/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211215.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 15, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 244
Headlines
2800 WALNUT: Underpays Fantasy Castle Dancers, Taylor Suit Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Jackson Claims
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Sued Over Similac Misleading Claims
ADECCO USA: Akin Gump Discusses 1st Cir. Ruling in Labor Class Suit
AFFORDABLE AUTO: Reisman Suit Administratively Closed w/o Prejudice
AIR PROS: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Vetter Suit Says
ALFI INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 31 Deadline
ALFI INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of January 31 Deadline
ALFI INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 31 Deadline
ALLIANCE GROUND: Faces Lakrab Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
AMEDISYS HOLDING: Joint Bid to Extend Response Deadline Filed
AMERICAN BUSINESS: Xue Ying Wen Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Sunroofs, Moonroofs
APPLE INC: Class Action Lawsuit Over App Store Monopoly Dismissed
ARAMARK SERVICES: Ct. Enters Initial Case Management Sched Order
ARCHON CORP: March 14 Proposed Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AURORA CANNABIS: Seeks Dismissal of Sham Transaction Class Action
BACARDI USA: Averts Class Action Over Bombay Sapphire Gin
BANNER LIFE: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action in California
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Benzene-Based Lotion
BEND MEMORIAL: Court Extends Discovery & PTO Dates in Fulkerson
BLOOMFIELD HILLS: Faces Class Suit Over Racist Bullying Incidents
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $125 Million
CARNIVAL PLC: Judge Rules in Ruby Princess COVID-19 Outbreak
CARVANA LLC: Jennings Suit Removed From Common Pleas to E.D. Pa.
CATHOLIC CHARITIES: Oates Sues Over Unpaid OT for Peer Advocates
CBY INVESTMENT: Pineda Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
CHRISTMAS TREE: Hibbert Suit Seeks to Recover Untimely Wage Pay
COLORADO: Ruiz Suit Seeks to Certify Parole Officer Collective
CONFI-CHEK INC: Eisenberg IRPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
CONSERVICE LLC: Clay Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTS: Rode Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
DANIEL LANZER: Cosmetic Surgery Victims Urged to Join Class Suit
DIAMOND RESPIRATORY: JKCI Losses Bid to Certify Class
DIOCESE OF AMOS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sexual Assaults
DOCUSIGN INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces New Class Action Over GNOG Acquisition
DXC TECH: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of KBC Securities Fraud Suit
EIGHTY SEVEN: Developer Faces Class Action Over Surfside Tragedy
ELECNORE HAWKEYE: Gatlin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
ELEMENTS PRODUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Elements Festival
FRESH HARVEST: Luevano-Vaca's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim Granted
GANNON FUNERAL: Website Not Blind-accessible, Calcano Claims
GOOGLE LLC: May Face Class Suit Over Pixel Mail-In Repair Service
HOME DEPOT: Appiahs Amended Bid for Class Certification Tossed
HORIZON FREIGHT: Settles Drivers' IC Class Action for $3 Million
HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Shaw Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Shareholders Sign Up to Participate in Suit
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Bid for Class Status Due March 18, 2022
IQIYI INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 31 Deadline
IQIYI INC: Rosen Law Reminds of January 31 Deadline
JACK IN THE BOX: Bid to Decertify Gessele's Deduction Class Denied
JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Faces Class Action Over Mass Layoff
JOHNSON UTILITIES: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
JPMORGAN CHASE: Falahi Seeks Return of Improperly Charged OD Fees
JUUL LABS: Consumers Seek Class Status in E-Cigarette Lawsuit
KEYSTONE LAW: Chaga Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
LA LIVE THEATRE: Ibarra Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Kahn Swick Reminds of January 18 Deadline
LOUISVILLE, KY: LDMC's Appeal in Inmates' Class Action Denied
MAJESTIC CARE: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Wright Suit
MAPLEWOOD, MO: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Webb Civil Rights Suit
MCDONALD'S CORP: Fails to Provide Paid Rest Breaks, Suit Says
MEDIA ALL STARS: Robinson-Moore Sues Over Unpaid Bonuses, Wages
META PLATFORMS: Faces Rohingya Class Action Over Myanmar Genocide
NATIONAL GRID: Court Grants Prelim OK of $38.5M TCPA Settlement
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks Dismissal of Youth Center Class Action Suits
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Suit Over Illegal Strip Searches by Police
NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Mulled Over Rikers Island Crisis
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Vaccine Mandates
OAK STREET: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Settles Class Action for $12.5 Million
OLE MEXICAN: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
ON24 INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of January 3 Deadline
ONIN STAFFING: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due February 25, 2022
OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Underpays Manufacturing Staff, Callier Says
OVH GROUPE: Twenty Customers Join Class Suit Over Fire Damages
OWLET INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of January 18 Deadline
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Faces Deulina Suit Over Share Price Drop
PEMBROKE GUN: Faces Hindi FTSA Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
PHILIPS NORTH: Recalled Breathing Machines Defective, Dusza Says
PHOENIX INSURANCE: Faces Insurance Class Action in Tel-Aviv Court
PIVOTAL INVESTMENT: Sidley Attorneys Discuss SPAC Class Action
PJ CHEESE: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 24 Deadline
POM GROUP: Faces Melendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Gamboa BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PROLOGIS INC: Faces Complaints Over Stench Caused by Chemicals
QUEST GROUP: Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
R. R. DONNELLEY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Securities Suit
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Seeks Dismissal of Tipping Class Action Suit
ROHR INC: Bid for Leave to File Morgan's 3rd Amended Suit Denied
ROMEO'S RETAIL: Settles Wage Class Action for $1.55 Million
SAN JUAN REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over 2020 Data Breach
SAN JUAN REGIONAL: Nearly 69,000 Affected in Alleged Data Breach
SHELTER MUTUAL: Ali Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
SOHO MASONS: Culala Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
SPACE EXPLORATION: Tavarez Seeks Blind's Access to Online Store
SPECULATIVE PRODUCT: Blind Can't Access Website, Tavarez Claims
STANDARD LITHIUM: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action Suit
STATE FARM: Baker Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
STROM ENGINEERING: Court OKs Joint Bid to Extend Briefing Sched
SYNGENTA AG: Doran Sues Over Injuries Sustained From Paraquat
T-MOBILE US: Five Data Breach Class Suit Consolidated in Missouri
T-MOBILE US: Vash Contract Suit Moved From N.D. Ga. to W.D. Mo.
T-MOBILE USA: Espanoza Consumer Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
TENCENT MUSIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline
TENET FINTECH: Robbins LLP Reminds of January 18 Deadline
THOMPSON CREEK: Bailey Appeals Defective Windows Suit Dismissal
TIMINY R/R: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Riley Suit Alleges
TMC RESTAURANT: Plummer Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liner Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
UNITED AIRLINES: Retirees Misled about VSL Program, Yustman Alleges
VAIL CORPORATION: Roberds Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
VAXART INC: Delaware Court Narrows Claims in Stockholder Suit
VOYETRA TURTLE: Tavarez Seeks Blind Customers' Equal Website Access
WOOD GROUP: Fails to Properly Pay Cement Inspectors, White Alleges
XTO ENERGY: Sanders Sues Over Inspection Specialists' Unpaid OT
ZOOM VIDEO: Likely to Pay $25 to Users as Part of Class Settlement
[*] Baker & Hostetler Attorney Discusses Various Insurance Suits
[*] Carlton Fields Attorney Discusses Various Insurance Suits
[*] Train Operators Can't Appeal $93MM Ticket Class Action Ruling
*********
2800 WALNUT: Underpays Fantasy Castle Dancers, Taylor Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMECIA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 2800 WALNUT, LLC dba FANTASY CASTLE; CHARLES
WESTLUND, JR.; DOE MANAGERS 1- 3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-01995 (C.D. Cal., December 7, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum
wage, unlawful taking of tips, illegal kickbacks, forced tip
sharing, failure to pay minimum, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to furnish accurate wage statements, waiting time
penalties, failure to indemnify business expenses, compelled
patronization of employer and/or other persons, and unfair
competition.
The Plaintiff worked as a dancer at Defendants' principal places of
business located at 2800 Walnut Avenue, Signal Hill, California.
2800 Walnut, LLC is an owner and operator of an adult-oriented
entertainment facility under the name Fantasy Castle, located at
2800 Walnut Avenue, Signal Hill, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
8827 W. Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 858-1063
E-mail: kristensen@cz.law
jmartinez@cz.law
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Jackson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-03959-RMG (D.S.C., December 7, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability,
defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical
monitoring trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable
Transactions Act and California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Sued Over Similac Misleading Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Roopal Luhana, writing for Legal Examiner, reports that an Illinois
woman has filed a new class-action lawsuit against Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., makers of Similac Pro-Advance baby formula. She
claims that the company is misleading consumers by stating that its
formula is "our closest formula to breastmilk," when it is not, in
fact, almost equivalent to breast milk.
She filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois and seeks to represent all persons in the
state of Illinois who purchased the product during the statutes of
limitations, as well as all persons in the states of North Dakota,
Rhode Island, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Wyoming, and Delaware who
did the same.
Meanwhile, infant formula manufacturers are facing other lawsuits
alleging that their formulas can increase the risk of necrotizing
enterocolitis (NEC) among premature infants.
Plaintiff Claims Abbott Makes Misleading Claims on Its Infant
Formula
According to the complaint, Abbott identifies its "Pro-Advance"
formula as being close to breast milk when it is not. The plaintiff
brings up these important facts:
The World Health Organization (WHO) and other child health
organizations state that breast milk is the gold standard for
infant feeding.
The WHO code on marketing breast milk substitutes prohibits claims
that idealize infant formula.
Breast milk contains many nutrients and other components that
cannot be manufactured and are not found in breast milk
substitutes.
Infant formula can be helpful for children whose mothers are unable
to breastfeed or produce enough milk. The marketing of infant
formula, however, sometimes goes too far, particularly when
manufacturers compare it to breast milk.
Specifically, the plaintiff notes that Abbott states on its label
that its formula contains lutein, vitamin E, DHA, and HMO (human
milk oligosaccharide), implying the inclusion of these components
can create a formula that approaches the benefits of breast milk.
The company also couples some of these ingredients with benefits --
like HMO with "immune support" -- to give the impression that HMO
strengthens the baby's immune system like breast milk does. The
plaintiff states that the company should have conducted appropriate
studies to substantiate such a claim.
She goes on to state, "The product's comparisons to breast milk
expressly and impliedly claim that it can confer the
structure/function benefits of breast milk. These claims are false,
deceptive, and misleading."
She goes on to note that these representations may dissuade some
moms from breastfeeding while leading them to believe that the
product is almost equivalent to breast milk when it isn't. Abbott
also succeeds in charging more for the product compared to other
infant formulas, "resulting in additional profits at the expense of
consumers."
Infant Formula Manufacturers Facing Lawsuits Concerning NEC
Abbott and other infant formula manufacturers face a growing number
of lawsuits filed by parents alleging that these formulas may
increase the risk of NEC, a dangerous bacterial disease that
attacks the intestines. While manufacturers have downplayed the
evidence connecting infant formula to NEC in premature infants,
scientific studies have continued to find evidence of a link.
In a 2017 study, for instance, scientists wrote, "Several studies
have indicated that bovine milk-based infant formulas lead to a
higher incidence of NEC in preterm infants than does human milk."
[GN]
ADECCO USA: Akin Gump Discusses 1st Cir. Ruling in Labor Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Knopp, Esq., Victor Salcedo, Esq., and Jonathan Slowik,
Esq., of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, report that on November 30, 2021, the California Court of
Appeal (First District) issued its decision in Moniz v. Adecco USA,
Inc., Case No. A159410, 2021 WL 5578298, which defines the standard
for courts to apply when reviewing settlements under the Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA). In a published decision, the Court of
Appeal held that the trial court must ensure that the settlement is
"fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to
remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to
maximize enforcement of state labor laws." Id. at *9.
In Moniz, the settling parties sought to release PAGA claims
alleging that the defendant violated the California Labor Code by
requiring employees to sign agreements that prohibited them from
disclosing their wages, benefits and related working conditions.
The trial court approved the settlement over the objection of a
plaintiff in a parallel PAGA action, and the objector appealed.
Labor Code Section 2699(l)(2) requires courts to "review and
approve" PAGA settlements, but does not define the standard of
review. Before Moniz, neither had any appellate court. Many federal
district courts had imported class action settlement approval
principles, demanding that PAGA settlements be "fair, reasonable,
and adequate," and weighing factors such as "the strength of the
plaintiff's case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the
complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the
settlement amount[.]" Id. at *8-9 (collecting cases). Observing
that "PAGA's purpose" is to "protect the public interest" --
especially the allegedly aggrieved employees -- the Court agreed
with this district court authority, concluding that much the same
principles that ensure fairness in class action settlements serve
the public interest in the PAGA context.
The Court also addressed the issue of whether the nonparty
plaintiff in the parallel PAGA action had standing to appeal -- an
issue about which a split of authority has emerged in recent
months. The Court found that "where two PAGA actions involve
overlapping PAGA claims and a settlement of one is purportedly
unfair," the plaintiff in the separate action "may seek to become a
party to the settling action and appeal the fairness of the
settlement as part of his or her role as an effective advocate for
the state." Id. at *6. This decision and Uribe v. Crown Building
Maintenance Co., 70 Cal. App. 5th 986 (2021) now comprise a 2-1
majority among the appellate cases to consider the issue, with
Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 69 Cal. App. 5th 955 (2021) now in the
minority. [GN]
AFFORDABLE AUTO: Reisman Suit Administratively Closed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELI REISMAN v. AFFORDABLE
AUTO PROTECTION, LLC, Case No. 21-cv-80889-ALTMAN/Reinhart (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order that:
1. The Reisman action is administratively closed without
prejudice to the parties. The parties shall file a
stipulation of dismissal by January 10, 2022.
2. If the parties fail to complete the expected settlement,
any party may ask the Court to reopen the case.
3. All pending deadlines and hearings are terminated, and any
pending motions are denied as moot.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31UWj8u at no extra charge.[CC]
AIR PROS: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Vetter Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT NICHOLAS VETTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIR PROS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-021522 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty.,
December 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for its
violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant placed telephone calls to
the Plaintiff's mobile telephone number in an attempt to promote
its products and services without prior express written consent. As
a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited telephone calls,
the Plaintiff have been harmed in the form of annoyance, nuisance,
and invasion of privacy.
Air Pros LLC is an air conditioning installer, repair and
preventive maintenance company based in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
- and –
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 Northwest 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
ALFI INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 31 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Dec. 6 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Alfi, Inc. ("Alfi" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ALF, ALFIW) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased Alfi common stock or warrants pursuant to the
Company's May 4, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") or securities
between May 4, 2021 and November 15, 2021. The Complaint alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Alfi provides interactive artificial intelligence and
machine learning software solutions.
According to the Complaint, on October 28, 2021, the Company
disclosed that the Company's Board of Directors ("Board") had
placed the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Technology
Officer, and Chief Financial Officer "on paid administrative leave
and authorized an independent internal investigation regarding
certain corporate transactions and other matters," and had
subsequently terminated its Chief Technology Officer. Then, on
November 1, 2021, the Company disclosed its Chair of the Audit
Committee had resigned from the Board and that its internal
investigation resulted from "the Company's purchase of a
condominium for a purchase price of approximately $1.1 million" and
"the Company's commitment to sponsor a sports tournament in the
amount of $640,000," both of which "were undertaken by the
Company's management without sufficient and appropriate
consultation with or approval by the Board."
On November 15, 2021, the Company disclosed it "received a letter
from the staff of the [SEC] indicating that the Company, its
affiliates and agents may possess documents and data relevant to an
ongoing investigation being conducted by the staff of the SEC."
Further, the Company should preserve documents that "relate or
refer to the condominium or the sports tournament sponsorship
identified in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
November 1, 2021, or financial reporting and disclosure controls,
policies or procedures."
Finally, on November 16, 2021, the Company filed a notice of its
inability to timely file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the
SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2021. The stock now trades
at just around $3.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Alfi during
the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the January 31,
2022 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
ALFI INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of January 31 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, on Dec. 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Alfi, Inc. ("Alfi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALF, ALFIW):
(a) common stock or warrants pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's May
2021 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b)
securities between May 4, 2021 and November 15, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Alfi investors have until January 31, 2022 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your Alfi investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/alfi-inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.
On or about May 4, 2021, Alfi conducted its IPO, selling
approximately 3.7 million shares of common stock and 3.7 million
warrants at $4.15 per both share and warrant.
On October 28, 2021, Alfi revealed that its Board of Directors had
placed the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, its
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and its Chief Technology
Officer "on administrative leave [pending] an independent internal
investigation regarding certain corporate transactions and other
matters." It also stated that on October 28, 2021, Alfi terminated
the CTO's employment.
On this news, Alfi's stock price fell $1.18, or 22%, to close at
$4.42 per share on October 29, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
On November 1, 2021, Alfi disclosed that the Chair of its Audit
Committee resigned. The Company also stated that its internal
investigation was into "the Company's purchase of a condominium for
a purchase price of approximately $1.1 million" and the "Company's
commitment to sponsor a sports tournament in the amount of
$640,000," both of which "were undertaken by the Company's
management without sufficient and appropriate consultation with or
approval by the Board."
On November 15, 2021, Alfi stated that it "received a letter form
the staff of the [SEC] indicating that the Company, its affiliates
and agents may possess documents and data relevant to an ongoing
investigation being conducted by the staff of the SEC."
On November 16, 2021, Alfi stated that it could not timely file its
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2021.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.24, or 5%, to close
at $4.37 per share on November 16, 2021.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Alfi maintained deficient
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Company and its
employees could and did engage in corporate transactions and other
matters without sufficient and appropriate consultation with or
approval by the Company's Board of Directors; (iii) all the
foregoing increased the risk of internal and regulatory
investigations into the Company and its employees; (iv) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative
impact on the Company's reputation, financial condition, and
ability to timely file periodic reports with the SEC; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Alfi securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO and/or during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than January 31, 2022 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
ALFI INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 31 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 6
disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of: (a) Alfi, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ALF; ALFIW) common stock or warrants pursuant and/or traceable to
the offering documents issued in connection with Alfi's initial
public offering conducted on or about May 4, 2021 (the "IPO");
and/or (b) Alfi securities between May 4, 2021 and November 15,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until January 31, 2022 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Steppacher v. Alfi, Inc., No.
21-cv-24232 (S.D. Fla.). Commenced on December 2, 2021, the Alfi
class action lawsuit charges Alfi as well as certain of its
executives and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and/or Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Alfi class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Alfi class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than January 31, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Alfi provides interactive artificial intelligence
and machine learning software solutions. Pursuant to the IPO's
offering documents, Alfi sold approximately 3.7 million shares of
common stock and approximately 3.7 million warrants to the public
at the IPO price of $4.15 per both share and warrant for
approximate proceeds to Alfi of $14 million after applicable
underwriting discounts and commissions, and before expenses.
The Alfi class action lawsuit alleges that the offering documents
and defendants throughout the Class Period made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Alfi
maintained deficient disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, Alfi
and its employees could and did engage in corporate transactions
and other matters without sufficient and appropriate consultation
with or approval by Alfi's Board of Directors; (iii) the foregoing
increased the risk of internal and regulatory investigations into
Alfi and its employees; (iv) the foregoing, once revealed, was
likely to have a material negative impact on Alfi's reputation,
financial condition, and ability to timely file periodic reports
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"); and
(v) as a result, Alfi's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On October 28, 2021, Alfi disclosed that, on October 22, 2021, its
Board had placed defendant Paul Antonio Pereira (Alfi's CEO),
Charles Raglan Pereira (Alfi's CTO), and defendant Dennis McIntosh
(Alfi's CFO) "on paid administrative leave and authorized an
independent internal investigation regarding certain corporate
transactions and other matters." Alfi further disclosed, among
other changes, that on October 22, 2021, its Board had appointed a
new interim CEO and Chairman of the Board, and that "[o]n October
28, 2021, Mr. C. Pereira's employment with the Company was
terminated." On this news, Alfi's stock price fell nearly 22%.
On November 1, 2021, Alfi disclosed, among other matters, that
Alfi's Chair of the Audit Committee had resigned from the Board,
and detailed "the Company's purchase of a condominium for a
purchase price of approximately $1.1 million" and "the Company's
commitment to sponsor a sports tournament in the amount of
$640,000," both of which "were undertaken by the Company's
management without sufficient and appropriate consultation with or
approval by the Board."
Then, on November 15, 2021, Alfi disclosed that it "received a
letter from the staff of the [SEC] indicating that the Company, its
affiliates and agents may possess documents and data relevant to an
ongoing investigation being conducted by the staff of the SEC" and
"that such documents and data should be reasonably preserved and
retained until further notice."
Finally, on November 16, 2021, Alfi filed a notice of its inability
to timely file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for
the quarter ended September 30, 2021. That filing cited, among
other things, "recent changes in the Company's [CEO] and [CFO] and
in the Chair of the Audit Committee" of the Board, as well as
needing "a new independent registered public accounting firm," as
reasons for the Company's inability to timely file the quarterly
report. Following these disclosures, Alfi's stock price fell by
more than 5%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased: (a) Alfi
common stock or warrants pursuant and/or traceable to the offering
documents issued in connection with Alfi's IPO; and/or (b) Alfi
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Alfi class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Alfi class action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the Alfi class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the Alfi class action lawsuit is
not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron
Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion
for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by
any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw [GN]
ALLIANCE GROUND: Faces Lakrab Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAAFET LAKRAB and SANDRA MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLIANCE GROUND
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV44469 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 7, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
owed, failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to authorize
and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from
employment, unlawful deductions, knowing and intentional failure to
comply with itemized wage statement provisions, failure to keep
accurate records, and failure to properly pay sick leave.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees in California.
Alliance Ground International, LLC is a provider of airline cargo
handling services, with its principal place of business located at
9130 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1801, Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
AMEDISYS HOLDING: Joint Bid to Extend Response Deadline Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADVANCED REHAB AND
MEDICAL, P.C., a Tennessee corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v.
AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C., a Louisiana limited liability company,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01149-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff and
Defendant ask the Court to enter an order extending the current
deadline for the Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's motion to
decertify the class to January 7, 2022, and give leave to Defendant
to file a reply.
On December 3, 2021, the Defendant filed its Motion to Decertify
the Class. The Plaintiff's deadline to respond is currently
December 17, 2021. The Plaintiff requests a 21-day extension to
January 7, 2022 to file its response.
Amedisys provides home health, hospice and personal care.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pPXcaE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
rkelly@andersonwanca.com
- and -
Benjamin C. Aaron, Esq.
Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
NEAL AND HARWELL, PLC
1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-1713
Facsimile: (615) 726-0573
E-mail: baaron@nealharwell.com
cbarrett@nealharwell.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin C. Baltz, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW LLP
150 Third Avenue, South -- Suite 1600
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 651-6700
Facsimile: (615) 651-6701
E-mail: kevin.baltz@butlersnow.com
AMERICAN BUSINESS: Xue Ying Wen Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Xue Ying Wen, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled XUE WEN, CUI LIANG,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED
WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY AMERICAN BUSINESS INSTITUTE CORP., ALONG WITH
OTHER ENTITIES AFFILIATED OR CONTROLLED BY AMERICAN BUSINESS
INSTITUTE CORP., Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN BUSINESS INSTITUTE CORP.
AND/OR ANY OTHER RELATED ENTITIES, Defendants, Case No.
156533/2018, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County.
In this putative class action for unpaid wages purportedly owed to
personal home health care providers employed by defendant American
Business Institute Corp. from June 2012 to the present, defendants
move, pre-answer, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(1) on the grounds that the two identified class
representatives, named plaintiffs Xue Wen and Cui Liang, each
signed an arbitration agreement, including a class action waiver.
The defendants also move, in the alternative, pursuant to N.Y. CPLR
7503(a) to compel arbitration and to stay the action pending
arbitration. The plaintiffs oppose the motion. The branch of the
defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) is
denied, and the branch of the defendants' motion seeking, in the
alternative, to compel arbitration and stay this action pending
arbitration is granted.
The plaintiffs do not dispute that they signed an agreement when
they were hired by the defendants as health care workers. Instead,
they argue that they were unaware of the arbitration and waiver
provisions which included a class action waiver when they signed
the agreement. In their affidavits, they aver that they do not
speak English but only Mandarin and Cantonese. They further aver
that the defendants were fully aware of this as the trainings they
attended, all organized and conducted by the defendants, were
conducted in Cantonese and Mandarin, and the patients they were
assigned to care for only spoke Cantonese and Mandarin. Although
the plaintiffs oppose the defendants' motion, they agree with the
defendant that should arbitration be compelled; the underlying
action should be stayed. They also argue that should the case be
dismissed then a notice to all putative class members pursuant to
CPLR 908 should be issued.
The appellate case is captioned as XUE YING WEN et al vs. AMERICAN
BUSINESS INSTITUTE CORP. and/or any other related entities, Case
No. 2021-04469, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on December 2,
2021.[BN]
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Sunroofs, Moonroofs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Barnabi, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit against Honda alleges a manufacturing defect in
sunroofs and moonroofs of the 2015 to 2020 Honda and Acura
vehicles.
