Lee Mead, Esq.
Andrea Naomi Nathan, Esq.
Joseph J. Onorati, Esq.
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, PA
150 W Flagler St Ste 2200
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 789-4104
BRISTOL-MYERS: Class Certification of Claims in Celgene Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
Defendant's appeal on the grant of class certification on the suit
related to Celgene has been denied.
Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class
Action").
The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected
sales of Otezla*, and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia.
The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class.
In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to
dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged
misstatements regarding GED-0301).
Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the
dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims
are now dismissed with prejudice. In November 2020, the Court
granted class certification with respect to the remaining claims.
In December 2020, the defendants sought leave to appeal the Court's
class certification decision, which was denied without prejudice in
March 2021.
No trial date has been scheduled.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Abilify-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd continue to defend class action
suits in Quebec and Ontario related to Abilify.
The company (BMS) and Otsuka are co-defendants in product liability
litigation related to Abilify.
Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused them to engage in compulsive
gambling and other impulse control disorders.
There have been over 2,500 cases filed in state and federal courts
and additional cases are pending in Canada.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida.
In February 2019, BMS and Otsuka entered into a master settlement
agreement establishing a proposed settlement program to resolve all
Abilify compulsivity claims filed as of January 28, 2019 in the MDL
as well as various state courts, including California and New
Jersey.
To date, approximately 2,700 cases, comprising approximately 3,900
plaintiffs, have been dismissed based on participation in the
settlement program or failure to comply with settlement related
court orders.
In the U.S., less than 10 cases remain pending on behalf of
plaintiffs, who either chose not to participate in the settlement
program or filed their claims after the settlement cut-off date.
There are eleven cases pending in Canada (four class actions, seven
individual injury claims). Out of the eleven cases, only two are
active (the class actions in Quebec and Ontario).
Both class actions have now been certified and will proceed
separately, subject to a potential further appeal of the Ontario
class certification decision.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Dismissal of CheckMate-026 Related Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that oral
argument on the appeal in the putative class action suit related to
the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer, was held in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company (BMS), BMS's Chief Executive
Officer, Giovanni Caforio, BMS's Chief Financial Officer at the
time, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives
of BMS.
The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed.
The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
BMS's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in
lung cancer.
In September 2019, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss, but
allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.
In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
In September 2020, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the
Court's decision in October 2020.
In October 2021, oral argument on the appeal was held in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Settlement Agreement Entered in HIV Treatment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
entered into a settlement agreement with putative class of indirect
purchasers and direct purchasers class action suits related to its
agreements to develop and sell fixed-dose combination products for
the treatment of HIV, including Atripla and Evotaz, violate
antitrust laws.
entered into a settlement agreement with the putative class of
indirect purchasers.
And on October 20, 2021, BMS reached an agreement in principle to
settle claims filed by the putative class of direct purchasers.
Both settlements are subject to court approval.
The company (BMS) and two other manufacturers of HIV medications
are defendants in related lawsuits pending in the Northern District
of California.
The lawsuits allege that the defendants' agreements to develop and
sell fixed-dose combination products for the treatment of HIV,
including Atripla and Evotaz, violate antitrust laws.
The currently pending actions, asserted on behalf of indirect
purchasers, were initiated in 2019 in the Northern District of
California and in 2020 in the Southern District of Florida.
The Florida matter was transferred to the Northern District of
California. In July 2020, the Court granted in part defendants'
motion to dismiss, including dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs'
claims as to an overarching conspiracy and plaintiffs' theories
based on the alleged payment of royalties after patent expiration.
Other claims, however, remain.
In September and October 2020, two purported class actions have
also been filed asserting similar claims on behalf of direct
purchasers.
In March 2021, the Court dismissed one of the direct purchaser
cases and limited the claims of the remaining direct purchaser case
to those arising in 2016 or later. However, the Court gave
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints, and one plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on March 16, 2021.
On September 22, 2021, two additional non-class action direct
purchaser complaints were filed by a number of retail pharmacy and
grocery store chains against BMS and two other manufacturers of HIV
medications.
These complaints make allegations similar to those raised in the
other federal court cases and the New Mexico state court case
described below. No trial date has been scheduled for the case
filed by the retail pharmacies and grocery store chains. On October
13, 2021, BMS entered into a settlement agreement with the putative
class of indirect purchasers.
And on October 20, 2021, BMS reached an agreement in principle to
settle claims filed by the putative class of direct purchasers.
Both settlements are subject to court approval.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
BUCKSTONE WEST: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers' Pay, Hill Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Buckstone West, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00237
(D. Alaska, October 22, 2021), seeks overtime compensation, all
required remuneration, non-discretionary bonuses, final injunctive
and/or declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage
and Hour Act.
Buckstone West owns and operates multiple Papa John's franchises
throughout Alaska where Hill worked as a delivery driver from
approximately February of 2020 until March of 2021. Buckstone West
took a tip credit from Plaintiff when he was making deliveries and
made him use his own car for deliveries. He claims that the
delivery fee he gets is not enough to cover his vehicular expenses.
He also claims that he occasionally worked hours over 40 in a week,
and in these weeks he did not receive a sufficient overtime premium
because of the unreimbursed mileage expenses. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
Post Office Box 39
Russellville, AR 72811
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel I. Pace, Esq.
PACE LAW OFFICES
101 E 9th Ave, Ste 7A
Anchorage, AK 99501
Tel: (907) 222-4003
Fax: (907) 222-4006
Email: dan@pacelawoffices.com
CAL CENTRAL: Court Narrows Claims in Mayen Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIO MAYEN, individually
on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. CAL CENTRAL HARVESTING, INC., and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No.
1:21-cv-00145-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony W. Ishii
entered an order that:
1. The Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
granted in part as follows:
a. The first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of
action are dismissed with leave to amend;
b. The eighth cause of action based on a violation 29
U.S.C. section 1831(b) is dismissed with leave to
amend; and
c. The ninth cause of action, to the extent that it is not
based on violations of Labor 14 Code section 226, Labor
Code section 1197, and 29 U.S.C. section 1832, is
dismissed with leave to amend;
2. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
otherwise denied;
3. Within 28 days of service of this order, Plaintiff may
file an amended complaint that is consistent with the
analysis of this order; and
4. If Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint,
then leave to amend will be automatically withdrawn
without further notice and Defendant shall file an answer
within 42 days of service of this order.
Cal Central Harvesting, Inc. is located in Shafter, California, and
is part of the Support Activities for Crop Production Industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nIQ5Qk at no extra charge.[CC]
CANADA: July 13, 2022 Indian Day School Settlement Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Deachman, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that it was
springtime in the early 1960s, and Claudette Commanda, six years
old, was screaming and crying.
She refused to get on the school bus that would take her to Congway
School on the Kitigan Zibi reserve in Maniwaki. She knew her
teacher would beat her, as she'd done every day for months, rapping
her hands and knuckles with the metal edge of a ruler, or jabbing
her with a pencil, calling her a "savage" and telling her she
wasn't smart and would never amount to anything.
"She beat me every day," Commanda recalls, "and I didn't want to
get on that bus because I knew, when I got to school, she'd come to
me with a ruler. She'd say, 'You don't belong here,' and then she'd
hit me."
It was quite a change from the first day of school in September,
when Commanda, wearing a new dress, excitedly arrived with thoughts
of making new friends. "That happiness turned into terror."
On the day she refused to get on the bus, her great-grandfather
Alonzo Commanda, hearing her screams, came to her rescue, gathering
Commanda, her grandfather Chief William Commanda and the reserve's
Indian agent and taking a taxi to the school, where he confronted
the unrepentant teacher. "You will never, ever hit my granddaughter
again," he told her.
For a week or longer, Alonzo took Commanda to school, and, while
the beatings with the ruler stopped, other abuse continued.
"She found her ways," Commanda remembers. "She'd pull my hair. Or
the emotional abuse, making me believe I was stupid. And it wasn't
just me. She did that to other students."
It was around this time that William told her she was destined to
be the one to speak the truth, "even though I was six years old and
didn't understand it. He would take me with him everywhere. I
didn't know it at the time, but it was mentorship. He would say,
'Sit here and listen,' while he had conversations with other First
Nation leaders. And he educated me on the history of our people --
not just the Algonquin people, but all the tribes in North
America.
"He taught me that, when one of our people suffer, we all suffer,
and, when one of our people cry, we all cry."
And so, although it leaves her feeling raw every time she recounts
her experiences at Congway School, Commanda agreed to be one of six
representational plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the
Canadian government.
The suit was the culmination of years of advocacy by lead plaintiff
Garry McLean, who from 1957 to '65 attended Dog Creek Day School at
Lake Manitoba First Nation, where he was subjected to emotional,
mental, physical and sexual abuse.
The class action was resolved, with an agreement announced in March
2019, a month after McLean died. In August of the same year, the
Federal Court approved a settlement to compensate surviving victims
with between $10,000 and $200,000 each, depending on the level of
abuse and harm they suffered. The agreement also created a
$200-million Legacy Fund to support commemoration projects, health
and wellness projects and language and culture initiatives.
Representatives from the Federal Indian Day Schools Community
Support Program -- organized by Argyle Communications, the firm
appointed by the Federal Court to deliver a claimant assistance
program -- were in Ottawa, where for three days they met with
Indian Day School survivors to help them complete the required
paperwork for their claims, check on the status of previously
submitted claims and offer any wellness and mental health supports
that former students may need.
Claimants have until July 13, 2022, to submit. The support program,
meanwhile, only recently returned to visiting communities in person
to help claimants one-on-one after being effectively shut down by
COVID-19 protocols. It will next be in Akwesasne, at the Cornwall
Island Community Recreation Centre, on Oct. 28-29.
"Our goal really is to make the process as comfortable and
minimally re-traumatizing as possible because we know the process
is so tough for people," says Jill McLean, executive director of
the Indian Day Schools Community Support Program. "It's really
about meeting folks where they're at."
The settlement affects students from almost 700 schools that were
funded, managed and controlled by the federal government in every
province and territory except Newfoundland. The first Federal
Indian Day School to open was at Cape Croker, on Georgian Bay, in
1863. The last to close or transfer to the community was Oka
Country school in Kanesatake, Que., in September 2000.
Day schools were not included in the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission's report and weren't part of the Indian Residential
School Settlement Agreement of 2006. As such, many feel day school
survivors are given short shrift, their stories discounted because
they returned to their homes each night.
"But it was the same 1920 amendment to the Indian Act that made
Residential Schools and Day Schools mandatory," McLean says, "and
they had the same intent and the same purpose.
"There is so much focus on residential schools, whereas the day
schools actually impacted more children. It's almost like a
double-marginalization, because those experiences have not had the
same attention as those at residential schools."
"Some Residential schools just became Day schools, so it was the
same teachers," adds Cam Cameron, a partner at Gowling WLG and the
Day School Settlement Implementation Lead, who worked on the case
before the settlement was reached. "But, even though they went home
at night, the same harms would take place, and that's what really
upset Garry (McLean) in the beginning. The same stuff was happening
at day schools."
And, while an estimated 150,000 students attended approximately 130
residential schools in Canada, far more attended day schools. The
number of day school claimants has already passed 127,000, with
that number expected to reach 140,000 or more.
Former Day School students, meanwhile, can call the support
program's hotline, at 1-877-515-7525, for more information or to
see if they qualify.
According to Deloitte Canada, which is administering the claims
settlements, of the claims received where the level of abuse and
suffering has been determined, just over three-quarters are Level
1, the lowest level of physical and verbal abuse, for which
approved individuals will receive $10,000. The remaining 23 per
cent are those in Levels 2 to 5, which may also include sexual
abuse, with compensation ranging from $50,000 to $200,000.
So far, almost 92,000 survivors, or 72 per cent of claimants, have
received their settlements, including nearly 79,000 who were
awarded $10,000 each, and more than 13,000 who received higher
amounts.
The process for Day School claimants can be traumatizing despite
efforts to lessen the stress. Part of the 16-page claim form
requires applicants to describe the abuse they suffered in order to
determine which of five levels their claim falls under and what
compensation they're due.
"Some may find it cathartic," Cam Cameron says, "while, for others,
this was dead and buried long ago and they didn't want to dig this
up again, so it can be challenging. To have to go back and relive
it, even if they're at home writing it out, can be extremely
challenging. And some have to take it piecemeal, taking months to
complete their narrative and send it in."
Some, McLean notes, have carried their claims around with them, in
a purse or left on a dresser, say, for a year before completing
it.
"We've heard some horrific stories," she says.
Claimants, meanwhile, have the option of having their stories
destroyed or returned to them after two years, or they can allow
their narratives to be used by the Legacy Fund.
Most, Cameron says, have opted to have them destroyed, which is the
default if no choice is specified. But he often urges claimants to
forward their narratives, to keep their stories alive.
"I see how much effort went into them and what the story is, and I
think it's something that should be remembered.
"Too much is lost in time that we're only uncovering now."
Commanda, now a professor at uOttawa and founder of the school's
Mashkawaziwogamig Indigenous Resource Centre, agrees. "First Nation
children and Inuit children experienced hardships in government-run
day schools," she says. "Our truths must be told.
"I think of all my peers, of all those other children across the
land that suffered the abuses. And it's painful, but we have to
share in order for people to understand the truth. We are being
given an opportunity for our truths to be heard. We've always
spoken our truths and we've always carried our truths with us, but
we've never been given the opportunity for our truths to be heard
and understood.
"So, no matter how painful, we have to talk about it, and it is a
source of healing."
And, although the settlement process is drawing to a close,
Commanda says there are further steps that should be taken to help
provide survivors closure. The settlement itself, she says, is
about compensation, not justice.
"All the money in the world is not going to take away the pain and
suffering. There's got to be more to justice than just
compensation. There has to be an acknowledgment that a wrong was
committed. Acknowledgment and accountability, and what we're asking
for is an apology, and not just a feel-good, warm, fuzzy,
good-words apology.
"Don't get me wrong," she adds, "I fully respect the Residential
School survivors. Those poor kids were ripped from their families
and communities and carted off to those damn institutions and so
rightfully deserved that apology from the prime minister. But we
would like to see that, too, and not just standing at a podium with
a Kleenex in your hand, wiping one little tear and then going off
on a vacation the next day, but a well-organized apology. And why
not? Day School survivors were children, too. Do it up in
Parliament, acknowledge the harm that was done, and let the world
see." [GN]
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Approval of Settlement in Soileau Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the appeal
on the settlement made in John L. Soileau, et al. v. Churchill
Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video
Poker Company, LLC (Suit No.14-3873), is pending.
On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish
of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana.
The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter horse
owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair
Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana
since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically
since 2008.
The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing,
LLC and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC ("Fair
Grounds Defendants") have collected certain monies through video
draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse
supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have been
paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live
thoroughbred horse meets. La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of
those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse
horsemen during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets.
The petition requested that the District Court declare that Fair
Grounds Defendants violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and
mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds Defendants to pay all
future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S.
27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to
reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff
class.
On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds.
On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds Defendants filed
exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary
jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission.
By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the
exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the
Louisiana Racing Commission.
On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the
Judgment. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled
that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to
pursue the case.
The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the District Court, which
affirmed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling. The plaintiffs
filed an appeal of the District Court's decision with the Louisiana
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the Louisiana
Racing Commission's ruling and remanded the matter to the Louisiana
Racing Commission for further proceedings on June 13, 2018.
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Fair
Grounds Defendants' Motion for Rehearing on July 12, 2018 and the
Louisiana Supreme Court denied the Fair Grounds Defendants' Writ of
Certiorari seeking review of that decision on November 14, 2018.
The parties had previously attempted to mediate the matter in
October 2018 but were unsuccessful.
Thereafter, the parties resumed informal settlement discussions,
and, as a result, the Company established an accrual for an
immaterial amount in the third quarter of 2019.
The parties submitted a settlement agreement to the District Court
on February 14, 2020, following the Louisiana Racing Commission's
approval to transfer the matter to the District Court for approval
and administration of the settlement agreement on February 12,
2020.
At a hearing on February 18, 2020, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and set certain
deadlines relating to actions to be taken by class members.
The settlement agreement requires, among other items, the Fair
Grounds Defendants to (i) pay a certain out-of-pocket amount that
is within the amount for which we established an accrual in the
third quarter of 2019, and (ii) support legislation that allocates
a specified amount of video poker purse funds to quarter horse
purses for races at Fair Grounds with maximum annual payout caps
that are not deemed material.
On June 13, 2020, the legislation addressed in the settlement
agreement was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the
Governor of Louisiana.
The settlement includes a release of claims against the Fair
Grounds Defendants in connection with the proceeding, although
individual plaintiffs may opt-out. If there are opt-out claims in
excess of $50,000, the settlement will be voided, unless the
parties agree to stipulate otherwise. The settlement agreement is
subject to certain conditions, including court approval.
After the parties entered into the settlement, legal counsel for
six objecting plaintiffs filed an amended petition with the
District Court. After a hearing on July 20, 2020, the District
Court dismissed the amended petition.
The objecting plaintiffs filed a notice of their intention to seek
a writ with the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
related to the dismissal of the amended petition, which was denied.
The fairness hearing with the District Court relating to the terms
of the settlement agreement occurred on October 7, 2020, and
November 17, 2020, and the parties have submitted post-trial
briefing and proposed final judgments.
Objecting plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the February
2020 Order appointing class counsel certifying a class for
settlement purposes.
On January 28, 2021, the District Court issued a Final Order and
Judgement approving the settlement.
The objectors filed a notice of appeal of the January 28, 2021
Final Order and Judgment.
That appeal has been consolidated with the earlier-filed appeal of
the February 2020 order appointing class counsel and certifying a
class for settlement purposes.
On August 12, 2021, the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit granted a joint motion to expedite oral argument, which
took place on October 13, 2021.
Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Mattera Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
plaintiff in Anthony Mattera v. Robert A. Baffert, Bob Baffert
Racing, Inc. and Churchill Downs Incorporated, has filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice.
On May 14, 2021, plaintiff Anthony Mattera filed a class action
complaint in the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Louisville,
Kentucky against defendants Robert A. Baffert, Bob Baffert Racing,
Inc., and Churchill Downs Incorporated regarding the entry of
Medina Spirit into the 147th running of the Kentucky Derby, along
with the potential disqualification of Medina Spirit as the winner
of Kentucky Derby 147.
Plaintiff's claims against the Company include negligence, a
violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment,
along with a claim for injunctive relief. The Company removed the
case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky on May 21, 2021 and filed a motion to dismiss on July 7,
2021.
On September 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal, without prejudice.
Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.
COCA-COLA CO: Spaner TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN SPANER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
COCA-COLA CO., Case No. 1:19-cv-22210-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting her motion for class certification of:
"All persons in the United States who (1) from May 30,
2014, to the date that class notice is disseminated, (2)
received at least one call from Defendant, (3) on their
cellular telephone, (4) where the entry for
"ININ_DIALER_40 WrapupCode.DisplayName" listed in
Defendant's call logs is either "Machine -- Recording
played to Machine," "Success -- Recording played to Live
Voice," "Success -- Recording played to Machine" or
"Reminder Call Message Played;"
2. appointing her as Class Representative; and
3. appoint her counsel as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff also seeks to certify an injunctive relief class
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
Since 2014, Coca-Cola has placed telephone calls using an
artificial or prerecorded voice to solicit new product orders.
According to the complaint, Coca-Cola did not obtain Ms. Spaner's
prior express written consent for such calls, as the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) requires.