Mary Tappana of Webb City, Mo., Darryl Roberts of Tacoma, Wash.,
and Dustin Fulcomer of Riverview, Fla., filed against American
Honda Motor Co. Inc. on Nov. 18 alleging sunroofs and moonroofs in
their vehicles "are prone to suddenly explode," court documents
state. The case will be judged in the central district of
California where American Honda is headquartered.
Sometime around October 16, 2021, court documents state, with
approximately 14,600 miles on the odometer, Tappana was driving her
2021 Honda Pilot when she heard "a loud booming sound and quickly
realized that the sunroof on her vehicle had spontaneously
exploded." The explosion distracted Tappana, the lawsuit alleges,
putting her and others on the road at risk. While still under
warranty, Honda would not cover the $579 cost to replace the
sunroof.
At approximately 69,000 miles, around Oct. 27, 2021, Roberts was
driving his 2017 Honda Accord when he heard "a loud exploding
sound." The explosion of Roberts' sunroof also distracted him from
driving "and exposed him to the risk of a collision." Honda refused
to pay the $579 for a replacement sunroof.
On or about Dec. 10, 2020, with approximately 300 miles on the
odometer of his 2019 Acura TLX, Fulcomer was driving when his
sunroof exploded, distracted him from driving and exposed him to
the risk of a collision. Under a three-year warranty, Maus Honda
dealership refused to pay $1,300 to replace the sunroof.
"The Sunroof Defect creates serious danger for Vehicle occupants
and others on the road. Drivers of Class Vehicles have reported
sunroof explosions causing shards of glass to fly through their
vehicles, sometimes while driving at high speeds. The loud
explosion and flying glass distract drivers and create a hazard to
the people in the Class Vehicles and those around them," the
lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit further alleges that Honda has refused to remedy the
defect and related damage. "Honda's representatives often have
suggested to consumers that their sunroofs were damaged by a flying
object such as a rock or gravel," court documents state. However,
the defect occurs even when the glass is not exposed to an airborne
object.
"Honda's use of thin, tempered glass to manufacture Sunroofs is
substandard, dangerous, and inadequate because of the heightened
risk of explosion from this material. Contaminants, such as nickel
sulphide, within tempered glass render it vulnerable to shattering.
Nickel sulphide crystals can change shape or size over time due to
factors like changes in temperature. The unstable nickel sulphide
deposit embedded within the glass stresses the panel and can
eventually cause an explosion," court documents state.
Documents also state Honda has been aware of the sunroof defect
since 1995 when complaints began to be filed with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
One hundred or more class members have been identified as affected
by the defect. [GN]
APPLE INC: Class Action Lawsuit Over App Store Monopoly Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
marketresearchtelecast.com reports that a US class action lawsuit
by several developers who wanted to break Apple's "app store
monopoly" failed in the first instance. The plaintiffs were not
able to define the relevant market and could not claim any damage
from Apple’s alleged competition violations, the judge explains
in the judgment (Coronavirus Reporter vs. Apple, file number 3:
21-cv-05567, United States District Court, Northern District of
California). He thereby agreed to Apple’s motion to dismiss all
counts, and an injunction against Apple demanded by the plaintiffs
was also dismissed.
Plaintiffs wanted $ 200 billion
The developers had accused Apple of violating competition law with
its decision-making power over iOS apps. By selecting and
"censoring" apps for sale through the App Store, Apple is abusing
its market power. Every iPhone customer must have free access to
apps in order to enjoy "unlimited use of the smartphone", according
to the plaintiffs.
They demanded damages amounting to 200 billion US dollars and an
injunction prohibiting Apple from denying developers access to
smartphone users (the lawsuit literally reads "smartphone enhance
Internet userbase").
Richter does not see a clear market definition
The lawsuit brings up fifteen different relevant markets for the
antitrust allegations against Apple, including a market for
"institutional iOS apps", the "smartphone market", the market for
"smartphone enhanced national internet access devices", a "national
smartphone app" Distribution market "or a" market for Covid
startups ", as the judge meticulously lists. There is no clear
definition of the relevant market.
The main plaintiff "Coronavirus Reporter" saw the rejection of his
coronavirus app in spring 2020 as inadmissible. At this point in
time, Apple had already started to allow only Corona apps from
"recognized institutions" to be in the App Store. The plaintiffs
also include the providers of the "Bitcoin Lottery" app, which was
also rejected, as well as developers of other apps who apparently
had problems with Apple’s testing process. They also accused
Apple of placing apps lower in search results. The plaintiffs have
announced that they will appeal. [GN]
ARAMARK SERVICES: Ct. Enters Initial Case Management Sched Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIARA BILLUPS-LARKIN, v.
ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-06852-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an initial case management
scheduling order as follows:
1. Alternative Dispute Resolution
Mediation. The parties will seek to engage in private
mediation within the next 150 days.
2. Amending the Pleadings
The deadline to amend the pleadings without seeking leave
from the Court shall be March 25, 2022.
3. Discovery
Discovery shall be limited as follows: (a) 10 non-expert
depositions per party; (b) 25 interrogatories per party,
including all discrete subparts; (c) a reasonable number of
requests for production of documents or for inspection per
party; and (d) a reasonable number 2 requests for admission
per party.
4. Discovery Disputes
Discovery disputes will be referred to a Magistrate Judge.
After the parties have met and conferred, the parties shall
prepare a joint letter of not more than 5 pages explaining
the dispute.
5. Class Certification
a. The parties will discuss a stipulated, expanded briefing
schedule, with all briefing completed at least two weeks
before a hearing.
b. Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be
heard on March 9, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.
6. Class Action Settlements
In putative class actions, prior to submitting any motion
for approval of a class settlement, the parties shall
review the guidelines at
http://cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance
and tailor the motion appropriately.
7. Pretrial Motions
All dispositive pretrial motions must be filed and served
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pTE4sd at no extra charge.[CC]
ARCHON CORP: March 14 Proposed Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
In re Archon Preferred Stock Class Action
Case No.: A-15-712113-B
DEPT. XIII
Hon. Mark R. Denton
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT
HEARING, AND RIGHT TO OBJECT, OPT OUT, AND APPEAR AT HEARING
This notice is for all shareholders that held Archon Corporation
("Archon") Exchangeable Redeemable Preferred Stock as of the close
of business on August 31, 2007.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of Nevada Rules of
Civil Procedure and an Order of the District Court of Clark County,
Nevada, that the Class Representative, Dan Raider on behalf of
himself and all members of the Class, and Archon Corporation, Paul
Lowden and Suzanne Lowden (collectively "Defendants"), have reached
a proposed settlement in the above-captioned class action (the
"Action") in the amount of $9,200,000 (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Mark R. Denton, on
March 14, 2022 at 9:00 A.M.in the Regional Justice Center, 200
Lewis Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (the "Settlement Hearing")
to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i)
approve the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions
provided for in the Settlement Agreement Term Sheet as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) to enter a final order approving the
Settlement and dismissing this action with prejudice against
Defendants; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for the
proceeds of the Settlement; (iv) approve the application of
Plaintiff's Counsel for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
litigation expenses, notice, and claims administration expenses;
(v) approve the Class Representative's incentive award; and (vi) to
consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the
Court in connection with the Settlement. The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically or via
videoconference, without providing further notice. You do NOT need
to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the
Settlement.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT. A full Notice and Claim Form can be obtained by visiting
the Settlement website, www.ArchonPreferredClassAction.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:
Raider v. Archon Corporation, et al.
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91332
Seattle, WA 98111
info@ArchonPreferredClassAction.com
1-888-551-9712
Settlement Website: www.ArchonPreferredClassaction.com
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to qualify for a
payment, you must submit a Claim Form and appropriate income tax
withholding form, so that it is received by the Claims
Administrator no later than March 19, 2022. If you are a class
member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form and appropriate
tax withholding form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than January 18, 2022. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, application of
Plaintiff's Counsel for attorneys' fees, and/or the proposed Plan
of Allocation must be filed with the Court, by mail, and be mailed
to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in
the Notice, such that they are received no later than January 18,
2022.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to attend the
Settlement Hearing and request to speak in Court, you must file a
Notice of Appearance so that it is received no later than January
18, 2022.
For any questions, visit www.ArchonPreferredClassaction.com or call
toll-free at 1-888-551-9712.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA [GN]
AURORA CANNABIS: Seeks Dismissal of Sham Transaction Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Jarvis, writing for Law360, reports that Canadian cannabis
giant Aurora has asked a New Jersey federal court to nix revised
claims from a proposed class of investors over a purported sham
transaction, claiming the most recent complaint "a desperate
attempt to revive their previously dismissed claims. [GN]
BACARDI USA: Averts Class Action Over Bombay Sapphire Gin
---------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi, writing for Forbes, reports that if you enjoy a
cocktail this holiday season, you might grab for a bottle of Bombay
Sapphire Gin for your gin and tonic or Tom Collins. While enjoying
your drink, you might detect a hint of pepper. Upon inspecting the
bottle, you'll learn that the gin includes a peppery spice called
"grains of paradise." You might wonder what that is and ask Google
or Siri. What you are not likely to think, however, is that what
you are drinking is illegal.
That is, unless you're a Florida attorney with unusual knowledge of
the state's alcohol laws. One such law, vintage 1868, declares the
sale of alcohol "adulterated" with grains of paradise to be a
third-degree felony. Read about the law's backstory here. In 2019,
a Florida attorney purchased Bombay Sapphire and filed a
class-action lawsuit against Bacardi U.S.A. and Winn-Dixie
Supermarkets.
The litigation, which reached its probable conclusion on November
8, 2021 with an Eleventh Circuit decision (Marrache v. Bacardi
U.S.A.), highlights an interesting clash between state and federal
regulation of products meant for human consumption. While the court
rejected defendants' federal-preemption defense, it ruled for
Bacardi and Winn Dixie on an alternative ground, one that
alcoholic-beverage companies frequently rely upon in consumer-fraud
lawsuits.
Plaintiff's Claim and District Court Ruling
Mr. Marrache couldn't enforce the 1868 Florida law directly, so he
sued under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA) on behalf of a class of Florida residents who purchased
and consumed Bombay Sapphire. Marrache alleged that the presence of
the spice violated the adulteration law, which in turn rendered the
gin unlawful and financially worthless—an "unconscionable act"
under FDUTPA.
The Southern District of Florida dismissed Marrache's suit with
prejudice. The court agreed with Bacardi's argument that the 1868
law stood as an obstacle to the federal Food Additives Amendment
of 1958, which grant FDA authority to monitor and control the
introduction of food additives into interstate commerce. The court
reasoned that Florida law "frustrates the purposes and objectives
of the FFDCA and its implementing FDA regulations, which establish
that grains of paradise is generally regarded as safe [GRAS]."
Same Result, Different Grounds at the Eleventh Circuit
On appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, Bacardi and Winn-Dixie urged
the appeals court to affirm the lower court's preemption holding.
The case attracted the attention of four food-nanny activist group,
which filed an amicus brief arguing that a federal law should not
preempt a more protective state food-safety law. The court not only
accepted the brief, but also granted the groups' request to
participate in oral argument.
The activists successfully convinced the three-judge panel to
reject the lower court's preemption holding. The court held that
the Florida law did not conflict with the Food Additives Amendment
for two reasons. First, although it would "undoubtedly be
inconvenient," Bacardi could sell Bombay Gin in Florida without
grains of paradise. Second, when assessing the federal law's
purpose, the district court improperly looked beyond the statute's
plain meaning. Congress stated the Food Additives Amendment's
purpose clearly in the text, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned—to
"prohibit unsafe food additives from being in food and alcohol."
That purpose, the court held, does not conflict with the goal of
the Florida law even though FDA determined the spice to be GRAS.
The preemption holding did not resolve the case, however. The
Eleventh Circuit reached back to an argument the defendants made
only at the district court to affirm the lower court's dismissal
with prejudice. Under Florida law, FDUTPA "does not apply to
‘[a]n act or practice required or specifically permitted by
federal or state law.' Beer and distilled-spirits producers have
relied upon such safe harbors when moving to dismiss
labelling-fraud lawsuits, arguing that federal label approval bars
state-law claims. Some courts have held that federal "Certificates
of Label Approval" block fraud claims while others have concluded
such regulatory action does not carry the force of law.
The Eleventh Circuit didn't need to pick a side on the legal effect
of federal-label approval in Marrache. FDA's specific regulatory
GRAS designation for grains of paradise permitted the spice's
inclusion in Bombay Gin, and thus the FDUTPA safe harbor barred
Marrache's claims.
The Correct Outcome, But . . ..
Marrache ends one plaintiffs' lawyer's mischievous reliance on an
anomalous Florida law to seek yet another no-injury class action.
But the way the Eleventh Circuit reached the right result left a
slightly sour aftertaste. The three-judge panel seemingly went out
of its way to hand the Food Court bar and its activist allies a
victory on preemption. The oral-argument time it granted Center for
Science in the Public Interest and its three co-amici is not a
common occurrence in circuit courts.
A clear conflict existed between a state law that prohibited an
ingredient's use and a federal law that specifically permitted it.
The federal law sets uniform standards for food-ingredient safety.
If courts allow state-law claims like Marrache's to proceed,
different standards for ingredients will proliferate, impeding
commerce and inspiring more dubious lawsuits. It is no answer for
courts to reason, as the Eleventh Circuit did, that producers can
comply with both state and federal law by creating state-specific
products. That "solution" means higher prices or fewer competing
products, outcomes that neither benefit consumers nor grow a
national marketplace. [GN]
BANNER LIFE: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Insurance reports that on November 30, 2021, the California
insurance law firm Gianelli & Morris filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging Banner Life has acted unlawfully in allowing a life
insurance policy to lapse without first complying with California
legal requirements designed to protect policyholders.
The class action complaint seeks damages for breach of contract and
violation of the Unfair Competition Act, plus declaratory relief.
The case is Aphrodite Tina Weinstein-Nernberg v. Banner Life
Insurance Company (case no. 2:21-cv-9270).
As detailed in the plaintiff's complaint filed with the court, the
case concerns a life insurance policy issued to the plaintiff's
husband in 1998. A premium payment was missed in November 2020, and
when the plaintiff notified the insurance company of her husband's
death in March 2021, she was told that the policy had lapsed due to
nonpayment and was not in effect to cover her loss.
The complaint alleges that Banner Life violated sections 10113.71
and 10113.72 of the California Insurance Code when it terminated
the policy for nonpayment of premium. The laws provide the
following requirements for all life insurance policies issued in
the State of California:
1) The policy must contain a grace period of not less than 60 days
from the premium due date to allow policyholders to make up a
missed payment. The policy is to remain in force during the grace
period.
2) An applicant must be given the right to designate at least one
person in addition to the applicant to receive notice of a lapse or
termination for nonpayment. The insurer must provide a form for the
applicant to make such a designation and must notify policyholders
annually of their right to change their designation or designate
one or more persons to receive notice. The notice of termination
for nonpayment must be mailed within 30 days of the premium due
date.
3) A notice of pending lapse and termination is not effective
unless it is mailed to the named policy owner, designee and known
assignee or other person having an interest, at least 30 days prior
to the effective date of termination for nonpayment of premium.
Although the laws were passed in 2013 and the plaintiff's policy
was issued in 1998, the complaint cites a recent California Supreme
Court case (McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance Company (2021) 12
Cal.5th 213) that held the laws apply to life insurance policies
issued before 2013.
The complaint also cites a recent decision from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that states "[a]n insurer's
failure to comply with these statutory requirements means that the
policy cannot lapse." Thomas v. State Farm Life Insurance Company
(9th Cir., Oct. 6, 2021, No. 20-55231)
The complaint further cites the official legislative analysis of
the law when it was introduced in the 2011-2012 legislative session
of the California Assembly as AB 1747. This analysis describes the
purpose of the legislation as follows:
"According to the author, the bill provides consumer safeguards
from which people who have purchased life insurance coverage,
especially seniors, would benefit. Under existing law, individuals
can easily lose the critical protection of life insurance if a
single premium is accidentally missed (even if they have been
paying premiums on time for many years). If an insured individual
loses coverage and wants it reinstated, he or she may have to
undergo a new physical exam and be underwritten again, risking a
significantly more expensive, possibly unaffordable premium if his
or her health has changed in the years since purchasing the policy.
Therefore, the protections provided by this bill are intended to
make sure that policyholders have sufficient warning that their
premium may lapse due to nonpayment."
The plaintiff's complaint alleges that since the passage of the law
in 2013, Banner Life has not provided the required 60-day grace
period and has not mailed a notice of termination within 30 days of
the premium due date and at least 30 days before the termination
date as required by law. Instead, the complaint details that Banner
Life has applied a 31-day grace period and has failed to follow the
required notice periods.
Rob Gianelli, lead attorney for plaintiffs in the class-action
lawsuit, said that Banner Life's illegal acts impacted the
plaintiff and all other California policyholders who had a policy
lapse: "Mr. Nernberg paid all the annual premiums due under his
policy from November 1998 through November 2019. When he missed his
November 2020 payment due to ill health, Banner Life applied the
wrong grace period, failed to give the required notice, and
canceled his policy in violation of California law, leaving his
widow with nothing after he had dutifully paid the insurance
company for more than 20 years. It committed these illegal acts on
Mr. Nernberg's policy and the policies of all other California
policyholders whose policies were canceled for nonpayment of
premium." [GN]
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Benzene-Based Lotion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Maas, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that following
the recent discovery that certain aerosol sunscreen is contaminated
with benzene, a class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayer
Healthcare, seeking reimbursement for consumers who paid a premium
price for Coppertone Water Babies (SPF 50), which may have exposed
users to a risk of cancer.
A massive Coppertone sunscreen recall was announced on September
30, after routine sample testing confirmed the presence of
potentially unsafe levels of benzene, which is a known human
carcinogen that has been linked to several forms of leukemia,
lymphoma and other cancers.
In a complaint (PDF) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on November 23, plaintiff Barbara
Truss seeks class action status to pursue damages for herself and
other similarly situated consumers who purchased Coppertone Water
Babies, believing it was safe for its intended use and free from
defects. However, the lawsuit indicates that the aerosol sunscreen
cans were designed with octocrylene, which is a chemical ingredient
known to degrade over time, resulting in the accumulation of
benzophenone, which is a mutagen, carcinogen, and endocrine
disruptor.
Despite the knowledge of octocrylene benzene risks, the Coppertone
Water Babies class action indicates that Bayer designed the aerosol
sunscreen with 9% octocrylene, leaving consumers at risk of a "wide
range of toxicities, including genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and
endocrine disruption," according to the complaint.
The lawsuit further states the manufacturer failed to properly
screen its final products for harmful toxins and contaminants.
Sunscreen Benzene Contamination Problems
Benzene is an industrial chemical that has been associated with the
development of several fatal forms of cancer, leukemia and other
conditions, such as AML, Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML), Acute
Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL),
Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL), Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Multiple
Myeloma, Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDL), Myelofibrosis and Myeloid
Metaplasia, Aplastic Anemia and Thrombocytopenic Purpura.
Long-term side effects of benzene exposure have been proven to
cause anemia, which is a condition that develops when your blood
lacks enough healthy red blood cells or hemoglobin. Essentially,
the chemical causes bone marrow not to produce enough red blood
cells, which can damage an individual's immune system. Federal
regulators have determined long-term exposure to benzene can
significantly impact blood cells, to the extent it causes cancer
such as leukemia, a cancer of the blood-forming organs.
The lawsuit joins a growing number of sunscreen cancer lawsuits
filed over the last several months following a report issued by the
independent testing pharmacy Valisure, which uncovered that various
aerosol sunscreen products on the market in the U.S. contain high
levels of benzene, including Coppertone, Neutrogena, Aveeno and
other widely used brands.
Johnson & Johnson issued a Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreen spray
recall in July 2021, after it also confirmed that benzene was
present in it's products, and the company faced a number of similar
class action complaints, each raising allegations that Johnson &
Johnson endangered consumers' health by not warning them of the
presence of benzene in brands of Neutrogena and Aveeno spray
sunscreen, which could increase their risk of cancer.
In late October, Johnson & Johnson and Costco announced they had
reached a settlement agreement to resolve the cases. However, the
details of the sunscreen settlement agreement have not yet been
revealed and the deal has not been finalized. [GN]
BEND MEMORIAL: Court Extends Discovery & PTO Dates in Fulkerson
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fulkerson, et al., v. Bend
Memorial Clinic, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-01579 (D. Or.), the Hon.
Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order granting motion for extension
of Discovery & PTO Deadlines as follows:
-- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution January 10, 2022
Report is due by:
-- Pretrial Order is due by: January 10, 2022
-- Class certification discovery March 16, 2022
shall be completed by:
-- Expert reports as to class March 30, 2022
certification are due by:
-- Depositions of class March 2, 2022
certification experts
shall be completed by:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class June 15, 2022
Certification/Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment
shall be filed by:
-- Defendants' Memorandum in July 20, 2022
Opposition to Class
Certification/Plaintiffs'
Memorandum in Opposition to
Summary Judgment shall be
filed by:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum Aug. 7, 2022
in support of class
certification/Defendants'
Reply to Motion for Summary
Judgment shall be filed by:
-- Non-dispositive motions, Sept. 28, 2022
excluding trial and trial
related motions shall be
filed by:
-- Dispositive Motions are Nov. 14, 2022
due by:
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.[CC]
BLOOMFIELD HILLS: Faces Class Suit Over Racist Bullying Incidents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Chavez, writing for CNN, reports that some Black students
are being told they stink while others are being called monkeys by
their White peers. The n-word has been written on the walls of
school restrooms as other students are the targets of racist rants
on social media.
Students of color are facing racial slurs and bullying in and
outside the classroom, and many who are fed up have been walking
out of class, speaking at board meetings and even suing school
districts.
In Minnesota, a 14-year-old Black girl spoke in front of a crowd to
condemn a video widely shared online that she said encouraged her
to take her own life. Meanwhile, a community in Utah is
scrutinizing a school district after the family of a Black and
autistic student said she was bullied by classmates before dying by
suicide.
As some lawmakers and parents attempt to limit teachings about
racism and schools' diversity and inclusion efforts are met with
protests, numerous reports of racist bullying have recently
surfaced in classrooms from coast to coast.
"It's everywhere, it's not a new thing. This isn't something that
is just now happening. It's just now getting attention, more than
it has (gotten) before," Sean Sorkoram, a high school student in
Tigard, Oregon, who was part of a walkout on Dec. 1, told CNN
affiliate KPTV.
Students at Tigard High School staged the walkout in protest of a
video posted on social media that appears to show students using
racial slurs. In October, the Tigard-Tualatin School District said
reports of hate speech incidents were rising in its schools.
"Students are reporting that they have been the victim of hate
speech or observed firsthand hate incidents happening in our
buildings," Superintendent Sue Rieke-Smith wrote in a message to
parents.
In a new report released, the Government Accountability Office
estimated that 5.2 million students aged 12 to 18 were bullied in
the 2018-2019 school year and one in four of them experienced
bullying related to their race, national origin, religion,
disability, gender or sexual orientation.
In the same school year, the report says, there were 1.6 million
students who were subjected to hate speech due to their identity.
Among those incidents, half targeted students' race and 24% related
to their national origin.
The agency found that while students experience a range of hostile
behaviors, hate is widespread in schools. More than 1,500 schools
reported having at least one hate crime occur and about 5.8 million
students said they saw hate words or symbols written at schools.
That included anti-Semitic slurs, references to lynching, the
Holocaust, and anti-immigrant rhetoric, the report indicates.
Students are protesting and seeking legal action
Dozens of students attended protests and solidarity events in
Minnesota last month after a racist video was shared widely on
social media. In that video, a young girl is seen spewing hateful,
racist slurs toward a Black high school student, encouraging her to
take her own life.
Nya Sigin, a 14-year-old student at Prior Lake High School, told
CNN last month that she was the target of the video, which is now
being investigated by police in Savage, Minnesota. The
investigation was launched after the girl's older sister and
multiple students from several schools reported it to school
officials.
Savage Police Chief Rodney Seurer has described the video as a
horrific, hateful and racist, saying such behavior won't be
tolerated in the city.
Chioma Osuoha, a student activist who led a solidarity event with
the girl and students who have been victims of racial incidents,
told CNN her "heart dropped" and she was "so angry" when she first
watched the video. It led her to start working to bring attention
to the video and she contacted the girl.
Since the video began drawing local and national attention, there
has been an outpouring of support from students and community
members outraged by the video, something that Osuoha says shows
that many people are willing to have discussions about race and
learn how to become allies.
"The power is in the people, we must do things in numbers and (I)
believe that's exactly what happened," Osuoha, 18, said.
In Michigan, the parents of a 15-year-old Black student filed a
$150 million class-action federal lawsuit against school officials
on her behalf days after several students protested over their
school district's response to racist messages being plastered on
school walls.
The lawsuit, filed last month in US District Court, argues Black
students and their parents "have experienced racist, unfair,
hurtful, and at times dangerous interactions" at Bloomfield Hills
High School by both White staff and students. District officials,
the lawsuit argues, have failed to take steps to stop racial
discrimination.
In a statement, the Bloomfield Hills Schools district declined to
comment on "the specifics of pending litigation."
"Most importantly, irrespective of any legal filings, the topic of
equity and inclusion will continue to be a top priority for
Bloomfield Hills Schools, as it has for the past several years. The
district will emerge stronger and better as a result of these
conversations, undeterred from its commitment to all students and
facilitate a school environment of safety and support for every
student," the statement said.
How racism takes a toll on students' mental health
In recent weeks, the death of a 10-year-old Black and autistic
student in Utah prompted more scrutiny for a school district that
was already investigated by the Justice Department. It also became
a stark reminder of the toll that bullying can take on students'
mental health.
The parents of Isabella "Izzy" Tichenor said she was being bullied
by classmates. Some told her she stank and they used the n-word,
the family's attorney Tyler Ayres told CNN last month. The parents
reported the bullying to multiple school officials at Foxboro
Elementary in Farmington, Utah, but they felt like nothing was
done, Ayres said.
Izzy's death by suicide on November 6 left her community shocked
and led the Davis School District to launch an independent
investigation that remains ongoing. The girl's death came weeks
after the Justice Department detailed a disturbing pattern where
Black and Asian American students at the Davis School District were
harassed for years, and officials deliberately ignored complaints
from parents and students.
The district pledged to hire a more diverse staff and appointed a
new assistant superintendent who will be working on diversity and
equity issues and the district's recent settlement with the DOJ.
A spokesman for the district declined to provide further comment
about how school officials are handling the recent controversies
linked to racial tensions.
A study released last month found that young adults who experience
discrimination about their bodies, race, age or sex have a greater
risk of dealing with mental health problems than those who do not.
Those who faced discrimination frequently -- at least a few times
per month -- were around 25% more likely to be diagnosed with a
mental disorder and twice as likely to develop severe psychological
distress than people who didn't experience discrimination or did
less often, according to a study published in the journal
Pediatrics.
The findings mirror what experts have said about the effects that
discrimination and hostile behaviors have on children. Experiencing
a negative racial climate at school can impact K-12 students in a
number of ways, including lower grades, low engagement and their
mental health, said Charity Brown Griffin, a certified school
psychologist and an associate professor of psychological sciences
at Winston-Salem State University.
"If you have to frequent a place every day where you feel like you
don't belong, that you're left out and where you don't don't feel
safe, that is certainly going to take a toll on your mental
health," Griffin told CNN.
Society often considers schools as race neutral places, she said,
but they can be platforms for racial stress and trauma due to
negative racial climate experiences.
While diversity training and initiatives targeting systemic issues
can help students, another way to protect students is to help them
"create a buffer" from negative experiences by encouraging positive
feelings toward their racial identity and culture, Griffin said her
research shows.
"Black students and other students of color are still able to
thrive, they're still able to perform well because they have these
buffers -- but that doesn't mean that the systemic issues do not
exist," she said. "The cultural assets have created opportunity for
them to rise above and be resilient in spite of." [GN]
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $125 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Bickis, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that CIBC has
agreed to pay $125 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that
had accused the bank of misrepresenting its exposure to U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities ahead of the financial
crisis.
Investors launched the suit in 2008 alleging that the bank not only
misled the market on the size of its exposure to the U.S. subprime
market, but also to the volatility of the related investments.
CIBC spokeswoman Nima Ranawana said in a statement that the bank
reached a settlement without any admission of liability or
wrongdoing, and that the plaintiffs' claims remain unproven.
"While we believe CIBC’s disclosure was appropriate and met all
applicable requirements, we have reached an agreement to avoid
further legal costs and put the matter behind us."
The bank lost an appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada in 2015,
clearing the way for the case to go forward, but the settlement was
reached before the case made it to trial.
"It’s been an extremely long battle, right to the Supreme Court,
and back, to the brink of trial," said Joel Rochon, managing
partner at the Rochon Genova firm that took on the case.
The lawsuit sought to recover close to $4 billion in damages as
part of its allegation that the bank did not properly disclose
$11.5 billion in exposure to the subprime market.
Rochon said that while there's compromise on both sides following
intense negotiations, he was pleased with the result that brings
meaningful restitution for class members and is one of the largest
settlements of its type in Canada.
"It does go some way to ensure there’s accountability to
shareholders in terms of disclosure requirements of banks and other
financial institutions."
The subprime market involved mortgage-backed securities that
offered attractive rates of return due to higher interest on the
mortgages, but the lower credit quality eventually produced massive
defaults.
The meltdown of the U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities
market was a key factor in the financial crisis.
Under the settlement, investors who bought shares of CIBC between
May 31, 2007, and Feb. 28, 2008, may be entitled to a payment.
The agreement must still be approved by the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice. A hearing has been set for Jan. 12.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 7, 2021.
[GN]
CARNIVAL PLC: Judge Rules in Ruby Princess COVID-19 Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Ferri, writing for news.com.au, reports that a judge has
made a significant ruling over whether international passengers can
be included in a class action over a Covid-19 outbreak on the Ruby
Princess cruise ship.
Deliberations over documents are continuing as Carnival cruise
liners fight a class action over the deadly outbreak.
Hundreds of passengers contracted the virus after the outbreak on
the ship which left Sydney on March 8, 2020 and returned on March
19 after sailing through New Zealand.
The class action was filed by Shine Lawyers on behalf of 2700
passengers, relatives and executors in July 2020, sparked by Susan
Karpik against Carnival PLC and Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, the
owner and operator of the boat.
It centres around more than 700 cases of Covid-19 and 28 deaths
linked to the cruise ship.
The cruise liner is being sued for negligence for three alleged
breaches of its duty of care to passengers including letting the
voyage proceed despite being aware of the Covid-19 outbreak,
failing to protect passengers from contracting the virus on-board,
and failing to warn passengers of the risk of contracting the virus
while on the boat.
Carnival is also accused of two breaches of the Australian Consumer
Law including failure to provide a "safe, relaxing and pleasurable"
holiday as advertised and false, misleading and deceptive conduct
by advertising the holiday as above.
During a hearing in the Federal Court on Wednesday, counsel for Ms
Karpik and the cruise liner deliberated over common questions and
documents ahead of the trial next year.
David McLure SC on behalf of the cruise liner told the court they
are seeking more evidence from parties involved as the trial will
need to take into account the law of England and the general
maritime law of the United States.
"We will need to receive evidence from the parties about what the
law is in relation to them," he said.
Mr McLure said the norms under the other systems of law are
"expressed differently".
"I am not pretending that they are so radically different that
conceptually an Australian lawyer would be unable to compare them
relevantly to what the Civil Liability Act says," he said.
Mr McLure argued that questions consisting of what services were
offered to patients did not need to be asked at trial as they
differed between customers.
"There is an allegation the services offered comprised medical
services but I don't think Ms Karpik alleged medical services were
provided to her while she was a passenger," he said.
Ian Pike SC, representing the group, said whether she took up the
medical services was "neither here nor there".
The hearing comes after Justice Angus Stewart ruled passengers from
the United States and United Kingdom could be included in the class
action.
The Federal Court denied the application by the cruise liner to
block overseas passengers from joining the class action after
failing to successfully argue they should be excluded as they
signed up to different terms and conditions when buying tickets.
Of the 2651 passengers who paid for their tickets onto the boat,
696 bought tickets on US terms and conditions and 159 on UK terms
and conditions. The remainder bought the tickets with Australian
terms and conditions.
The US terms and conditions include a class action waiver clause.
Justice Stewart ruled it wasn't necessary or appropriate to
determine the law applicable to the US and UK sub groups'
negligence claims.
The hearing will return before Justice Steward in June 2022. [GN]
CARVANA LLC: Jennings Suit Removed From Common Pleas to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DANA JENNINGS, on his own
behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, and
JOSEPH A. FURLONG, on his own behalf and on behalf of other
similarly situated v. CARVANA, LLC, Case No. 211100526 (Filed Nov.
5, 2021), was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on Dec. 9, 2021.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:21-cv-05400-EGS to the proceeding.
Carvana is an online used car retailer based in Tempe, Arizona. The
company is the fastest growing online used car dealer in the United
States and is known for its multi-story car vending machines.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 351-0200
E-mail: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul g. Gagne, Esq.
KLEINBARD LLC
Three Logan Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 523-5302
E-mail: pgagne@kleinbard.com
CATHOLIC CHARITIES: Oates Sues Over Unpaid OT for Peer Advocates
----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDOLF WAYNE OATES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, and CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE, SULLIVAN
& ULSTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10440 (S.D.N.Y., December 7,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Catholic Charities of Orange,
Sullivan & Ulster, as a peer advocate at 27 Matthews Street,
Goshen, New York from September 2018 until his termination on July
31, 2020.
The Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York is a domestic
not-for-profit corporation with a principal place of business
located at 1011 First Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, New York.
Catholic Charities of Orange, Sullivan & Ulster is a domestic
not-for-profit corporation, with its principal place of business
located at 11 Hamilton Avenue, Monticello, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
CBY INVESTMENT: Pineda Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CBY INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-03047-G (N.D. Tex., December 7, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages and
minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately October of 2007 until March of
2020.
CBY Investment Group, Inc. is an owner and operator of Papa John's
franchises in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
CHRISTMAS TREE: Hibbert Suit Seeks to Recover Untimely Wage Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case is captioned as MONTIE HIBBERT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CHRISTMAS TREE SHOPS, LLC, Case
No. 7:21-cv-10531 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2021) seeks to recover
untimely wage compensation for Plaintiff and similarly situated
non-exempt hourly store positions such as customer support
receiving, customer checkout, customer experience sales, and
overnight replenishment (collectively, "Hourly Workers") who work
or have worked as manual workers for Christmas Tree Shops, in New
York State.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has employed hundreds of
Hourly Workers in New York State. The Defendant has compensated
Plaintiff and all other Hourly Workers on a bi-weekly basis.
Despite being manual workers, the Defendant has failed to properly
pay Plaintiff and other Hourly Workers their wages within seven
calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were
earned. In this regard, the Defendant has failed to provide timely
wages to Plaintiff and all other similar Hourly Workers, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similar Hourly Workers in New York pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations of the New York Labor Law.
Mr. Hibbert was employed by Defendant as a Customer Support
Receiving employee at the Christmas Tree Shops store located in
Hartsdale, New York from October 2021 to November 2021.
The Defendant operates a chain of discount stores located in 21
states. Defendant has 13 stores in New York State.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Denise Schulman, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
COLORADO: Ruiz Suit Seeks to Certify Parole Officer Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RUIZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; ADAM MOREHEAD, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DAVID JOHNSON, in his official capacity;
DEAN WILLIAMS, in his official capacity, Case No.
1:20-cv-02643-RM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying a collective of:
"all Parole Officers who were employed by the CDOC at any
time between May 19, 2017 and December 31, 2020 plus any
period of tolling;"
2. appointing them to act as collective representatives;
3. appointing Paul F. Lewis, Michael D. Kuhn, Andrew E. Swan,
Bill S. Finger, and Casey J. Leier as counsel for the
collective;
4. directing the CDOC to produce the names, mailing
addresses, dates of employment, job title, job location,
telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all putative
members of the FLSA collective in an electronically
readable format within 14 days;
5. approving notice to the collective members, and allowing
collective members 90 days from mailing within which to
return an opt-in form; and
6. directing the CDOC to prominently post the approved notice
in each of its locations at which Parole Officers worked
for the duration of the opt-in period.
The CDOC operates Colorado's prisons and, through the CDOC's Adult
Parole Division, supervises community-based inmates and parolees.
The CDOC employs Parole Officers throughout the State of Colorado.
The CDOC classifies Parole Officers as either Community Parole
Officer I or Community Parole Officer II. The Community Parole
Officer II position is one level above a Community Parole Officer
I. These Parole Officers may serve as a team lead. However, the job
duties in this position do not include any supervisory authority,
and both the I and II level employees are classified as non-exempt
from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Other than the team leader aspect, the essential job duties
of Community Parole Officers I and II are the same.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31UG4bS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
LEVENTHAL|LEWIS
KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Telephone: (719) 694-3000
E-mail: plewis@ll.law
mkuhn@ll.law
aswan@ll.law
- and -
Bill S. Finger, Esq.
Casey J. Leier, Esq.
FINGER LAW PC
29025-D Upper Bear Creek Road
Evergreen, CO 80439
Telephone: (303) 674-6955
E-mail: bill@fingerlawpc.com
casey@fingerlawpc.com
CONFI-CHEK INC: Eisenberg IRPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARILYN EISENBERG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CONFI-CHEK, INC., Case No.
2021CH05599, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on December 6, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-06516 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Right of Publicity Act.
Confi-Chek, Inc. is a consumer services company based in
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
John W. Drury, Esq.
Pamela Q. Devata, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: pdevata@seyfarth.com
jdrury@seyfarth.com
CONSERVICE LLC: Clay Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN CLAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONSERVICE, LLC; and DOES l through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV391470 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., December 7, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 including failure to pay overtime
wages at the proper rates; failure to pay all wages, including
minimum wages and overtime wages; failure to provide lawful meal
periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to authorize or
permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof;
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to
pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and failure to
reimburse all business expenses incurred by the employee in direct
consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.
Conservice, LLC is a real estate-based utility management
technology company based in Utah. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: icampbell@aegislawfirm.com
CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTS: Rode Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hunter Rode, v. Creative
Environments Design & Landscape, Inc., an Arizona Corporation and
Daniel Waters, an individual, Case No. 2:21-cv-01656-ESW (D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
conditional class certification pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) consisting of:
"All persons who work or worked for Creative Environments
Design & Landscape, Inc., or Daniel Waters over 40 hours in
any given workweek as a past or present employee and/or
independent contractor, who is/were classified as both
employee and independent contractor; and who did not receive
wages for hours for the requirement that they were required
to begin or end their shift at the yard and had to travel
to/from the job site back to the yard for time-and-a-half
wages related to that time."
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has alleged that he was a
full-time employee of the Defendants from August of 2020 until
March of 2021. He and the Collective Members were non-exempt
employees. The Defendants required him to work overtime as a
condition of his employment and when he was working as a Laborer,
he earned $25.00 per hour and $37.50 per hour when he worked
overtime.
The Plaintiff was not paid wages for time in the yard despite that
he was scheduled to report to the yard and in fact arrived at the
yard, most days at 6:00 a.m., and immediately began his work day by
loading trucks with materials and equipment for that day's
projects.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IMSTWr
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Eckert, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KIMBERLY A. ECKERT
5235 South Kyrene Road Suite 206
Tempe, AZ 85283
Telephone: (480) 456-4497
Facsimile: (866) 583-6073
E-mail: keckert@arizlaw.biz
DANIEL LANZER: Cosmetic Surgery Victims Urged to Join Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that a class
action firm will explore compensation options for victims of
surgeon Dr Daniel Lanzer who allegedly engaged in several troubling
practices, including serious safety and hygiene breaches and
procedures that left patients in extreme pain.
Maddens Lawyers, which has commenced the investigation on behalf of
patients who were harmed by Dr Lanzer's practices, is calling for
registrations from those interested in participating in a class
action for compensation. The investigation will also extend to
patients treated by another cosmetic surgeon, Dr Daniel Aronov.
Class action principal Kathryn Emeny said there is a wide range of
issues that patients are reporting, including "concerns with
respect to price gouging, a lack of information provided during
pre-surgery consultations, complications arising during or after
surgery and a complete absence of post-surgery advice and care
services".
"There are similarities that are emerging in the experiences
patients are reporting, which means that there could be a case for
a class action," Ms Emeny commented in a recent statement. "This
would enable impacted patients to come together to jointly pursue a
claim for compensation. There is always strength in numbers."
The conduct of cosmetic surgeon Dr Lanzer is under investigation by
the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) and
the Medical Board of Australia after more than 100 patients came
forward to share their experiences. This ranged from serious
hygiene breaches and procedures that left them in need of further
medical treatment through to ongoing physical and psychological
issues.
Ahpra has already banned Dr Aronov, a senior associate of Dr
Lanzer, who was the most-followed cosmetic surgeon on social media
platform TikTok. Under conditions imposed on Dr Aronov, he is
prevented from doing cosmetic or surgical procedures but will be
allowed to continue work as a GP with Ahpra-approved supervision.
Simone Russell, a patient of Dr Lanzer, underwent a day procedure
in September of this year and, in the days following, experienced
swelling in her right thigh until it became "as hard as a rock". In
addition to the costs of the actual procedure, Ms Russell said she
is now left with the financial burden of after-care treatments.
"I can't bend my right leg, it's painful, swollen and discoloured,"
Ms Russell said. "I've contacted Dr Lanzer's clinic numerous times
about the ongoing problems I'm experiencing. Everyone at the clinic
is dismissive of my concerns. I'm left without answers at all and
I'm not sure I will ever regain full movement in my legs."
Ms Russell said she is supportive of the class action and would
like to see Dr Lanzer "held accountable for the physical,
psychological and financial damage" he has done to many of his
patients. Ms Emeny said accounts like Ms Russell's raised alarm
bells and demonstrated a clear need for greater accountability for
Dr Lanzer's clinic.
"Ms Russel paid a premium for Dr Lanzer's services but the standard
of the care provided has been deplorable and she is now paying
thousands of dollars in rehabilitation services to try and get back
on her feet," Ms Emery explained.
"People should not have to go through such a harrowing experience
on their own. Often people hesitate in making a claim for
compensation because it seems too daunting to do it alone or will
be too expensive. The class action process overcomes these issues
and I encourage any patient who has had an adverse outcome because
of their treatment or who has any concerns to get in touch with
us."
Following Dr Lanzer's exposure, led by Four Corners and Nine
newspapers, Ahpra and the Medical Board have commissioned an
external review into the industry and its marketing practices,
which frequently leaves out important information. Although a
welcomed announcement, Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) said it
came too late.
ALA spokesperson and barrister Ngaire Watson said she is
particularly concerned about the promotional practices that target
patients, but particularly young women, with false, misleading or
limited information. Often, the promotional materials do not
include whether the cosmetic surgeon in question has the right
qualifications.
"We have been concerned for some time now about the increasing
number of people who suffer serious complications and ongoing
injury as a result of elective cosmetic procedures," Ms Watson
said, adding onto last month's statement in which she said ALA's
lawyers are seeing more and more people seeking legal help.
"It's critically important that the messages communicated by
cosmetic clinics make it clear to people, particularly younger
people, that cosmetic procedures by their very nature are risky and
can involve complex surgery." [GN]
DIAMOND RESPIRATORY: JKCI Losses Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY KATZ CHIROPRATIC,
INC., v. DIAMOND RESPIRATORY CARE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-04108-CRB
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an order
denying motion to certify class.
"All persons who, from the date June 22, 2016, through the
date notice is sent to the Class, received at least one
telephone facsimile message [from Diamond] substantially
similar to [the hand sanitizer fax], where prior express
permission or invitation to send the faxes was supposedly
obtained by Diamond through its general sales process."
The Court denies certification under Rule 23(b)(2) because Katz
lacks standing to request injunctive relief. The Court denies
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because a class action is not a
superior vehicle and common answers do not predominate over
individualized factual ones such as (1) whether a recipient
consented to receive the fax; and (2) whether the recipient
received it on an online fax service. Katz's motion to exclude
class member declarations is denied.
As amended by the Junk Tax Prevention Act, the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act 20 ("TCPA") provides statutory damages of $500 (or
$1,500) for an "unsolicited advertisement" sent via fax machine.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Katz Chiropractic, Inc. ("Katz") received one of
the hand sanitizer faxes. Katz now seeks to represent the following
class under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).
Diamond Respiratory is a health care company that sells medical
devices to clinics. In April 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic,
many clinics struggled to procure hand sanitizer. Diamond had some
in stock. It collected a list of fax numbers pertaining to clients
and potential clients that it believed had, over more than two
decades of its business, agreed to receive faxes from Diamond. To
about 17,219 fax numbers, Diamond attempted to transmit a fax
stating that it had hand sanitizer for sale.
Katz is a chiropractic practice based in California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EMot42 at no extra charge.[CC]
DIOCESE OF AMOS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sexual Assaults
-------------------------------------------------------------
La Presse Canadienne reports that the Diocese of Amos in Quebec's
Abitibi region is the object of a request for a class action suit
alleging that sexual assaults were committed by at least five
priests against as many boys between the ages of 7 and 14.
The request, presented on Dec. 7 in Superior Court in Abitibi,
names the diocese and the bishop of Amos at the time of the
assaults as institutions and covers the period from 1940 to the
present day.
The representative plaintiff, now 65 and who cannot be identified,
alleges he was sexually assaulted when he was 7 and 11.
The request, made through the Montreal law office of Arsenault
Dufresne Wee, alleges that Father Paul-Emile Bilodeau, a teacher at
Notre-Dame-de-Fatima school in Val-d'Or, sexually assaulted the
plaintiff in a small room in the school in 1963 and 1967. It says
after the plaintiff informed his priest of the assault, Bilodeau
was sent to Chibougamau.
The class action contends that at least four other people were
sexually assaulted by as many priests in the Diocese of Alma, in
the towns of Parent, Laferte, Launay, Authier-Nord and Berry. Those
victims ranged in age from 10 to 14 years old, according to the
request.
The request contends that the diocese and Aldee Desmarais, bishop
of Amos at the time, neglected to investigate the allegations in
order to uphold a "culture of silence" and that by doing so "the
defendants perpetuated the risk that Father Bilodeau would commit
other sexual assaults."
The representative plaintiff contends that because of that abuse,
he repeatedly attempted suicide between 1977 and 2005 and suffered
from psychological problems.
He is seeking $300,000 in non-monetary damages, $150,000 in
monetary damages and, given the gravity and duration of the alleged
assaults, $150,000 in punitive damages.
The law firm of Arsenault Dufresne Wee Avocats is urging those who
want to register in the class action to contact them. [GN]
DOCUSIGN INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 7
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of DocuSign, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOCU) resulting from
allegations that DocuSign may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased DocuSign securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2221.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 2, 2021, after market hours,
DocuSign announced decelerating growth and disappointing year-end
projections for billings and revenue.
On this news, DocuSign's stock price fell $98.73 per share, or 42%,
to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021, the next trading
day, on unusually heavy trading volume.
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. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
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]
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces New Class Action Over GNOG Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Simmons, writing for EGR, reports that DraftKings'
acquisition of Golden Nugget Online Gaming (GNOG) is facing
scrutiny from a new class action lawsuit after a third US law firm
instigated legal proceedings. New York-based Monteverde &
Associates has launched solicitations from GNOG shareholders
concerned about the all-stock transaction worth $1.56bn at the
time, which is currently still awaiting completion. [GN]
DXC TECH: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of KBC Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KBC ASSET MANAGEMENT NV; ARBEJDSMARKEDETS
TILLAEGSPENSION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and CITY OF WARREN POLICE
AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY; J.
MICHAEL LAWRIE; PAUL N. SALEH, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
20-1718 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
class action suit.
Introduction
Plaintiffs KBC Asset Management NV and Arbejdsmarkedets
Tillaegspension appeal the dismissal of their class action suit
alleging securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a regulation promulgated
thereunder known as Rule 10b-5 against Defendants DXC and its two
principal executives, J. Michael Lawrie and Paul N. Saleh.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they purchased shares of
DXC at inflated prices after DXC, Lawrie, and Saleh made false and
misleading statements concerning DXC's financial health.
The district court dismissed their complaint, ruling that the
Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants made actionable false
and misleading statements and failed to allege facts leading to the
strong inference that Defendants acted with the requisite
scienter.
Background
DXC is a publicly traded information-technology company formed in
2017 from a merger of Computer Science Corp. and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Co. The new company initially succeeded in meeting its
strategic financial goals by instituting cost-cutting measures, and
on Feb. 8, 2018, it issued a press release announcing its continued
financial success. Soon, however, the company found itself needing
to revise its projected revenue guidance to shareholders downward
by an estimated $800 million, a decision it announced on November 6
of the same year. As a result, DXC's shareholders incurred losses
when its stock price decreased following that announcement. The
Plaintiffs represent a class of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired DXC stock from Feb. 8, 2018 through Nov. 6,
2018.
The Plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5. In their complaint, they allege that the
Defendants knew the cost-cutting measures implemented in 2018
undermined DXC's ability to generate revenue and that this was
contrary to information the Defendants were telling the public. As
such, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants fraudulently induced
them to purchase or acquire stock in DXC by making material
misstatements and omissions regarding the financial health of the
company and that they did so with the requisite scienter for such
fraud.
The Defendants successfully moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6). The district court determined that the statements
issued by DXC or made by its employees were either forward-looking
statements protected under the safeharbor provision of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-5, or non-actionable puffery. Further, it concluded
that the Plaintiffs' complaint, viewed as a whole, did not contain
factual allegations sufficient to give rise to the "strong
inference" of scienter required by the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(b)(2)(A), and applicable precedent.
The Plaintiffs timely appealed.
Discussion
The Plaintiffs rely on five categories of allegations that they
claim demonstrate scienter. They allege that they can show the
Defendants acted with scienter based on (1) allegations made by a
former executive of DXC; (2) statements of unnamed former DXC
employees; (3) massive stock sales by Defendants Lawrie and Saleh
during the class period; (4) the core-operations theory; and (5)
the temporal proximity between the company's statements painting a
sunny picture and its ultimate admission that it had been overly
optimistic.