The Coca-Cola Company is a multinational beverage corporation
incorporated under Delaware's General Corporation Law and
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. The Coca-Cola Company has
interests in the manufacturing, retailing, and marketing of
nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, and alcoholic
beverages.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CAi6zO
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D, Arisohn, Esq.
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave. Ste. 1420
Miami, FL 33133-2813
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: scott@bursor.com
creilly@bursor.com
jarisohn@bursor.com
COLUMBIA PUBLIC: Seeks Dismissal of Mask Policy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Vockrodt, writing for KCUR, reports that Missouri Attorney
General Eric Schmitt is on a mission to battle mask mandates around
the state. In some cases, legal services to defend the mandates are
costing thousands of dollars -- dollars from Missouri taxpayers.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt can sue cities, counties and
school districts over mask mandate measures aimed at slowing the
spread of COVID-19 without costing his office anything.
That's because Schmitt's office uses salaried lawyers on staff to
pursue such cases.
The same can't be said for some of the defendants Schmitt has sued
this year.
St. Louis County, for example, hired the Lewis Rice law firm to
defend itself against Schmitt's lawsuit. From June through August,
the law firm billed St. Louis County $169,914.
University Health, which runs the Jackson County Health Department,
hired Shook, Hardy & Bacon to defend a separate lawsuit filed by
Schmitt. The firm billed the health department $17,774 in August.
And Columbia Public Schools, which Schmitt sued on Aug. 24,
received an invoice of nearly $12,000 from the Mickes O'Toole law
firm for just one week of legal services.
Each of those defendants likely incurred more costs as litigation
has continued through September and October. Invoices through
August were the most recent made available in response to Missouri
Sunshine Law requests.
Defendants in the lawsuits have credited requirements to wear masks
in most indoor settings with helping reduce the spread of COVID-19
and its highly contagious delta variant.
"As stated in August, the decision to file suit against a public
school district after a local decision is made in the interest of
safety and keeping students in school will waste taxpayer dollars
and resources, which are better spent investing in our students,"
said Columbia Public Schools spokesperson Michelle Baumstark.
"Columbia Public Schools intends to aggressively defend its
decision to keep its community and its scholars safe."
St. Louis County Executive Sam Page, through a spokesman, declined
to comment, citing pending litigation.
Critics of Schmitt's pursuit of litigation against mask orders
suspect the tactic is aimed at burnishing his conservative
political credentials, as debate over masks takes an increasingly
political turn. Schmitt is running in a packed Republican primary
for the U.S. Senate to replace outgoing Roy Blunt in 2022.
"This anti-scientific (fight) that our attorney has been
undertaking on behalf of his political career, it's unbelievable to
me," said Crystal Williams, a Jackson County legislator. "The
amount of money and time and energy that has been undertaken in
order to fight it, it's just -- I don't know. I just don't
understand it."
Schmitt's office is defending its pursuit.
"I think the Attorney General has made his position pretty clear,
but pushing back on local governments who are hellbent on control
and power is extremely important, and it's a fight we're not going
to back down from," Missouri Attorney General spokesman Chris
Nuelle said in an email to the NPR Midwest Newsroom.
Like Schmitt's office, Kansas City and St. Louis City used staff
attorneys to handle legal challenges to mask orders and haven't
incurred more costs for taxpayers.
Mixed results for Schmitt
Schmitt filed suit against Columbia Public Schools after the
district announced on Aug. 13 that it would require masks for
people in school buildings and buses, even though the city of
Columbia had voted against a mask mandate.
The lawsuit said few students had died of COVID-19 at that point,
and the risk of children spreading the virus was minimal. It also
claimed masks have little effect in stopping infection surges.
"The cure should not be worse than the disease," the lawsuit said.
The Centers for Disease Control's latest guidance differs from
Schmitt's assertions, in part reading: "CDC recommends universal
indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to
K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status."
The case against Columbia Public Schools was filed as a "reverse
class action" lawsuit, which would have caused its outcome to apply
to all school districts in Missouri that had a mask policy.
A Boone County judge ruled in September that Schmitt lacks the
authority to certify a class action, or make the lawsuit apply
beyond Columbia Public Schools.
Columbia Public Schools has asked that the lawsuit be dismissed and
said it wants Schmitt's office pay the district's legal fees.
On July 26, St. Louis County issued a mask order requiring people
age five and older to wear masks indoors in most circumstances as
the delta variant led to another wave in COVID-19 infections.
Schmitt's office sued St. Louis County and St. Louis City that same
day.
After months of legal wrangling, St. Louis County was able to
continue enforcing its mask order when a St. Louis County Circuit
Court judge on Oct. 14 lifted a temporary restraining order against
the measure. The judge also gave Schmitt 10 days to file a new
petition.
Schmitt sued Jackson County and its health department on Aug. 19,
saying there was no evidence that County Executive Frank White and
other top officials considered science or data that would justify
the mask order issued on Aug. 4.
That case is pending. The Jackson County mask order remains in
effect until Nov. 7. Jackson County Legislator Dan Tarwater
introduced a resolution to be heard at the Oct. 25 legislative
meeting that would end the mask order immediately if it's passed.
The measure has two other sponsors: Teresa Galvin and Jeanie
Lauer.
Schmitt has been engaged in other high profile litigation this
year. On Oct. 21, he joined Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a
lawsuit against President Joe Biden for stopping construction of a
wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which had been a priority of
President Donald Trump. [GN]
COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: CLWDA Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Compucom Systems
Inc., et al. The case is styled as The California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency, a California governmental agency, ex
rel. William Dean Raymond, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Compucom Systems Inc., a Delaware corporation, Does
1-15, Case No. 34-2021-00309983-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Oct. 19, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
CompuCom Systems Inc. -- https://www.compucom.com/ -- is a
technology managed services provider and product reseller
headquartered in Fort Mill, South Carolina, a southern suburb of
Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY PC
7677 Oakport St., Ste. 1150
Oakland, CA 94621-1932
Phone: 510-817-2711
Fax: 510-568-6830
CP SECURTIY: Grable Seeks to Certify Class of Security Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH GRABLE and ARTHUR
REDDING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CP SECURITY GROUPS, INC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00095-MTT
(M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying a putative class of:
"Security Officers employed by Defendant C P Security
Groups;"
2. authorizing them to proceed as a collective action under
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees and former employees;
3. directing the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel
with contact information for the putative collective class
to facilitate notice; and
4. approving the form of notice to the putative collective
class.
On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff commenced this civil action against
Defendant for Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and employees at the appropriate rate
for overtime pay, failed to pay Plaintiffs and other employees at
least minimum wage for the hours actually worked, and retaliated
against Plaintiffs and other employees for inquiring into whether
they had been provided with appropriate compensation.
Both Plaintiffs, Mr. Grable and Mr. Redding, work as security
officers for Defendant. Mr. Grable has been employed with Defendant
since June 2019, and Mr. Redding has been employed with Defendant
since 2014.
The Defendant is a private security company that provides security
services and officers for various types of businesses.
The Plaintiffs often have to work both day and night shifts during
their seven-day work week. As a result, the Plaintiffs frequently
work in excess of 80 hours, not only in each pay period, but in any
given work week. Despite working overtime, Defendant willfully
failed and refused to pay Mr. Grable and Mr. Redding, as well as
other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation at the
required rates.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nPbqaG
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth E. Barton III, Esq.
JOhn M. McCall
COOPER, BARTON & COOPER, LLP
170 College Street
Macon, GA 31201
Telephone: (478) 841-9007
Facsimile: (478) 841-9002
E-mail: keb@cooperbarton.com
jmm@cooperbarton.com
DEFENDERS INC: 13 Agents' Claims Dismissed With Prejudice in Archer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TEDDY ARCHER, et al., Plaintiffs v. DEFENDERS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00470-SB (D. Del.), Judge Stephanos
Bibas of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
dismisses 13 agents' claims with prejudice.
Statutory deadlines are important. They ensure that disputes are
resolved while memories are fresh. They also help parties move on
and get back to business. In the employment class action, 13 former
employees joined the litigation late and missed the cut off—some
by a hair. So Judge Bibas must dismiss their claims with prejudice.
This may seem arbitrary, but, according to him, making one-off
exceptions would be even less fair.
Defenders hires agents to install home security systems. Some
agents say that it underpaid them, so they sued it under the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The Court conditionally certified a class
action.
But to join the lawsuit, the agents had to file consent in court.
Defenders says 13 agents filed late, so it moved for partial
summary judgment. None of the 13 responded.
Summary judgment is proper if there is no real dispute as to any
material fact and Defenders deserve judgment as a matter of law.
The parties do not dispute the dates when the 13 agents left their
jobs, starting the clock on when they had to file suit. And since
all 13 filed after the deadline, Judge Bibas dismisses them with
prejudice.
True, the parties dispute how much time the agents had to file.
Under the Act, the most they had was three years. But since the
parties agreed to extend that deadline by 35 days, the agents had
(at most) three years and 35 days to join.
Undisputed employment records show that the 13 agents missed this
deadline:
a. Eric Donahue's last day of work was April 1, 2015, so his
consent was due May 6, 2018. But he opted in on March 4,
2019.
b. Shamar Knighton's last day was Dec. 9, 2015, so his
consent was due Jan. 13, 2019. D.I. 260. But he opted in on Feb. 5,
2019.
c. Bryan Huckell's last day was Dec. 11, 2015, so his consent
was due Jan. 15, 2019. But he opted in on Feb. 28, 2019.
d. Corey Mitsunaga's last day was Dec. 12, 2015, so his
consent was due Jan. 16, 2019. But he opted in on March 4, 2019.
e. Julius Corpuz's last day was Dec. 14, 2015, so his consent
was due Jan. 18, 2019. But he opted in on Feb. 12, 2019.
f. Stephen Dobson's last day was Dec. 15, 2015, so his
consent was due Jan. 19, 2019. But he opted in on the 29th.
g. Timothy Paquette's last day was Dec. 18, 2015, so his
consent was due Jan. 22, 2019. But he opted in on Feb. 27, 2019.
h. Christopher Blair's last day was Dec. 19, 2015, so his
consent was due Jan. 23, 2019. But he opted in on March 4, 2019.
i. Timothy McNeill's last day was Dec. 30, 2015, so his
consent was due Feb. 3, 2019. But he opted in on the 27th.
j. Jesse McClain's last day was Dec. 31, 2015, so his consent
was due Feb. 4, 2019. But he opted in on the 5th.
k. Leon Perry's last day was Jan. 9, 2016, so his consent was
due Feb. 13, 2019. But he opted in on the 26th.
l. Benjamin Herman's last day was Jan. 27, 2016, so his
consent was due March 3, 2019. But he opted in on the 8th.
m. Paul Manausa's last day was Dec. 3, 2015, so his consent
was due Jan. 7, 2019. But he opted in on the 11th. Also while the
notice misspells Mr. Manausa's name, the consent form does not. So
there is no dispute as to his identity.
Judge Bibas concludes that whether an employee was overdue by a
month or a day does not change the outcome. These 13 employees did
not opt into the Fair Labor class in time. Judge Bibas dismisses
their claims with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ypv8s9x3 from Leagle.com.
Seth Rigrodsky -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Herbert W. Mondros --
hwm@rl-legal.com -- RIGRODSKY LAW P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware;
Eyal Dror, Shelly L. Friedland -- sfriedland@triefandolk.com --
Stan Gutgarts -- sgutgarts@triefandolk.com -- Ted Trief --
ttrief@triefandolk.com -- TRIEF & OLK, in New York City; Macy D.
Hanson -- macy@macyhanson.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON
PLLC, in Madison, Mississippi; Peter S. Pearlman --
psp@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMAN, & KNOPF LLP,
in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, Counsel for the Plaintiffs.
J. Cory Falgowski -- jfalgowski@burr.com -- H. Carlton Hilson --
chilson@burr.com -- Kristin Bryance Metheny -- bmetheny@burr.com --
Ronald W. Flowers -- rflowers@burr.com -- BURR & FORMAN LLP, in
Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for the Defendants.
ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Litigation Over Insulin Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend several class action suits related to the
company's insulin products.
In December 2017, the company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC
and Novo Nordisk, Inc. were named as defendants in a consolidated
purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey relating
to insulin pricing seeking damages under various state consumer
protection laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (federal RICO Act).
Separately, in February 2018, the company, along with Sanofi and
Novo Nordisk, were named as defendants in MSP Recovery Claims,
Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the same
court, seeking damages under various state consumer protection
laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO
Act.
In both In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation and the MSP Recovery
Claims litigation, the court dismissed claims under the federal
RICO Act and certain state laws.
In April 2021, the plaintiffs in In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation
amended their complaint to allege additional state law claims for
civil conspiracy and violations of state RICO statutes.
Also, the company, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, CVS, Express
Scripts, and Optum, have been sued in a purported class action, FWK
Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., filed in the same court
in November 2020, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as
well as the New Jersey RICO Act and antitrust law.
That same group of defendants, along with Medco Health and United
Health Group, also have been sued in other purported class actions
in the same court, Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
Co. et al. and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. both
initiated in March 2020, for alleged violations of the federal RICO
Act.
In September 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate FWK Holdings, LLC
v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v.
Eli Lilly & Co. et al., and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et
al.
In July 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey dismissed the three antitrust claims alleged by plaintiffs
in the consolidated litigation and denied dismissal of the RICO
claims.
Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
ELI LILLY: Mosaic Health Initiated Purported Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company is
facing a purported class action suit initiated by Mosaic Health,
Inc.
In July 2021, the company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC,
Novo Nordisk Inc., and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, were named
as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York by Mosaic
Health, Inc. alleging antitrust and unjust enrichment claims
related to the defendants' 340B distribution programs.
Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
ELITE HEALTH: Lampton Seeks Dec. 16 Deadline for Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORRAINE MAY LAMPTON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ELITE HEALTH INSTITUTE LTD., Case No. 2:20-cv-06564-EAS-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the
deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification by a period
of 45 five days to December 16, 2021.
On March 26, 2021, the Court entered its Scheduling Order. Per the
Scheduling Order, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due
on November 1, 2021.
On October 19, 2021, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue
Mediation by a period of approximately 30 days.
Elite Health is located in Lewis Center, Ohio, and is part of the
other ambulatory health care services industry.
A copy of the Parties motion dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BvFfC8 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorney for Plaintiff and Putative Class, is:
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 496-4469
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael W. DeWitt, Esq.
DEWITT LAW, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 398-2886
Facsimile: (614) 750-1379
E-mail: mdewitt@clarkfox.com
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Scheduling Order Amendment Sought in Linde
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA LINDE, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ENVISION
HEALTHCARE CORP., EMCARE HOLDINGS, INC., and KANSAS EM-I MEDICAL
SERVICES, P.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-02661-HLT-TJJ (D. Kan.), the
Parties ask the Court to amend scheduling order as follows:
a. All Phase I discovery shall be completed by January 14,
2022;
b. Conditional certification and class certification motion
shall be filed by February 14, 2021;
c. Response to motion for conditional and class certification
shall be filed by March 16, 2022;
d. Reply in support of conditional and class certification
shall be filed by April 6, 2022;
e. Plaintiff's settlement proposal shall be submitted by
January 14, 2022;
f. Defendants' settlement counter-proposal shall be submitted
by February 4, 2022;
g. Mediation notice or confidential settlement reports shall
be jointly filed by February 14, 2022; and
h. Mediation shall be completed by April 29, 2022.
Envision Healthcare is a family of healthcare companies delivering
care to patients in their homes.
EmCare is an American provider of physician practice management
services for emergency departments, inpatient physician services or
hospitals, acute care surgery, trauma and general surgery, women's
and children's services, radiology / teleradiology programs and
anesthesiology services.
A copy of the Parties' joint motion dated Oct. 25, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BAeAEk at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes, are:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, Missouri 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Frankie J. Forbes, Esq.
FORBES LAW GROUP, LLC
6900 College Boulevard, Suite 840
Overland Park, KS 66211
Telephone: (913) 341-8600
Facsimile: (913) 341-8606
E-mail: fforbes@forbeslawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Denise Giraudo, Esq.
Denise E. Giraudo, Esq.
Jenna N. Mennona, Esq.
Brian Murphy, Esq.
Robert Chipman, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
HAMPTON, LLP
2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100
Washington, DC 20006-6801
Telephone: (202) 747-1900
Facsimile: (202) 747-1901
E-mail: dgiraudo@sheppardmullin.com
jmennona@sheppardmullin.com
bmurphy@sheppardmullin.com
bchipman@sheppardmullin.com
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Munguia-Brown Wins Bid to Junk Set-off Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, et
al., v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-01225-JSW
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order
resolving outstanding motions and setting case management
conference as follows:
-- granting Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Defendants' other
debt collection set-off claims;
-- denying Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment as
to Plaintiff David Bonfanti's claims;
-- granting in part and denies in part Plaintiffs motion for
leave to file their third amended complaint;
-- granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to
modify the Court's class certification order;
-- denying Defendants' motion to modify this Court's prior
orders to exclude managerial employees; and
-- setting further case management conference for November
12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Equity Residential is a publicly-traded real estate investment
trust that invests in apartments. As of December 31, 2020, the
company owned or had investments in 309 properties consisting of
77,889 apartment units in Southern California, San Francisco,
Washington, D.C., New York City, Boston, Seattle, and Denver.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZNfSyI at no extra charge.[CC]
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY FREDERICK; CRISTEN LEE; ALEXANDER PRUEFER; JINGER SANDERS;
ALEXANDRA NEUMAYER; and MARIA CURCIO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2021L001116 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Oct.
22, 2021) alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
provide the requisite data retention and destruction policies to
the public and failed to provide Plaintiffs the specific purpose
and length of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric
information was being collected, stored, and used.
ExamSoft Worldwide operates as a solutions company for exam
administration. The Company provides tools for delivering
assessment and examinations in the classroom at all levels of
learning. ExamSoft's exam process solutions include authoring,
delivery, and administrative programs. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
-and-
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
-and-
Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
Email: creilly@bursor.com
FMC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Overwatch Herbicide
-----------------------------------------------------
Anthony Kelly, Esq., of Mellor Olsson Lawyers, in an article for
Mondaq, reports that there has been some recent publicity regarding
potential class action against the company FMC in relation to its
herbicide 'Overwatch'. Whilst many will be aware of the alleged
issues with 'Overwatch', most people are less familiar with what is
involved in a 'class action'.
A class action involves legal proceedings being commenced on behalf
of a group of unrelated people who have suffered some kind of loss
or damage, where that loss or damage has been caused by the same
person or company - the alleged 'wrongdoer'. It differs from
typical legal action in which the action is only brought on behalf
of a single party against the wrongdoer.
There are, however, limits on bringing class actions. In 1992 the
Federal Court of Australia Act was amended to incorporate
provisions relating to class actions. Section 33C of the Act sets
out the requirements for commencing a class action, namely that
there must be claims by seven or more people against the same
person/company, the claims must arise out of the same or related
circumstances, and the claims must give rise to a substantial
common issue of law or fact.
The range of matters for class actions has been broad, including
people who have suffered as a result of contaminated food, tobacco
claims, defective medical devices and investors.
With class actions becoming more common in Australia, the question
arises as to whether someone who has suffered loss should go it
alone or join in the group proceedings. As always, there will be
pro's and cons with each approach.
The benefit of taking proceedings personally is that you will be in
control of the entire process, including all negotiations with the
wrongdoer and whether you proceed all the way to a trial. The
downside is that you will bear all the risk and all of the costs of
the proceedings. In addition you will likely have to invest
significant time.
This can be contrasted with class actions, where the risk and costs
are shared amongst a broader group of people and you are less
likely to need to devote the same amount of time to the process.
The flip side of this is that you will not have the same level of
control over the proceedings and any negotiations and settlement,
and may have a result forced upon you.
The difficulty is that there is no clear cut answer as to whether
you will end up in a better position from being involved in a class
action or not. It will always depend on the particular
circumstances -- ultimately it will be an individual decision as to
whether to go it alone as the lone wolf, or join in the group
proceedings with the rest of the flock. [GN]
ILLINOIS: McFarland Seeks Approval of Amended Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMMY McFARLAND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BRENDAN KELLY, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois
State Police, Case No. 2:20-cv-02334-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
1. granting his amended motion for class certification of:
"all individuals in the State of Illinois currently on the
Illinois Sex Offender Registry who have criminal
convictions requiring registration for a period of ten
years;" and
2. appointing his attorneys as class counsel.
Pursuant to the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"),
individuals who have been convicted of certain sex offenses are
required to register as sex offenders for a period of ten years
following their conviction or discharge from the Illinois
Department of Corrections. Failure to register and/or providing
false registration information is a Class 3 felony.
The Illinois State Police has responsibility to "establish and
maintain" the statewide Sex Offender Registry. An individual who is
required to register as a sex offender must register his address
and other identifying information annually (or quarterly at the
discretion of the local law enforcement agency) "with the chief of
police in the municipality in which he or she resides." Local law
enforcement authorities transmit registration information to the
state police for inclusion in the statewide database through the
Law Enforcement Agencies Data System (LEADS).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BwwAPF
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
5707 W. Goodman Street
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (847) 361-3869
E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com
- and -
Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
3612 N. Tripp Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Telephone: (773) 283-3913
E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.neta
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of InnovAge Holding Corp.
(NASDAQ: INNV). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased INNV common stock pursuant or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
InnovAge's March 2021 initial public offering may contact the
Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/InnovAge for more information. Investors may
also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/InnovAge
The case alleges that the Registration Statement was materially
false and misleading and omitted to state that: (i) certain of
InnovAge's facilities failed to provide covered services, provide
accessible and adequate services, manage participants' medical
situations, and oversee use of specialists; (ii) as a result,
InnovAge was reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory
scrutiny, including by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services ("CMS"); and (iii) as a result, there was a significant
risk that the CMS would suspend new enrollments pending an audit of
InnovAge's services.
Interested InnovAge investors have until December 13, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/InnovAge
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/InnovAge [GN]
INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Bhambhani Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 18, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RITU BHAMBHANI, M.D., et
al., v. INNOVATIVE HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00355-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby
entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion and modifying the
scheduling order dated June 25, 2021, as follows:
-- Discovery deadline; submission of December 21, 2021
joint status report
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class January 18, 2022
certification
Innovative Health manufactures medical device.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31oR0xS at no extra charge.[CC]
IRAN: Burks Seeks Nov. 12 Extension to File Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN BURKS, et al., v.
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01102-CRC
(D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending
the time for their motion regarding subject matter jurisdiction,
class certification, and liability by 14 days through Friday
November 12, 2021.
On July 23, 2021, this Court filed a minute order that required
Plaintiffs to submit "their motion regarding subject matter
jurisdiction, class certification, and liability" by this Friday,
October 29, 2021.
The Plaintiffs respectfully request an extra fourteen days to
complete this filing due to last minute travel abroad by one of
Plaintiffs' subject matter expert witnesses and the need to
integrate recently acquired materials pertinent to the issues
before the Court. Counsel for Plaintiffs also had multiple filing
deadlines last week which created more work than anticipated.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nQGoiF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven R. Perles, Esq.
Edward B. MacAllister, Esq.
Joshua K. Perles, Esq.
PERLES LAW FIRM, PC
816 Connecticut Ave., NW, 12th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 955-9055
- and -
James P. Bonner, Esq.
Patrick L. Rocco, Esq.
STONE BONNER & ROCCO LLP
447 Springfield Avenue, 2nd Fl.
Summit, NJ 07901
Telephone: (908) 516-2045
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 23
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Lightning eMotors, Inc. f/k/a
GigCapital3, Inc. (NYSE: ZEV, ZEV.WS) between May 7, 2021 and
August 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action
lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 14,
2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Lightning eMotors securities during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Lightning eMotors class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2155.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 December 14, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company would record a
substantially greater net loss per share in the second quarter of
2021 compared to the second quarter of 2020 and would pull its full
year guidance for the remainder of 2021; (2) accordingly, the
Company materially overstated its financial position and/or
prospects; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
To join the Lightning eMotors class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2155.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MAYFLOWER TRANSIT: Seeks Denial of Greenley Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID GREENLEY,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
MAYFLOWER TRANSIT, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00339-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class
counsel in its entirety.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff cannot satisfy the
requirements for class certification due to a multitude of reasons,
each of which alone is sufficient to warrant denial of Plaintiff's
Motion. As a threshold matter, the Plaintiff failed to define an
objective and ascertainable class. Instead, he proposes
impermissible fail-safe classes that necessitate adjudication of a
key merits issue (consent) before class members could be
identified, accomplishable only through innumerable individualized
inquiries."
With regards to commonality, the Plaintiff has failed to establish
that common issues related to the key elements of his claims --
confidentiality and consent—predominate over individual ones. Nor
can he. While both Penal Code sections 632 and 632.7 prohibit the
intentional recording of a call without consent, section 632
further requires that the communication be "confidential." For a
communication to be confidential, a party to the recording must
have an objectively reasonable expectation that the call is not
being recorded, which is a question of fact that requires
assessments of each call under the particular circumstances based
on numerous specific factors, the Defendant adds.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of two proposed classes of
individuals in California who booked moving services online through
Mayflower’s Gemini Program -- a program designed to fully
digitalize the booking process and eliminate the need for any
telephonic interaction altogether. Specifically, the Plaintiff
seeks certification of:
(1) a class of persons whose conversations were recorded
without their consent" in violation of Penal Code section
632; and
(2) a sub-class of persons 'whose cellular telephone
conversations were recorded without their consent' in
violation of Penal Code section 632.7.
Mayflower, a subsidiary of UniGroup, is an American moving company
based in Fenton, Missouri. Mayflower operates as an agent owned
co-op to coordinate loads, packing, and third-party services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CCfMIH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Katherine C. Den Bleyker, Esq.
William B. Richards, Jr., Esq.
Heather E. Horn, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-Mail: Katherine.DenBleyker@lewisbrisbois.com
William.Richards@lewisbrisbois.com
Heather.Horn@lewisbrisbois.com
MCGRAW HILL: Add'l Filings to Be Made Under Flynn Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York orders that all further filings in
the case, SEAN FLYNN, DEAN KARLAN, JONATHAN MORDUCH, DAVID MYERS
and JEAN TWENGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. McGRAW HILL LLC, et al. Defendants, Case
Nos. 21 Civ. 1141 (LGS), 21 Civ. 614 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), will be made
under Flynn, et al. v. McGraw Hill LLC, et al., No. 21 Civ. 614.
On March 5, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting the parties'
motion to consolidate the cases for all purposes. On March 22,
2021, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.
Judge Schofield orders that all further filings will be made under
Flynn, et al., v. McGraw Hill LLC, et al., No. 21 Civ. 614.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Myers, et al.,
v. McGraw Hill LLC, No. 21 Civ. 1141.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hu9dtudf from Leagle.com.
MDL 2398: Plaintiffs' Bid to Reconsider June 23, 2021 Order Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP)
Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Daniel D. Crabtree Judge
entered an order:
1. denying the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the
June 23, 2021, Memorandum and Order on the Mylan
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and
2. denying the plaintiffs' motion for Oral Argument on
pending motions.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' argument here simply rehashes
their earlier arguments, and that's not a proper basis for seeking
reconsideration. Also, plaintiffs fail to show that the court
clearly erred when it dismissed the four named plaintiffs from the
lawsuit. Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider argues that the court
erred by "relying on unpublished case law from Michigan district
courts" to conclude that the four named plaintiffs had not properly
joined this MDL. Doc. 2398 at 37. But, to decide the issue, the
court relied on more than just federal Michigan case law. Instead,
as defendants correctly argue, "[e]very MDL transferee court to
consider the question has followed the same rule: MDL proceedings
cannot spawn fresh actions by new plaintiffs[,]" and here,
plaintiffs "have identified no contrary authority" permitting the
addition of plaintiffs to an MDL who haven't filed an underlying
case in a transferor court."
The Mylan defendants argue that the court can deny plaintiffs'
motion simply because it is untimely. The Plaintiffs' motion asks
that the court reconsider just certain parts of its Order granting
in part and denying in part the Mylan defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. The Mylan defendants argue that because the
court's Order granted just a partial summary judgment and didn't
dispose of the case in its entirety, it is a non-dispositive
order.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CGyYVq at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2913: East Troy Suit Consolidated in Product Liability Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
East Troy Community School District v. JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI), James
Monsees, Nicholas Pritzker, Philip Morris USA, Inc., Riaz Valani,
Adam Bowen, Altria Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution
Company, Altria Group, Inc. and Hoyoung Huh, Case No. 21-cv-08237
(N.D. Cal., April 28, 2021) has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913,
"In Re: JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practice, and Products
Liability Litigation" and is assigned to Judge William H. Orrick.
The actions in this MDL involve allegations that Juul Labs, Inc.
has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner
designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or
omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than
cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably
dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI
promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include putative class
actions, actions on behalf of school districts and other
governmental entities, and individual personal injury cases.
East Troy is a unified school district organized and operating
pursuant to the laws of the State of Wisconsin. It accuses JUUL of
causing more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a
youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis. Defendants are
sued for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public
Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of
tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC provides Altria Group Inc. and
its companies digital marketing, packaging design & innovation,
product development and safety, health, and environmental affairs.
Altria Group Distribution Company provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to Altria's tobacco companies. Philip
Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group,
Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
[BN]
East Troy Community School District is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 233-5945
Email: wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Eaton Rapids Suit Consolidated in JUUL Labs Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Rapids Public Schools v. JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI), James
Monsees, Nicholas Pritzker, Philip Morris USA, Inc., Riaz Valani,
Adam Bowen, Altria Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution
Company, Altria Group, Inc. and Hoyoung Huh, Case No. 21-cv-08251
(N.D. Cal., October 22, 2021) has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, "In Re: JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practice, and
Products Liability Litigation" and is assigned to Judge William H.
Orrick.
The actions in this MDL involve allegations that Juul Labs, Inc.
has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner
designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or
omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than
cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably
dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI
promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include putative class
actions, actions on behalf of school districts and other
governmental entities, and individual personal injury cases.
Eaton Rapids is a unified school district organized and operating
pursuant to the laws of the State of Michigan. It accuses JUUL of
causing more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a
youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis. Defendants are
sued for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public
Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of
tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC provides Altria Group Inc. and
its companies digital marketing, packaging design & innovation,
product development and safety, health, and environmental affairs.
Altria Group Distribution Company provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to Altria's tobacco companies. Philip
Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group,
Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
[BN]
Eaton Rapids is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 233-5945
Email: wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
MONSANTO CO: Supreme Court Needs to Review $80MM Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
Tiger Joyce, writing for Inside Sources, reports that legal reform
advocates nationwide recognize October as "Lawsuit Abuse Awareness
Month." This year, the U.S. Supreme Court can help highlight and
address the scourge of lawsuit abuse by reviewing an astounding $80
million judgment against Bayer subsidiary, Monsanto.
With outrageous multi-million-dollar judgments becoming more
commonplace, it's easy to see how lawsuit abuse wipes out an
estimated $435.6 billion in overall economic activity each year.
In 2018, a California jury decided that one of the world's most
popular pesticides, Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller, caused cancer.
With 29,000 copycat cases still pending (of the 125,000 originally
filed), the attack against the glyphosate-based product is on track
to become one of history's biggest and most notorious mass torts --
and it's unfortunately based in junk science.
The world's major environmental regulators long have agreed that
the essential crop-protection product does not cause cancer.
European Union regulators repeatedly certify its safety, as have
regulators in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and our own U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. But in 2015, one small, obscure
agency of the United Nation's World Health Organization, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), labeled
glyphosate a "probable carcinogen," creating an uproar among
scientists and environmental officials.
It later emerged that IARC dismissed evidence of glyphosate's
safety while amplifying and mischaracterizing other data to suggest
conclusions that no other rigorous study has found. It turns out, a
key consultant on the 2015 study, Christopher Portier, was
simultaneously on the payroll of American class action lawyers.
While the lawyers worked to launch the glyphosate litigation,
Portier was instrumental in steps leading to the product's cancer
designation.
Beyond IARC's questionable scientific methods and Portier's
double-teaming, Monsanto's appeal deserves the ear of the U.S.
Supreme Court for yet another reason - the role played by a
polluted jury pool in the massive judgment.
The trial bar runs in packs, targeting not just individual
companies, but entire industries. It's clear they've zeroed in on
their latest prey -- the agricultural technology industry. Class
action suits are popping up nationwide against essential crop
protection products that aid the nutrition and health of virtually
all Americans. Now, trial lawyers are targeting the weedkiller
Paraquat, claiming, against all evidence, that the product causes
Parkinson's disease.
And for the lawyers who haven't gotten in on the agricultural
attack yet, they're now claiming another insecticide,
neonicotinoids, is driving bee extinction -- even as bee
populations increase.
Unfortunately, these are but a few examples of tactics routinely
used to poison the environment of public opinion, sometimes before
cases are even filed.
Many of the "classes" in major class action cases are, in fact, the
result of coast-to-coast advertising campaigns. Everyone knows the
ads: "If you've used X, you may be entitled to compensation."
In the first half of 2021, as my organization, the American Tort
Reform Association (ATRA) reports, law firms spent $66.7 million on
more than 700,000 local legal services advertisements in
California. A survey by Trial Partners, Inc. found that "72 percent
of jurors agreed somewhat or strongly that if there are lawsuits
against a company claiming its products injured people, then there
is probably truth to the claim…"
These ads aren't just tools for recruiting plaintiffs - they
predispose jurors before they actually become jurors.
But advertising is expensive. Who supplies the dollars? For many of
the bigger cases, they originate with a network of global
investors.
In 2013, a hedge fund trade publication ran an article titled "The
Emerging Market in Litigation Funding," saying litigation was a
"very attractive asset class." It was right. Life has been good for
litigation finance since then.
In August, prominent lawsuit investor Burford Capital reported a 95
percent annual return on invested capital and $500 million in new
capital commitments. Australia-based Omni Bridgeway terms itself
the global leader in litigation funding, with its website providing
a state-by-state rundown on the litigation finance environment in
the U.S.
In knowledgeable circles, such hedge funds are understood to back
virtually every major class action active today. An ongoing
complaint about class actions is that members of the classes get
pennies while attorneys get millions. We now know that the
investors behind these cases make 95 percent annually on their
money.
The Supreme Court must step in and make it clear that these abuses
of our civil justice system will not be tolerated. But, if junk
science prevails in cases like the mass torts surrounding Roundup,
the only real winners will be lawyers and their wealthy financiers.
[GN]
NAVIENT CORP: Tentative Deals Reached in Lord Abbett Funds Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company reached
tentative agreements to settle both the Lord Abbett Affiliated
Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. and In Re Navient
Corporation Securities Litigation, for a total of $42.5 million.
During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.
These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff.
The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated
Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.
Additionally, two putative class actions have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli
Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and
Christian Lown, and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F.
Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which
allege violations of the federal securities laws under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018 under the
caption In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018.
In September 2021, the Company reached tentative agreements to
settle both cases for a total of $42.5 million.
As a result of these contingent losses now being probable, Navient
accrued the $42.5 million loss in the third quarter of 2021.
Navient said, "However, the net impact to operating expense for the
quarter is $0 due to the accrual of the offsetting insurance
reimbursements. The settlements, in which the Company and other
defendants expressly deny any admission or concession of wrongdoing
or fault, are subject to approval by the Court after notice and
hearing. The Company can give no assurance whether or when the
tentative settlements will receive the required approvals."
Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
NEW YORK TIMES: Isaacson Appeals Settlement Ruling in Moses Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class member Eric Alan Isaacson filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled MARIBEL MOSES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NEW YORK
TIMES COMPANY, d/b/a The New York Times, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04658, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for conversion, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), the
Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act in California.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an illegal
automatic renewal scheme, wherein consumers who sign up for The New
York Times through its website at https://www.nytimes.com or its
mobile applications, the NYT Website and the NYT App, will be
enrolled in a program that automatically renews their subscription
plans from month-to-month or year-to-year and results in monthly or
annual charges to their credit card, debit card, or third party
payment account. The Defendant's practice violates the ARL
requirements by: (i) failing to present the automatic renewal offer
terms in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to
the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or
purchasing agreement is fulfilled, in violation of Section
17602(a)(1); (ii) charging consumers' payment method without first
obtaining their affirmative consent to the agreement containing the
automatic renewal offer terms, in violation of Section 17602(a)(2);
and (iii) failing to provide an acknowledgment that includes the
automatic renewal offer terms, cancellation policy, and information
regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being
retained by consumers, in direct violation of Sections 17602(a)(3)
and 17602(b).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 4, 2021, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a
final approval order and judgment approving the parties' settlement
agreement, wherein the Court awarded Class Counsel attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses in the amount of $1.25 million. The Court also
ordered payment of an incentive award in the amount of $5,000 to
Plaintiff Maribel Moses. The Court dismissed the lawsuit with
prejudice and without costs as against the Defendant and the
Released Parties.
Mr. Isaacson seeks a review of the settlement order.
The appellate case is captioned as Moses v. The New York Times
Company, Case No. 21-2556, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on Oct. 12, 2021.[BN]
Class member-Appellant Eric Alan Isaacson, of the Law Office of
Eric Alan Isaacson in La Jolla, California, appears pro se.
Plaintiff-Appellee Maribel Moses, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Frederick John Klorczyk, III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7129
E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
Defendant-Appellee The New York Times Company, DBA The New York
Times, is represented by:
Sandra Hauser, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 768-6700
E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend multiple lawsuits, including consolidated cases
in the District of Columbia, related to fuel surcharges.
In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against us and other
Class I railroads in various Federal district courts regarding fuel
surcharges were consolidated in the District of Columbia by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In 2012, the court
certified the case as a class action.
The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District
Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration.
On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification.
The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals on August 16, 2019.
Since that decision, various individual cases have been filed in
multiple jurisdictions and also consolidated in the District of
Columbia.
Norfolk said, "We believe the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. We do not
believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
effect on our financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods. Norfolk Southern Corporation was
founded in 1883 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.
OAK RIDGE: Employees File Class Action Over Vaccine Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Klingler, writing for WBIR, reports that some employees at Oak
Ridge National Laboratories are suing the operator of the lab in a
class-action lawsuit over its policies on vaccine accommodations.
Around 150 employees were granted religious or medical exceptions.
UT-Battelle, the company that manages ORNL offered "an indefinite
period of unpaid leave" as its accommodation for those who have
religious and medical reasons not to get the vaccine.
A federal court judge temporarily blocked the company from putting
these employees on unpaid leave. The decision will be re-evaluated
at the end of the week.
"I'm passionate about my sincerely held religious beliefs. I'm also
passionate about keeping my job," said Jordan Lefebvre, an employee
of Oak Ridge National Lab for nearly 13 years and who is suing
UT-Battelle alongside his brother.
Oak Ridge National Laboratories are required to comply with an
executive order issued by President Joe Biden in September which
required COVID-19 vaccines for all federal contractors.
Jordan and Robert were granted religious exceptions to the mandate
but said they felt the policy of being placed on unpaid leave
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII laws.