The Fourth Circuit concludes that none of the Plaintiffs' five
categories of allegations alone can support a strong inference of
scienter. That leaves the question of whether, "evaluating the
complaint holistically," the combined allegations can do what their
individual parts failed to do. It holds that they cannot.
Holistically analyzing the Plaintiffs' allegations as to scienter,
the non-fraudulent inference s more compelling than the requisite
inference that Defendants knowingly or recklessly misled investors
about the company's financial health.
While there is some reason to believe the Defendants acted with the
requisite intent, there is not enough to create a strong inference
of scienter. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' own allegations fully
explain why DXC did not hit all of its business-growth goals. As
the Plaintiffs acknowledge in their complaint, DXC told investors
it stumbled because of a combination of "a stronger dollar,
completion of several large transformation projects, and slower
ramp-up on a few large Digital contracts." Plus, DXC experienced a
decline in its application and maintenance business as customers
contemplated systems upgrades, made an unsuccessful switch to a
"generalist sales model," and had trouble executing its workforce
optimization plan. While the Plaintiffs argue that these roadblocks
were the inevitable result of the Defendants' business cuts and
should have been more thoroughly disclosed, the existence of a
plausible--and largely uncontested--innocent narrative explaining
DXC's struggles further convinces us that the Plaintiffs have
failed to adequately plead scienter.
Additionally, on multiple prior occasions, the Fourth Circuit has
found that when defendants disclose risks and newly discovered
weaknesses to investors this counts against an inference of
scienter. In the case, it notes that the Defendants announced DXC's
significant revenue decline to its investors in a timely manner.
Further, while Defendants announced a downward revision in revenue
projections, they also announced an increase in earnings per share.
This undercuts the Plaintiffs' arguments that the company
financials soured overnight and were entirely unfavorable to
investors, and that the Defendants engaged in the fraudulent
misdirection of investors by withholding information.
Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs have not
satisfied the PSLRA's heightened burden for pleading scienter. This
failure to plead scienter sufficiently is fatal to both their
securities fraud claim and their director liability claims against
the individual Defendants.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yckjc5ck from Leagle.com.
ARGUED: Gregg S. Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC,
in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for the Appellants.
Jamie L. Wine -- jamie.wine@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS, in New York
City, for the Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Aaron S. Book, WEBSTER BOOK LLP, Alexandria, Virginia;
Christopher F. Moriarty, MOTLEY RICE LLC, Mount Pleasant, South
Carolina; John C. Browne, Lauren A. Ormsbee, Jesse L. Jensen,
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, in New York City, for
the Appellants.
Kevin M. McDonough, in New York City, Melissa Arbus Sherry, Stephen
P. Barry -- stephen.barry@lw.com -- Margaret A. Upshaw, LATHAM &
WATKINS LLP, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellees.
EIGHTY SEVEN: Developer Faces Class Action Over Surfside Tragedy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Distel, Esq., and Owen P. Quinn, Esq., of McDonald Hopkins,
report that Following the tragedy at Surfside many in South Florida
braced for long and protracted litigation. Recently, several
survivors and the family members of those who died filed a class
action lawsuit against the construction team developing Eighty
Seven Park, a luxury condominium next door to Champlain Towers
South.
According to the Complaint, the pile driving next to Champlain
Towers South exacerbated existing conditions which in turn led to
the tragedy. The plaintiffs allege vibrations from the work on
Eighty Seven Park damaged the existing structure and funneling
ground water from the Eighty Seven Park site to the Champlain
Towers South compounded the issues and led to the collapse. While
new suits with new parties are getting filed, the trial in the
putative class action brought by the victims of the collapse should
take place next summer at the latest, the trial Judge said
recently, reiterating his pledge not to let the matter drag on.
During a regularly scheduled status conference, Judge Michael
Hanzman agreed to extend the deadlines for defendants to respond to
the second amended complaint by two weeks. However, he reminded
the attorneys especially those for the newly added defendants what
he had said at the outset of the litigation that he would move the
matter forward and not allow unnecessary delay.
The end result of this litigation could have far-reaching
implications for developers and contractors building new structures
in an increasingly crowded Florida market. With so much development
in South Florida and the scarcity of prime real estate, developers,
contractors, engineers, and association boards of directors must be
aware of the potential pitfalls. Please contact our construction
and real estate attorneys to help you navigate these issues and
mitigate your risk. [GN]
ELECNORE HAWKEYE: Gatlin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS GATLIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Putative Class
Members v. ELECNORE HAWKEYE, LLC, Case No. (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty.,
Dec. 6, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime premium
wages and for wage notification violations pursuant to New York
Labor Law on behalf of himself and a New York Civil Practice Laws &
Rules class of Hawkeye's foremen, mechanics, drivers and laborers.
The Plaintiff brings an individual claim for retaliation under NYLL
section 215. Shortly after Named Plaintiff complained to the
Defendant about not being paid for his time working at the
Defendant's yard each morning, the Defendant began a sustained
campaign of harassment and unfair treatment. Ultimately,
approximately one month after complaining, the Defendant terminated
the Plaintiff without justification, the lawsuit says.
Plaintiff Gatlin and other members of the putative classes are
foremen, mechanics and laborers who furnished labor to Hawkeye at
Hawkeye's yard and on projects in the greater New York City area.
Throughout the relevant time period, notwithstanding the fact that
the Plaintiffs were required to report to and perform work at
Hawkeye's yard each morning prior to traveling to the job sites and
were required to return to Hawkeye's yard after leaving the job
sites each afternoon, the Plaintiffs were only paid for time spent
working at the job sites and were not compensated at all for time
spent working at Hawkeye's yard or for time spent traveling to and
from Hawkeye's yard and job sites. Thus, the Plaintiffs were not
paid at all for a significant number of work hours each week, many
of which were hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, for which
they should have been paid overtime premiums, added the suit.
Elecnore Hawkeye is a subsidiary of Elecnor Group, engaged in
engineering, construction, and development of infrastructure
projects. (http://www.elecnorhawkeye.com).
Elecnor Group acquired Hawkeye LLC (founded in 1999) in 2013,
renaming and rebranding the company as Elecnore Hawkeye, LLC and
strengthening the presence of Hawkeye in the Northeaster and
Mid-Atlantic states and enabling Hawkeye to continue its growth
across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
Alison L. Mangiatordi, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
ELEMENTS PRODUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Elements Festival
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Heffler, writing for EDM.com, reports that the organizers of
2021's ill-fated Elements Festival are facing a class action
lawsuit.
Rumors of such a suit pervaded social media in the wake of the
electronic music festival, which took place in Lakewood,
Pennsylvania from September 3-6. After proprietors marketed a
"lakefront paradise" experience, the event fell victim to inclement
weather precipitated by Hurricane Ida, which led to complex
logistical issues and a reported lack of organizational support.
According to court documents reviewed by EDM.com, three plaintiffs
allege the event's organizers failed to "properly organize,
prepare, and provide ticket purchasers and attendees of the
Elements Festival 2021 with the experience Defendants extensively
promoted and marketed as being a safe, packaged, multi-day camping
and music festival."
In the festival's aftermath, legions of irate attendees aired
grievances in a public Facebook group that has now amassed over
6,000 members. Many requested refunds due to "abhorrent" portable
toilets and wait times of up to 16 hours, among other allegations.
The suit also notes a "lack of proper COVID-19 screening" and
"scarcity of access" to food and water, which combined with other
alleged instances of malfeasance to create "an uncomfortable and
dangerous situation."
The suit names defendants Elements Production, LLC; BangOn!NYC;
Tested Contained Retreats, LLC; and Brett Herman and Timothy
Monkiewicz. The plaintiffs, David Raus, Yessica Navarro, and Moya
Ferenchak, are seeking damages in excess of $5 million, according
to court documents.
Raus, Navarro, and Ferenchak retained Geragos & Geragos, the
powerhouse Los Angeles-based law firm that represented the
ticket-holders who were awarded a $2 million settlement as part of
a class action lawsuit filed after 2017's explosive Fyre Festival.
Many ticket-holders compared Elements to the disastrous Bahamian
music fest, which infamously unravelled on the island of Great
Exuma in 2017.
A member of Geragos & Geragos' global communications team declined
EDM.com's request for comment.
The timing of the suit aligns with a "roadmap" recently published
by Elements organizers on the festival's website, which outlines a
five-point plan to address various concerns in preparation for the
event's 2022 edition. [GN]
FRESH HARVEST: Luevano-Vaca's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RIGOBERTO SARMIENTO, et al., Plaintiffs v. FRESH
HARVEST, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07974-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted Gustavo
Luevano-Vaca's motion to dismiss Fresh Harvest's counterclaim
without leave to amend.
I. Introduction
Before the Court is Plaintiff Luevano-Vaca's Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss Defendants Fresh Harvest, Inc. and SMD Logistics, Inc.'s
(collectively, "Fresh Harvest") counterclaim for breach of a Dec.
31, 2020 settlement agreement. The underlying action arises out of
alleged violations of federal and California state employment laws
and regulations by Fresh Harvest and Defendants Fresh Foods, Inc.
and Rava Ranches, Inc. related to their employment of truck drivers
through the H-2A visa program. Luevano-Vaca moves to dismiss Fresh
Harvest's breach of contract counterclaim on the basis that the
Settlement Agreement is void as contrary to public policy under 29
C.F.R. Section 501.5 of the H-2A regulations. Luevano-Vaca argues
that 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5 prohibits waiver of an H-2A worker's
rights under the H-2A regulations outside of specific
circumstances, and none of these circumstances applied to the
Settlement Agreement.
II. Background
On Nov. 12, 2020, Plaintiff Sarmiento filed a class action
complaint against Defendants asserting employees' right to receive
prevailing wages and equal pay under their employment agreement,
the H-2A visa program, and California state employment law.
Luevano-Vaca was added as a named class representative in the First
Amended Complaint, which was filed on June 11, 2021. Luevano-Vaca
alleges that he was an H-2A visa worker for the Defendants. In
response, Fresh Harvest answered and counterclaimed against
Luevano-Vaca for breach of contract based on his bringing claims
against Fresh Harvest in violation of a settlement agreement
entered into between Luevano-Vaca and Fresh Harvest.
Fresh Harvest alleges that Luevano-Vaca and Fresh Harvest executed
the Settlement Agreement on Dec. 31, 2020. It admits that
Luevano-Vaca worked for Defendant Fresh Harvest, Inc. pursuant to
an H-2A visa in 2019 and 2020. The Settlement Agreement was
executed after the filing of Sarmiento's class action, but before
Luevano-Vaca joined the instant lawsuit as a named Plaintiff.
In the Settlement Agreement, Luevano-Vaca agreed to settle "any and
all claims arising out of his employment with Fresh Harvest."
Luevano-Vaca specifically released any claims alleged in
Sarmiento's class action. Further, he released claims against Fresh
Harvest and any affiliated companies, which Fresh Harvest argues
included Defendant SMD Logistics, Inc. Opposition. Luevano-Vaca
acknowledged that he was in receipt of a disclosure statement
regarding Sarmiento's class action and that he had an adequate
opportunity to seek the advice of counsel.
Further, he agreed to the following provision: "In the event of a
breach of this Agreement by Employee, any and all consideration
paid hereunder will become immediately due and payable by Employee
to Company. For purposes of this paragraph, the filing of any
action or proceedings described in paragraph 8 or a breach of
Employee's obligations in paragraphs 1 or 6 will conclusively be a
breach of this Agreement."
Defendant Fresh Harvest, Inc. agreed to pay Luevano-Vaca $2,644.80
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. It alleges that Luevano-Vaca
breached the Settlement Agreement by joining the present action and
asserting claims against Fresh Harvest.
On July 16, 2021, Luevano-Vaca filed his Motion to Dismiss Fresh
Harvest's breach of contract counterclaim. On July 30, 2021, Fresh
Harvest filed an Opposition. On Aug. 6, 2021, Luevano-Vaca filed a
Reply. On Oct. 7, 2021, the Court held a hearing on Luevano-Vaca's
Motion.
In his Motion, Luevano-Vaca moves to dismiss Fresh Harvest's
counterclaim on the basis that the Settlement Agreement is void
because it violates the express language of the H-2A regulations'
waiver of rights prohibition at 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5 as contrary
to public policy. Luevano-Vaca argues that the Settlement Agreement
does not meet either of the exceptions provided in 29 C.F.R.
Section 501.5 because it was neither (1) supervised via the
Department of Labor in an enforcement action or (2) in settlement
of private litigation between Luevano-Vaca and Fresh Harvest, since
Luevano-Vaca was not a party to this litigation at the time.
In their Opposition, Fresh Harvest argues that 29 C.F.R. Section
501.5 does not invalidate the Settlement Agreement. It argues that
the Settlement Agreement is a valid resolution of Luevano-Vaca's
employment claims related to Fresh Harvest's past conduct and the
release of liability is compliant with Section 501.5 because it was
"in settlement of private litigation."
III. Discussion
A. H-2A Visa Program & Interpretation of 29 C.F.R Section 501.5
At issue in the case are the requirements imposed on employers who
participate in the H-2A visa program, including wage requirements.
Congress created the H-2A visa program to allow employers to hire
non-citizens to fill temporary agricultural jobs pursuant to
certain regulatory requirements.
The primary dispute between the parties is the interpretation of
the waiver of rights prohibition in the H-2A regulations at 29
C.F.R. Section 501.5. This regulation prohibits any person from
seeking to have H-2A employees waive their rights under the H-2A
regulations outside of certain circumstances.
Mr. Luevano-Vaca argues Section 501.5 is clear on its face and
allows only two narrow exceptions to the waiver prohibition, which
are not present in the case. Fresh Harvest argues that Section
501.5 should be interpreted to apply broadly to past conduct that
could result in private litigation if not resolved.
Judge Freeman agrees with Luevano-Vaca. She says, 29 C.F.R. Section
501.5 is clear on its face that "any agreement by an employee
purporting to waive or modify any rights given to said person under
these provisions will be void as contrary to public policy," unless
it meets one of two exceptions. To meet the first exception, an
agreement must be supervised by the Department of Labor, which
neither party considers applicable in the case. To meet the second
exception, an agreement must be "in settlement of private
litigation." For an agreement to be "in settlement of private
litigation," it seems clear that there must be a lawsuit to
settle.
Accordingly, for an agreement to qualify for the second exception
to the H-2A waiver prohibition, Judge Freeman finds that it must be
between parties to active litigation. Fresh Harvest can point to no
cases supporting its broad interpretation of "in settlement of
private litigation." Instead, Fresh Harvest argues that settlement
of any dispute that could mature into a lawsuit if not resolved
would qualify. But again, that expansion of Section 501.5 is
untethered to the plain meaning of the regulation.
As a separate argument, Fresh Harvest asserts that Section 501.5
allows waiver of past employer conduct, but not prospective rights.
But nothing in Section 501.5 supports that dichotomy. The
regulation states that "any agreement by an employee purporting to
waive or modify any rights given to said person under these
provisions will be void as contrary to public policy," unless one
of the exceptions is met. Judge Freeman's interpretation of 29
C.F.R. Section 501.5(b) is consistent with the public policy behind
the H-2A regulations Congress has identified. Under the Immigration
and Nationality Act, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to
take actions "to assure employer compliance with terms and
conditions of employment" under the H-2A program.
Accordingly, Judge Freeman interprets the exception to the H-2A
waiver prohibition at 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5(b) to apply only when
an agreement is in settlement of active private litigation.
1. FLSA and FMLA Waiver Prohibitions
In support of their interpretations of 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5,
Luevano-Vaca and Fresh Harvest disagree as to whether it is more
analogous to the waiver prohibition for the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") or the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").
Luevano-Vaca analogizes 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5 to the FLSA waiver
prohibition. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Fresh Harvest
analogizes 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5 to the FMLA waiver prohibition.
Judge Freeman agrees with Luevano-Vaca. The DOL stated that a
proposed waiver of rights prohibition for the H-2B regulations was
"consistent with similar prohibitions against waiver of rights
under other laws, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the
H-2A program." It is not reasonable to infer from the DOL's general
statement that the FMLA's "prospective" rights language should be
imported into the H-2A waiver prohibition. If the DOL considered
the H-2A waiver prohibition to apply only to "prospective" rights
like the FMLA waiver prohibition, the DOL would have said so or
sought amendment to 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5 to include that
language. Accordingly, Judge Freeman finds that neither the FLSA
nor the FMLA are instructive for interpreting the H-2A waiver
prohibition.
2. Public Policy
The parties further disagree about whether there is public policy
support for limiting H-2A workers' freedom to contract to narrow
circumstances like when active litigation is pending. Fresh Harvest
argues that without a court-approved settlement requirement, it
does not make sense to allow H-2A workers to settle claims only
after they have filed a lawsuit, because "there is nothing magical
about the filing of a lawsuit." In response, Luevano-Vaca argues
that an active litigation requirement makes sense, because a court
will be aware of any settlement and the worker will likely be
represented by counsel.
Judge Freeman agrees with Luevano-Vaca. Compliance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the involvement of a court are
meaningful guardrails to safeguard an H-2A worker's rights. Judge
Freeman finds that Luevano-Vaca's interpretation of the H-2A waiver
of rights prohibition is consistent with the general public policy
of protecting the employment rights of H-2A and other seasonal
workers.
3. Putative Class Members
Fresh Harvest argues that even if active litigation is required to
meet 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5(b), active litigation between
Luevano-Vaca and Fresh Harvest was pending when the Settlement
Agreement was executed, because Luevano-Vaca was a putative class
member in the current action. In response, Luevano-Vaca argues that
courts do not consider a putative class member to be a party to a
class action for various purposes, including jurisdiction, venue,
compulsory counterclaims, and discovery, prior to class
certification.
Judge Freeman agrees with Luevano-Vaca. She says, there is no
active "private litigation" pending between a defendant to a class
action and a putative class member prior to class certification. In
a variety of procedural circumstances, courts have declined to find
unnamed putative class members to be parties to a class action.
Hence, Luevano-Vaca's status as a putative class member to the case
did not render the Settlement Agreement "in settlement of private
litigation" under 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5(b).
B. Elkhorn Packing
On Nov. 3, 2021, the Ninth Circuit filed its decision in
Martinez-Gonzalez v. Elkhorn Packing Co. LLC, No. 19-17311, ___
F.4th ___, 2021 WL 5099986 (9th Cir. 2021). In Elkhorn Packing, the
Ninth Circuit found that an arbitration agreement between an H-2A
employee and his employer that was signed after he had made the
journey from Mexico to California was not signed under economic
duress or undue influence. On Nov. 12, 2021, the Court granted
Fresh Harvest's request for supplemental briefing "limited only to
the effect, if any, of the Elkhorn Packing decision on
Luevano-Vaca's motion."
In its supplemental brief, Fresh Harvest argues that the Elkhorn
Packing decision undermines Luevano-Vaca's motion to dismiss
because (1) it rejects Luevano-Vaca's claim that H-2A workers'
economic dependence on U.S. employers is an "inherently coercive
relationship," (2) it found enforceable an agreement waiving an
H-2A worker's rights, and (3) it undermined the court's finding in
the Magana-Munoz case.
In response, Luevano-Vaca argues in his supplemental brief that
Elkhorn Packing has no bearing on his Motion to Dismiss because (1)
Elkhorn Packing pertained to economic duress and undue influence,
which is not the basis for his Motion, (2) the issue of whether 29
C.F.R. Section 501.5 voided the arbitration agreement was not
raised in Elkhorn Packing, (3) the issue of whether the arbitration
agreement was a "material term and condition of the Plaintiffs'
employment" was also not raised, which was the basis of the
Magana-Munoz decision, and (4) the Ninth Circuit's finding did not
undermine the general policy of protecting the rights of vulnerable
agricultural workers under the H-2A regulations.
Judge Freeman agrees with Luevano-Vaca that the Elkhorn Packing
decision does not impact the outcome of the instant Motion to
Dismiss. Fresh Harvest concedes that Elkhorn Packing "did not
address 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5," and she finds baseless its
assertion that "it is doubtful that the Ninth Circuit's analysis or
holding would have been any different" if the Ninth Circuit had
considered 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5. Further, Judge Freeman's
holding regarding Luevano-Vaca's Motion is not based on the H-2A
employer-employee relationship being an "inherently coercive
relationship." She agrees with Luevano-Vaca that Elkhorn Packing
does not alter the Court's interpretation and application of 29
C.F.R. Section 501.5 in the case. And her decision does not rely on
the Magana-Munoz case, so Fresh Harvest's arguments about that case
are irrelevant.
C. Validity of the Settlement Agreement
In light of Judge Freeman's interpretation of 29 C.F.R. Section
501.5, the Settlement Agreement is invalid because it does not fall
under either exception to the H-2A waiver prohibition.
Fresh Harvest further argues that even if the Settlement Agreement
is void as to the waiver of federal claims, it has continued
validity as to the state law claims asserted by Luevano-Vaca. It
argues that the Court should deny Luevano-Vaca's Motion to Dismiss
as to Luevano-Vaca's state law claims, because 29 C.F.R. Section
501.5 only pertains to federal H-2A claims. In response,
Luevano-Vaca argues that 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5 voids the
Settlement Agreement in its entirety, because (1) Luevano-Vaca's
state law claims are nonwaivable rights under the H-2A regulations
and (2) a contract contrary to public policy is completely void
under California law.
Judge Freeman finds that 29 C.F.R. Section 501.5 voids the
Settlement Agreement in its entirety because it violates the
express terms of Section 501.5 and it is "contrary to public
policy." She agrees with Luevano-Vaca that his waiver of state law
claims against Fresh Harvest pursuant to the Settlement Agreement
was an unlawful waiver of rights conferred under the H-2A
regulations. Accordingly, Luevano-Vaca's waiver of any state law
claims against Fresh Harvest in the Settlement Agreement was
unlawful.
Even if the Settlement Agreement were only to constitute an
improper release of rights as to a subset of Luevano-Vaca's claims
against Fresh Harvest, Judge Freeman holds that this is not a
situation where the Court can "reasonably relate the illegal
consideration on one side to some specified or determinable portion
of the consideration on the other side." Fresh Harvest paid
Luevano-Vaca a lump sum of $2,644.80 in exchange for release of
"any and all claims of any and every kind." The Settlement
Agreement between Luevano-Vaca and Fresh Harvest is therefore void
in its entirety as a matter of public policy.
Without adequately alleging the existence of a valid contract,
Judge Freeman concludes that Fresh Harvest cannot state a claim for
breach of contract. Accordingly, Luevano-Vaca's motion to dismiss
Fresh Harvest's breach of contract counterclaim will be granted.
D. Leave to Amend
Since she has found that the Settlement Agreement is void as a
matter of law, Judge Freeman finds that amendment of Fresh
Harvest's breach of contract claim would be futile. Accordingly,
she will dismiss Fresh Harvest's breach of contract claim without
leave to amend.
IV. Order
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman concluded that the Dec.
31, 2020 settlement agreement between Luevano-Vaca and Defendant
Fresh Harvest is void. She dismissed Defendants Fresh Harvest,
Inc.'s and SMD Logistics, Inc.'s counterclaim against Luevano-Vaca
for breach of contract without leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycx9zdxw from Leagle.com.
GANNON FUNERAL: Website Not Blind-accessible, Calcano Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. THE GANNON FUNERAL HOME, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10296 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Mr. Calcano alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, https://gannonfuneralhome.com/, and seeks a permanent
injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that its website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers.
The Gannon Funeral Home, Inc. operates the Gannon funeral home as
well as the Gannon website and advertises, markets, distributes,
and/or sells funeral supplies and services and other products at
its location in the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Michael@gottlieb.legal
GOOGLE LLC: May Face Class Suit Over Pixel Mail-In Repair Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urian B., writing for Tech Times, reports that Google is now
investigating its Pixel mail-in repair service after reports of
compromised photos, dropbox, and email accounts have surfaced. With
that, a certain developer known as Jane McGonigal, shared her
experience when it came to her account.
Google Pixel In-Mail Repair Service
Rogue repair staff aren't actually limited to just one company. As
per an article by The Verge, the author and developer Jane
McGonical shared what happened when she tried the Google Pixel
mail-in repair service.
As per McGonigal, she stated that her internet accounts ended up
compromised once she mailed her Pixel 5a to Google to get the
device serviced. She stated that intruders were able to access her
Google services, dropbox, and even another email account.
Activity Logs Show Attempted Searches
McGonigal pointed out that the activity logs showed access to
certain semi-revealing photos in an attempt to find other
potentially more revealing photos. She stated that the incident
happened long after her device was already out of Google's
facility.
According to the story by Engadget, the attempt also happened
despite making efforts to wipe the phone and even lock the device
through Google's system. To add, she was not able to turn the phone
on as she would normally do in order to perform a reset.
Google Security Alerts Marked as Spam
The perpetrator, on the other hand, took pains to try to cover
their tracks through marking Google security alerts as spam and
even trying to delete the notices in backup email accounts. To
address the issue, Google has officially confirmed that the company
is now investigating the claim.
To add, McGonigal has also heard the same through certain
unofficial sources, but has remained uncontacted during the time of
writing. With that, the incident with McGonigal is said to be the
second incident to be reported in the last two weeks.
Mail-in Service Allegations
The allegations are highlighting the problem with mail-in service.
As per the publication Engadget, users can't always trust that
technicians will respect their privacy and it also isn't that
certain that users will be able to scrub their data.
Engadget notes that retail support is also not a guarantee as well.
With that, short of finding a technician that is trustworthy, the
best option would be for owners to fix the device themselves which
is also not practical for a lot of people.
Invitation to Launch Class Action Lawsuit
In a Twitter thread, Jane McGonigal said that users wouldn't send
their Google devices in for warranty repair/replacement. She then
shared how she was able to see the activity log on her phone
showing someone trying to break into her gmail, drive, photos
backup, and dropbox.
To add to her thread, McGonigal said that if there are others
looking to start a class action lawsuit directly against Google for
this issue, they should contact her.
If someone is interested in starting a class action lawsuit against
Google for this, feel free to contact me.
-- Jane McGonigal (@avantgame) December 4, 2021 [GN]
HOME DEPOT: Appiahs Amended Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA APPIAH AND KWADWO
APPIAH, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A, INC. and HOME DEPOT PRODUCT AUTHORITY,
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00489-VLB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Vanessa
L. Bryant entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' amended motion
for class certification.
The Court will enter a Revised Scheduling Order for the resolution
of Plaintiffs' individual claims against Home Depot.
THe Plaintiffs Brenda Appiah and Kwadwo Appiah bring the instant
products liability action against Defendants Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc. and Home Depot Product Authority, LLC's arising out of the
sale of allegedly defective bathroom tile to Brenda Appiah, which,
after installation in her home, allegedly caused injuries to Brenda
Appiah's father, co-plaintiff Kwadwo Appiah, when he slipped and
fell.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs brought two (2) claims against Home
Depot for its sale of the allegedly defective tile, including
violation of the Connecticut Products Liability Act (CPLA), and
violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. On October
23, 2020, the Court granted Home Depot's motion to dismiss Count
Two (CUTPA) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, owing to
the CPLA's exclusivity provision, which disallows other claims,
including CUTPA claims, for the same allegedly defective product.
The Plaintiff Brenda Appiah purchased a home in East Hartford,
Connecticut in 2018. Her father and co-plaintiff, Kwadwo Appiah,
also resided in the home. In 2018, Brenda Appiah installed tile in
her master bathroom purchased from the Manchester, Connecticut Home
Depot store. On May 9, 2019, Plaintiff Kwadwo Appiah "entered the
tub in the master bathroom without difficulty or slipping on the
subject tile," but "[u]pon exiting the tub with wet feet slipped on
the wet tile and twisted his ankle, causing his ankle to fracture,
requiring emergent surgery." The Plaintiffs allege that the tile
was "wet and very slippery" when Plaintiff Kwadwo Appiah fell.
Kwadwo Appiah claims injuries to his right leg, tibia, fibula, and
ankle.
Home Depot is a home improvement retailer in the United States,
supplying tools, construction products, and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IMNvTa at no extra charge.[CC]
HORIZON FREIGHT: Settles Drivers' IC Class Action for $3 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Horizon
Freight System Inc. agreed to pay $3 million to settle a class
lawsuit alleging it misclassified truck drivers as independent
contractors, depriving them of reimbursement for expenses incurred
while driving for the company, California federal court records
show.
Under the agreement, $990,000 of the $3 million class fund will be
used to pay class counsel's attorneys' fees and up to $300,000 to
pay its costs. Lead plaintiff Marvin Nash will receive $15,000 for
serving as the representative of the class. Up to $9,000 will be
used to pay the settlement administrator's fees, the motion for
preliminary approval, filed on Dec. 6. [GN]
HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Shaw Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CLYVE SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HORNBLOWER CRUISES & EVENTS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10408 (S.D.N.Y., December 6, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for its violations of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the New York State
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to give the Plaintiff
and Class members an advance written notice of their termination or
provide as much notice as practicable under the circumstances. The
Defendant permanently terminated their employment without notifying
them of its plans to effectuate the mass layoff well in advance of
August 17, 2020, says the suit.
Hornblower Cruises & Events, LLC is a charter yacht and public
dining cruise company, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
Brendan Sweeney, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS
80 Broad Street, Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 430-7930
Facsimile: (6460 349-2504
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Shareholders Sign Up to Participate in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that IAG shareholders affected by a
stock price slump triggered by a market update on COVID-related
business interruption claim provisions are signing up to
participate in a class action against the insurer.
Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan says the action is
open to those who bought shares between March 11 and November 20,
when IAG announced a capital raising and an $865 million post-tax
provision in response to a Quarantine Act wordings test case that
went against insurers.
The lawyers say IAG shares resumed trading 7% lower than the
November 18 closing price, before a trading halt, and the loss in
market capitalisation was about $800 million.
The class action, expected to be filed this year in the Supreme
Court of Victoria, will allege breaches of continuous disclosure
obligations and misleading and deceptive conduct.
An IAG spokesman says the insurer is aware that Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan has announced that it intends to file action,
but it has not yet been served with any legal proceedings.
Quinn Emanuel Partner Damian Scattini says COVID-19 was declared a
global pandemic on March 11, yet IAG policies relied on the
outdated Quarantine Act as the foundation for its pandemic
exclusion clause.
The NSW Court of Appeal on November 18 ruled insurers could not use
the repealed legislation to exclude business interruption claims
for COVID-19 disruptions.
"Unlike others, IAG did not reveal the extent of its exposure if
they were wrong, and that is why the market was shocked, because
they had said ‘we have got this covered'," Mr Scattini told
insuranceNEWS.com.au. [GN]
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Bid for Class Status Due March 18, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Batchelar v. Interactive
Brokers, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01836 (D.Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Alvin W. Thompson entered an order on motion for extension of
time as follows:
-- The plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by
March 18, 2022.
-- The defendants' opposition to the motion for class
certification is due by April 22, 2022.
-- The plaintiff's reply to the opposition to the motion for
class certification is due by May 13, 2022.
The nature of suit states diversity -- breach of contract.
Interactive Brokers is an American multinational brokerage firm. It
operates the largest electronic trading platform in the U.S. by
number of daily average revenue trades.[CC]
IQIYI INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 31 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Dec. 6 disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
or acquired the American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of iQIYI, Inc.
("iQIYI" or "Company") (NASDAQ: IQ) between March 22, 2021 and
March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired iQIYI securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
iQIYI, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.
According to the complaint, Defendants Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and
Morgan Stanley collectively sold a large number of iQIYI shares
while in possession of material non-public information obtained
pursuant to their agreements with, and from serving as prime
brokers for, Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos"). Defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that they owed a fiduciary duty, or
obligation arising from a similar relationship of trust and
confidence, to Archegos to keep the information confidential.
During March 2021, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley confidentially
learned that Archegos had failed, or was likely to fail, to meet a
margin call, requiring Archegos to fully liquidate its position in
the Company. Trading on this non-public information, Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley avoided billions of dollars in losses on their
iQIYI investments by selling Company securities in late March 2021
before the market learned of Archegos' difficulties. When this
information reached the market, the price of iQIYI securities fell
sharply, damaging Company investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 31, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired iQIYI securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/iqiyiinc-iq-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-464/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Joe Seidman
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]
IQIYI INC: Rosen Law Reminds of January 31 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of iQIYI, Inc. (NASDAQ: IQ) between March 22, 2021 and
March 29, 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 January 31, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased iQIYI 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 iQIYI class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2220.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 January 31, 2022.
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, Goldman Sachs Group
Inc. and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of iQIYI American
Depository Receipts (ADRs) during the Class Period while in
possession of material non-public information about Archegos
Capital Management (at the time a family office with $10 billion
under management) and its need to fully liquidate its position in
iQIYI because of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales,
the defendants in the case, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley,
avoided billions in losses combined.
To join the iQIYI class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2220.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.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211203005467/en/
[GN]
JACK IN THE BOX: Bid to Decertify Gessele's Deduction Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA
TETRAULT, and CHRISTINA MAULDIN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC., a
corporation of Delaware, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-CV-01092-HZ (D.
Or.), Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon denied the Defendant's Motion to Decertify Shoe
Deduction Claim.
Background
Until Sept. 30, 2011, Defendant Jack in the Box owned and operated
several restaurants in Oregon. From May 2006 through September 2011
Defendant sold its Oregon restaurants to various franchise
operators as follows: May 1, 2006: 6 restaurants, March 29, 2010:
21 restaurants, March 7, 2011: 13 restaurants, and Sept. 30, 2011:
3 restaurants.
After Sept. 30, 2011, the Defendant did not own or operate any
restaurants in Oregon and did not have any Oregon employees. The
last Jack in the Box restaurant in Oregon owned by the Defendant at
which any of the named Plaintiffs worked was sold to a franchisee
on March 29, 2010.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant in its Oregon
restaurants at various times. The Plaintiffs received their final
paychecks from the Defendant on the following dates: Tricia
Tetrault: July 11, 2008, Ashley Ortiz: Dec. 26, 2008, Nicole
Gessele: March 20, 2009, Jessica Gessele: Nov. 23, 2009, and
Christina Mauldin: March 30, 2010.
On Aug. 13, 2010, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele,
and Tricia Tetrault, on behalf of all those similarly situated,
filed a putative class-action Complaint in the Court against
Defendant Jack in the Box (Gessele I, Case No. 3:10-CV-00960-BR)
for violation of the minimum-wage and overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.,
and various Oregon wage-and-hour laws.
On May 16, 2011, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, and
Tricia Tetrault filed a First Amended Complaint in Gessele I in
which they added Christina Mauldin as a named Plaintiff. After
resolving various motions on May 15, 2014, Judge Anna Brown entered
a Judgment dismissing Gessele I without prejudice.
On June 10, 2014, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele,
Tricia Tetrault, Christina Mauldin, and Jason Diaz filed a putative
class action against Jack in the Box in Multnomah County Circuit
Court (Gessele II) in which they alleged claims for violation of
Oregon's wage-and-hour laws, violation of the FLSA, breach of
fiduciary duty, and equitable and quasi-contractual claims for
return of money.
On July 9, 2014, the Defendant removed Gessele II to the Court on
the ground of federal question jurisdiction based on the
Plaintiffs' FLSA claims and/or jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2).
On July 16, 2014, the Defendant filed an Answer to the Plaintiffs'
Complaint in which it asserted sixteen affirmative defenses
including authorized deductions, benefit to employees, and valid
deduction.
On March 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Rule 23(b)(3)
Class Certification. On June 12, 2017, Judge Brown issued an
Opinion and Order in which, among other things, she granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify the Shoe Class.
On May 3, 2019, the Defendant filed five Motions for Summary
Judgment.
On May 24, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed 10 Motions for Partial
Summary Judgment including the following:
1. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Prima
Facie Liability on Their Shoe Claims;
2. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Jack in the Box's
Third Affirmative Defense (Authorized Deductions);
3. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Jack in the Box's
Fourth Affirmative Defense (Benefit to Employees); and
4. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Jack in the Box's
Fifth Affirmative Defense (Valid Deduction).
On Nov. 13, 2019, Judge Brown issued an Opinion and Order in which
she denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
the Issue of Prima Facie Liability on Their Shoe Claims and granted
in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Jack in the Box's Third Affirmative Defense
(Authorized Deductions), the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Jack in the Box's Fourth Affirmative Defense (Benefit
to Employees), and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Jack in the Box's Fifth Affirmative Defense (Valid
Deduction).
On Jan. 21, 2021, Gessele II was reassigned to the Court.
On July 27, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion to Decertify Shoe
Deduction Claim in which it moves to decertify the Rule 23 shoe
deduction class.
Discussion
Parties seeking class certification bear the burden of
demonstrating that they have met each of the four requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and at least one of the
requirements of Rule 23(b)." Rule 23(a) requires a party seeking
class certification to establish: (1) that the class is so large
that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity); (2) that
there are one or more questions of law or fact common to the class
(commonality); (3) that the named parties' claims are typical of
the class (typicality); and (4) that the class representatives will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of other members of the
class (adequacy of representation).
Ultimately, Judge Brown concluded the Plaintiffs satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23(a) with respect to the shoe class, that the
questions of law or fact common to shoe class members predominated
over any questions that only affect individual members, and that a
class action was the best way to adjudicate the controversy fairly
and efficiently. Judge Brown, however, specifically noted the Court
could revise the shoe class if necessary after the parties
litigated the merits of the spoliation and employee benefit issues.
Accordingly, Judge Brown granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
as to the shoe class, but indicated certification could be
revisited in the future if necessary.
With respect to the Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment, Judge
Brown first concluded pursuant to O.A.R. 839-020-0020(7) that the
cost of non-slip shoes (whether from Shoes for Crews or another
brand) are an item that the Defendant was not allowed to deduct
from Plaintiffs or other Oregon employees unless one of the
exceptions set out in O.R.S. 653.035 or 652.610(3) applied. Second,
Judge Brown concluded there was a dispute of material fact as to
whether the Plaintiffs and other employees authorized Defendant in
writing to take the shoe deductions from their paychecks.
Accordingly, Judge Brown denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motions for
Summary Judgment as to the Defendant's third and fifth affirmative
defenses to the extent that the Plaintiffs' Motions and those
affirmative defenses were premised on written authorizations
required under O.R.S. 652.610(3)(b) and (c). Finally, he concluded
that the Defendant did not establish that it was permitted to
withhold Shoes for Crews payments from its employees pursuant to
O.R.S. 652.610(3)(c).
The Defendant moves for an order decertifying Plaintiffs' shoe
deduction claim on the basis that Judge Brown's rulings on summary
judgment make clear that class members' shoe deduction claims
cannot be resolved without an individualized inquiry into whether
each class member provided a written authorization for each shoe
deduction, which would necessitate calling thousands of class
members as witnesses. According to the Defendant, therefore, common
questions of fact do not predominate over questions affecting only
individual members and the shoe claim no longer satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendant's motion on the grounds that
(1) there has not been any change in law or fact to support
revisiting certification, (2) affirmative defenses rarely defeat
certification, (3) the shoe class' other elements are susceptible
to class treatment, (4) secondary evidence of the written
authorizations is not admissible and cannot create an issue of
fact, and (5) the Court can address the written authorization issue
through a post-verdict claims process.
I. Change in Law or Fact
Judge Hernandez finds that the record reflects Judge Brown granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify as to the shoe class, but
specifically indicated the certification issue could be revisited
after summary judgment if necessary. As noted, at summary judgment
Judge Brown concluded the spoliation doctrine did not apply to the
issue of written authorizations and that disputes of material fact
precluded summary judgment as to whether the Plaintiffs and other
employees provided written authorizations for each shoe deduction.
Judge Hernandez concludes that these rulings taken together provide
a sufficient change in the law or facts of the case to merit the
reevaluation of certification of the shoe deduction class.
To the extent that the Plaintiffs assert decertification of the
shoe class would prejudice all of the shoe class members who
already "won at least partial summary judgment" on the Defendant's
third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses, Judge Hernandez does
not intend to revisit Judge Brown's rulings related to whether the
shoe deductions were for the private benefit of employees under
O.R.S. 653.035(1) or for the benefit of employees under O.R.S.
652.610(3)(b), the spoliation issues, or the conclusion that the
Defendant was not permitted to withhold shoe deductions from
employees pursuant to O.R.S. 653.610(3)(c). The sole remaining
basis on which the Defendant can establish it properly took shoe
deductions from the Plaintiffs' paychecks is pursuant to O.R.S.
652.610(3)(b). Shoe class members, therefore, are not prejudiced by
the decertification of the shoe class.
II. Affirmative Defenses Rarely Defeat Certification
Judge Hernandez opines that the Defendants' affirmative defenses of
authorized deduction and valid deduction are not theoretical
defenses that might apply at some point. Rather, at summary
judgment Defendant established there is a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the Plaintiffs and other employees
signed forms authorizing Defendants to take shoe deductions. This
question is central to the Plaintiffs' shoe deduction claim and the
affirmative defenses.
As to the Plaintiffs' assertion that the Court can address any
individualized issues pertaining to the shoe deduction affirmative
defenses at the damages phase, Judge Hernandez finds that the
Plaintiff overlooks the significance of the written authorizations
to the liability issue. Specifically, to the extent the Plaintiffs
and other employees signed written authorizations for shoe
deductions, Defendant was permitted to take those deductions
pursuant to O.R.S. 652.610(3)(b), he says, the Defendant is not
liable for improper deductions, and the Plaintiffs are not entitled
to damages. Judge Hernandez, therefore, concludes these are the
rare circumstances under which an affirmative defense undermines
class certification.
III. The Shoe Class's Other Elements
The Plaintiffs assert the Court should not decertify the shoe class
on the basis that the shoe class' other elements and causes of
action are susceptible to class treatment.
Judge Hernandez finds that the Plaintiffs have never disputed that
the Defendant recorded employees' shoe deductions in its payroll
records. In addition, Judge Brown concluded at summary judgment
that the shoe deduction was not for the employees' private benefit
under O.R.S. 653.035(1), but it was for the employees' benefit
within the meaning of O.R.S. 652.610(3)(b). As noted, Judge
Hernandez declines to revisit Judge Brown's rulings on summary
judgment. Accordingly, whether the shoe class remains certified or
not, the jury will not decide the issue of employee benefit under
either O.R.S. 653.035(1) or 652.610(3)(b). Finally, even if other
elements of the Plaintiffs' shoe deduction claim have common issues
of law or fact, Judge Hernandez says the Plaintiffs still have not
established that the written authorization element of the
Defendant's affirmative defenses presents a question common to the
class members that predominates over individualized issues.
IV. Secondary Evidence
The Plaintiffs assert the Court should deny the Defendant's Motion
to Decertify because Defendant has not established that it will be
permitted to present secondary evidence to attempt to establish
that the Plaintiffs and other employees signed written
authorizations.
The Plaintiffs, however, do not point to any evidence that the
Defendant instructed its managers to destroy the written
authorizations in bad faith, Judge Hernandez opines. He concludes
the Plaintiffs have not established the Defendant destroyed the
written authorizations in bad faith. Accordingly, he declines to
conclude the shoe class should not be decertified on the basis that
the Defendant has not established that it will be permitted to
present secondary evidence to attempt to establish that the
Plaintiffs and other employees signed written authorizations.
V. Subclasses or Post-Verdict Claims Process
The Plaintiffs assert the Court should not decertify the shoe class
because affirmative defenses are "usually dealt with either by the
creation of subclasses or through a post-verdict claim process."
They fail to specify any particular subclasses or to describe any
specific post-verdict claim process that they assert would cure the
individualized inquiry issue. Judge Hernandez, however, concludes
the record supports the possibility of the division of named and
putative Plaintiffs into two subclasses: Those who signed waivers
for shoe deductions and those who did not. Because it is possible
for at least one subclass of the Plaintiffs to proceed with the
shoe deduction claims, Judge Hernandez will deny the Defendant's
Motion to Decertify Shoe Deduction Claim.
Conclusion
For these reasons, Judge Hernandez denied the Defendant's Motion to
Decertify Shoe Deduction Claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p93y83k from Leagle.com.
Jon M. Egan -- Jegan@eganlegalteam.com -- Lake Oswego, OR, Jim W.
Vogele -- jim@employeelawyer.io -- in Portland, Oregon, Attorney
for the Plaintiffs.
Douglas S. Parker -- dparker@littler.com -- David P. R. Symes --
dsymes@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Portland, Oregon,
Ian Maher -- imaher@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Los
Angeles, California, Attorneys for the Defendant.
JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Faces Class Action Over Mass Layoff
---------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action aims to represent all employees who were terminated as
part of a mass layoff executed by the Jefferson County Committee
for Economic Opportunity (JCCEO) on or around November 24, 2021
without receiving at least 60 days' advance notice.
The nine-page lawsuit alleges the non-profit ran afoul of the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act
when it terminated hundreds of employees a day before Thanksgiving
without prior notice and as a result of "financial mismanagement."
According to the suit, at least 33 percent of JCCEO's active
workforce, excluding part-time employees, were affected by the
layoff.
Under the WARN Act, companies of a certain workforce size are
required to provide at least 60 days' advance notice of an
impending mass layoff or plant closing. Employees who do not
receive the statutory advance notice prior to a layoff may be
entitled to seek damages for back pay and benefits for up to 60
days.
Around the time of the layoff, the defendant, whose employees
provided various services to low-income residents of Jefferson
County, Alabama, informed workers that they would not receive
paychecks for the prior week's work or going forward, the suit
claims. The lawsuit says that although JCCEO officials stated on
December 1 that the business would pay employees affected by the
layoff wages earned up until December 12, that offer has "since
been rescinded and no payments have been forthcoming."
Reporter Roy S. Johnson of AL.com wrote on November 24 that the
layoffs came two days after the JCCEO board of directors revealed a
$2 million financial shortfall and faced imminent layoffs since the
group did not have enough funds to make payroll through the end of
the year. According to AL.com, the JCCEO Board fired Executive
Director Sharon Myles on November 1 and terminated five personal
services contracts. Board Chair Gary Richardson told AL.com that
"[w]e were led to believe we had a certain amount of cash."
An AL.com report published on November 22 states that the board
chair called the JCCEO "dead" without a $3 million infusion from
Birmingham and Jefferson County.
The lawsuit looks to represent all former Jefferson County
Committee for Economic Opportunity employees who lost their jobs
without being given proper notice and benefits under the WARN Act.
The WARN Act applies to businesses with 100 or more full-time
workers, with certain exclusions, or who employ 100 or more workers
who work at least a combined 4,000 hours per week. A mass layoff is
characterized under the law as the firing of either between 50 and
499 full-time workers at a single site, equating to 33 percent of a
company's workforce, or the layoff of 500 or more full-time workers
at a single site of employment.
Though the suit states that the JCCEO laid off "approximately 500
employees," AL.com has revised its initial report to state that the
actual number of workers laid off was 258. [GN]
JOHNSON UTILITIES: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2021 a class-action lawsuit against Johnson
Utilities reached a proposed settlement in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona. If the court grants final approval,
which we expect to happen, a settlement fund of over $10 million
will be created and distributed to former Johnson Utilities
customers -- including those who are now customers in EPCOR's San
Tan water and wastewater districts.
EPCOR has arranged to disburse these funds to customers as a
one-time credit on their bills after the court grants final
approval of the settlement. That could happen as early as February
2022. While we were not a party to the lawsuit, we're very pleased
to do this -- it's a simple, efficient solution that will result in
more dollars being distributed to our customers.
Who does this apply to?
This applies to former Johnson Utilities customers who paid for
water and/or wastewater services between October 1, 2011, and the
date the court gives its expected, preliminary approval of the
settlement.
How/when will I get my money?
This applies to former Johnson Utilities customers who paid for
water and/or wastewater services between October 1, 2011, and the
date the court gives its expected, preliminary approval of the
settlement.
How much will I receive?
Disbursements will be calculated using a formula that the court
approves. We don't have anything to do with this process, and we're
not able to say exactly how much each customer will receive. It
will likely depend on the service(s) you received and the length of
time you've been a customer.
Was EPCOR involved in this lawsuit?
No. The lawsuit was filed well before EPCOR stepped in as Interim
Manager of Johnson Utilities and does not involve EPCOR in any way.
Our only role is facilitating one-time credits to help our
customers.
I want a refund check, not a bill credit.
EPCOR agreed to place the one-time credit on customer bills to save
administrative costs that would have been taken out of the
settlement fund. We are unable to issue refund checks, but
customers can use the credit to cover their EPCOR bill or bills,
thus freeing up money that would have been used to pay your bill.
I still have questions. Where can I learn more?
A dedicated website with more details on the legal proceedings is
being developed and we will post a link to it here when it becomes
available. In the meantime, all questions can be directed to:
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
20 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: (312) 606-0500
Attn: Clint Krislov
How do I follow the case?
You can follow the case - No. 2:17-cv-04688 - in the U.S. District
Court, District of Arizona. [GN]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Falahi Seeks Return of Improperly Charged OD Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN FALAHI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., and 22
DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-09449 (Dec. 6, 2021)
is a lawsuit Chase on behalf of the public and Chase's customers,
on the basis that Chase has violated and continues to violate
federal and California state law.
The Plaintiff seeks the return of all improperly charged overdraft
fees within the statute of limitations period. The Plaintiff
further seeks a public injunction enjoining Chase from harming the
general public by continuing to obtain new customers' "consent" to
assess overdraft fees by using an opt-in disclosure agreement and
methods that violate Regulation E.
The Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Chase from assessing further
overdraft fees on Regulation E transactions until it obtains the
consent of current customers using a Regulation E- conforming
opt-in disclosure agreement and opt-in methods. Further, Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin Chase from assessing any further overdraft fees on
transactions pursuant to the available balance, which is in direct
violation of its contract with its customers.
First, Federal Reserve Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. section 1005.1, et
seq., ("Regulation E"), requires that before financial institutions
may charge overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM
transactions, they must (1) provide a complete, accurate, clear,
and easily understandable disclosure of their overdraft services
(opt-in disclosure agreement); (2) provide that disclosure as a
stand-alone document not intertwined with other disclosures; (3)
obtain verifiable affirmative consent of a customer's agreement to
opt into the financial institution's overdraft program; and (4)
provide confirmation of the customer's consent, including a
statement informing the customer of the right to revoke such
consent. Financial institutions are not permitted to include any
additional information in the opt-in disclosure agreement unless
specifically authorized by Regulation E, and financial institutions
must ensure these procedures are followed no matter the medium used
to offer customers the option to opt-in, whether online, by
telephone, or in person at a branch. Furthermore, financial
institutions must not tie other benefits to an opt-in decision or
use pre-checked boxes by the "opt-in" option on the opt-in
disclosure agreement. Financial institutions are also prevented
from aggressively marketing the benefits of Regulation E overdraft
coverage, promoting their overdraft coverage as short-term credit
programs, or otherwise encouraging customers to opt into their
programs.