According to Oak Ridge National Lab Spokesperson Morgan McCorkle,
around 150 employees with approved religious or medical exemptions
were asked to turn in their badges and computers.
They said they could take vacation days or immediately go on unpaid
leave. Once these employees had used all their vacation days, they
would have been put on unpaid leave for an undetermined amount of
time.
Jordan said that he felt like he was being terminated when he
handed in his keys and clearances. Without having access to email,
he said that he felt like he lost his job.
A federal court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking
UT-Battelle from placing employees on indefinite unpaid leave or
firing them after they receive a religious or medical accommodation
and chose not to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Robert Lefebvre said that he felt being placed on unpaid leave for
an uncertain amount of time was not accommodating; he said there
was no promise of when employees could return to work.
"This isn't just a job. This is part of who we are. Part of the
community that we are in," Robert said. "I think the lab can do a
lot to protect its employees from COVID-19 without effectively
firing those of us who have religious exemptions or medical
exemptions."
The next hearing about the trial was scheduled for October 26. The
judge wrote that he would decide by October 29 whether to let the
order expire or keep it while the case plays out.
UT-Battelle said it will continue to abide by the temporary
restraining order until it expires on Oct. 29 or the judge issues a
new ruling. [GN]
OLIVE WREN: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olive Wren, Inc. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Olive Wren, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08831 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Olive Wren, Inc. doing business as Sijo -- https://sijohome.com/ --
is located in New York and is part of the Home Furnishings Stores
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
OMAZE INC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omaze, Inc. The case
is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Omaze, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08847
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Omaze -- https://www.omaze.com/ -- is an American for-profit
fundraising company which partners with charities in fundraising
events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
ONE BRANDS: Sebastian Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY SEBASTIAN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ONE
BRANDS LLC and THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00009-AJB-MDD
(S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying class and subclass:
Nationwide Class:
"All citizens of the United States who, within the relevant
statute of limitations periods and prior to the New Labels,
purchased Defendants' Products;" and
California Subclass:
"All citizens of California who, within four years prior to
the filing of the initial Complaint and prior to the New
Labels, purchased Defendants' Products"
Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants, their assigns,
successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities in
which Defendants have controlling interest; (iii) federal,
state, and/or local governments, including, but not limited
to, their departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards,
sections, groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; (iv) all
persons presently in bankruptcy proceedings or who obtained a
bankruptcy discharge in the last three years; and (v) any
judicial officer presiding over this matter and person within
third degree of consanguinity to such judicial officer.
In addition, the Plaintiff Brittany Sebastian seeks to be appointed
as class representative for the Nationwide Class and the California
Subclass. The Plaintiff also moves for an order appointing Naomi B.
Spector of KamberLaw LLP as class counsel, pursuant to Rule 23(g).
One Brands offers a portfolio of nutrition bars.
The Hershey Company, commonly known as Hershey's, is an American
multinational company and one of the largest chocolate
manufacturers in the world. It also manufactures baked products,
such as cookies and cakes, and sells beverages like milkshakes.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:
Naomi B. Spector, Esq.
KAMBERLAW, LLP
1501 San Elijo Hills Road South
Suite 104-212
San Marcos, CA 92078
Telephone: (310) 400-1053
Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com
PHILIP MORRIS: Blais Class Action Ongoing in Canada
---------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
company's subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit in
Canada entitled, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and
Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.
In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac
Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, RBH and other Canadian
cigarette manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and
JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants.
The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of
the class who suffers allegedly from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005.
The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial
court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and
found that the class members' compensatory damages totaled
approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $12.5 billion).
The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several
liability basis, allocating 20% to the company's subsidiary
(approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $2.5 billion)).
In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately
$72,800) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately
$24,300) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at
99,957 members. RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec.
In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish
security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $183 million) to
cover both the Létourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in
installments through March 2017.
The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish
security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $613 million) in
installments through June 2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was not
required to furnish security in accordance with plaintiffs' motion.
The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a
final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's
judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal.
On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely
affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the
compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total
amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion
including interest (approximately $10.9 billion) due to the trial
court's error in the calculation of interest.
The compensatory damages award is on a joint and several basis with
an allocation of 20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion,
including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.2 billion)).
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings that
defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act
by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by
conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of
smoking.
The Court of Appeals further held that the plaintiffs either need
not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause
of the class members' injuries.
In accordance with the judgment, defendants were required to
deposit their respective portions of the damages awarded in both
the Létourneau case described below and the Blais case,
approximately CAD 1.1 billion (approximately $889 million), into
trust accounts within 60 days. RBH's share of the deposit was
approximately CAD 257 million (approximately $194 million).
PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated
results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco
litigation-related expense, in the first quarter of 2019.
The charge reflects PMI's assessment of the portion of the judgment
that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the
deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit
required by the judgment.
RBH and PMI believe the findings of liability and damages in both
Létourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect and in contravention
of applicable law on several grounds including the following: (i)
defendants had no obligation to warn class members who knew, or
should have known, of the risks of smoking; (ii) defendants cannot
be liable to class members who would have smoked regardless of what
warnings were given; and (iii) defendants cannot be liable to all
class members given the individual differences between class
members.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In a action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. (RBH), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.
She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution
of profits.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Bourassa v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.
("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products.
She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January
1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.
In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Semple Class Action in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Semple v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry, are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.
He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Still Not Served
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company
has yet to be served with the complaint in the class action suit
entitled, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et
al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada,
filed June 15, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.,
and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections
resulting from the use of tobacco products.
She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Union Asset Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Union Asset Management Holding AG and Teamsters
Local 710 Pension Fund filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled IN RE PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-08049-RA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).
The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against Philip
Morris International ("PMI" or the "Company") and several current
and former officers of the Company, alleging that the Defendants
withheld material information about known health risks associated
with "iQOS," a cigarette-alternative device for which they sought
approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration
("FDA"). According to the Plaintiffs, the failure to timely
disclose that information constitutes securities fraud in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10(b)-5.
The Plaintiff, the City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement
System, a purchaser of PMI common stock during the Class Period,
commenced the action on Sept. 5, 2018 by filing a class action
complaint against Defendants PMI, Calantzopoulos, Martin King, and
Jacek Olczak. On Feb. 25, 2019, the Court appointed Union Asset
Management Holding AG and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund as
co-lead plaintiffs and consolidated three related actions. The
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
May 10, 2019, which added Picavet, Peitsch, and Frank Ludicke as
named defendants, and identified roughly seventy statements as
false and/or misleading.
On Feb. 4, 2020, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Class Action Com int on the basis that they had failed to
adequately plead the required elements of falsity and scienter. The
Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint with
respect to one subset of their claims -- those concerning four
studies of the chemical composition of the aerosol generated by
iQOS, which the Plaintiffs allege were belatedly disclosed to the
FDA and contradicted the Company's positive statements about the
potential health benefits of the device, as compared to cigarettes.
The Court instructed the Plaintiffs to explain "with specificity
how the results of the undisclosed studies undercut the
truthfulness of the Defendants' statements about reduced risk
and/or reduced exposure."
The Plaintiffs timely amended their complaint with additional
allegations about these studies, and filed the Complaint on Sept.
28, 2020. The Defendants, arguing that the Plaintiffs had failed to
heed the Court's instruction, filed the instant motion to dismiss.
An oral argument was held on Aug. 24, 2021.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 27, 2021,
Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review from the final Judgment entered by
the Court in this action on September 10, 2021; the Opinion & Order
filed on September 10, 2021, which granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint; the Opinion &
Order filed on February 4, 2020, which granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint; and the Memorandum
Opinion and Order filed on September 21, 2020, denying Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of the February 4, 2020 Opinion & Order;
and all prior rulings related to or merged therein.
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE: PHILIP MORRIS
INTERNATIONAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 21-2546, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
Oct. 8, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Union Asset Management Holding AG and
Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Mark T. Millkey, Esq.
Robert D. Gerson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com
rgerson@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Emma Gilmore, Esq.
Brian Calandra, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
egilmore@pomlaw.com
bcalandra@pomlaw.com
PLUS500 ISRAEL: Tel Aviv Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avishai Grinzaig, writing for Globes, reports that the Tel Aviv
District Court has not accepted the Israeli online trading firm's
explanation of its pause mechanism and ordered Plus500 to provide
details on all pauses in the past seven years.
The Tel Aviv District Court has granted approval to litigate on a
class action suit against Plus500 Israel, a subsidiary of global
online trading services company Plus500 (LSE: PLUS), which is
headquartered in Israel and has a market cap of GBP1.4 billion on
the London Stock Exchange. Plus500 operates its online trading
services in 32 languages allowing users to buy financial
instruments in currencies, commodities and the indices of stock
exchanges worldwide in real time.
In June 2016 Asher Torgeman bought put options on the Frankfurt
Stock Exchange DAX index for EU1,000 in the belief that in
contradiction to the polls, the British would vote for Brexit in
the UK referendum, thus causing European stock markets to fall.
When the results showed that Brexit had prevailed, he asked to sell
the options but was told he could not make the sell.
In response, Plus500 told Torgeman that following the UK
referendum, "The German 30 instrument and all the options for that
instrument were not available for trading because of the very high
volatility in the market, which had created larger margins than
usual . . . and that created high risk for traders. Accordingly,
Plus500 had taken action to reduce this risk."
Protecting customers?
Torgeman filed his suit through Adv. Hanoch Ehrlich of the Hadah
Roth Shenhar Helfer & Co. law firm for approval to conduct a class
action. In the request, it was claimed that trading was paused for
90 minutes only for those asking to sell put options. Although at
the same time, trading in financial instruments that moved in the
opposite direction -- call options -- and had fallen 76.51%
continued as usual even though they were also based on the DAX.
According to Torgeman, Plus500 did not renew options trading for 90
minutes, which violates many clauses in the Securities Law, and the
aim was to prevent Plus500 from making losses.
Plus500 claimed that the pause in trade is a mechanism,
automatically operated in real time according to pre-determined
criteria, which is designed first and foremost to protect
customers. Plus500 also claimed that the mechanism operates
symmetrically for both selling and buying of financial instruments
regardless of the loss or profit at the time that the pause
mechanism is operated. Plus500 attached an expert opinion from
Prof. Avner Kalay, an expert in capital market trading and
finance.
Judge Magen Altuvia dismissed the company's claim that this was an
automatically operated defense mechanism. He said, "The work
automatic should not be used to remove responsibility as if the act
was not carried out by the company." He added, "Plus500 is
responsible for programming the automatic software and feeds in the
parameters for these pauses. It is up to it to prove that during
the hour of the pause that it was designed for the benefit of its
customers."
The judge also ruled that, "It is not possible to say that the
volatility on DAX based assets or options took place without
warning or previous indications. Even if there was extreme
volatility in the rate of options or basic assets, it would seem,
that the company was not entitled to pause the trading."
Judge Altuvia added that Plus500 ignored the fact, as documented by
the plaintiff, that it was not possible to trade in put options but
was able to trade in call options. "Even though this was a
financial instrument that was traded with a fall of 76.51%, that is
to say a larger loss of tens of percentage points for customers who
bought it before the results of the referendum was published."
A violation of Securities Law
In light of this, Judge Altuvia wrote that contrary to the claims
by Plus500 that the pause in trading and its non resumption, were
only taken to protect customers, "It seems that the decisions to
pause trading were not symmetrical and on the face of it at this
stage and it seems that they worked for the benefit of the
company."
Judge Altuvia added, "On the face of it at this stage, and despite
the explanations attempted by Plus500 CEO Yevgeni Schtuckmeyster,
to provide as part of the investigation about the way the risk
management team works, it doesn't seem that there was a reasonable
cause to differentiate between financial instruments based on the
same asset."
Judge Altuvia pointed out that Plus500's experts, who cla8med that
the pause in trading was symmetrical, di not check at all what had
happened in practice when there was a pause of trading on that day
in June 2016 and that the opinion was not based the company's data
and they had not even seen how the company's trading pause
operated.
Altuvia also wrote that, "It seems that the risk management team
stopping and resuming trading in the market arena is tainted with a
conflict of interests . ." The court added and ruled that there is
something reasonable in the statement that trading contravened the
Securities Law while violating other laws.
At the end of his decision, Judge Altuvia wrote that although only
discussed stopping options trading from June 24 2016 and there are
no details about other pauses in trade and their circumstances,
"Even so the aforementioned event in which the pause and the
non-pause in trade were 'caught' at the same time raises apparent
concerns about the conduct of the company and is automatic and
manual trading pause mechanism. It is up to the company to present
as requested within 30 days details of the pauses in trade that
occurred over the past seven years prior to submission of the
request, their amount, and details of deals that were blocked and
the reason that they took place."
Adv. Ehrlich said, "This is a dramatic ruling after the plaintiff
clearly proved how Plus50 manipulates trading in order to prevent
its customers from profiting, especially in the specific
circumstances of this incident because the day after the Brexit
referendum was one of the busiest days on the world's capital
markets and Plus500 paused trading for 90 minutes in the most
dramatic hours on that day and did so only for customers making a
profit. The ruling has local and international significance because
Plus500 is a huge international conglomerate with branches
worldwide managed by virtual trading in a similar way (subject to
local regulation). We estimate that now in according with the
court's decision we can receive real data regarding the event that
is the subject of the lawsuit and for events over the past seven
years. [GN]
PLUTOS SAMA: Wallis Sues Over Exchange Act and RICO Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Wallis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PLUTOS SAMA HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; MATTHEW BROWNDORF, an individual; ANDREW CORCORAN,
individually and as trustee of the Matthew Browndorf Living Trust;
MICHAEL KEADJIAN, an individual; MARK WOODWARD, an individual;;
INGA SCHNEIDER, an individual; MELVIN BROWNDORF, an individual;
BONNIE BROWNDORF, an individual; JACOB BROWNDORF, an individual;
GARO KEADJIAN, an individual; PATRICK FARENGA, an individual;
BRITTNEY ROWLAND, an individual; AL LISSOY, an individual; IRA
GLASKY, an individual; GF CAPITAL, a Nevada corporation; GARDEN
FOODS, INC., a Nevada corporation; FAR WEST INDUSTRIES, a
California corporation; DISTRESSED CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; DCM P1, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; DCM-P2, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; DCM-P3, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; DCM-P4, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DCM-P5,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DCM-P6, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; DCM-P7, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; DCM-P8, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; DCM-P9, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WCCB
LAW, LLP, a New York Limited Liability Partnership; WB LAW, LLP, a
New York Limited Liability Partnership; KCB LAW GROUP, LLP, a New
York Limited Liability Partnership; and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-01792 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2021), is
brought seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder; and under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
This is a federal class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons, other than Defendants, whose Earnings were illegally
withheld, converted, misappropriated or otherwise mismanaged while
working for one or more of the Browndorf Entity Defendants and
suffered financial damages as a result of the actions alleged
herein. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and other relief
against the Defendants for the wrongful and collusive business
practices perpetrated through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Throughout the course of Plaintiff and other Class members'
employment with the Browndorf Entity Defendants, Defendants
participated in a scheme to withhold several million dollars in
wages, employment pension plans and benefits, commissions, and
health benefits ("Earnings"). The Individual Owner Defendants held
equity and / or management positions with the Browndorf Entity
Defendants and Lissoy Entity Defendants. Each of the Individual
Owner Defendants was aware of and authorized the steps that were
taken to withhold the amounts that should have been paid in wages,
profit participations, commissions, employment pension plans and
benefits, commissions, health and other benefits.
In addition to illegally withholding these Earnings from the
Plaintiff and other members of the Class, Defendants Matthew,
Farenga, Rowland, Keadjian, Corcoran and Woodward fraudulently
reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that such Earnings
were paid to the Plaintiff and other Class members. As a result,
PSH and the other Browndorf Entity Defendants received payroll
deductions by way of these fraudulent claims and the Plaintiff and
other members of the Class were assigned tax liability by the IRS
for Earnings they never received, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Orange County, State of
California and worked at PSH.
PSH owned WKB and all affiliate law firms, as well as several other
entities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc Y. Lazo, Esq.
K&L LAW GROUP, P.C.
2646 Dupont Drive, Suite 60340
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 216-4000
Fax: (800) 596-0370
PORNHUB: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Abuse Footage
-----------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that a class-action lawsuit being brought
against MindGeek, the parent company of pornography website
PornHub, is being led by a woman who claims footage of her own
sexual abuse as a child was uploaded to the site.
Referred to in the $US600 million ($A800 million) lawsuit only as
Jane Doe, the woman was sexually abused by a family member for
years. When he died, she thought she could finally move on from
that horrific part of her life.
But then a former high school friend messaged her on social media.
"It was in my 'message requests', so I didn't see it right away,"
Jane Doe told Canadian news outlet CityNews. "When I opened it, I
froze."
The friend thought he had recognised her in a video on PornHub and
was sending her the link to check.
At the time the footage was taken, she was just 12 years old.
"I feel like it had to have been so incredibly obvious to anybody
watching it that this was a child and I thought that if this ever
existed on the internet that, you know, it's on the dark web where
people are intentionally going to look for this and it's not for
public consumption," Jane Doe said.
"I could tell just based on the image . . . what occurred in the
video," she said.
"There were links to others. And I was able to locate more videos
by going through the comments section, clicking them, and seeing
that through still images. But this was still me around the same
age and different events," she said. "It just took my breath
away."
Based in Montreal, PornHub is one of the largest pornography
outlets in the world. However it has recently been at the centre of
various legal investigations, with this class-action suit being the
latest.
The action was originally filed in a Quebec court in December 2020.
In it, the company is being sued for $US600 million ($A800 million)
over the hosting of Jane Doe's footage plus other content that
allegedly includes sexual abuse and child sex abuse.
The lawsuit alleges that up until recently, MindGeek had no
policies or procedures to investigate several aspects of their
videos.
MindGeek said in February this year it would be contesting the
suit, but has otherwise declined to comment on the case.
In February, MindGeek's senior leadership testified at
parliamentary hearings saying they had introduced new age
verification processes, had human moderators watch every video, and
increased user reporting features for faster removal of
inappropriate content.
At the time she discovered it, Jane Doe requested the videos of her
be removed from the PornHub site.
She said she received a generic response about five days after
making her request, but still is not sure if it has been removed.
"But even if PornHub takes it down, it'll just resurface somewhere
else because there are those download features available. It's
always going to be there," she said.
"It really sucks to think that it doesn't matter how old I am, that
my sexual abuse as a child is immortalised in videos and not just
on somebody's private computer, but on the internet, and it's never
going to go away."
The company has said the download function has now also been
removed for most of its content, apart from paid content.
MindGeek settled over another lawsuit brought by 50 women who
alleged that porn provider GirlsDoPorn had lied about how sexually
explicit videos of them would be used, Business Insider reported.
None of the allegations in the lawsuit were proven or tested in
court. No details of the settlement were released.
In a statement, the company said: "MindGeek has zero tolerance for
the posting of illegal content on its platforms, and has instituted
a comprehensive, industry-leading trust and safety policy to
identify and eradicate any illegal material from its community.