Based on Chase's alleged violations, Plaintiff seeks damages as
provided by Regulation E and the UCL. The Plaintiff also seeks to
enjoin Chase from continuing to market its Regulation E overdraft
program and/or obtain new customers' "consent" to be assessed
overdraft fees by using an opt-in disclosure agreement that
violates Regulation E and from continuing to assess any further
overdraft fees on Regulation E transactions until it obtains the
consent of current customers using a conforming Regulation E opt-in
disclosure agreement.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. is an American national bank
headquartered in Manhattan, New York City, that constitutes the
consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the U.S.
multinational banking and financial services holding company,
JPMorgan Chase.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
- and -
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
231 N. Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 307-6116
Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com
JUUL LABS: Consumers Seek Class Status in E-Cigarette Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers for
consumers who say they overpaid for Juul Labs Inc's e-cigarettes
because of the company's allegedly deceptive marketing on Dec. 6
urged a federal judge to certify their claims as a class action,
while the company argued that consumers must proceed individually
because they bought Juul products under widely differing
circumstances.
"This is a classic case of disparate categories of individuals who
are not similarly situated," said Gregory Stone of Munger, Tolles &
Olson, representing Juul.
"The common answers do predominate over any individualized answers
or questions," countered Dena Sharp of Girard Sharp, a lawyer for
the plaintiffs, pointing to the uniformity of the company's
marketing campaigns across the country.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco, who is
presiding over multidistrict litigation against Juul, did not rule
on the motion. He had said in a tentative opinion on Dec. 3,
without explaining his reasoning, that he was inclined to grant
class certification.
More than 2,800 cases have been consolidated in the MDL against
Juul, its largest shareholder Altria Group and several individual
officers and directors. They include both personal injury claims
and claims of economic loss by people who say they would have paid
less, or not bought the e-cigarettes at all, if Juul had not
downplayed their addictiveness and appealed to teenagers through
social media campaigns and other means.
The Dec. 6 hearing focused on plaintiffs' bid to certify classes of
economic loss plaintiffs under California consumer protection law
and the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act. They are seeking partial refunds for adult purchasers, and
full refunds for underage purchasers.
Stone said the plaintiffs' case rested on whether Juul's marketing
was misleading, whether it targeted teenagers, whether buyers were
actually misled and whether the marketing affected their buying
decisions.
"The answer to every one of the four questions plaintiffs pose is,
it depends," Stone said. For example, he noted that one proposed
class representative said in a deposition that he first learned of
Juul not through ads but from his brother.
Sharp said that Juul's marketing resulted in higher prices for all
consumers.
"The beauty of the price premium model . . . is that it leaves no
class member uninjured," she said.
She also said that underage purchasers were necessarily entitled to
full refunds because those sales were unlawful.
The case is In re Juul Labs Inc, Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Products Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, No. 19-md-02913.
For plaintiffs: Dena Sharp and Scott Grzenczyk of Girard Sharp
For Juul: Gregory Stone of Munger, Tolles & Olson; and David
Bernick of Kirkland & Ellis [GN]
KEYSTONE LAW: Chaga Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Chaga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Keystone Law LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:21-cv-05285-JS (E.D. Pa., December 2,
2021) arises from the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and false
debt collection practices in violation the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, some time prior to October 25, 2021 an
obligation was allegedly incurred by the Plaintiff to Dermatology
Ltd. Dermatology contracted Defendant Keystone to collect the
alleged debt.
Allegedly, Defendant's collection efforts with respect to this
alleged debt from Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to suffer concrete and
particularized harm, inter alia, because the FDCPA provides
Plaintiff with the legally protected right not to be misled or
treated unfairly with respect to any action regarding the
collection of any consumer debt.
Keystone Law LLC is a debt collection law firm located in
Wyalusing, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 326-9179
E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com
LA LIVE THEATRE: Ibarra Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALBERT IBARRA and LOUIS PORRAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. LA LIVE THEATRE, LLC and
DOES 1 through and including 10, Case No. 21STCV37689, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on December 6, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-09427 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal breaks, failure to pay
overtime, and continuing wage violations.
La Live Theatre, LLC is an owner and operator of an entertainment
complex headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robin Samuel, Esq.
Christina Taylor, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-4728
Facsimile: (310) 201-4721
E-mail: robin.samuel@bakermckenzie.com
christina.taylor@bakermckenzie.com
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Kahn Swick Reminds of January 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
Lightspeed Commerce, Inc. (LSPD)
Class Period: 9/11/2020 - 11/3/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 18, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-lspd/
Peloton Interactive, Inc. (PTON)
Class Period: 12/9/2020 - 11/4/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 18, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-pton/
Zillow Group, Inc. (Z, ZG)
Class Period: 2/10/2021 - 11/2/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 18, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-z/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California, Louisiana and
New Jersey.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
LOUISVILLE, KY: LDMC's Appeal in Inmates' Class Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Munashe Kwangwari, writing for WLKY, reports that a federal judge
has now made it easier for some former inmates to receive damages
from the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections. It's a ruling
that initially stems from a 2017 lawsuit accusing LMDC of keeping
inmates past their release dates.
The department of corrections filed an appeal, but that appeal was
denied.
Meaning, any person from Feb. 3, 2016, to now who was imprisoned in
LMDC for more than a four hours after the court ordered them
released, can now band together in a class-action lawsuit. In other
words, instead of filing separate individual lawsuits against the
jail, they can join forces.
The same can happen for anyone who, from Feb. 3, 2016, to now, was
detained in LMDC for more than 12 hours after they were supposed to
be released.
"I think it could easily affect five to 10 people a year," said
Daniel Johnson, Metro Corrections Fraternal of Police president.
"Especially once you break it down by the hour. It wouldn't
surprise me if it's 10 people a year."
Johnson has been working for LMDC for 17 years. He said, for as
long as he can remember, booking and releasing inmates has always
been an issue.
"There's a breakdown in communication between the courthouse and
records," said Johnson. "They use different computer systems, and
so, they often just send actual paperwork over. We don't always get
the paperwork, sometimes it gets lost, sometimes those days that
get entered in don't get entered in at the other end."
Which he believes kept piling up until 2017. That's when a group of
former inmates filed lawsuits against the jail for being held too
long. One of the plaintiffs is claiming she was kept in jail six
days after her charges were dismissed. Another is claiming he was
only supposed to serve three days, but ended up serving five.
"I'm actually kind of surprised it took as long as it did," said
Johnson. "Numbers-wise, well it doesn't sound too bad, but even one
is too many. That is till one person that was kept longer than they
should've been held."
Now the case is going back to the district court.
In the meantime, Johnson said he hopes this ruling sparks change.
"If we can get the same people that are processing the court
paperwork, to be the same ones in records just entering it in as it
comes, that'll take away the many hands that it passes through,"
said Johnson. "We also need to get on the same computer system."
A spokesperson with LMDC declined to comment on the matter,
referring WLKY to the Jefferson County States Attorney.
The state's attorney has not returned WLKY's calls. [GN]
MAJESTIC CARE: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Wright Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL WRIGHT v. MAJESTIC
CARE STAFF LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02129-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order
extending the briefing schedule as follows:
1. Responses in Opposition to the Motions are due on December
17, 2021.
2. Replies in Support of the Motions are due on January 7,
2022.
The parties seek extensions of time to respond to their respective
pending motions, the Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Court-Authorized Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
and Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Non-Ohio Resident Opt-In
Plaintiffs' Claims for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
Majestic Care provides community-based senior care throughout
Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pP9Czv at no extra charge.[CC]
MAPLEWOOD, MO: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Webb Civil Rights Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Maplewood filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled CECELIA ROBERTS WEBB, et al., v. THE CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD, MISSOURI, Case No. 4:16-cv-01703-CDP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.
On November 1, 2016, Plaintiffs Cecelia Roberts Webb, Darron Yates,
Anthony Lemicy, and Frank Williams filed this putative class-action
Complaint under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that various of
their constitutional rights were violated by defendant City of
Maplewood's policies, practices, and procedures of arresting
individuals on warrants for failure to appear or failure to pay on
minor ordinance violations, and making these individuals pay
warrant bonds or jail them without an inquiry into or a
determination of their ability to pay such bonds or fines.
The Plaintiffs claim that some of these warrants were "sham"
warrants issued without a judicial finding of probable cause. The
Plaintiffs also claim that they were denied fair access to court
because of the threat of imprisonment if they appeared without
money to pay bond on the warrants.
The Plaintiffs claim that these policies, practices, and procedures
violated their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. They also bring a
claim of unjust enrichment under Missouri law.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 30, 2021, the
Hon. Judge Catherine D. Perry entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification;
2. appointing the named plaintiffs Cecelia Roberts Webb,
Darron Yates, Anthony Lemicy, and Frank Williams as Class
Representatives to represent the Injunctive Class, defined
as follows:
"All persons, whether or not such person has ever been
jailed, who have paid or currently owe warrant bonds to
the City of Maplewood arising from cases in the Maplewood
court;"
3. appointing the plaintiffs Cecelia Roberts Webb and Darron
Yates as Class Representatives to represent the Narrowed
Paid Fines Class, defined as follows:
"All persons who paid to the City of Maplewood fines,
costs, and/or fees that were assessed without an inquiry
into their ability to pay, and who paid such fines, costs,
and/or fees after being arrested and jailed on Maplewood
municipal warrants issued for failure to pay or for
failure to appear;"
4. appointing plaintiffs Cecelia Roberts Webb, Darron Yates,
and Anthony Lemicy as Class Representatives to represent
the Jailed Class, defined as follows:
"All persons who have been jailed by the City of Maplewood
for nonpayment of fines, fees, costs, or surcharges,
including warrant bonds arising from cases in the
Maplewood court, and who (1) were not provided an
opportunity to prove indigence prior to jailing; (2) were
not considered a danger to the community by notation in
Maplewood's file; and (3) were not designated as a flight
risk at the time of jailing;" and
5. appointing of class counsel.
The Defendant seeks a review of this class certification order.
The appellate case is captioned as The City of Maplewood v. Cecilia
Webb, et al., Case No. 21-8012, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 2, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner The City of Maplewood is represented by:
William A. Hellmich, Esq.
Blake Hill, Esq.
HELLMICH & HILL
1049 N. Clay Avenue
Kirkwood, MO 63122
Telephone: (314) 646-1110
- and -
Timothy John Reichardt, Esq.
REICHARDT & NOCE
12444 Powerscourt Drive, Suite 370
Saint Louis, MO 63131
Telephone: (314) 789-1199
Plaintiffs-Respondents Cecelia Roberts Webb, Darron Yates, Anthony
Lemicy, and Frank Williams, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
Maureen Hanlon, Esq.
Blake A. Strode, Esq.
John McCann Waldron, Esq.
ARCH CITY DEFENDERS
440 N. Fourth Street, Suite 390
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 361-8834
E-mail: ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org
bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
- and -
Steven W. Duke, Esq.
KEANE LAW, LLC.
7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1600
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 391-4700
- and -
Leora Friedman, Esq.
Andrea Gold, Esq.
Dia Rasinariu, Esq.
Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI
1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0300
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL & GOLD
1100 15th Street, N.W., 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 615-3948
E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com
- and -
Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
7777 Bonhomme Avenue
Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
Telephone: (314) 391-4700
MCDONALD'S CORP: Fails to Provide Paid Rest Breaks, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Croft, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that hundreds of
thousands of McDonald's staff have brought a class action against
the fast-food giant for failing to provide adequate paid rest
breaks, in what is being described as a "systematic failure".
McDonald's has been accused of not providing staff with enough paid
rest breaks for the duration of their shifts – some of which are
over nine hours long. The joint investigation has revealed that
workers Australia-wide have not been receiving
their 10-minute rest break entitlements under both the
McDonald's Australian Enterprise Agreement 2013 and the Fast Food
Industry Award 2010.
Under these, staff are entitled to a paid 10-minute break for
shifts lasting between four and nine hours, as well as two
paid 10-minute breaks for shifts nine hours or longer.
The investigation, launched by Shine Lawyers and the Retail and
Fast Food Workers Union (RAFFWU), follows a decision by the Federal
Court in August 2020 that found that former McDonald's employee
Chiara Staines was not provided with paid 10-minute rest breaks
when working shifts four hours or longer. Ms Staines was awarded
the value of her lost rest breaks in addition to compensation for
loss of amenity.
In September, the RAFFWU estimated that at least 250,000 McDonald's
staff were denied the breaks they were legally entitled to since
2015.
Shine Lawyers class actions practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos
said that since the launch of the class action investigation, the
firm had been inundated with inquiries from short-changed
staff.
"What we are alleging is a systemic
failure across the McDonald's network. This class
action has hit a nerve for thousands of staff, both past and
present, who have been victims of the workplace breaches we
allege," she said.
"We are dealing with a class of vulnerable workers, mostly minors,
who it appears were systematically not provided with their
entitled rest breaks.
"Remarkably, many worked in extreme heat and other onerous
conditions for hours on end and couldn't access the toilet or a
drink. This conduct has in many instances affected the physical and
mental well-being of the workers, and the class action
seeks to hold McDonald's to account."
Filed in the Federal Court, the class action is open to any current
and former McDonald's workers who worked at any corporate-owned
McDonald's from December 2015, and any franchised McDonald's from
September 2017.
RAFFWU secretary, Josh Cullinan, added that these vulnerable, often
school-aged workers are entitled to fair compensation.
"The blatant disregard shown to workers by Maccas is breathtaking.
We encourage every eligible worker to get involved. They deserve
full and fair compensation for what Maccas did to them," he said.
[GN]
MEDIA ALL STARS: Robinson-Moore Sues Over Unpaid Bonuses, Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DESTINEE NICOLE ROBINSON-MOORE, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. MEDIA ALL STARS, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00050573-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., December
2, 2021) arises from the Defendants' unlawful and unfair business
practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.
The complaint alleges breach of contract for failure to pay
non-discretionary bonuses, rest period violations, waiting time
penalties, wage statement penalties, and failure to pay sick pay at
regular rate.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a sales associate
from October 11, 2020, through April 2021.[BN]
Media All Stars, Inc. is a marketing agency located in San Diego,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manny Starr, Esq.
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, #2074
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
dan@frontierlawcenter.com
META PLATFORMS: Faces Rohingya Class Action Over Myanmar Genocide
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Milmo, writing for The Guardian, reports that Facebook's
negligence facilitated the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar
after the social media network's algorithms amplified hate speech
and the platform failed to take down inflammatory posts, according
to legal action launched in the US and the UK.
The platform faces compensation claims worth more than GBP150bn
under the coordinated move on both sides of the Atlantic.
A class action complaint lodged with the northern district court in
San Francisco says Facebook was "willing to trade the lives of the
Rohingya people for better market penetration in a small country in
south-east Asia."
It adds: "In the end, there was so little for Facebook to gain from
its continued presence in Burma, and the consequences for the
Rohingya people could not have been more dire. Yet, in the face of
this knowledge, and possessing the tools to stop it, it simply kept
marching forward."
A letter submitted by lawyers to Facebook's UK office on Dec. 6
says clients and their family members have been subjected to acts
of "serious violence, murder and/or other grave human rights
abuses" as part of a campaign of genocide conducted by the ruling
regime and civilian extremists in Myanmar.
It adds that the social media platform, which launched in Myanmar
in 2011 and quickly became ubiquitous, aided the process. Lawyers
in Britain expect to lodge a claim in the high court, representing
Rohingya in the UK and refugees in camps in Bangladesh, in the new
year.
"As has been widely recognised and reported, this campaign was
fomented by extensive material published on and amplified by the
Facebook platform," says the letter from the law firm McCue Jury &
Partners.
Facebook admitted in 2018 that it had not done enough to prevent
the incitement of violence and hate speech against the Rohingya,
the Muslim minority in Myanmar. An independent report commissioned
by the company found that "Facebook has become a means for those
seeking to spread hate and cause harm, and posts have been linked
to offline violence".
The McCue letter says: "Despite Facebook's recognition of its
culpability and its pronouncements about its role in the world,
there has not been a single penny of compensation, nor any other
form of reparations or support, offered to any survivor."
In the US and UK, the allegations against Facebook include:
Facebook's algorithms amplified hate speech against the Rohingya
people; it failed to invest in local moderators and fact checkers;
it failed to take down specific posts inciting violence against
Rohingya people; and it did not shut down specific accounts or
delete groups and pages that were encouraging ethnic violence.
The US complaint cites Facebook posts that appeared in a Reuters
report, with one in 2013 stating: "We must fight them the way
Hitler did the Jews, damn Kalars [a derogatory term for Rohingya
people]." Another post in 2018, showing a photograph of a boatload
of Rohingya refugees, says: "Pour fuel and set fire so that they
can meet Allah faster."
The number of Rohingya killed in 2017, during the Myanmar
military's "clearance operations", is likely to be more than
10,000, according to the medical charity Medicins sans Frontieres.
About 1 million Rohingyas live in Cox's Bazar refugee camp, in
south-eastern Bangladesh, where McCue and Mishcon de Reya, which is
also working on the UK-based case, expect to recruit more
claimants.
The UK case has about 20 claimants so far, while in the US the
class action suit hopes to act on behalf of an estimated 10,000
Rohingya in the country.
The Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen has alleged the platform
is fanning ethnic violence in countries including Ethiopia and is
not doing enough to stop it. She said 87% of the spending on
combating misinformation at Facebook is spent on English content,
while only 9% of users are English speakers.
Responding to Haugen's revelations, Facebook has said it had a
"comprehensive strategy" in place for countries at risk of conflict
and violence, including use of native speakers and third-party fact
checkers.
Facebook's owner, Meta, has been approached for comment. [GN]
NATIONAL GRID: Court Grants Prelim OK of $38.5M TCPA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that a New York federal judge recently granted
preliminary approval for a $38.5 million class action settlement in
Jenkins v. National Grid USA et al., 2:15-cv-01219 (E.D. N.Y.
2021), a case arising under the TCPA. The defendants are several
large-to-medium gas companies.
The five plaintiffs, customers of the defendants, have accused them
of making unsolicited robocalls to consumers’ cellphones using a
prerecorded message or artificial voice. The calls concerned debts
allegedly owed by the defendants.
The proposed agreement would certify a settlement class of all U.S.
residents who received a call from the defendants on their
cellphones from March 9, 2011, until October 29, 2021, using a
prerecorded message or artificial voice concerning a bill, account,
an invitation to speak with an advocacy group or representative, or
the availability of a government assistance program. The settlement
would result in an average payout of $50 to $150 for each class
member while also requiring the defendants to implement training
programs and procedures to prevent any future TCPA violations. [GN]
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks Dismissal of Youth Center Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Ramer, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
number of lawsuits alleging physical or sexual abuse at New
Hampshire's youth detention center has grown to more than 100,
though the attorney general's office is seeking to dismiss some it
says lack detail.
In the last two years, more than 430 men and women have come
forward with accusations against 150 staffers at the Sununu Youth
Services Center in Manchester. The allegations span six decades,
and 11 former staffers face criminal charges.
A judge dismissed a class action lawsuit in May, leaving only the
lead plaintiff's claims intact and setting off a flood of nearly
identical individual lawsuits against the state and former
employees over the last few months. Attorney Rus Rilee, who
represents all plaintiffs, filed the 102nd case Dec. 8, a day after
state Attorney General John Formella said he wants two of the
earlier claims against the state thrown out.
"Most of these suits are being filed with very limited information
regarding the claims," Formella said in a statement. "The State has
a need to have sufficient information regarding these claims."
Plaintiffs can refile their lawsuits with additional information,
Formella said, and the motion to dismiss "should in no way be
considered as a lack of support for the victims of crime."
Rilee, however, said that instead of treating his clients with the
dignity and respect they deserve, the state is "revictimizing them
for telling their stories."
"The idea that the state doesn't have enough information to defend
these cases is absurd since it is the state that is prosecuting
these same employees who beat, raped and tortured these survivors,"
he said.
While one division of the attorney general's office has been
defending the state against the lawsuits, the criminal division
launched a broad investigation into the center and its operations
in 2019. Together, the 11 former staffers arrested in April are
charged with nearly 100 counts of either sexually assaulting or
acting as accomplices to the assault of more than a dozen teenagers
from 1994 to 2007.
The Manchester facility, formerly called the Youth Development
Center, serves children ordered to a secure institutional setting
by the juvenile justice system. The average population last year
was just 17 residents overseen by about 90 employees, though it
once housed upward of 100 youths and employed a larger staff. The
current state budget calls for replacing it with a much smaller
facility by March 2023. [GN]
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Suit Over Illegal Strip Searches by Police
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been launched on behalf of young people
who were unlawfully strip searched at the Splendour in the Grass
music festival in 2018.
In 2019, the New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct Commission
(LECC) began an investigation into several strip searches conducted
by the state's police officers.
The investigation came in the wake of statistics showing that the
number of strip searches has risen 20-fold over the past decade or
so in our state, to the point where it has become "routine
policing", and the fact that in more than 80% of cases, strip
searches turn up nothing illegal.
Focus on investigation
Given its limited resources, the LECC focused on strip searches of
young adults at the 2018 Splendour in the Grass music festival, as
well as the strip searching of a 15-year-old boy who was required
to lift his testicles, a 16-year-old Aboriginal boy who had his
shorts pulled off and forced to squat in a vehicle dock and
16-year-old girl who was asked to remove her panty liner as part of
a search.
As part of the investigation, the LECC looked at the practice of
strip searches more broadly and in December 2020, its final report
identified a number of ambiguities surrounding police protocols
regarding searches. Due to these purported uncertainties (although
lawyers suggest the fact many of the searches are illegal is
apparent) the Commission, whose members include former police
officers, suggested that the lawfulness of some of the searches is
"debatable".
No power to discipline or prosecute
It is important to note that the LECC has no power to discipline
let alone criminally prosecute police officer - it can only make
recommendations for change and potential prosecution.
Indeed it is completely up to prosecutorial bodies such as the NSW
Police Service and, potentially, the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions as to whether an officer will be criminally
prosecuted for crimes.
It is also telling that the LECC, due to the insufficiency of its
resources, is only able to investigate around 2% of complaints it
receives against police officers.
Recommendations for change
As a result of the investigation, the Commission made 25
recommendations for change.
One of these recommendations was for greater clarity regarding
strip search protocols and further guidance on when and how they
should be conducted, included the parameters of strip search laws.
The recommendations is somewhat surprising given the current law is
clear regarding when a strip search can be undertaken, where and
how it can be undertaken, and what may amount to an illegal strip
search.
The Commission further recommended that their be more comprehensive
police protocols regarding the basis for a strip search, as well as
better record keeping when officers take it upon themselves to
subject a person to the humiliating procedure.
It also recommended of strip searches changes to NSW Police
training guides and manuals, with a direction that, in accordance
with the law, police "conduct the least invasive kind of search
practicable in the circumstances" - such as a "general search"
instead of a strip search where possible, and strict specifications
about what's permissible and not during a strip search, such that
police are not allowed to touch a person's breasts, genitals or
buttocks during a strip search.
The NSW Police Force has not, as yet, responded to the
recommendations, but given its past track record and the attitude
of the current Police Commissioner regarding strip searches, some
feel there is unlikely to be any substantial change.
Class action being commenced
Given the brazenness of police officers when conducting strip
searches and the inaction of police commands when it comes to
ensuring officers follow the law, a class action is now being
commenced with a view to forcing change and bringing justice to
those illegally violated.
One of the lawyers with carriage of the class action told the
media.
"We think that people who have undergone an unlawful strip search
will be entitled to substantial compensation, so in serious cases,
the compensation could be tens of thousands of dollars".
"We haven't seen a class action in relation to unlawful strip
searches in Australia. so we think this is a really unique and
important way to clarify strip search law, and to highlight this
issue, and importantly, to get compensation for people who have
been impacted by these unlawful searches."
State-sanctioned sexual assault
For many young people, the experience of being strip searched is
degrading and traumatic. It erodes trust in police.
The psychological impacts following a strip search can range from
fear, humiliation, distress and depression to aggression and
hostility.
One young woman told the NSW Coronial Inquest into drug-related
deaths at music festivals that a police officer threatened to make
a strip search "nice and slow", unless she confessed to where her
drugs were hidden.
Similarly, a young man who carries an insulin pen for diabetes was
strip searched after a positive indication of drugs by a sniffer
dog.
Police searched his pockets and shoes and then took him to a
demountable building where he was strip searched. He says he left
his shirt on, but officers asked him to remove his pants and
underwear and bend over.
He says the experience "quite confronting, quite intimidating" and
that at no time was he told his rights, or asked for his consent to
the search.
What does the law say?
Part 4 division 4 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and
Responsibilities Act) 2002 (NSW) (the LEPRA) sets out the strip
search powers police have. Section 31 states that a strip search
can only be conducted when "the seriousness and urgency of the
circumstances" necessitate it.