"We are committed to remaining at the forefront of internet safety,
and taking every measure to prevent bad actors from posting illegal
content online." [GN]
PYOD LLC: Moore Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PYOD LLC. The case is
styled as Shakuur Moore, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. PYOD LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-62235-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
PYOD LLC -- https://www.pyodllc.com/ -- is a debt collection
company based in Las Vegas and is part of the Sherman Financial
Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew David Bavaro
LOAN LAWYERS
3201 Griffin road, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
Phone: (954) 523-4357
Email: matthew@fight13.com
RALLYUP.COM INC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rallyup.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rallyup.com, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08848 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rallyup.com, Inc. -- https://rallyup.com/ -- helps create
unforgettable fundraising experiences for your next pledge,
auction, raffle, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
REAL ESTATE: Ct. Enters Revised Class Cert. Deadlines in Baker Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA BECKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
REAL ESTATE HEAVEN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-02578-MCS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered an order reflecting the revised class certification
deadlines as follows:
Event Date
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off January 3, 2022
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial) January 10, 2022
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) January 31, 2022
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off February 22, 2022
-- Deadline to File a Motion November 22, 2021
for Class Certification
-- Deadline to File an December 13, 2021
Opposition to the Motion
for Class Certification
-- Deadline to File a Reply January 3, 2022
-- Hearing on Motion for Class January 24, 2022
Certification at 9:00 a.m.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mAHvnm at no extra charge.[CC]
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Hoffman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Performance Management, LLC. The case is styled as Chaim Hoffman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Receivables Performance Management, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05794-LDH-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Receivables Performance Management (RPM) --
http://www.receivablesperformance.com/-- is a national leader in
accounts receivable management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
RIO TINTO: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Wrongful Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Aston, writing for Australian Financial Reviews, reports that
in August 2016, only eight weeks into Jean-Sebastien Jacques'
leadership of Rio Tinto, the company "became aware of email
correspondence from 2011 relating to contractual payments totalling
$US10.5 million made to a consultant providing advisory services on
the Simandou project in Guinea".
Rio Tinto "became aware" of the internal emails after they were
leaked to an obscure French internet forum, fnPaste.
In November 2016, Rio Tinto self-reported "suspected corruption" to
the United Kingdom's Serious Fraud Office, the US Department of
Justice and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
and summarily fired energy and minerals boss Alan Davies and
general counsel Debra Valentine. The board had also agreed with
Jacques' predecessor, Sam Walsh, to defer the payment of his
outstanding at-risk remuneration.
The emails - between Davies, Walsh and Walsh's predecessor, Tom
Albanese, discussing the payment of a success fee to a lobbyist -
are widely available and completely innocuous. Indeed, in throwing
out a class action based on the negative share price reaction to
their disclosure, a US District Court judge said: "The emails
appear to discuss legitimate consulting practices."
The Financial Times reported in July last year, at the height of
the Juukan Gorge outcry, that Rio Tinto was "seeking a deferred
prosecution agreement" with the SFO over the lobbyist payment.
Jacques was clinging to his job and, perversely, Rio Tinto pleading
guilty to a crime it didn't commit would have handed him a
vindication. Nothing came of the speculation, and it's entirely
unclear that the SFO even cares to prosecute Rio Tinto, whatever
the company wished to confess to.
And as our colleague Peter Ker reported on Oct. 22, ASIC has now
closed the book on its investigation and informed Davies it will
take no action "due to insufficient evidence". ASIC received the
same evidence as its international peers.
That a dubious purge of Jacques' nearest leadership rival occurred
in the first weeks of Jacques' tenure is quite unsurprising. But it
remains a genuine mystery how his board -- whose surviving members
from that time include its nearly gone British chairman Simon
Thompson and Australian Megan Clark -- ever believed these emails
constituted wrongdoing.
Rio Tinto's consultant performance coach for its executive
management team, Maurice Duffy, resigned his long-term contract in
December 2017, "because of serious misgivings about unethical
behaviour".
Before leaving, Duffy warned Rio Tinto's then-chairman Jan du
Plessis and other directors about "multiple unprofessional [and]
unethical behaviours" of senior executives and specifically about
"the leaks of emails, and how they were orchestrated . . . in order
to remove Alan Davies and Debra Valentine".
Duffy wrote to the entire board of Rio Tinto in November 2019
complaining that du Plessis and other directors "took no action" in
response to his 2017 bombshell. A second time, no action was taken.
Is it any wonder this complacent little tea club of professional
directors failed so abjectly to react appropriately during the
Juukan Gorge crisis?
Also in 2017, du Plessis was livid at the coverage of "Rio's
pre-emptive internal justice" by this newspaper's Matthew Stevens,
forewarning our since-retired mining columnist that he would be
offering du Plessis an apology once the Simandou "corruption"
question was resolved.
By way of formal update, Stevens owes him no such thing. Du Plessis
(and Thompson and Clark) owes an apology to Australian investors,
for picking a saboteur to lead Rio Tinto into a remarkable era of
calamity and underperformance.
What is that beeping noise? That is the sound of haul trucks
backing into St James's Square in London to carry the mountains of
cash Rio Tinto is going to pay Davies for wrongful termination.
The only question is, who leaves with more cash: Davies, who sought
and received permission to pay a consultant, or Jacques, who blew
up Juukan Gorge, destroyed the company's world-leading reputation
for social performance, left the iron ore division in costly
decline, and Oyu Tolgoi in scandal and delay?
Jacques' trove of long-term performance shares worth $43 million
(at the current share price and subject to vesting hurdles) will
take some beating, though Davies' American lawyers will shoot for
heaven. [GN]
RKB ABOVE: Ventura Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Ventura, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated current and former employees v. RKB ABOVE, INC. d/b/a
ROLLY KIMBAB, JAMES KANG and JUNG HYUN KANG, individually, Case No.
2:21-cv-05830 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2021), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours each week. The
Plaintiff was not compensated at one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay for overtime hours worked. Rather, the Plaintiff was
paid straight time for overtime. The Defendants failed to
compensate the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective at one and
one-half times the employee's wage for all hours worked in excess
of 40 during any work week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a kitchen worker for the Defendants
from February 2013 through July 1, 2021.
RKB Above, Inc. is doing business as Rolly Kimbab is a Korean
restaurant located in Oakland Gardens, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 323-6980
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
ROMEO POWER: Yu Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------
Shuhuan Yu, Individually and on Behalf of all others Similarly
Situated v. Romeo Power, Inc. f/k/a RMG Acquisition Corp., RMG
SPONSOR, LLC, ROBERT S. MANCINI, PHILIP KASSIN, D. JAMES CARPENTER,
W. GRANT GREGORY, CRAIG BRODERICK, W. THADDEUS MILLER, and STEVEN
P. BUFFONE, Case No. 2021-0932- (Del. Chancery Ct., Oct. 28, 2021),
is brought stemming from RMG's business combination with Romeo
Systems, Inc. ("Legacy Romeo") (the "Merger"); and to assert that
the Director Defendants, Officer Defendants, and Sponsor, as
controlling stockholder of RMG, breached their fiduciary duties to
RMG's stockholders by causing the Class substantial harm.
According to the complaint, Defendants pushed through with the
Merger that arose from a flawed and unfair process, including
severe disclosure defects, which resulted in stockholders approving
a grossly mispriced transaction. Defendants did so because through
the Merger, even as poorly priced as it was, they were set to reap
tens of millions of dollars in benefits. Accordingly, Defendants
stood on both sides of the transaction and will be unable to meet
their burden of showing the entire fairness of the Merger. In
particular, before RMG went public, Defendants received 5.75
million (after a reverse stock split) "Founder Shares" at the
purchase price of approximately $21,500, or roughly $0.0037 per
share. RMG went public on February 12, 2019, selling 20 million
units at $10 per share, raising proceeds of $200 million (the
"IPO"). Each unit consisted of one share of the Company's Class A
common stock and one-third of one warrant, with each warrant
enabling the holder thereof to purchase one share of Class A common
stock at a price of $11.50 per share.
The Defendants' Founder Shares would convert into Class A stock if
RMG entered into a business combination within 24 months of the
IPO. In addition, if converted, the Founder Shares were subject to
a lock up after the business combination. Accordingly, the
Defendants were motivated to enter into a business combination as
soon as possible to unlock the 5.75 million shares of Company stock
they "paid" hardly anything for. Defendants knew that even a bad
deal that caused the Company's stock price to drop would still
result in them making tens of millions of dollars. They also knew
that if they did not cause RMG to enter into a business combination
within the 24 months of its IPO, RMG had to return the Class A
investors' money with interest and the Founder Shares would expire
as worthless. Further, Defendants knew that RMG Class A investors
would have to vote in favor of any business combination and that
they would have the right to redeem their stock (make RMG
repurchase their shares). If these Class A stockholders voted
against the business combination or a large amount of these
stockholders chose to redeem their stock, the business combination
would not be consummated. Thus, Defendants were also heavily
incentivized to present a business combination in a way to convince
stockholders to approve and not redeem.
The Defendants embraced their unique incentives here to reap a
massive windfall not shared by the Class. In the Merger, the RMG
Board of Directors (the "Board") breached its fiduciary duty by
knowingly and consciously failing to perform proper due diligence
about Legacy Romeo's business prospects or disloyally ignored such
facts to benefit themselves to the detriment of RMG's minority
stockholders. In particular, Legacy Romeo was suffering from an
acute shortage of high-quality battery cells, the key material for
its core products. Defendants' disclosures regarding this issue and
Legacy Romeo's business in connection and around the Merger were
materially misleading. The misleading disclosures included that
Legacy Romeo: (i) had only two battery cell suppliers, not four;
(ii) was already experiencing supply disruptions and shortages;
(iii) lacked the battery cell inventory necessary to meet demand
and increase production; (iv) did not hedge its supply chain and
instead was totally reliant on the two suppliers and the stock
market; and, as a result, (v) would be unable to reach expected
revenue growth.
Relying on the adequacy of the disclosures in the Company's
registration statement, the Company's minority stockholders chose
not to redeem their shares with interest and instead approved the
Merger. The Merger closed on December 28, 2020. Only three months
after the Merger closed, the Company announced that it was
experiencing a battery cell shortage. This shortage, in turn,
caused the Company to reduce its estimated 2021 revenue from $140
million to a range between $18 and $40 million, a reduction of
71%-87%.
The Company's stock price collapsed in response, going from $10.37
per share to just $8.33 per share. Romeo's stock price has
continued to fall. The Company's stock price closed at $4.17 on the
last trading day preceding the filing of this Complaint.
Accordingly, the Court should award monetary damages against the
Defendants arising from their unfair acquisition of Legacy Romeo
and, in the alternative for public stockholders who purchased
Company stock prior to the Record Date and continue to hold such
stock, equitably reopen the redemption window to allow them to put
back their Class A shares for $10 per share, plus interest, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a stockholder of Romeo.
Romeo is an energy storage technology company that manufactures
lithium-ion battery modules and packs for commercial electric
vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
David M. Sborz, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, DE 19807
Phone: (302) 504-4957
- and -
Travis E. Downs III, Esq.
Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
Erik W. Luedeke, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-1058
- and -
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
Craig W. Smith, Esq.
Shane P. Sanders, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: (619) 525-3990
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Settles Class Action Over Children Arrests
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Dennis, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports that
NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson said he was outraged after
reading a report about Black children as young as 8 years old being
arrested in Rutherford County and he called on the federal Justice
Department to investigate.
"It is unconscionable that we have a system where children are
being arrested by officers, locked up and charged for crimes that
do not exist," Johnson told Knox News. "It is unethical that these
individuals within the system aren't held accountable federally for
their participation in a system to harm children."
After years of reporting from the USA TODAY Network Tennessee, a
report by ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization, says
Rutherford County Judge Donna Scott Davenport oversaw a juvenile
justice system in which Black children were unfairly targeted with
criminal charges and jailed.
Many of the children appear to have been held illegally, the report
says. The judge remains on the bench today.
"It seems as though there is a youth court issue in Rutherford
County that must be addressed," Johnson told Knox News.
"Individuals who are charging young people for crimes that don't
exist need to be held accountable."
The report outlines a 2016 incident where 11 Black children were
arrested for not stopping a fight that was captured on video. The
children were faced with charges of "criminal responsibility for
another's actions," a crime that does not exist under Tennessee
law, the report says.
A deeper investigation by the news organization shows that during
Davenport's tenure in Rutherford County in Middle Tennessee, police
took children into custody, brought them to a detention center for
screening and then filed charges.
Rutherford County settled a class-action lawsuit of up to $11
million alleging the process violated Tennessee law.
"Tennessee law strictly prohibits the pretrial incarceration of
children" unless the youth are "being charged with a violent
felony, a weapons offense, or a probation violation," stated the
class action lawsuit filed in July 2017.
Johnson said the Justice Department should move swiftly to ensure
that practice doesn't continue.
"Additionally, it is unconscionable for law enforcement to go into
go on school property to arrest elementary or middle school kids
for activities that didn't take place on the school's campus," he
said. "Furthermore, there needs to be an investigation to see
whether or not individuals are profiting from such a system. It is
discriminatory at its core."
As reported by ProPublica, the officer who approved the charge of
"criminal responsibility for conduct of another" was suspended for
three days, while the director of the juvenile detention facility
and Davenport remain in their jobs.
Nearly half of Rutherford County's cases involved locking up kids
Tennessee used to publish statistical reports on juvenile courts
statewide. For the last year available, 2014, ProPublica compiled
reports for all 98 courts. Rutherford County locked up kids at a
far, far higher than any other jurisdiction.
The state of Tennessee has drawn criticism for its harsh life
sentencing laws for juveniles in years past. The most recent
high-profile case is Cyntoia Brown, a Tennessee woman who was
sentenced to life for a crime committed at age 16. Her sentence was
commuted and she has become a national critic of juvenile
sentencing laws.
Johnson told Know News he believes there may be a systemic problem
across the state.
"The criminal justice system should be evaluated there. And there
needs to be drastic reforms," he said. "The NAACP along with the
Tennessee State Conference will be calling on the Justice
Department to investigate in Rutherford County and if deemed
necessary we will pursue actions against individuals who are
involved." [GN]
RYDER SYSTEM: Decision on Bid to Nix Key West Policy Suit Reserved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryder System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the court handling
the case Key West Policy & Fire Pension Fund v. Ryder System, Inc.,
et al., held a hearing on defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and
reserved decision.
On May 20, 2020, a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of
the company's securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their
securities between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive
(Class Period), was commenced against Ryder and certain of our
current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, captioned Key West Policy & Fire
Pension Fund v. Ryder System, Inc., et al.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
misrepresented Ryder's depreciation policy and residual value
estimates for its vehicles during the Class Period in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks to recover, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.
On August 3, 2020, the State of Alaska, Alaska Permanent Fund, the
City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, and
the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund were appointed
lead plaintiffs.
On October 5, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On December 4, 2020, Ryder and the other named defendants in the
case filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint.
On April 7, 2021, the court held a hearing on defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and reserved decision.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ryder System, Inc., commonly known as Ryder, is an American
provider of transportation and supply chain management products,
and is especially known for its fleet of rental trucks. Ryder
specializes in fleet management, supply chain management, and
dedicated contracted carriage. The company is based in Miami,
Florida.
SASOL LTD: Time to File Class Cert Discovery Response Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chad Lindsey Moshell v.
Sasol Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:20-CV-01008-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge John P. Cronan entered an order granting the requests to seal
and to extend the filing deadline to Plaintiffs' Letter Motion to
Compel Defendants to Comply with Class Certification Discovery
Requests.
The Defendants shall carefully examine the Court's Individual Rules
to ensure compliance with proper sealing procedure, says Judge
Cronan.
Sasol is an integrated energy and chemical company based in
Sandton, South Africa.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3buKszD at no extra charge.[CC]
SECURITY PAVING: Midstate Barrier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Security Paving
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Midstate Barrier, Inc., a
California corporation for itself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Security Paving Company, Inc. a California
corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2021-0010113 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Oct. 28, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/ Unfair
Business Practice."
Security Paving Company, Inc. -- http://securitypaving.com/--
provides construction services. The Company constructs roads,
highways, bridges, and other civil infrastructure.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Gladych, Esq.
GLADYCH LAW, INC.
1400 Bristol St. N., Ste. 210
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2965
Phone: 949-442-8942
Fax: 949-442-8949
Email: john@gladychlaw.com
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Nemo-Sabree Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
LaDawn Nemo-Sabree and Breanne Parshall, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
SERVICES INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-02681-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 28, 2021), is brought to
seek redress for the Defendant's systematic and class-wide failure
to pay overtime, and for all other damages.
The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees as exempt from overtime, and as a result, failed to pay
the Plaintiffs and all class members overtime. The Plaintiffs
frequently worked in excess of 40 hours per week but were not
compensated for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours at a rate
not less than one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former and current employees of the Defendant.
The Defendant is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place
of business in Memphis, Tennessee, in Shelby County.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
David V. Barszcz, Esq.
LYTLE & BARSZCZ
533 Versailles Drive, 2nd Floor
Maitland, FL 32751
Phone: (407) 622-6544
Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
Email: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
SITE 25 RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calel Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS GABRIEL CALEL and CARLOS GEOVANY PONCIO ZARATE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SITE
25 RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, LLC d/b/a WEI WEST; and ALAN PHILLIPS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08692 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff.
SITE 25 RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, LLC d/b/a WEI WEST owns and operates a
restaurant in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
SIX FLAGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in BIPA Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2021, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that the
company awaits the court's final approval of settlement in the
putative class action suit related to the collection of biometric
data.
On January 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Holdings in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois.
On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC was added as a defendant.
The complaint asserts that the company violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with the
admission of season pass holders and members through the finger
scan program that commenced in the 2014 operating season at Six
Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks statutory
damages, attorneys' fees and an injunction.
An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company
is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if found
to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA, plus reasonable
attorneys' fees in each case.
The complaint does not allege that any information was misused or
disseminated.
On April 7, 2017, the trial court certified two questions for
consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the Second
District. On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court granted our
motion to appeal.
Accordingly, two questions regarding the interpretation of BIPA
were certified for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court.
On December 21, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court found in our
favor, holding that the plaintiff had to allege more than a
technical violation of BIPA and had to be injured in some way in
order to have a right of action.
On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 30, 2018, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's leave to appeal and oral
arguments were heard on November 20, 2018.
On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court found in favor of
the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff does not need to allege
an actual injury beyond the violation of his rights under BIPA in
order to proceed with a complaint.
On May 7, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the lawsuit, and preliminary approval was granted by the
circuit court on May 14, 2021.
A final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for October 29,
2021.
Six Flags We have reserved the full amount that we could be
obligated to fund under the settlement agreement.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.
SIX FLAGS: Credit Card Information Related Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2021, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that all four
lawsuits related to the printing of more than the last five digits
of a credit or debit card number entered, were dismissed in the
second and third quarters of 2021.
During 2017, four putative class action complaints were filed
against Holdings or one of its subsidiaries.
Complaints were filed on August 11, 2017, in the Circuit Court of
Lake County, Illinois; on September 1, 2017, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; on September
11, 2017, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California;
and on November 30, 2017, in the Superior Court of Ocean County,
New Jersey.
The complaints allege that the company, in violation of federal
law, printed more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts and/or the expiration dates of
those cards.
A willful violation may subject a company to liability for actual
damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per person,
punitive damages in an amount determined by a court and reasonable
attorneys' fees, all of which are sought by the plaintiffs.
The complaints do not allege that any information was misused.
On October 20, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the lawsuits, for an immaterial amount, and
final approval was granted by the circuit court on June 18, 2021.
All four lawsuits were dismissed in the second and third quarters
of 2021.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.
SIX FLAGS: Dismissal of OFPRS Class Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2021, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that the
appeal in Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Six Flags
Ent. Corp., et al., No. 21-10865 (5th Cir.), remains pending.
In February 2020, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against the company (Holdings) and certain of its former
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.
On March 2, 2020, the two cases were consolidated in an action
captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six
Flags Entertainment Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D.
Tex.) (the "Electrical Workers litigation"), and an amended
complaint was filed on March 20, 2020.