Section 33 of the LEPRA outlines that these searches must be
carried out in an enclosed area and not in view of anybody of the
opposite sex. Body cavities can't be checked. The search shouldn't
involve the removal of any clothing unnecessarily and an officer
should never touch an individual.
A refusal to comply with armed officers' orders to strip down is
taken as being motivated by having something to hide - rather than
having anything to do with fear, dignity or humiliation - so it's
best to politely comply with instructions.
However, an individual should never give consent to being searched:
reason being, if it's found the search was carried out illegally,
then having given consent actually overrides that finding and makes
it legal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Mulled Over Rikers Island Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Rayman, writing for New York Daily News, reports that women
transferred to a state prison because of the crisis at Rikers
Island have been threatened with violence and subject to beatings,
strip searches and male officers' ogling as they take showers, says
a lawyer planning a lawsuit on their behalf.
"These women are being punished because of the staffing issue at
Rikers," said the lawyer, Tahanie Aboushi. "If the staff doesn't
want to show up, the solution shouldn't be that these women are
transferred wherever and subjected to these conditions."
The lawsuit, to be filed in Manhattan Federal Court, seeks a court
order stopping all transfers of female pre-trial detainees from
Rikers to state prisons and reversing the transfers that have taken
place.
The filing is expected to name as defendants the city, high-ranking
state prison officials and staff at Bedford Hills Correctional
Facility in Westchester County.
The women, each of them awaiting trial, were among some 118
transferred through Tuesday from the Rose M. Singer Center on
Rikers to Bedford Hills.
The transfers were supposed to provide "relief" for "vulnerable
populations on Rikers" during the staffing, overcrowding and
conditions crisis of the late summer and fall, Gov. Hochul and
Mayor de Blasio said when they announced the move Oct. 13.
But the women claim the transfer program has been a nightmare --
itself a punishment without due process.
The detainees' problems go beyond being shipped 44 miles north of
the city, further away from their families, the lawsuit is to say.
The women so fear retaliation at Bedford Hills, Aboushi said,
they'll be named in the case under pseudonyms -- Sue Brown, Ann
Johnson and Mary Davis.
Brown, according to the lawsuit, was attacked by a correction
officer Nov. 9. The officer, who outweighed her by 150 pounds,
allegedly told her, "You want a f------ problem? You think you're
f------ tough?" and then choked her and threw her against a set of
stairs.
The officer then punched her twice in the face, shouting, "What's
up now? You're state property now."
Brown was placed in solitary for eight days and then charged with
assaulting the officer. But a security video of the incident proved
the officer's assault allegation was false and that he had indeed
assaulted her, the lawsuit said.
"There was no discipline against the officer, and they swept it
under the rug," Aboushi said.
Another detainee, Ann Johnson, claims a second officer told a group
of the women he would order sentenced inmates to beat up the
detainees, the lawsuit claims. The third, Mary Davis, claims she
was regularly threatened with physical harm by officers.
All three women claim they underwent extremely invasive strip
searches, in violation of their Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable searches and seizures, the lawsuit alleges. Male
officers also repeatedly walked in on them in the shower while they
were naked, the women said.
In the rush to transfer them, the women claim, they all lost
personal possessions and had to throw away food and weren't allowed
to take clothing, costing the three of them hundreds of dollars in
lost items in total, the lawsuit claims.
"These are grave constitutional violations. They are not property,
they are people," Aboushi said. "It has delayed their cases and
interfered with their attorney's ability to access them. It's
exacerbated an already difficult situation."
The transfers were opposed in October by some 50 organizations
including the National Organization for Women and the Center for
Constitutional Rights. A petition against the move was signed by
128 people in the Singer Center.
Of the 118 who were transferred, there are currently 107 at
Bedford, six have been released, four were sentenced and a
transgendered detainee asked to be sent back to Rikers, according
to the Correction Department.
The city Law Department declined comment, noting that the city has
not been served with papers in the case. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Vaccine Mandates
--------------------------------------------------------------
WABC reports that as omicron cases are starting to tick up
nationwide, the lawsuits continue against New York City's vaccine
mandates.
The latest comes from a Staten Island attorney who wants to file a
class-action suit on behalf of anyone who works in the city that
doesn't want to get vaccinated.
Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the most aggressive vaccine mandate
in the country, requiring private-sector workers to get vaccinated
by December 27.
"We are going to be filing a class-action lawsuit, we received
dozens, dozens of calls yesterday and dozens more today, on behalf
of any employee," attorney Louis Gelormino said. "Anybody that
works in New York City that has a job in New York City, this could
be from 16 years old to 75 years old, anybody that works in New
York City that doesn't want to get the vaccination, we are going to
be filing a class-action lawsuit on their behalf."
There are questions about how it's going to be enforced, and the
NYPD says the responsibility won't be on them. For businesses, it's
yet another layer of red tape. They're worried it could lead to
even more worker shortages.
The mayor, however, says the mandate is actually pro-business.
"They like to see the government lead," he said. "We did that with
our own public employees, our own public schools. We proved it
works. And then what we also heard from business leaders is
whatever you do, don't let us go back to shut down. Don't let us go
backward."
Of course, many companies have already imposed their own vaccine
mandates without government intervention.
The city's vaccination rate is already close to 90%, one of the
highest in the nation. Statewide, that number is 70%, while roughly
60% of all Americans are vaccinated.
On Dec. 8, Pfizer's top doctor recommended booster shots as a way
to help fight the omicron variant.
The latest data indicates that the omicron variant of COVID-19 is
more than twice as contagious. But so far, the illnesses it
produces appear less severe than the current delta variant. Experts
say it hardly matters.
"We should be worried about getting any COVID-19 virus, frankly, it
doesn't really matter what the trademark is," said Dr. Reynold
Panettieri with Rutgers University. "What you want to do is avoid
the infection the way to do that with vaccination, avoiding crowds
if necessary, and just being cautious."
For the moment, the greatest COVID-19 risk to New Yorkers is the
delta variant. Although the new variant is spreading.
De Blasio said he is concerned about omicron community spread in
neighborhoods with lower vaccination rates.
"Definitely concerned because this is a real challenge," he said.
"We need a lot more information on omicron, but we believe it is
more transmissible than delta. That's a real concern. Again, we
also believe there is community spread at this point. We will keep
tracking individual cases, but we believe there is community
spread. I think it's too early to say there are clusters. I think
we are going to see more and more cases very quickly over the
coming weeks." [GN]
OAK STREET: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH) resulting from
allegations that Oak Street may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Oak Street securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2210.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: In Oak Street's Q3 update on Monday, November
8, 2021, Oak Street revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) is investigating whether the Company may have violated the
False Claims Act and said the DOJ has requested documents and
information related to Oak Street providing free transportation to
federal healthcare beneficiaries and related to its relationships
with third-party marketing agents.
On this news, Oak Street's stock price fell $9.75 per share, or
20%, to close at $37.14 on November 9, 2021, damaging investors.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
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]
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Settles Class Action for $12.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Odonate
Therapeutics Inc. has agreed to pay $12.5 million to resolve a
proposed class action in California alleging the pharmaceutical
company misled investors about the safety of a new drug for
treating cancer.
Kevin Kendall filed the lawsuit in September 2020, accusing the
company of making misleading statements and omissions about the
development of tesetaxel. The amended complaint says the company
and its officers unlawfully inflated the stock price by misleading
investors about a clinical trial and the likelihood of FDA
approval.
On Dec. 3, the named plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The motion
says the deal is "the product of extensive work" by co-lead
counsel.
The motion says the deal is an "excellent result" for members of
the settlement class. It comes about four months after Odonate lost
a bid to throw out the allegations when a federal judge in
California found investors sufficiently pleaded their case.
The motion says attorneys for the plaintiffs will also seek an
attorneys' fees award of one-third of the settlement amount, and up
to $100,000 in expenses. The proposed deal includes a $5,000 award
for the lead plaintiff.
The proposed deal is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.
The plaintiffs are represented by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer
LLC. The defendants are represented by Cooley LLP.
The case is Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics Inc., S.D. Cal., No.
3:20-cv-01828, 12/3/21.
To contact the reporter on this story: David McAfee in Los Angeles
at dmcAfee@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli
at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Patrick L. Gregory at
pgregory@bloomberglaw.com [GN]
OLE MEXICAN: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Ole Mexican Foods has falsely marketed and
labeled certain products in a manner that indicates they are made
in Mexico.
The 17-page suit out of New York contends that the packaging of
Ole's La Banderita Burrito Grande, Sabrosísimas Corn, Taco Size
Flour Tortillas and Whole Wheat Fajitas misleads consumers into
believing the products are authentically made in Mexico. The
lawsuit says that this is due to the fact that the front label of
the products prominently displays the Mexican flag, Spanish phrases
such as "El Sabor de Mexico!" ("A taste of Mexico") and a logo that
displays the Mexican flag with the word "authentic."
Consumers place a greater value on products that are actually made
in Mexico, the suit argues. The lawsuit says that neither the
plaintiff nor other consumers would have bought the Ole La
Banderita items, or would have paid significantly less for them,
had they known they were not truly a product of Mexico.
"Defendant deceptively labeled and packaged the Product to target
consumers who are interested in purchasing tortillas from Mexico,"
the complaint alleges, contending that Ole "knew or should have
known" that the products' labels falsely and deceptively
misrepresent the country in which they were made.
The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who bought any of
Ole's La Banderita burrito, flour tortilla, whole wheat fajitas or
sabrosísimas corn products in New York for personal, family or
household use. [GN]
ON24 INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of January 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against ON24, Inc. ("ON24" or the "Company") (NYSE:
ONTF) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and docketed under 21-cv-08744, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired ON24 securities: under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") against (i)
ON24, Inc. ("ON24" or the "Company") and (ii) certain of the
Company's senior executives and directors who signed the
Registration Statement, effective February 2, 2021, issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO" or
the "Offering"). Plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement
and Prospectus (collectively, the "Offering Documents"), filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2021 and
February 4, 2021, respectively, including all amendments thereto,
contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or
omitted material information that was required by law to be
disclosed. Defendants are each strictly liable for such
misstatements and omissions therefrom (subject only to their
ability to establish a "due diligence" affirmative defense) and as
so liable in their capacities as signers of the Registration
Statement and/or as an issuer, statutory seller, and/or offeror of
the shares sold pursuant to the Offering.
If you are a shareholder who purchased ON24 common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection
with the Company's IPO and ON24 securities during the Class Period,
you have until January 3, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
ON24 purports to be a leading, cloud-based digital experience
platform that enables businesses to convert customer engagement
into revenue through interactive webinar experiences, virtual event
experiences, and multimedia content experiences.
The complaint alleges that, the Offering Documents' representations
were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because
they failed to disclose, inter alia, that the surge in COVID-19
customers ON24 observed in the lead up to the IPO consisted of a
significant number that did not fit ON24's traditional customer
profile and, as a result, were significantly less likely to renew
their contracts.
On August 10, 2021, after the markets closed and in connection with
announcing the Company's second quarter 2021 financial results,
ON24 offered guidance for the remainder of the year. Specifically,
ON24 guided to revenue of no more than $48.5 million in Q3 and
$204.5 million for fiscal year 2021, missing analyst consensus by
$2.7 million and $4.5 million, respectively.
During the Company's analyst call held that same day, Defendant
Sharat Sharan, President and Chief Executive Officer of ON24,
admitted that ON24 "experienced higher-than-expected churn and
down-sell from customers [it] signed up in the second quarter of
last year during the peak of COVID." (Emphasis added.) He then
added, "this higher churn was primarily in the first-time renewal
cohort, customers who signed [] [one]-year contracts last year and
who were up for renewal."
Analysts at Piper Sandler & Co. ("Piper Sandler"), which rated ON24
as "overweight" in its August 11, 2021 report, likewise noted how
the Company's second quarter results were "clearly more negative
than [it] had anticipated," expressing concern over the fact that
ON24's ARR had "stalled," due to "renewal downsizing and churn."
Piper Sandler also noted how the "combination of renewal downsizing
and higher SMB churn was accentuated by a material reduction in the
2H outlook for professional services."
Analysts at Canaccord Genuity LLC ("Canaccord Genuity") also
downgraded ON24 to hold on August 11, 2021 as a result of "the
COVID tourist depart[ures]" ON24 observed during the quarter.
(Emphasis added.) In its report, which was titled, "COVID renewals
take a bite out of growth; ONTF in the penalty box, downgrade to
HOLD,"
On this news, ON24's stock declined nearly 31%, falling from $32.31
per share on August 10, 2021 to close at $22.31 per share on August
11, 2021.
By the commencement of this action, ON24's stock traded as low as
$18.66 per share, a nearly 63% decline from the $50 per share IPO
price.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
ONIN STAFFING: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due February 25, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOBBY LEE MILES, JR., v.
ONIN STAFFING, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00275 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Alistair E. Newbern entered an order granting the parties'
joint motion to extend the deadline to complete fact discovery so
as to facilitate an upcoming mediation.
The following amendments are made to the case management calendar:
-- The fact discovery period shall conclude by January 31,
2022.
-- All fact-discovery-related motions shall be filed by
February 9, 2022.
-- The deadline to file any motion for class certification is
February 25, 2022.
-- Any response in opposition shall be filed no later than 28
days after service of the motion. Any optional reply shall
be filed no later than 14 days after service of the
response.
-- The deadline to file any dispositive motions is April 15,
2022.
-- Any response in opposition shall be filed no later than 28
days after service of the motion.
-- Any optional reply shall be filed no later than 14 days
after service of the response.
Onin is a staffing and recruiting company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yo6sqw at no extra charge.[CC]
OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Underpays Manufacturing Staff, Callier Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS CALLIER; DAMON ODOM; and DEMONICA FAVORS, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated who have opted to
participate in this action, Plaintiffs v. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00521 (S.D. Ala., December 2,
2021) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay each named
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees compensation,
including overtime pay, to which they were entitled to under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs performed work for Defendant in Mobile County,
Alabama as non-exempt, hourly, manufacturing "employees" as defined
by Section 203(e)(1) of the FLSA.
Francis Callier was employed by Defendant from 2011-June 2021.
Damon Jones was employed by Defendant from 2011-May 2020. Demonica
Favors was employed by Defendant from approximately May 2017-May
2021.
Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC manufactures steel products. The
Company offers stainless grades, forms, coils, plates, sheets,
surface finishes, hot rolled plates, bars, and tubular products to
various sectors. Outokumpu Stainless USA operates globally.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian D. Rosenthal, Esq.
HOLSTON, VAUGHAN & ROSENTHAL, LLC
P.O. Box 195
Mobile, AL 36601
Telephone: (251) 432-8883
Facsimile: (251) 432-8884
E-mail: idr@holstonvaughan.com
- and -
Patrick H. Sims, Esq.
P.O. Box 7112
Mobile, AL 36670
Telephone: (251) 490-9424
E-mail: patrick@simslawfirm.net
OVH GROUPE: Twenty Customers Join Class Suit Over Fire Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Judge, writing for DCD, reports that Paris law firm Ziegler &
Associates says around twenty OVHcloud customers have joined a
class action to claim more compensation from OVHcloud, for losses
caused in the disastrous fire which destroyed an OVHcloud data
center in Strasbourg in March.
Ziegler says it is "starting the procedures to issue the OVHcloud
formal notice" of a lawsuit in which it will represent customers of
the French cloud service provider, who did not receive fair
compensation, after a fire that destroyed the SBG2 data center in
Strasbourg on March 10, and disabled a second facility on the same
site.
Out of court negotiations?
The law firm will be signing up new clients for the case, and
estimating their damages, before sending a formal bill to OVHcloud
for those damages in March. After that, Ziegler and OVHcloud will
negotiate, either settling the matter or taking it to court.
OVHcloud has told DCD that it has not yet received formal notice of
the lawsuit, and repeated its earlier statement that a full report
on the cause of the fire will be issued in 2022; a delay which
meant the company's IPO proceeded in October with the full cost of
the fire unknown, although OVHcloud's own filing estimated it could
be as high as EUR105 million.
Ziegler, a specialist in collective actions, launched its class
action in September, saying "The OVH cloud company had a
contractual responsibility for storing and securing data with its
customers. It is obvious that the company did not respect this
obligation, OVH, therefore, committed a contractual breach. Thus,
it is possible for you to obtain compensation on this basis [Google
translation]."
Since then, the company has repeated an offer to act on behalf of
OVHcloud customers who lost business and, in many cases, lost data,
when the fire took place, saying OVHcloud's offers of compensation
were inadequate, and unfair, given that all customers have had the
same offer, despite some suffering worse losses than others.
Ziegler is charging EUR480 (plus 20 percent VAT) for participation,
and will be entitled to five percent of compensation that is paid,
according to a "clause de résultats" (results clause)..
Although OVHcloud says it has not had any formal notice of the
claim, Ziegler says it has around 20 subscribers, the number it
originally set itself, and so the case is going forward, according
to a report in Le Journal Du Net.
"By offering compensation, OVHCloud implicitly recognizes its
responsibility", Jocelyn Ziegler told JDN. "For the smallest client
of this recourse . . . the loss represents EUR10,000 ($11,200),
while OVH offers barely the equivalent of EUR900 ($1,000) by
offering its cloud free of charge for a few months."
As well as being too small, this offer is not fair, as OVHcloud is
offering the same credit note to all customers, without assessing
the level of damage each suffered, Ziegler told JDN.
The action is reported to have brought together two large
companies, along with six SMEs and some smaller businesses, across
industries including accounting, real estate, marketing, medical,
and tourism. All remain anonymous, having signed a confidentiality
agreement with Ziegler, putting the lawyer in charge of any future
negotiation with OVHcloud.
Some companies lost data as well as business during the extended
outage. "For the majority, it is about a loss of database. For
example, an actor in the medical profession found himself without
any information associated with the patients, from the pathologies
to the prescribed doses," despite having paid for HDS
certification, an optional extra for health data, according to
Ziegler.
Tourist companies saw customers' booking details disappear,
including dates and accommodation bookings, while a marketing
company lost its customer base, the law firm says.
Ziegler has said it will estimate the damage suffered by each
company, and in March it will issue a demand which asks OVHcloud
for compensation on a case-by-case basis, including damage to the
clients' brand image. Ziegler and OVHcloud will then negotiate.
OVHcloud might argue that the incident was "force majeure" or an
act of God, for which the service provider is not responsible but
Ziegler says this is not justified: "The event was foreseeable
given the design of the site. It could also have been avoided or
lessened, for example, if an automatic extinguishing system had
been installed and if the optional backups had not been carried out
on the same data center."
Ziegler is referring to reports that OVHcloud had manual, rather
than automatic fire suppression systems, and used a construction
involving wood and plastic. However, at this stage, no formal cause
for the fire has been given by OVHcloud, although early in the
response to the incident, OVH founder Octave Klaba did say that UPS
systems were on fire.
OVHcloud has said it was unable to publish a report until 2022. The
company has said the delay is because of the involvement of the
French authorities and insurance companies - but the delay meant
the full information about the fire has been kept under wraps until
after the company's flotation on the French stock market, which
took place in October. The company's shares opened at around
EUR18.50 a share, and at the time of writing are worth EUR21.49.
An OVHcloud spokesperson told DCD that the company has no formal
details of this proposed class action, and very few customers have
taken individual action against the company. Out of 120,000
customers, the number taking legal action under their own steam is
small, we were told: "The amount of legal cases is limited because
we've been treating the customers right."
Action points
Ziegler's site is still inviting OVHcloud customers to come forward
and sign up. "As long as the demand letter is not yet sent,
companies can still join the action," a spokesperson for Ziegler
told DCD.
The company has said it will be assessing losses, based on the
client's turnover before and after the fire, the number of lost
customers, and losses in market share, as well as the time it took
for data to be recovered, and the cost of any other services the
client had to use during the incident to make up for OVHcloud's
shortfall.
If there's no out-of-court settlement, clients could face another
year of repeated court hearings.
"This compensation action is essential for all the companies that
were victims of this fire, regardless of your size and your sector
of activity," says Ziegler's site. "To be able to be compensated,
it is therefore essential that you join the class action." [GN]
OWLET INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of January 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 18, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who (a) purchased
Owlet, Inc. ("Owlet" or the "Company") (NYSE: OWLT) f/k/a
Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation ("Sandbridge") securities
between March 31, 2021 and October 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or (b) held Sandbridge common stock held as of June
1, 2021 and were eligible to vote at Sandbridge's special meeting
on July 14, 2021.
If you suffered a loss on your Owlet investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/owlet-inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.
On July 15, 2021, Sandbridge combined with Owlet Baby Care Inc., a
company that designs and sells products and services for parents to
proactively monitor the health and wellness of their children, and
the combined company was renamed Owlet (the "Business
Combination").
On October 4, 2021, Owlet revealed that it had received a warning
letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), which
stated that "the Company's marketing of its Owlet Smart Sock
product . . . renders [it] a medical device requiring premarket
clearance or approval from FDA." Owlet has not obtained such
clearance or approval. Moreover, the FDA "requests the Company
cease commercial distribution of the Smart Sock for uses in
measuring blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate where such metrics
are intended to identify or diagnose desaturation and bradycardia
using an alarm functionality to notify users that measurements are
outside of preset values."
On this news, Owlet's stock price fell $1.29, or 23%, to close at
$4.19 per share on October 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume. As a result, Sandbridge investors who could have voted
against the Business Combination and redeemed their shares at
$10.00 per share suffered a loss of $5.81 per share.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Owlet was reasonably likely to be required to
obtain marketing authorization for the Smart Sock because the FDA
concluded it was a medical device; (2) that, as a result, Owlet was
reasonably likely to cease commercial distribution of the Smart
Sock in the U.S. until it obtained the requisite approval; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Owlet securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 18, 2022
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Faces Deulina Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANASTASIA DEULINA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., JOHN
FOLEY, WILLIAM LYNCH, and JILL WOODWORTH, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-10266 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2021) seeks to recover damages
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the
Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting
to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Peloton's
common stock between December 9, 2020 and November 4, 2021,
inclusive.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, investors
were highly focused on whether Peloton's growth would decline once
vaccines were approved, businesses reopened, and individuals could
return to exercising at the gym. The Defendants repeatedly and
falsely assured investors that Peloton's recent success was not
primarily due to COVID-related increased demand, but rather that
the Company's growth and financial results were sustainable and
would continue post-COVID. In truth, Peloton's Class Period
financial results were primarily driven by COVID-related increases
in demand for at-home exercise options, says the suit.
At the same time, however, Peloton made false, reassuring
statements to investors, including issuing guidance of $5.4 billion
of total revenue for fiscal year 2022 (beginning September 1,
2021), representing 34% year-over-year growth.
As a result of these disclosures, the price of Peloton common stock
declined by $30.42 per share, or over 35%, from a closing price of
$86.06 per share on November 4, 2021 to $55.64 per share on
November 5, 2021, erasing $8.1 billion in shareholder value, the
suit added.
Peloton Interactive, Inc. is an American exercise equipment and
media company based in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
PEMBROKE GUN: Faces Hindi FTSA Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIL HINDI, individually and on behalf of all, others similarly
situated v. PEMBROKE GUN & RANGE LLC., Case No. CACE-21-021712
(Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Dec. 9, 2021) contends that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Defendant allegedly engages in telephonic sales calls to
consumers without having secured prior express written consent as
required by the FTSA.
The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have allegedly caused
Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their
statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and
invasion of their privacy.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, as
defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.
On or about November 26, 2021, the Defendant sent the following
telephonic sales calls to Plaintiffs cellular telephone number.
Given the Defendant's use of generic text messages to solicit
consumers, along with the use of a long-code, the Plaintiff is
informed and believes that Defendant caused similar telephonic
sales calls to be sent to at least 50 individuals residing in
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
PHILIPS NORTH: Recalled Breathing Machines Defective, Dusza Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE DUSZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC;
and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC; and DOES 1-10, Case No.
1:21-cv-01720-NONE-BAM (E.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2021) is a class action
complaint to represent a class of similarly situated persons who
also purchased defective Recalled Breathing Machines, and to obtain
relief for their injuries.
This is a tag along action to MDL 3014, pending in Western District
of Pennsylvania before the Honorable Judge Conti and Plaintiff
hereby requests that this action be transferred to IN RE: PHILIPS
RECALLED CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 3014.
Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, and
Philips RS North America LLC manufacture and sell a variety of
products that are intended to help people breathe. These include
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ("CPAP") and Bilevel Positive
Airway Pressure ("BiPAP") machines, that are commonly used to treat
sleep apnea, and ventilators that treat respiratory failure. In
general, each of these devices express air into patients' airways.
CPAP and BiPAP machines are intended for daily use, and ventilators
are used continuously while needed. Without these devices, some
patients may experience severe symptoms, including heart attack,
stroke, and death by asphyxiation.
On June 14, 2021, Philips announced a recall of many of its
CPAP/BiPAP machines and its ventilators (the "Recalled Breathing
Machines"). Specifically, the Recalled Breathing Machines contain
polyester-based polyurethane ("PE-PUR") foam for sound abatement.