On May 8, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. were
appointed as lead plaintiffs, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP was appointed as lead counsel, and McKool Smith PC was
appointed as liaison counsel. On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and growth
prospects, specifically with respect to the development of its Six
Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its former
partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd., in violation of the
federal securities laws.
The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages and other
relief on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Holdings'
publicly traded common stock during the period between April 24,
2018 and February 19, 2020.
On August 3, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.
On March 3, 2021, the district court granted defendants' motion,
dismissing the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend or set aside judgment and for
leave to file an amended complaint on March 31, 2021, which the
district court denied on July 26, 2021. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to file a supplemental brief on June 17, 2021, which the
district court denied on June 18, 2021.
On August 25, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the district court's
decisions granting defendants' motion to dismiss, denying
plaintiffs' motion to amend or set aside judgment, and denying
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental brief.
Plaintiffs' appeal is captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Ret. Sys. v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., et al., No. 21-10865 (5th Cir.),
and the appeal remains pending.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.
SIX FLAGS: Settlement in Park Members' Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2021, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that
preliminary approval of the settlement in the purported class suits
initiated by park members and season passholders, was granted by
the district court on September 10, 2021.
Since COVID-19 began affecting the operations of the company's
parks in mid-March 2020, three similar purported class action
complaints were filed against Holdings or one of its subsidiaries
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on April 10, 2020, April 13, 2020, and April 21, 2020.
These complaints allege that the company, in violation of
California law, charged members and season passholders while the
parks were closed and did not provide refunds for the amounts
charged.
The complaints seek compensatory damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and unspecified injunctive relief.
On April 22, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve the lawsuits, for an immaterial amount, and preliminary
approval was granted by the district court on September 10, 2021.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.
SIX FLAGS: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2021, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that the
parties in the unpaid overtime suit entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the case for an immaterial amount.
On April 20, 2018, a complaint was filed against the company
(Holdings) and Six Flags Concord, LLC in the Superior Court of
Solano County, California, on behalf of a purported class of
current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom.
On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed adding Park
Management Corp. as a defendant.
The amended complaint alleges violations of California law
governing, among other things, employee overtime, meal and rest
breaks, wage statements, and seeks damages in the form of unpaid
wages and related penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.
In September 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve the lawsuit, for an immaterial amount. The settlement is
subject to preliminary and final approval by the court.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Wilson Seeks to Certify Flight Attendant Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REMAINE WILSON and LAUREN
BECKER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), v. SKYWEST AIRLINES,
INC., a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01491-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certify the following Class:
"All 'Flight Attendants,'who were 'domiciled' at a
California airport, as these terms are defined by the
Flight Attendant Policy Manual, at any time during the
period from February 2015 until the date of certification;
and
2. appointing them as representatives for the proposed Class;
and
3. appointing The Bainer Law Firm as Class Counsel for the
proposed Class.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a Class of approximately 2,000
non-exempt, California-based Flight Attendants who have worked for
SkyWest Airlines in California at any time since February 13, 2015,
and who, as a result of SkyWest's uniform, illegal policies and
practices, have been underpaid for meal and rest break premiums.
Plaintiffs and the proposed class worked as Flight Attendants and
were subjected to these violations as a result of Defendants'
actions to circumvent state wage and hour requirements, as well as
unreasonable meal and rest break policies that did not afford
proper breaks.
SkyWest operates Flight routes for four major airline carriers,
American, Alaska, Delta and United.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ByGY9H
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
THE BAINER LAW FIRM
1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 922-1802
Facsimile: (510) 844-7701
E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com
SOAPBOX SOAPS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoapBox Soaps LLC.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SoapBox Soaps LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08837 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SoapBox Soaps -- https://www.soapboxsoaps.com/ -- manufactures,
supplies, and donates soaps to families at homeless shelters, women
shelters, and nursing homes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
SOCLEAN INC: Lange Sues Over Falsely Marketed Defective Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorian Lange, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SoClean, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-08242-GMS (D. Ariz., Oct. 28, 2021), is brought to recover
damages for economic relief on his own behalf and as representative
of a class of persons consisting of all Arizona residents who
purchased a SoClean 3 CPAP sanitizing machine, SoClean 2 Go CPAP
Sanitizing machine and/or their predecessor devices ("SoClean
device") which were defective and not fit for the ordinary purposes
for which the product is used.
Ozone (O3) is an unstable blue gas with a pungent characteristic
odor. Ozone gas forms when oxygen molecules (O2) interact with
electricity and recombine with oxygen atoms (O) to form ozone (O3).
When ozone encounters organic material, such as a CPAP device, its
third oxygen atom can detach from the ozone molecule and reattach
to molecules of the other substance, thereby altering the chemical
composition of the other substance and damaging that substance.
The SoClean device is marketed as being compatible with many types
of clean continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP") machines.
During a cleaning cycle, the SoClean device consistently generates
prohibited amounts of ozone by volume of air circulating through
the device and the CPAP machine. Ozone levels remain within the
CPAP mask, hose and tank after cleaning by the SoClean device,
causing damage to the component parts of the CPAP machine owned by
the Plaintiff and other consumers. Packaging for the SoClean device
does not disclose that the SoClean device generates ozone or the
levels of ozone generated. Marketing materials for the SoClean
device do not disclose they generate ozone or the levels of ozone
generated.
The Defendant SoClean represents to consumers that it uses
"activated oxygen" to sanitize CPAP machines. In reality, the
SoClean device uses ozone to sanitize CPAP machines. The Defendant
SoClean represents that its devices use no "chemicals" or "harsh
chemicals" to clean CPAP machines. The Defendant SoClean markets
its devices as "safe" for use to clean and protect CPAP machines.
The Defendant SoClean represents that its devices use the same
sanitizing process found in hospitals. The Defendant SoClean
represents that the filter cartridges in the SoClean device convert
"activated oxygen" back into "normal oxygen." The Defendant SoClean
represents the SoClean device is a "closed system" and that no
"activated oxygen" escapes the SoClean device.
Ozone generated by the SoClean device alters the composition of the
very CPAP machines that it is supposed to clean, causing damage to
CPAP machines (including but not limited to foam components) and
rendering the SoClean device essentially worthless. The
representations by Defendant SoClean about the use and levels of
ozone, the lack of chemicals or harsh chemicals in the SoClean
device and the properties of the SoClean device are false and
misleading and have deceived Plaintiff and other consumers who have
relied on such representations when purchasing and using the
SoClean device.
The Defendant SoClean continued to deny the effects of ozone
associated with the SoCleaner device while at the same time reaping
profits obtained through its non-disclosure and concealment. The
Defendant SoClean has engaged in massive advertising programs and
gained continued increases in market share of its sanitizing
products for use on CPAP machines, all of which enhanced its
financial stability to the detriment of its consumers, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a consumer who purchased a SoClean device in a
consumer transaction.
SoClean manufactures and sells medical devices that clean
continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP") machines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Kille, Esq.
MINGUS MOUNTAIN LAW GROUP, PLLC
7550 East Addis Avenue
Prescott Valley, AZ 86314
Phone: 928.775.9398
Fax: 928.775.9817
Email: docket@northernarizonainjurylaw.com
- and -
Michael C. Rader, Esq.
Edward "Kip" Robertson, Esq.
Edward "Chip" Robertson, Esq.
James P. Frickleton, Esq.
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON RADER, P.C.
4000 W. 114TH ST., SUITE 310
Leawood, KS 66211-2298
Phone: 913.266.2300
Fax: 913.266.2366
Email: mrader@bflawfirm.com
krobertson@bflawfirm.com
crobertson@bflawfirm.com
jimf@bflawfirm.com
- and -
Brett Votava, Esq.
Andrew Nantz, Esq.
Todd Johnson, Esq.
VOTAVA, NANTZ & JOHNSON, LLC
9237 Ward Parkway, Suite 100
Kansas City, MO 64114
Phone: 816.89.8800
Fax: 816.895.8801
Email: bvotava@vnjlaw.com
andrew@vnjlaw.com
tjohnson@vnjlaw.com
SOCLEAN INC: Pomianek Sues Over Damaging Levels of Ozone in Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Pomianek, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SOCLEAN, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00783-DGK
(W.D. Mo., Oct. 28, 2021), is brought to recover damages for
economic relief on his own behalf and as representative of a class
of persons consisting of all Arizona residents who purchased a
SoClean 3 CPAP sanitizing machine, SoClean 2 Go CPAP Sanitizing
machine and/or their predecessor devices ("SoClean device"), as a
result of the Defendant's failure to disclose that the SoClean
device generate ozone or the levels of ozone generated are
damaging.
Ozone (O3) is an unstable blue gas with a pungent characteristic
odor. Ozone gas forms when oxygen molecules (O2) interact with
electricity and recombine with oxygen atoms (O) to form ozone (O3).
When ozone encounters organic material, such as a CPAP device, its
third oxygen atom can detach from the ozone molecule and reattach
to molecules of the other substance, thereby altering the chemical
composition of the other substance and damaging that substance.
The SoClean device is marketed as being compatible with many types
of clean continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP") machines.
During a cleaning cycle, the SoClean device consistently generates
prohibited amounts of ozone by volume of air circulating through
the device and the CPAP machine. Ozone levels remain within the
CPAP mask, hose and tank after cleaning by the SoClean device,
causing damage to the component parts of the CPAP machine owned by
the Plaintiff and other consumers. Packaging for the SoClean device
does not disclose that the SoClean device generates ozone or the
levels of ozone generated. Marketing materials for the SoClean
device do not disclose they generate ozone or the levels of ozone
generated.
The Defendant SoClean represents to consumers that it uses
"activated oxygen" to sanitize CPAP machines. In reality, the
SoClean device uses ozone to sanitize CPAP machines. The Defendant
SoClean represents that its devices use no "chemicals" or "harsh
chemicals" to clean CPAP machines. The Defendant SoClean markets
its devices as "safe" for use to clean and protect CPAP machines.
The Defendant SoClean represents that its devices use the same
sanitizing process found in hospitals. The Defendant SoClean
represents that the filter cartridges in the SoClean device convert
"activated oxygen" back into "normal oxygen." The Defendant SoClean
represents the SoClean device is a "closed system" and that no
"activated oxygen" escapes the SoClean device.
Ozone generated by the SoClean device alters the composition of the
very CPAP machines that it is supposed to clean, causing damage to
CPAP machines (including but not limited to foam components) and
rendering the SoClean device essentially worthless. The
representations by Defendant SoClean about the use and levels of
ozone, the lack of chemicals or harsh chemicals in the SoClean
device and the properties of the SoClean device are false and
misleading and have deceived Plaintiff and other consumers who have
relied on such representations when purchasing and using the
SoClean device.
The Defendant SoClean continued to deny the effects of ozone
associated with the SoCleaner device while at the same time reaping
profits obtained through its non-disclosure and concealment. The
Defendant SoClean has engaged in massive advertising programs and
gained continued increases in market share of its sanitizing
products for use on CPAP machines, all of which enhanced its
financial stability to the detriment of its consumers, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a consumer who purchased a SoClean device in a
consumer transaction.
SoClean manufactures and sells medical devices that clean
continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP") machines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Rader, Esq.
Edward "Kip" Robertson, Esq.
Edward "Chip" Robertson, Esq.
James P. Frickleton, Esq.
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON RADER, P.C.
4000 W. 114TH ST., SUITE 310
Leawood, KS 66211-2298
Phone: 913.266.2300
Fax: 913.266.2366
Email: mrader@bflawfirm.com
krobertson@bflawfirm.com
crobertson@bflawfirm.com
jimf@bflawfirm.com
- and -
Brett Votava, Esq.
Andrew Nantz, Esq.
Todd Johnson, Esq.
VOTAVA, NANTZ & JOHNSON, LLC
9237 Ward Parkway, Suite 100
Kansas City, MO 64114
Phone: 816.89.8800
Fax: 816.895.8801
Email: bvotava@vnjlaw.com
andrew@vnjlaw.com
tjohnson@vnjlaw.com
SPECTRUM HEALTH: Court Dismisses Abernathy Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed the case, FRANKLIN B. ABERNATHY, et al.,
Plaintiff v. SPECTRUM HEALTH SYSTEMS, et al., Defendants, Civil No.
21-11290-LTS (D. Mass.), without prejudice.
Plaintiff Abernathy, an inmate now in custody at the Pondville
Correctional Center, initiated the action on Aug. 5, 2021, by
filing a complaint, a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, a motion to certify class action, and an emergency motion
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
On Aug. 13, 2021, the Court denied the pending motions and
Abernathy was ordered to file a renewed motion to proceed in forma
pauperis accompanied by a copy of his prison account statement. The
Order stated that failure of Abernathy to comply may result in the
dismissal of the action without prejudice.
To date, Abernathy has not responded to the Court's order and the
time to do so has expired. "A district court, as part of its
inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua
sponte for any of the reasons prescribed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)."
"Lack of diligent prosecution is such a reason."
Accordingly, for the failure to comply with the Aug. 13, 2021
Memorandum and Order, the action is dismissed without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/exj438fy from Leagle.com.
ST. LOUIS, MO: Corizon's Bid to Quash Subpoena in Cody Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES CODY, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-CV-2707 AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge Audrey G.
Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted Corizon, LLC's Motion to
Partially Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.
The putative class action is before the Court on the motion of
nonparty Corizon to partially quash the Plaintiffs' Amended
Subpoena Duces Tecum. In their briefs before the Court, and in a
status report filed by the Plaintiffs after the Court dismissed
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief, the parties have advised the Court that they
have reached agreement regarding several of Corizon's objections.
The only remaining dispute relates to whether Corizon should be
required to produce: "For the period of time between March 1, 2020
and Feb. 29, 2021, all documents reflecting the policies,
protocols, and procedures of Corizon related to COVID-19 at the MSI
facility."
Judge Fleissig agrees with Corizon that such documents are wholly
irrelevant to the Plaintiffs' claims, which predate by years and in
no way relate to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in light of
the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief.
Accordingly, to the extent not already resolved by the agreement of
the parties, she granted Corizon's Motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/pfkxrmfs from Leagle.com.
STATE FARM: McClure Seeks to Certify Class of Policy Owners
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Earl L. McClure,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
State Farm Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01389-SMB (D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
2. appointing him as the Class Representative; and
3. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff contends that all of the required elements of Rule 23
are satisfied.
The Plaintiff McClure individually, and on behalf of the proposed
Class of Arizona policy owners, challenges Defendant State Farm
interpretation and implementation of its form universal life
insurance policy -- "Form 94030."
State Farm's Form 94030 life insurance policy is a "universal" life
insurance contract. Unlike standard "term" life insurance,
universal life insurance is designed to provide a lifetime death
benefit to the insured plus an investment feature or savings
component, called the "Account Value," that allows policy owners to
earn interest on their accumulated premiums over time.
The Policy provides for certain charges to be deducted, including a
premium expense charge, taken by State Farm from each premium
before the remainder of the premium is deposited into the policy
owner's Account Value, as well as a "Monthly Deduction" taken from
the Account Value each month.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZHyjFg
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jose de Jesus Rivera, Esq.
Heather L. H. Goodwin, Esq.
MILLER PITT FELDMAN & McANALLY P.C.
2800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 840
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1069
Telephone: (602) 266-5557
Facsimile: (602) 266-2223
E-mail: jrivera@mpfmlaw.com
hgoodwin@mpfmlaw.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: 816-714-7100
Facsimile: 816-714-7101
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
perkins@stuevesiegel.com
lange@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
John J. Schirger, Esq.
Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 561-6500
Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
mlytle@millerschirger.com
jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
STEMILT AG: Seeks to Extend Response Time to Garcia Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA and
JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, as individuals and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, v. STEMILT AG SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00254-SMJ (E.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. extending the time to respond to the Second Motion for
Class Certification;
2. staying the deadline for its response until after it rules
on both pending motions; and
3. issuing a second class-certification briefing schedule if
any of the proposed claims may be alleged on behalf of a
class.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pSm3MN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brendan V. Monahan, Esq.
Lance A. Pelletier, Esq.
Justo G. Gonzalez, Esq.
Maricarmen Perez-Vargas, Esq.
STOKES LAWRENCE VELIKANJE MOORE & SHORE
120 N. Naches Avenue
Yakima, WA 98901-2757
Telephone: (509) 853-3000
Facsimile: (509) 895-0060
E-mail: bvm@stokeslaw.com
lance.pelletier@stokeslaw.com
justo.gonzalez@stokeslaw.com
maricarmen.perez-vargas@stokeslaw.com
- and -
Douglas E. Smith, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3122
Telephone: (206) 623-3300
STERLING SUGARS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barron Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ARTEMIO ALVAREZ BARRON, CARLOS ERNESTO PEREYRA VIDANA, MIGUEL
MARTINEZ VILLALOBOS, JESUS LAMBERTO RAMIREZ LOPEZ, CARLOS ALFREDO
RAMIREZ FERNANDEZ, and DANIEL VALENZUELA CHAVEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STERLING
SUGARS SALES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-03741 (W.D.
La., Oct. 22, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as heavy truck
drivers.
STERLING SUGARS SALES CORPORATION produce sugar and other related
products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Caitlin Berberich, Esq.
David Huang, Esq.
SOUTHERN MIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES
A Project of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc.
311 Plus Park Blvd., Ste. 135
Nashville, TN 37217
Telephone: (615) 538-0725
Facsimile: (615) 366-3349
Email: cberberich@trla.org
dhuang@trla.org
-and-
Daniel Davis, Esq.
ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
4465 Bluebonnet Blvd, Suite A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 336-3394
Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
Email: dan@estesdavislaw.com
TASTY PICKS: Vasquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Vasquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TASTY PICKS II CORP., MANSOURE H. YEHYA, HASHEM A.
YEHIYA, HISHAM A.YAHYA, and EMAD YEHIYA, Case No. 1:21-cv-08799
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2021), is brought for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff Vasquez
and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a food preparer at the deli.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in Bronx,
New York under the name "Tasty Picks."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
TATSU RESTAURANT: Zamora Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tatsu Restaurant LLC,
et al. The case is styled as David Zamora, Jaciel Samuel Ramirez,
Jose Luis Zamora, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Tatsu Restaurant LLC doing business as: Natsumi, Case
No. 1:21-cv-08807 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.
Tatsu Restaurant LLC doing business as Natsumi --
http://natsuminyc.com/-- is a Sushi restaurant specializing in
modern Japanese cuisine with a touch of Italian ingredients.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Fax: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
TAURUS INTERNATIONAL: Harman Suit Transferred to M.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rita Harman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Taurus International Manufacturing,
Inc., Taurus Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-20451 was transferred
from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida to the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Alabama on Oct. 18, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00697-WKW-JTA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. --
https://www.taurususa.com/ -- manufactures munitions and small
arms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc Raymer Weintraub, Esq.
Nicole Louise Ballante, Esq.
BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
360 Central Avenue; Suite 1500
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (727) 894-6745
Fax: (727) 894-2649
- and -
David L Selby, II, Esq.
BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
Hoover, AL 35244
Phone: (205) 988-9253
Fax: (205) 733-4896
Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Matthew Gregory Garmon, Esq.
MORRIS HAYNES WHEELES KNOWLES & NELSON
3500 Colonnade Pkwy-Ste 100
Birmingham, AL 35243
Phone: (205) 324-4008
Fax: (205) 324-0803
Email: mgarmon@mhhlaw.net
The Defendant is represented by:
John Patrick Marino, Esq.
Kristen L. Wenger, Esq.
Mark Andrew Krieger, IV, Esq.
SMITH GAMMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP
50 North Laura Street; Suite 2600
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Phone: (904) 598-6104
Fax: (904) 598-6204
- and -
Benjamin E. Reed, Esq.
Colin Dang Delaney, Esq.
SMITH GAMMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP
1230 Peachtree Street NE, Promenade; Suite 3100
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 815-3770
Email: breed@sgrlaw.com
- and -
John F Weeks, IV, Esq.
SMITH GAMMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP
1105 W. Peachtree St, NE, Ste. 1000
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 815-3746
Email: jweeks@sgrlaw.com
TD AMERITRADE: Dec. 15 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK FORD, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated, v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING
CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and FREDRIC TOMCZYK, Case No.
8:14-cv-00396-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting a 30-day extension of time, up to and
including Wednesday, December 15, 2021, to file their brief in
opposition to Plaintiff Roderick Ford's Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and Appointment
of Class Counsel.
On June 3, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings. The motion to compel was fully
briefed as of July 15, 2021.
On July 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class
certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment
of class counsel.
On September 15, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' Unopposed
Motion to Further Extend, extending the deadline for Defendants'
Opposition to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to November 15, 2021.
On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff consented to Defendants' request for
a further extension of time, up to and including December 15,
2021.
TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, and fixed income
investments.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZHKmSD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas H. Dahlk, Esq.
Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
KUTAK ROCK LLP
The Omaha Building
1650 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68102-2186
Telephone: (402) 346-6000
Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
E-mail: tom.dahlk@kutakrock.com
vicki.buter@kutakrock.com
- and -
Alex J. Kaplan, Esq.
Eamon P. Joyce, Esq.
Jon W. Muenz, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 839-5300
Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
E-mail: ajkaplan@sidley.com
ejoyce@sidley.com
jmuenz@sidley.com
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Dismiss Copaxone-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
motion to dismiss filed in the putative securities class action
suit related to copaxone, is pending.
On September 23, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Teva and certain of its former officers alleging, among
other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and SEC Rule 10b-5.
The complaint, purportedly filed on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired Teva securities between October 29, 2015 and
August 18, 2020, alleges that Teva and certain of its former
officers violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false
and misleading statements regarding the commercial performance of
COPAXONE, namely, by failing to disclose that Teva had caused the
submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva's donations to
bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance
to patients, which allegedly impacted COPAXONE's commercial success
and the sustainability of its revenues and resulted in the above
referenced August 2020 False Claims Act complaint filed by the DOJ.
On March 26, 2021, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.
On May 25, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, which named four additional former and current officers
as defendants.
On August 10, 2021, lead plaintiff moved to strike certain
allegations from its amended complaint and to file a corrected
amended complaint, which the court granted that same day. The
corrected amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and legal
fees.
On August 23, 2021, Teva moved to dismiss the corrected amended
complaint, and that motion remains pending.
A motion to approve a securities class action was also filed in the
Central District Court in Israel, which has been stayed pending the
U.S. litigation, with similar allegations to those made in the
above complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Related to Patent Litigation Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
company is facing a putative class action suit related to the
settlement of patent litigation involving colchicine tablets
(generic Colcrys(R)).
In August 2021, a plaintiff filed a putative class action suit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against The Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited and
several generic manufacturers, including Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Teva, alleging violations of the antitrust laws in
connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving
colchicine tablets (generic Colcrys(R)), entered into in January
2016.
Plaintiff claims that the settlement was part of a horizontal
conspiracy among Takeda and the generic manufacturers to unlawfully
restrict output of colchicine by delaying generic entry.
Defendants intend to move to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim.
Teva said, "Annual sales of Colcrys(R) in the United States were
approximately $187 million at the time of the settlement."
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Mediation in Ontario Teachers Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that
mediation is ongoing in Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.
On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Teva and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.
Those lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.
On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff in that action filed an
amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's
securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019.
The amended complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current
and former officers and directors violated federal securities and
common laws in connection with Teva's alleged failure to disclose
pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio
and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain
offering materials. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages, legal fees, interest, and costs.
In July 2017, August 2017, and June 2019, other putative securities
class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar
allegations, and those cases have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Between August 2017 and September 2021, twenty-two complaints were
filed against Teva and certain of its current and former officers
and directors seeking unspecified compensatory damages, legal fees,
costs and expenses.
The similar claims in these complaints have been brought on behalf
of plaintiffs, in various forums across the country, who have
indicated that they intend to "opt-out" of the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation.
On March 10, 2020, the Court consolidated the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation with all of the above-referenced putative
class actions for all purposes and the "opt-out" cases for pretrial
purposes. Pursuant to that consolidation order, plaintiffs in
several of the "opt-out" cases filed amended complaints on May 28,
2020.
On January 22, 2021, the Court dismissed the "opt-out" plaintiffs'
claims arising from statements made prior to the five-year statute
of repose, but denied Teva's motion to dismiss their claims under
Israeli laws.
Those "opt-out" plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, which was
denied on March 30, 2021.
On May 24, 2021, Teva moved to dismiss a majority of the "opt-out"
complaints on various other grounds. The Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel was
granted on March 9, 2021, to which Teva's appeal was denied.
Summary judgment and Daubert motions are currently scheduled to be
filed in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation in November
2021.
The Company is in mediation related to this matter and has recorded
a liability in the third quarter of 2021 based upon an offer to
settle the class litigation.
Teva said, "Accordingly, an insurance receivable in the same amount
was recorded. A settlement is subject to alignment with the
insurance carriers. There was no net impact to litigation expenses.
Motions to approve securities class actions were also filed in the
Tel Aviv District Court in Israel with similar allegations to those
made in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation."
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Opioids Suits in State, Federal Courts Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that more
than 3,500 complaints have been filed with respect to opioid sales
and distribution against various Teva affiliates.
Since May 2014, more than 3,500 complaints have been filed with
respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva
affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a
number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies,
tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class
actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts.
Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio ("MDL
Opioid Proceeding") and many of the cases filed in state court have
been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid
Proceeding.
Two cases that were included in the MDL Opioid Proceeding were
transferred back to federal district court for additional
discovery, pre-trial proceedings and trial. Those cases are: City
of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 14-cv-04361 (N.D.
Ill.) and City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et
al., No. 18-cv-07591-CRB (N.D. Cal.).
Other cases remain pending in various states. In some
jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, certain state court cases
have been transferred to a single court within their respective
state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Complaints asserting claims under similar provisions of different
state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged
in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including
ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA(R). The complaints also assert claims related
to Teva's generic opioid products.
In addition, over 950 personal injury plaintiffs, including various
putative class actions of individuals, have asserted personal
injury and wrongful death claims in over 600 complaints, nearly all
of which are consolidated in the MDL Opioid Proceeding.
Furthermore, approximately 700 non-personal injury complaints and
approximately 100 personal injury complaints have named Anda, Inc.
(and other distributors and manufacturers) alleging that Anda
failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify
suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the abuse and
diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other
than legitimate medical purposes.
Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil
penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief. Certain plaintiffs assert that the measure
of damages is the entirety of the costs associated with addressing
the abuse of opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs
specify multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged
damages.
The individual personal injury plaintiffs further seek non-economic
damages. In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and
several damages among all defendants.
On April 19, 2021, a bench trial in California (The People of the
State of California, acting by and through Santa Clara County
Counsel James R. Williams, et. al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.)
commenced with Teva and other defendants focused on the marketing
of branded opioids.
On June 29, 2021, a jury trial in New York (In re Opioid
Litigation, Index No. 400000/2017)) commenced, with Teva and other
defendants, focused on the marketing and distribution of opioids.
Absent resolutions, additional trials are expected to proceed in
several states in 2022.
In May 2019, Teva settled the Oklahoma litigation brought by the
Oklahoma Attorney General (State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Mike Hunter,
Attorney General of Oklahoma vs. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.) for
$85 million.
The settlement did not include any admission of violation of law
for any of the claims or allegations made. As the Company
demonstrated a willingness to settle part of the litigation, for
accounting purposes, management considered a portion of
opioid-related cases as probable and, as such, recorded an
estimated provision in the second quarter of 2019.
Given the relatively early stage of the cases, management viewed no
amount within the range to be the most likely outcome. Therefore,
management recorded a provision for the reasonably estimable
minimum amount in the assessed range for such opioid-related cases
in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450
“Accounting for Contingencies.”
Additionally, on October 21, 2019, Teva reached a settlement with
the two plaintiffs in the MDL Opioid Proceeding that was scheduled
for trial for the Track One case, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties of
Ohio.
Under the terms of the settlement, Teva agreed to provide the two
counties with opioid treatment medication, buprenorphine naloxone
(sublingual tablets), known by the brand name Suboxone®, with a
value of $25 million at wholesale acquisition cost and distributed
over three years to help in the care and treatment of people
suffering from addiction, and a cash payment in the amount of $20
million, which has been paid.
Also on October 21, 2019, Teva and certain other defendants reached
an agreement in principle with a group of Attorneys General from
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas for a nationwide
settlement.
This nationwide settlement was designed to provide a mechanism by
which the Company attempts to seek resolution of remaining
potential and pending opioid claims by both the U.S. states and
political subdivisions (i.e., counties, tribes and other
plaintiffs) thereof.
Under this nationwide settlement, Teva would provide buprenorphine
naloxone (sublingual tablets) with an estimated value of up to
approximately $23 billion at wholesale acquisition cost over a ten
year period. In addition, Teva would also provide cash payments of
up to $250 million over a ten year period.
During the passage of time since then, the Company has continued to
negotiate the terms and conditions of a nationwide settlement. On
July 21, 2021, it was announced that four other defendants (not
including Teva) have reached a nationwide settlement, subject to
certain conditions, which includes payment of up to approximately
$26 billion spread over up to 18 years.
The achievement of this settlement may similarly present an
opportunity for Teva to arrive at a settlement, although there do
remain many complex financial and legal issues still outstanding,
including indemnification claims by Allergan against the Company,
arising from the acquisition of the Actavis Generics business. The
Company cannot predict if a settlement will be finalized.
On September 28, 2021, Teva reached an agreement with the Attorney
General of Louisiana that settles the state's opioid-related
claims.
The agreement is contingent on confirmation from the state by
November 2, 2021 that all political subdivisions of Louisiana will
release Teva as part of the settlement.
Under the terms of the settlement, Teva will pay Louisiana $15
million over an 18-year period and will provide an additional
donation of buprenorphine naloxone (sublingual tablets) valued at
$3 million (wholesale acquisition cost).
The Company considered a range of potential settlement outcomes.
The current provision remains a reasonable estimate of the ultimate
costs if a settlement is finalized based on the Company's most
recent offer to settle.
However, if not finalized for the entirety of the cases, a
reasonable upper end of a range of loss cannot be determined. An
adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may
involve large monetary penalties, damages, and/or other forms of
monetary and non-monetary relief and could have a material and
adverse effect on Teva's reputation, business, results of
operations and cash flows.
Separately, on April 27, 2018, Teva received subpoena requests from
the United States Attorney's office in the Western District of
Virginia and the Civil Division seeking documents relating to the
manufacture, marketing and sale of branded opioids.
In August 2019, Teva received a grand jury subpoena from the United
States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York for
documents related to the Company's anti-diversion policies and
procedures and distribution of its opioid medications, in what the
Company understands to be part of a broader investigation into
manufacturers' and distributors' monitoring programs and reporting
under the Controlled Substances Act.
In September 2019, Teva received subpoenas from the New York State
Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) as part of an
industry-wide inquiry into the effect of opioid prescriptions on
New York health insurance premiums. This was followed by a
Statement of Charges and Notice of Hearing filed by the NYDFS,
although no hearing date is currently set.
Currently, Teva cannot predict how a nationwide settlement (if
finalized) will affect these investigations and administrative
actions. In addition, a number of state attorneys general,
including a coordinated multistate effort, have initiated
investigations into sales and marketing practices of Teva and its
affiliates with respect to opioids.
Other states are conducting their own investigations outside of the
multistate group. Teva is cooperating with these ongoing
investigations and cannot predict their outcome at this time.
In addition, several jurisdictions and consumers in Canada have
initiated litigation regarding opioids alleging similar claims as
those in the United States. The cases in Canada may be consolidated
and are in their early stages.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Prius HVAC Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Toyota
Prius bad smell has caused a Florida car owner to file a class
action lawsuit alleging the heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems emit bad and harmful odors.
The Toyota Prius lawsuit covers the 2006-2020 Toyota Prius,
2017-2020 Toyota Prius Prime, 2010-2015 Toyota PHV, 2012-2016
Toyota Prius c and 2012-2017 Prius v.
According to Prius owner and plaintiff Jose Javier Perez, all the
vehicles were delivered with identical defective air conditioner
systems that cause the inside of the cars to smell bad.
The class action goes on to reference a Prius complaint in which
the customer described the bad smell as "an overpowering urine
smell coming out of vents," saying "somehow an animal must have
gotten into the engine, urinated and the urine and bacteria has
built up somewhere in the car."
The heating and air conditioner systems allegedly accumulate
moisture and microbial growth, causing mold growth and the Prius
passenger cabins to fill with bad smells. In addition, Toyota Prius
occupants can allegedly get sick from the noxious toxic odors from
mold and other contaminants.
Numerous Toyota Prius bad odor complaints and associated technical
service bulletins allegedly prove the automaker knew about the HVAC
problems but concealed the issues from consumers.
The allegedly defective Toyota Prius HVAC systems are manufactured
by DENSO.
Toyota Allegedly Knows about the Prius Bad Odors
According to the class action lawsuit, Toyota Prius owners must pay
their own money to inspect, diagnose and repair the cars. But the
plaintiff alleges the repairs only help mask the bad smells, and
Toyota allegedly won't issue a recall to properly repair the cars.
The Prius lawsuit further alleges Toyota has admitted in a course
manual the bad smells come from the air conditioner and climate
controls and are "a common complaint among users."
According to the class action, Toyota says the bad odors are caused
by "[m]icrobes growing on the evaporator surface" including "small
living bacteria . . . carried into the evaporator case [that] grow
in the warm, moist environment."
The plaintiff says he was sold a car which Toyota knew was
defective in the HVAC system. And the plaintiff also says Toyota
dealers make money by charging customers for special filters, HVAC
servicing and other "repair" fees when consumers complain about bed
smells in the cars.
The Prius class action lawsuit alleges going all the way back to
1997, Toyota issued a technical service bulletin (TSB AC002-97),
titled "Air Conditioning Evaporator Odor," that explicitly
acknowledged the presence of microbial growth in the HVAC
evaporator caused by dampness in the housing.
Several TSBs have been issued about the Toyota Prius bad interior
smells, but the lawsuit says the most recent bulletin issued to
dealers in March 2020 says:
"NOTE The procedure in this bulletin will NOT eliminate the odors
described but is provided to help reduce intensity of the odors."
The Toyota Prius class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida: Jose Javier
Perez, vs. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson
Weiselberg Gilbert, Gordon & Partners, and Edelsberg Law. [GN]
TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Settings Under Appeal in 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the putative class
action suit related to user settings is currently on appeal to the
United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.
Beginning in October 2019, putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers alleging
violations of securities laws in connection with the Company's
announcements that it had discovered and taken steps to remediate
issues related to certain user settings designed to target
advertising that were not working as expected and seeking
unspecified damages.
The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.
In December 2020, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims.
The case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.
Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real-time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.
TWITTER INC: Settlement Amount in Securities Suits Paid to Escrow
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company paid
the settlement amount to escrow from cash on hand with regard to
the multiple putative class actions and derivative actions against
the company.
Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against the Company and the Company's directors
and/or certain former officers alleging that false and misleading
statements, made in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and
breached fiduciary duty.
The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. On October 16, 2017,
the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion
to dismiss.
On July 17, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the consolidated securities action.
In January 2021, the Company entered into a binding agreement to
settle the shareholder derivative lawsuits. The derivative
settlement resolves all claims asserted against the Company and the
other named defendants in the derivative lawsuits without any
liability or wrongdoing attributed to them personally or the
Company.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Company's board of directors
will adopt and implement certain corporate governance
modifications.
On July 27, 2021, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
approved the settlement agreement, and in the three months ended
September 30, 2021, the Company received $38.0 million of insurance
proceeds to be used for general corporate purposes.
The settlement does not require the Company to make any payment,
aside from covering certain administrative costs related to the
settlement.
The shareholder class action lawsuit was scheduled for trial on
September 20, 2021.
In September 2021, prior to the start of the trial, the Company
negotiated and entered into a binding agreement to settle the
shareholder class action lawsuit.
The proposed class action settlement resolves all claims asserted
against the Company and the other named defendants in the
shareholder class action lawsuit without any liability or
wrongdoing attributed to them personally or to the Company.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company will pay
$809.5 million. The settlement agreement is subject to final
approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The Company recorded an accrual of $809.5 million for the proposed
settlement, which is included in accrued and other current
liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of September 30,
2021 and in litigation settlement, net in the consolidated
statements of operations in the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2021.
In October 2021, the Company paid the settlement amount to escrow
from cash on hand.
Following the agreements to settle the class action and derivative
lawsuits, no other matters related to the aforementioned putative
class actions and derivative actions remain outstanding.
Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real-time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.
UNITI GROUP: Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re UNITI GROUP INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-00756-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Class defined as;
"All persons or entities who, during the period from April
24, 2015 to June 24, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period")
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common
stock or call options or sold the put options of Uniti
Group Inc. f/k/a Communications Sales & Leasing, Inc.,
and were damaged thereby;"
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members
of the immediate family of any Defendant who is an
individual; (iii) any person who was an officer or
director of Uniti during the Class Period; (iv) any firm,
trust, corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant
has or had a controlling interest; (v) Uniti's employee
retirement and benefit plan(s) and their participants or
beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through
such plan(s); (vi) the legal representatives, affiliates,
heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such
excluded person; (vii) Windstream; and (viii) any person
who was an officer or director of Windstream during the
Class Period.;
2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Plan, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, and David
McMurray, on behalf of himself and as sole beneficiary of
the David McMurray R/O IRA, ("Plaintiffs") as class
representatives; and
3. appointing Labaton Sucharow LLP and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as class counsel
pursuant to Rule 23(g).
The Plaintiffs assert a claim against the defendants under section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the elements of which
are: "'(1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the
defendant[s]; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5)
economic loss; and (6) loss causation.'"
Uniti operates as a real estate investment trust. The Company
provides wireless infrastructure solutions for communications
industry.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GPv5Ae
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Debra J. Wyman, Esq.
Ting H. Liu, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: debraw@rgrdlaw.com
tliu@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
Ross M. Kamhi, Esq.
Charles Farrell, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
cfox@labaton.com
rkamhi@labaton.com
cfarrell@labaton.com
- and -
Geoffrey P. Culbertson, Esq.
PATTON TIDWELL & CULBERTSON, LLP
Texarkana, TX 75503
Telephone: (903) 792-7080
Facsimile: (903) 792-8233
E-mail: gpc@texarkanalaw.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
SCHALL LAW FIRM
1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 303-1964
Facsimile: (877) 590-0483
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
- and -
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
1 Lincoln Street, 25th Floor
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 720-1333
Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com
VICTOR ELEMENTARY: Crook Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victor Elementary
School District, et al. The case is styled as Jasper O. Crook, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Victor
Elementary School District; Mountain View Montessori; Tanya Newell,
Principal of Mountain View Montessori; Jan Gonzales, Superintendent
of Victor Elementary School District; Tanya Benitez, Assistant
Superintentant of Victor Elementary School District; individually
and in their official capacities; Does 1-30 inclusive, in their
individual and official capacities; Case No. 5:21-cv-01758-JVS-AS
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 18, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Victor Elementary School District -- http://www.vesd.net/-- is a
school district headquartered in Victorville, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Vipshop Holdings Ltd.
("Vipshop" or the "Company") (NYSE: VIPS) and reminds investors of
the December 13, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff
in a federal securities class action that has been filed against
the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Vipshop stock
or options between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021 and would like
to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh
Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You
may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/VIPS.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
traded while in possession of material non-public information and
that: (1) Defendants obtained the material non-public information
pursuant to their agreements with Archegos Capital Management
("Archegos") and as a result of their serving as prime brokers of
Archegos. (2) Defendants knew, recklessly disregarded, or should
have known that they owed a fiduciary duty, or obligation arising
from a similar relationship of trust and confidence, to Archegos to
keep the information confidential. (3) Nevertheless, while in
possession of material, non-public adverse information, Defendants
collectively sold billions of dollars' worth of Company shares.
Later, when the information became publicly known, the price of the
Company's common stock declined sharply as a result of such
disclosure.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Vipshop conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.[GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Class Action Over Defective Seat Latches
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a VW
Atlas class action lawsuit alleges 2018-2021 SUVs were sold with
defective second-row seat latches that allow the seats to fold
down.
The latches are needed to fold down the second-row seats to allow
occupants to access the third-row seats. Additionally, the Atlas
seats can be folded down to create more storage space.
The Volkswagen Atlas class action lawsuit includes owners who
allege the automaker intentionally concealed the alleged latch
problems.
According to the Atlas lawsuit, the second-row latching device
allegedly fails to secure the seats due to a defective design.
During deceleration or in a collision, the Atlas second-row seats
can allegedly fail to secure the seats which allows the seats to
move forward.
This can allegedly cause second-row occupants to slam into the
front seats.
The plaintiffs claim young children and infants are especially
susceptible to harm from the alleged latch defects in crash
events.
The Atlas class action also alleges the seat latches should last
the life of the vehicles and the owner's manuals don't include
information about the maintenance of the latches.
The Atlas class action lawsuit was filed by Beatriz Tijerina, David
Concepción, Gina Aprile, Theresa Gillespie, Talina Henderson,
Diana Ferrara, Lauren Daly, Shane McDonald, Kasem Curovic, Christa
Callahan, Erica Upshur, Johnnie Moutra and Jennifer Tolbert.
However, only David Concepción, Diana Ferrara, and Lauren Daly
claim dealers failed to repair the seat latches.
The Atlas class action references technical service bulletin (TSB)
VIN-4-A-PIN-2019, NHTSA number 10158537, but the bulletin was only
a list of various complaints made about Volkswagen models.
Titled, "On-car analysis list from February 26th, 2019 please
contact VW Helpline before attempting repair," it says a 2018 VW
Atlas "customer states 2nd row seat rattles while driving."
According to the plaintiffs, Volkswagen should offer:
"Injunctive and equitable relief in the form of a comprehensive
program to repair or replace the Latching Device in all Class
Vehicles, and/or buyback all Class Vehicles, and to fully reimburse
and make whole all members of the Class for all costs and economic
losses."
The VW Atlas class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey: Tijerina, et al., v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Seeger Weiss LLP, Carella, Byrne,
Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., and Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Ct. Adjusts Class Cert. Deadlines in Garcia Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO R. GARCIA, et al.,
v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00331-LO-MSN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Hon. Michael S.
Nachmanoff entered an order that:
-- The Defendants shall file their opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification by November 19, 2021.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply by December 3, 2021.
-- Defendants' Daubert motions with respect to class
certification issues are due November 19, 2021.
-- The Plaintiffs' oppositions are due December 8, 2021, with
any replies due December 20, 2021.
-- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions with respect to class
certification issues are due December 3, 2021.
-- Defendants' oppositions are due December 15, 2021, with
any replies due December 24, 2021.
-- The Court will hold a hearing on any Daubert motions with
respect to class certification issues at the January 7,
2022 hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is the North American
operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of
automobile companies of Germany. VWoA is responsible for five
marques: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen cars.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at
at no extra charge.[CC]
WAUKESHA SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over No Mask Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------------
California News Times reports that a parent claimed to the Waukesha
school district and its school board that her child had been
infected with COVID-19 after being exposed to classmates because
the school district had no mask requirements.
The child is a student at Rosegren Elementary School. The
proceedings allege that the district violated the boy's Fourteenth
Amendment to protect the school from state-created dangers.
"I had a complaint about COVID-19. I haven't received any formal
service. I immediately contacted a lawyer and was advised by the
lawyer to not take any further action at this time." James Sebert,
director of the Waukesha School District, said. I said.
The lawsuit said the mask policy had been enforced at Waukesha's
school last year, but ended on May 12. The district did not
implement the new mask policy during the 2021-2022 academic year.
In a declaration included in the proceedings, the mother stated
that the district decided to send the children to school in masks
as a family, even though they did not need them. She said other
students did not wear masks at school.
The proceedings allege that a child's classmate came home on
September 16th and 17th with symptoms of COVID-19. The child
reportedly sat next to his classmates every day. The mother stated
in her declaration that her child had been treated symptomatically
on September 19 and tested positive. She said other children, also
in the school district, were infected with COVID-19 a few days
later.
The proceedings allege that all the children missed several days of
school and extracurricular activities due to illness.
The Minocqua Brewing Company SuperPAC is funding the proceedings.
"Ultimately, we don't want a one-year proceeding," said Kirk
Bangstad, founder of Super PAC. "We will mask children who are too
young to be vaccinated until the judge discusses what the defense
is trying to say and what the plaintiff is trying to say." I want
an injunction to say.
Bangstand is also the owner of the Mincoqua Brewing Company in
northern Wisconsin. Last year, he and his restaurant received
national attention for releasing a "progressive" beer line with a
huge Biden-Harris sign on their building.
Through a class action, he hopes that all Wisconsin schools will be
forced to set mask requirements.
"We are trying to define a school board class that includes all
school boards that do not follow COVID precautions," he said.
The proceedings were filed in the eastern part of Wisconsin.
Bangstand wants to file another proceeding in the Western
District.
This story was originally published by Sarah McGrew at the Scripps
Station TMJ4 In Milwaukee. [GN]
WEAVER LEATHER: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weaver Leather, LLC.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Weaver Leather, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08843 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Weaver Leather LLC -- https://weaverleather.com/ -- manufactures
leather products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
[*] U.S. States Face Flurry of ADA Class Actions Over Curb Ramps
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen O'Hagan, writing for Independent Record, reports that from
her Baltimore dining room, Susan Goodlaxson can see her neighbor
gardening across the street. But while other neighbors stop to
chat, Goodlaxson just watches from the window. She uses a
wheelchair, and there isn't a single curb ramp on her block.
If the 66-year-old wanted to join, she'd have to jump her
wheelchair down the 7 1/2-inch curb and risk a fall. Ditto if she
wanted to wheel over to the library, a trip that would require
riding in the street to avoid rampless curbs and broken sidewalks.
"I don't feel like it's asking too much to be able to move your
wheelchair around the city," she said.
Federal law backs her up. Since 1990, the Americans With
Disabilities Act has required governmental entities to provide
people with disabilities access to programs and services enjoyed by
their nondisabled peers. That includes sidewalks and curb ramps
that make it possible to safely cross the street.
In Baltimore and many other communities across the U.S., there has
been widespread noncompliance with this part of the law.
"An awful lot of [communities] have either disregarded their
obligations under the ADA or made it the last priority," noted Tom
Stenson, a lawyer with Disability Rights Oregon, a nonprofit
advocacy group. "There's a culture throughout America of not taking
the needs of people with disabilities seriously."
In Baltimore, just 1.3% of curb ramps meet federal standards,
according to the city's own figures. In Oregon, about 9% of corners
maintained by the state transportation department are compliant.
San Jose, California, counted 27,621 corners with faulty or
nonexistent curb ramps. Boston estimates fewer than half of its
curb ramps are compliant.
In recent years, there's been a flurry of class-action lawsuits,
including one filed against Baltimore in June, with Goodlaxson
among the plaintiffs.
Philadelphia was sued in 2019 over the condition of its sidewalks.
Chicago was sued the same year for failure to install audible
pedestrian signals, more than a decade after settling a suit over
curb ramps. In 2018, Atlanta was sued. A survey there determined
that only 20% of sidewalks were in sufficient condition to be used
by people in wheelchairs or motorized scooters and about 30% had
curb ramps. Seattle settled a class-action suit in 2017. San
Francisco and Long Beach, California, were sued in 2014 to make
their sidewalks more accessible to wheelchairs.
The city of New York and its transit authority have faced repeated
major ADA lawsuits, some alleging the same lack of access for
people with disabilities that was supposed to be addressed in a
lawsuit that was filed in the 1990s and later settled.
Los Angeles settled what is believed to be the largest of these
suits in 2015. Its problems with sidewalks and curb ramps were so
widespread that the city estimated it would cost $1.4 billion and
take 30 years to get into compliance. In the years leading up to
the suit, the city wasn't allocating money for sidewalk repairs,
for the ADA or otherwise, even while paying out millions in injury
claims.
In all, hundreds of jurisdictions have faced lawsuits or entered
settlement agreements after failing to meet ADA requirements for
pedestrians and mass transit users.
The sheer number of noncompliant sidewalks, curb ramps, pedestrian
signals and subway stations illustrates the challenges for people
with disabilities. It also leaves cities in a legal and financial
squeeze, with the average curb ramp costing between $9,000
and$19,000. When the court requires a jurisdiction to build
thousands of them to catch up, it can strain budgets.
The ADA and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act resulted in significant
changes that improved access and accommodations for people with
disabilities. The ADA is clear that people with disabilities have
the same right to pedestrian infrastructure as anyone else.
There are requirements covering a curb ramp's width, slope and
other specifications. Even a 1-inch lip can be too high for a
wheelchair user to navigate. A slope that is a few degrees too
steep can tip someone to the ground. Sidewalks that are crumbling,
pothole-filled or otherwise obstructed -- with utility poles, for
example -- force wheelchair users into the street for a dangerous
ride.
No one expected the ADA to fix all these problems immediately.
Under the law, new sidewalks must be built for accessibility. As
for existing sidewalks, a federal appeals court in 1993 ruled that
curb ramps must be installed or regraded when the road is altered
-- say, when it's repaved.
Yet by 1999 it was clear many jurisdictions were ignoring the law.
The U.S. Department of Justice began enforcement efforts, entering
into settlement agreements with more than 200 noncompliant
jurisdictions representing every state since 2000.
Still, compliance still lags.
Officials in Baltimore, New York and Los Angeles declined to
comment for this article. Tony Snyder, manager of the Oregon
Department of Transportation's ADA program, said siloed funding
sources, strict regulations and costs have been among the hurdles
over the years.
"It wasn't that ODOT doesn't value accessibility," he said. While
fewer than 10% of the state's ramps meet standards, he said, a lot
of noncompliant ramps are nonetheless "usable."
Kelly Lynch, deputy director and general counsel for the Montana
League of Cities and Towns, an association that represents 127
municipal governments, agreed that costs can add up. She's been
working to help fellow Montanans -- and, she hopes, officials in
other jurisdictions across the country through the National League
of Cities -- find a path toward full accessibility, even if the
steps are incremental.
Some changes, including educating road crews on the rules, are
relatively simple. But a bigger problem is a widespread lack of
spending on the nation's infrastructure. "Our streets are falling
apart, and so are our sidewalks," Lynch said.
In August, the Senate defeated an amendment by Sen. Tammy Duckworth
(D-Ill.) to a $1 trillion infrastructure bill that would have
required state and local entities to describe how they would use
federal dollars to improve accessibility for people with
disabilities and for underserved communities. Sen. Pat Toomey
(R-Pa.) called Duckworth's amendment "politically correct virtue
signaling" and argued that transit agencies don't need that kind of
federal oversight.
On top of the broader infrastructure issues, many officials don't
fully understand the ADA or its requirements, Lynch believes. And
as the mother of a disabled son, she also said there's another big
factor at play: "People still discriminate against people with
disabilities."
As for Baltimore, Goodlaxson said she repeatedly called the city
asking for curb cuts and sidewalk repairs. She remembers a crew
coming to look at the sidewalks -- and then nothing happening.
Advocacy organizations tried to negotiate with city officials,
hoping to get Baltimore's infrastructure brought into compliance on
a timetable. When that didn't work, they filed suit.
Most of these kinds of ADA cases begin similarly, with negotiations
long before lawsuits. Some jurisdictions settled quickly and worked
hard at improvements. Other cases go less smoothly. Oregon's
transportation department, which was also sued, is in danger of
missing its construction deadlines under the settlement. Some
repairs had to be redone because they still fell short of ADA
requirements.
Sometimes cities try to get cases thrown out of court by pointing
to the 1993 appeals court decision and arguing there's no evidence
the road has been altered since then, so ADA requirements haven't
kicked in. In New York, the transit authority argues in an ongoing
lawsuit that while wheelchair users can't ride, say, three-quarters
of the city's subways because there are no elevators, they can
instead take the bus.
Some jurisdictions fight bitterly. Los Angeles spent five years in
court before agreeing to settle. Linda Dardarian, one of the
plaintiff's attorneys, said cities don't fully recognize sidewalk
and curb ramp accessibility as a civil right. "They have viewed it
as just another maintenance obligation, [like] grooming street
trees."
When the case was settled, the judge ordered Los Angeles to pay
nearly $12 million to cover the other side's legal fees and costs,
on top of the estimated $1.4 billion it will cost to come into
compliance.
Under these settlements, repairs often stretch a decade or more,
and the city or town typically must pay for surveys, measurements
and disability consultants to ensure compliance.
From the plaintiffs' point of view, the challenge of these lawsuits
is that there isn't a huge hammer to hold governments accountable.
"If you don't build the ramps, the penalty is you have to build the
ramps," said Stenson of Disability Rights Oregon, which provided
legal representation to a plaintiff in the Oregon transportation
department suit.
For those who can easily get around town, the issue can be
invisible.
Goodlaxson didn't see the problem until she began using a
wheelchair five years ago, after surgery for a brain tumor. She
remembers seeing people riding their wheelchairs in the street,
thinking, "that doesn't look safe. But I didn't give it any more
thought." [GN]
[*] UK Litigation Funding Market Faces Regulation Challenges
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Woodland, Esq., of Peters & Peters, in an article for
Law.com, reports that litigation funding is here to stay. The U.K.
has more specialist litigation funding companies than any other
jurisdiction. According to a report from RPC, the U.K.'s litigation
funding market has doubled over the past two years.
Without lawyers prepared to run cases on a pure contingency basis
-- something English lawyers have been traditionally wary of,
unlike our U.S. colleagues -- litigation funding can be the only
way that some cases see the light of day. Would the Post Office
class action have got off the ground without funding? Would the
class action reforms in 2015 have even been considered without the
assumption that litigation funding would be available?
Even jurisdictions where litigation funding has traditionally been
prohibited are showing signs of change, with funding often now
being available for arbitration or insolvency cases. It is surely a
matter of time before all major litigation markets permit
litigation funding in one form or another.
The funding market has also become significantly more sophisticated
in recent years, moving away from the traditional scenario of
funding for one off cases which the claimant could not otherwise
afford to bring, to more creative models. As long ago as 2016,
litigation funders began to fund portfolios of cases, and more
recently we have seen greater connections between funders and law
firms. In June 2020, Burford Capital took a stake in PCB
Litigation, and Rosenblatt and Mishcon de Reya are amongst those
firms who have set up their own litigation funding entities.
The regulation of the litigation funding market -- or the lack of
any regulation -- has always been an issue for critics of the
regime. In 2017, the government ruled out regulating the litigation
funding market because it "remains at a relatively early stage in
its development". Given the developments in the market since then,
and what is likely to happen over the next few years, some form of
regulation may be inevitable.
The current position in England is that litigation funders are not
directly regulated. Whilst some litigation funders are authorised
by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in relation to some of
their activities, their core business is not regulated. There are
however a number of indirect forms of control over litigation
funders:
Many litigation funders are members of the Association of
Litigation Funders (ALF). The ALF's code of conduct provides for
the capital adequacy of members, sets out requirements about the
termination and approval of settlement and reinforces the rule that
litigation funders may not control the litigation. On the
international front, there is the International Legal Finance
Association based in Washington DC with similar aims.
Solicitors are of course regulated by the SRA, including with their
dealings with litigation funders on behalf of their clients. They
must act in the best interests of their client and not the
litigation funder. Solicitors are also now well used to asking the
right questions of litigation funders as part of the process of
securing funding.
Litigation funders are also subject to some level of control by the
Court, through policing the rules against funders controlling
litigation and by retaining the discretion to order funders to
provide security for costs.
There has been, and no doubt will continue to be, a healthy debate
about whether these voluntary or indirect forms of regulation are
sufficient or whether some form of mandatory regulation is
necessary.
Whilst it is likely that some form of regulation will be imposed at
some point in the future, there are several difficult questions
which would need to be addressed.
First, what are the regulations going to deal with? Issues covered
by the ALF voluntary code, such as capital adequacy and reinforcing
the prohibition on funders controlling the litigation, would
probably not be very controversial, but query what real protection
regulation of this sort will provide to consumers over and above
the current practice.
Regulation of portfolio funding and of the new breed of
"in-house" litigation funders would be much more challenging if it
were intended to go beyond the general rules governing the conduct
of solicitors, particularly when those law firms are also listed on
the stock exchange. There is also the international aspect -- would
U.K. regulations apply just to funders established in the UK, or to
all litigation in the English courts irrespective of where the
funder was based?
Secondly, who is going to regulate the litigation funding market?
It would not fit squarely within either the FCA or the SRA, but
overlaps with both. Even with the growth in the industry over
recent years, it is doubtful whether there is the appetite to
establish a brand new regulator, which comes with its own practical
problems.
These are challenging issues which will need to be addressed if,
and probably when, the government considers the litigation funding
market has matured sufficiently to warrant consideration of
regulation.
Jason Woodland is a committee member at the London Solicitor
Litigation Association and a partner at Peters and Peters [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Has $111MM Reserve Reestimates
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation, During the third quarter of 2021, has
performed its annual run-off property-liability reserve review,
which resulted in unfavorable reserve re-estimates totaling $111
million or $88 million, after-tax, primarily related to asbestos
and environmental exposures, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3k1sJ7t
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Faces 700 Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc., as of September 30, 2021, has reported an
approximately 700 open and active asbestos-related claims pending
against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, according to
the its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These claims consist of non-PC Relationship
Claims against PPG and claims against a PPG subsidiary the Company
acquired on April 1, 2013. The Company is defending these open and
active claims vigorously.
"PPG has established reserves totaling approximately $190 million
for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the
Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe
will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG’s current and
estimable potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves,
which are included within Other liabilities on the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG’s best
estimate of its liability for these claims.
These reserves include a $162 million reserve established in 2009
in connection with an amendment to the PC plan of reorganization
for non-PC Relationship Claims other than claims arising from
premises-related exposures. PPG does not have sufficient current
claim information or settlement history on which to base a better
estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy
Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company
was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016.
"PPG monitors the activity associated with its asbestos claims and
evaluates, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such
claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying
assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for
these claims is required.
"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required
to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii)
the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims;
(iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including
a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are
scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential
judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information
in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly
responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from
such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal
and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a
material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates.
As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure,
under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own
account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its
historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of
reorganization. While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that
any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on PPG’s consolidated
financial position, liquidity or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3w9t6BQ
*********
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 ***