Philips announced that this foam may break down and be inhaled or
ingested. Further, the PE-PUR foam may emit volatile organic
compounds ("VOCs") that may be inhaled, ingested, adversely affect
organs, and are carcinogenic. Philips announced these hazards could
result in "serious injury which can be life-threatening or cause
permanent impairment."
Philips knew about these very substantial and material risks long
before the recall. The Patients who use the Recalled Breathing
Machines have complained about black particles in their machines
for several years. Philips, however, did not warn the public or its
customers about these hazards until late April 2021 and did not
recall the Recalled Breathing Machines until June 14, 2021, says
the suit.
Plaintiff Mike Dusza resides in LaPorte, Indiana. He purchased the
Dreamstation in Bakersfield, California. He was diagnosed with
sleep apnea and was issued a Dreamstation machine in 2016. He would
not have used this product if he had known it was defective,
contained a carcinogenic byproduct, and would be subject to a
recall for containing defective materials. Because of the recall,
he does not have a replacement machine readily available. Plaintiff
also is no longer able to obtain sufficient sleep without the use
of an appropriate device to help him breathe properly.
The Plaintiff demands a refund, replacement with a non-defective
device, costs for ongoing medical monitoring, and all other
appropriate damages for all the injuries he has suffered as a
result of his defective Dreamstation.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a Dutch multinational company
headquartered in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and is the parent company
of Philips North America LLC and Philips RS North America LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
Caleb Marker, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
- and -
Kelly Hyman, Esq.
THE HYMAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite P-300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 538-71982
E-mail: kellyhyman@thehymanlawfirm.com
PHOENIX INSURANCE: Faces Insurance Class Action in Tel-Aviv Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Holdings Ltd. ("The Company") on Dec. 5 disclosed that
a Claim has been filed in the Tel - Aviv District Court against the
Company's subsidiary, The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd.
(hereinafter: "The Phoenix Insurance"), along with a motion to
certify the claim as a class action, (hereinafter collectively:
"The Claim").
The matter of the Claim, according to the plaintiff, is that The
Phoenix Insurance refused to pay for consultation cost for
Ambulatory Health Insurance, while relying upon the existing
exceptions clause under the general conditions for the health
insurance plans, when, according to the plaintiff, these exceptions
do not exist under the Ambulatory Insurance terms, and that The
Phoenix Insurance has refrained from proper disclosure in this
regard.
The plaintiff noted that the estimate of the cumulative damage to
all members of the group, as she claims, is in the amount of NIS 4
million.
At this stage, The Phoenix Insurance is studying the details of the
Claim, and therefore the chances of its approval as a class action
cannot be assessed, and if it is approved, the chances of its
success cannot be assessed. [GN]
PIVOTAL INVESTMENT: Sidley Attorneys Discuss SPAC Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Heyworth, Esq., and Julia L. Bensur, Esq., of Sidley,
disclosed that they previously wrote about the trend of SPAC
(special purpose acquisition company) lawsuits filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, with some combination of the
post-merger entity, its board of directors, or the SPAC sponsor
named as defendants. Over the course of this year, we have seen
this trend continue, with a number of new SPAC lawsuits filed in
the Court of Chancery since we last wrote on this topic. Several
recent complaints filed in the Court of Chancery exemplify that the
same recurring issues discussed in this space previously (e.g.,
alleged sponsor conflicts of interest, a hasty process to speedily
complete a de-SPAC deal, lack of pre-merger diligence) likely will
continue to feature prominently in SPAC litigations.
In Janmohamed v. Ledecky, filed in the Court of Chancery on October
19, 2021, the putative class action complaint named the directors
and officers of the SPAC sponsor (Pivotal Investment Holdings II
LLC or "Pivotal"), many of whom became directors of the combined
company, XL Fleet, as well as Pivotal itself. Interestingly, the
plaintiff did not name the post-merger entity as a defendant in the
lawsuit, but instead identified it as a "relevant non-party." The
complaint alleges that the founders of Pivotal appointed themselves
and "trusted associates" to key roles at Pivotal, with complete
control over the process of identifying a merger opportunity and
securing shareholder approval. The complaint further alleges that
Pivotal's CEO, with the SPAC merger deadline quickly approaching,
struck a deal with the CEO of XL, who was a decades-long business
acquaintance and family friend, to merge the two entities. Pivotal
did not include any independent directors in the decision-making
process, nor did it obtain a fairness opinion. The plaintiff claims
that pre-merger disclosures significantly overvalued the
post-merger company, and alleges that in response to a books and
records request to XL Fleet seeking due diligence materials in
connection with the merger, XL Fleet was unable to identify and
produce even one document, despite Pivotal's claim that it
conducted "significant due diligence" prior to the merger. The
complaint also claims that Pivotal's Board duped investors into
approving the merger transaction by suggesting that stockholders
would lose value on their investments if the SPAC liquidated rather
than going through with the merger.
In Yu v. RMG Sponsor, LLC, filed in the Court of Chancery on
October 28, 2021, the plaintiff brought a class action complaint
against a SPAC sponsor and certain of its officers and directors
(but not the post-de-SPAC combined company, Romeo Power, Inc.). The
complaint alleges that the board of directors of the SPAC, RMG
Acquisition Corp. ("RMG"), breached fiduciary duties to its
stockholders by "knowingly and consciously failing to perform due
diligence about Legacy Romeo's business prospects or disloyally
ignor[ing] such facts to benefit themselves to the detriment of
RMG's minority stockholders." Particularly, Romeo was experiencing
a shortage of high-quality battery cells, which was a core material
for its main products. While the pre-merger disclosures stated that
Romeo had a relationship with four power-cell providers, the
plaintiff alleges that in reality it only had a relationship with
two. Three months after the merger, Romeo issued a press release
revealing serious supply chain issues and estimating the company's
revenue projections at $18–$40 million for 2021, a notable
departure from the $140 million that RMG had projected in various
pre-merger disclosures filed with the SEC. The complaint also
alleges that pre-merger disclosures contained misleading statements
and material omissions which impacted RMG's stockholders' decision
whether to redeem their shares prior to the merger. In addition to
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff also asserts an
unjust enrichment claim against the sponsor and certain individual
defendants. The unjust enrichment claim underscores SPAC
plaintiffs' oft-repeated concerns regarding the possible conflict
of interest that exists between the SPAC founders' significant
financial gain in the event of a successful transaction and the
best interest of the stockholders.
These recent examples should serve as reminders to SPAC sponsors to
conduct extensive due diligence in connection with a proposed
de-SPAC transaction, include independent directors in the approval
process to mitigate conflicts where possible, and of the critical
importance of issuing accurate and clear disclosures to
stockholders prior to any vote on the transaction. The addition of
an unjust enrichment cause of action to the Yu complaint also
indicates that, while plaintiffs will likely continue to focus on
the theme of a hasty, conflicts-laden process pushed by sponsors,
they are also considering new theories of liability against SPAC
sponsors and their directors and officers. [GN]
PJ CHEESE: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PJ CHEESE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00644-RCY-LRL (E.D. Va., December 7, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages
and minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately August of 2000 until the
present.
PJ Cheese, Inc. is an owner and operator of Papa John's franchises
throughout Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Dix, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP, PLLC
3311 West Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230
Telephone: (804) 999-9999
Facsimile: (866) 238-6415
E-mail: mdix@hurtinva.com
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To Playtika Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: PLTK) investors:
A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a class consisting of persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Playtika
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about January 15, 2021 or (b)
Playtika securities between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 2021.
To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/playtika-holding-corp-loss-submission-form?wire=5&prid=21992
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.There is
no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's year-over-year total costs and
costs related to sales & marketing and research & development were
on track to rise significantly by the third quarter of 2021; (ii)
the success of the Company's game portfolio was less sustainable
than the Company had represented; (iii) the foregoing issues were
likely to negatively impact the Company's revenue and earnings; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you suffered a loss in Playtika, you have until January 24, 2022
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 70 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
POM GROUP: Faces Melendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
JUAN MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POM GROUP INC. d/b/a LINCOLN MARKET, and
KHALID INNAB, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06786 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish a
proper wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a materials stocker
from July 2017 until July 5, 2021.
Pom Group Inc., doing business as Lincoln Market, is a retail
company based in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Gamboa BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAN GAMBOA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
2021 CH 05459, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on December 6,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-06515 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by capturing,
collecting, storing, and transferring biometric scans of
individuals who purchased the Oral B iO Series 7G toothbrush and
downloaded and used the Oral-B Smartphone Application.
The Procter & Gamble Company is a multinational consumer goods
corporation, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jody Kahn Mason, Esq.
Jessica E. Chang, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 787-4949
E-mail: Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com
Jessica.Chang@jacksonlewis.com
PROLOGIS INC: Faces Complaints Over Stench Caused by Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
A stench that emanated from a flood-control channel in Carson and
triggered thousands of complaints resulted from chemicals that
flowed from a storage yard during a fire and caused vegetation to
decay, air regulators said.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District said in a statement
it issued notices of violation to four companies and Los Angeles
County, which is responsible for maintaining Dominguez Channel.
The notices allege the emissions of hydrogen sulfide caused a
public nuisance.
The fire began Sept. 30 at a warehouse property in Carson where two
companies stored large amounts of wellness and beauty products, and
chemicals including ethanol subsequently flowed into the channel,
the district said.
Complaints of a rotten-egg stench began on Oct. 3 and eventually
came from thousands of people in at least a half-dozen communities
in the area.
The air district sent violation notices to two companies' whose
products were involved, the company that owns the property and its
parent company, and L.A. County. Emails seeking comment were sent
to the companies and the county's Department of Public Works.
Prologis Inc., the parent of the company that owns the property,
said in a statement that it was working with the Los Angeles County
Fire Department to safeguard the property from storm water runoff
and to clean up the fire debris.
READ ALSO | Still smelling that foul odor in the Carson area?
Here's what public officials want you to know
The company said the notices do not include any corrective actions
for Prologis to take but the company will proactively work with the
district to address any concerns.
Notices of violation can lead to civil penalties, voluntary
mitigation measures or a civil lawsuit if there's no settlement.
[GN]
QUEST GROUP: Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA A. GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. QUEST GROUP CONSULTING, LLC; QUEST
GROUP SEARCH, LLC; DOUGLAS SHAENER; JASON HANGES; and DOES 1
through 50 inclusive, Case No. 37-02021-00045487-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on December 6, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02041-H-WVG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, the
California Labor Code, and the California Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) by, inter alia, failing to: (1) pay
minimum wage; (2) pay state overtime wages; (3) provide proper meal
and rest breaks; (4) provide accurate wage statements; (5) maintain
accurate payroll records; (6) reimburse business expenses; (7)
adhere to the ICRAA; and (8) provide proper seating.
Quest Group Consulting, LLC is a global executive search, staffing
solutions, and consulting firm, with its principal place of
business located at 6 Concourse Parkway, Suite 2250, Atlanta,
Georgia.
Quest Group Search, LLC is a global executive search, staffing
solutions, and consulting firm, with its principal place of
business located at 6 Concourse Parkway, Suite 2250, Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Krista M. Cabrera, Esq.
Kevin Jackson, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130-2594
Telephone: (858) 847-6700
Facsimile: (858) 792-6773
E-mail: kcabrera@foley.com
kjackson@foley.com
- and –
Bradford G. Harvey, Esq.
Scott E. Simmons, Esq.
MILLER & MARTIN PLLC
832 Georgia Avenue
Suite 1200, Volunteer Building
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Telephone: (423) 756-6600
Facsimile: (423) 785-8480
E-mail: brad.harvey@millermartin.com
scott.simmons@millermartin.com
R. R. DONNELLEY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the firm
Monteverde & Associates PC ("M&A Class Action Firm"), a national
securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State
Building in New York City, is investigating R. R. Donnelley & Sons
Company ("RRD" or the "Company") (NYSE:RRD), relating to its sale
to Atlas Holdings LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, RRD
shareholders will receive $8.52 in cash for each share of Company
common stock they own.
The investigation focuses on whether RRD and its Board of Directors
violated securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company by 1) failing to conduct a fair process, and 2) whether
the transaction is properly valued.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/r-r-donnelley-sons-company. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.
If you owned common stock in the Company and wish to obtain
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either
via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at
(212) 971-1341.
CONTACT:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Seeks Dismissal of Tipping Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that The Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Co. has asked a Florida federal court to hand it an early win
in a proposed class action accusing the hotel company of
deceptively charging undisclosed automatic tips and other fees at
its restaurants in the Sunshine State, calling the lead plaintiff's
claims demonstrably false. [GN]
ROHR INC: Bid for Leave to File Morgan's 3rd Amended Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATHANIEL MORGAN, an individual; MICHAEL BEVAN, an
individual; individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ROHR, INC., a corporation, and HAMILTON
SUNDSTRAND, a corporation, d/b/a UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS d/b/a
COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-574-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.
Background
On March 27, 2019, Plaintiff Morgan filed a putative wage-and-hour
class action complaint individually, and on behalf of all other
non-exempt employees in California, who worked for Defendants Rohr
and Hamilton Sundstrand, in Solano County Superior Court. The
complaint asserted claims for (1) failure to provide meal periods;
(2) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to
pay minimum wages; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; (5) failure
to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (6)
failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure
to maintain required records; (8) failure to indemnify employees
for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; and (9)
unfair and unlawful business practices ("UCL"). The alleged Class
period is between May 5, 2013 until the action settles or proceeds
to final judgment.
On April 26, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC"). The FAC added an allegation regarding the tolling of the
statute of limitations.
The Defendants removed the case to federal court on May 6, 2019
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441(a), 1446, and 1453, asserting
the Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), as well
as supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.
On June 19, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). The SAC added named Plaintiff Michael Bevan as an
individual plaintiff and proposed class representative. In August
2021, Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard issued a scheduling
order, which set the deadline for amended pleadings on Oct. 4,
2020.
On Jan. 29, 2021, the Defendants produced a sampling of the
putative class members' identities and contact information, as part
of the agreed-upon Belaire-West notice process. The Plaintiffs'
counsel contacted and interviewed the putative class members in
connection with the anticipated filing of the motion for class
certification. On April 22, 2021, Ezequiel Mateo Cervantes, the
proposed additional class representative who the Plaintiffs seek to
add to the complaint through the instant motion, retained the
Plaintiffs' counsel to represent him in his wage and hour claims
against the Defendants.
On April 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to certify their class
action, with the SAC as the operative complaint. The Defendants
filed their opposition to class certification on June 25, 2021. The
Plaintiffs filed their reply on Aug. 13, 2021 (allowed for by the
ex parte motion to continue their deadline, and subsequent order
granting that motion). This was more than six weeks after the
Defendants filed their response in June 2021, and almost four
months after the Plaintiffs had filed their motion to certify in
April 2021.
On Aug. 5, 2021, between the time that the Defense filed their
response to the motion for class certification, and when the
Plaintiffs filed their reply, the Plaintiffs also filed the instant
motion asking the Court for leave to amend their complaint and file
a Third Amended Complaint. The Defendants opposed the motion, and
the Plaintiffs filed a reply.
In their motion for leave, the Plaintiffs explicitly state that
their TAC seeks to add an additional named plaintiff and proposed
class representative, Ezequiel Cervantes Mateo ("Cervantes"), who,
unlike the Plaintiffs, did not belong to a union during his
employment with the Defendants" and thereby "seeks to eliminate
issues raised by the Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification."
Discussion
I. Rule 16 Applies to Plaintiffs' Motion
As a threshold matter, Judge Curiel must determine whether the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend must be analyzed under the
more stringent Rule 16 standard. On Aug. 31, 2021, Judge Goddard
issued a pretrial scheduling order setting the deadlines in the
case. That order required the parties to file any amended pleadings
by Oct. 4, 2020. The Plaintiffs contend that Rule 16 does not apply
to their motion, and only the "generous" Rule 15(a) standard
applies. Therefore, they argue, there is effectively no schedule
for which the Court must find good cause to modify under Rule
16(b)(4). The Defendants contend that "Judge Goddard's vacating the
Scheduling Order" in June 2021 "does not revive expired deadlines"
like the October 2020 deadline for amended pleadings.
Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, and Judge
Goddard's Order vacating the Scheduling Order, Judge Curiel finds
that the Plaintiffs' motion for leave is governed by Rule 16. By
the time Judge Goddard vacated the scheduling order on June 10,
2021, the deadline to file amended pleadings had expired more than
eight months prior. And by August 2021, when the Plaintiffs filed
the instant motion, more than 10 months had elapsed. It is not
reasonable to interpret the June 10, 2021 Order as reviving expired
pretrial deadlines for amending the pleadings. It is clear from the
surrounding circumstances and the language in the Order, that the
parties were requesting a modification to the scheduling order for
the singular purpose of conducting class-wide discovery -- not for
the purpose of amending the pleadings. Accordingly, Judge Curiel
holds that the Plaintiffs are required to demonstrate good cause in
their motion for leave to amend and file a TAC.
a. Diligence
The Defendants argue that the "Plaintiffs cannot establish good
cause under Rule 16 due to lack of diligence" because the latter
obtained Mr. Cervantes' contact information in January 2021, and
had considered adding Mr. Cervantes as a named plaintiff since at
least April 22, 2021. As such, the Plaintiffs "could have sought
the addition before they filed their Motion for Class Certification
on April 24, or before the Defendants filed their Opposition on
June 25. Instead, they waited until August 5 to file this motion.
Judge Curiel finds that the Plaintiffs did not file the instant
motion requesting leave to amend the complaint until after the
Defendants had already filed their opposition to the motion to
certify the class. He says, contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertions
that they were diligent because they provided some notice to the
Defendants that they might seek to amend the complaint in their
opening brief, the fact that they presented this possibility in
April (along with a declaration by Mr. Cervantes), and did not seek
to amend the complaint until August, demonstrates a clear lack of
diligence. In fact, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion six
weeks after the Defendants opposed the motion for class
certification. At bottom, Judge Curiel holds that the Plaintiffs
knew they might need to amend the complaint in order to satisfy the
requirements for class certification, and stated as much in their
motion, but they did not act accordingly, or within a reasonable
period of time.
b. Prejudice to Defendants
The Defendants argue that the "Plaintiffs could have, but chose not
to, seek the addition before the Defendants filed their
Opposition." For their part, the Plaintiffs disagree. They argue
the Defendants are not prejudiced because the Defendants "chose not
to address" the possibility of Mr. Cervantes being added as a named
plaintiff in their opposition to their motion, and because the
Defendants have already deposed Mr. Cervantes.
Judge Curiel finds that the Defendants would indeed be prejudiced
allowing the Plaintiffs to amend the complaint, and this further
compels denial under Rule 16. He says, the Plaintiffs'
representation of the procedural history in the case is not
persuasive. It is unclear and unexplained as to why the Plaintiffs
did not seek leave to amend the complaint before moving for class
certification, or at the very least, why they did not do so before
the Defendants filed their opposition to the motion for class
certification. What is clear is that the Plaintiffs were not
diligent, and the amended complaint would prejudice Defendants. As
such, Judge Curiel finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish good cause under Rule 16.
II. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)
Even if the Plaintiffs had demonstrated good cause under Rule 16,
their motion to amend also fails under Rule 15(a) because the
motion was unduly delayed, and severely prejudices the Defendants,
Judge Curiel holds. As he discussed, prejudice to the nonmovant
"carries the greatest weight." He briefly addresses the factors
under Rule 15(a) which compel him to deny the Plaintiffs' motion.
a. Bad Faith and Undue Delay
While the Court does not freely accuse parties of bad faith, the
Defendants have argued that the Plaintiffs' decision to only seek
leave to amend after the Defendants had opposed class certification
reveals "improper motives." At the very least, the fact that the
Plaintiffs did not seek to amend the complaint either before moving
for class certification, or before the Defendants opposed the
motion, is troublesome.
In the case, Mr. Cervantes was represented by the Plaintiffs'
counsel before the filing of the motion for class certification,
which, again, included a declaration by Mr. Cervantes, stating that
he would be willing to serve as a class representative. Yet, the
Plaintiffs have wholly failed to justify the delay between the time
when the Plaintiffs' counsel became aware of Mr. Cervantes'
identity and contact information in January 2021, when Mr.
Cervantes' declaration appeared in the motion for class
certification in April 2021, and the filing of the instant motion
seeking leave to amend in August 2021. Judge Curiel finds this
timeline demonstrates an undue delay.
b. Prejudice to Defendants
As he discussed, Judge Curiel finds that if the Plaintiffs are
permitted to amend the complaint, the Defendants would be
prejudiced. In the context of the timeline in the case, the
Plaintiffs had the opportunity to file a motion seeking leave to
amend their complaint prior to the Defendants' opposition. He finds
that the Defendants, who have been preparing their case based on
the two named class representatives, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Bevan,
since June 2020, would be unduly prejudiced if he allows the
Plaintiffs to amend.
c. Futility and Number of Amendments
The Plaintiffs submit that their motion for leave and the proposed
amended complaint essentially attempt to preempt some of the
typicality issues the Defendants raised in their opposition for the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by adding Mr. Cervantes
as a class representative.
Because he does not intend to address the merits of the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in deciding on the motion for leave
to amend, Judge Curiel does not find that the Plaintiffs' amendment
would be "futile" under Rule 15(a). More to the point is the fact
that, the Plaintiffs could have sought leave to amend their
complaint before the Defendants responded to the motion to certify
the class, and therefore would have avoided these procedural
difficulties which prejudice the Defendants.
Lastly, Judge Curiel observes that its discretion to deny an
amendment is "particularly broad" where a plaintiff has previously
amended his complaint. Given the fact that the Plaintiffs have
amended the complaint twice already, this factor also weighs
against granting them leave to file a third amended complaint.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Curiel denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Plaintiffs
have failed to demonstrate good cause under Rule 16, which
foreclosed his analysis, and compelled his denial of the motion for
leave. Further, even if the Plaintiffs' reasoning rose to the level
of good cause, Judge Curiel exercises discretion to deny the
motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr3tphe2 from Leagle.com.
ROMEO'S RETAIL: Settles Wage Class Action for $1.55 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Advertiser reports that Romeo's Retail Group has agreed to
settle a multimillion-dollar wage class action.
Under the terms of the proposed class action settlement, Romeo's
Retail Group will pay out $1.55 million to current and former
staff. [GN]
SAN JUAN REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over 2020 Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Kellogg, writing for Farmington Daily Times, reports that
San Juan Regional Medical Center has been hit with a class action
lawsuit over its 2020 data breach. The suit claims the hospital was
negligent in its handling of patients' personal information,
resulting in the exposure of health information and other sensitive
private data.
The new figure of 68,792 individuals affected by the data breach
that was included in the class action complaint is an exponentially
larger number than the hospital disclosed earlier this year.
Plaintiff Jeremy Henderson, on behalf of himself and other affected
individuals, filed a class action complaint against the Farmington
hospital on Oct. 7. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for
relief from the alleged damages.
San Juan Regional Medical Center declined to comment on the
lawsuit, citing pending litigation.
The hospital has stressed in the past it has no evidence that any
of the information was misused.
Santa Fe attorney Kristina Martinez along with attorneys for Mason
Lietz & Klinger LLP with offices listed in Washington, D.C. and
Chicago, Illinois, did not respond to a request for interview.
REPORTED NUMBER OF PEOPLE IMPACTED BALLOONED FROM 500 TO ALMOST
69,000
The hospital in June told The Daily Times that more than 500 people
were affected by the data breach.
The lawsuit uses a figure of 68,792 patients that were affected.
That figure is listed on the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Office for Civil Rights Breach Portal.
San Juan Regional Medical Center did not answer a question from The
Daily Times as why the number of people affected ballooned to
nearly 69,000 people.
LAWSUIT LEVIES MANY ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HOSPITAL
The 50-page class action complaint levies multiple accusations
against the hospital, going at times into extreme detail to
describe how the unauthorized access to the hospital's network has
adversely affected tens of thousands of its patients.
Henderson was notified of the data breach and that his private
information was compromised in the letter dated Sept. 13, according
to the lawsuit.
It was a year earlier, on Sept. 7-8, 2020, when the hospital
learned "an unauthorized individual" removed information from its
network.
The victims of the data breach had their names, dates of birth,
addresses, email addresses and phone numbers accessed, along with
Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, passport
numbers, driver's license numbers, health insurance information and
medical information, the lawsuit alleges.
It also claimed letters were not sent out for people with stolen
Social Security numbers and financial information until Sept. 13.
"Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff," the complaint states.
It also alleges Henderson and other impacted individuals have been
exposed to substantial risk of identity theft and fraud and will
have to closely monitor their medical and financial information to
protect themselves.
The lawsuit also accused San Juan Regional Medical Center of
failing to properly implement basic data security practices and of
failing to implement safeguards required by Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA) regulations.
Henderson also argues the identity and fraud monitoring offered by
the hospital for up to 12 months does not compensate those affected
for time spent and damages incurred.
The complaint alleges Henderson has experienced a substantial
increase in suspicious scam and spam phone calls and text messages
as a result of the data breach. [GN]
SAN JUAN REGIONAL: Nearly 69,000 Affected in Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Kellogg at Farmington Daily Times reports that San Juan
Regional Medical Center has been hit with a class action lawsuit
over its 2020 data breach. The suit claims the hospital was
negligent in its handling of patients' personal information,
resulting in the exposure of health information and other sensitive
private data.
The new figure of 68,792 individuals affected by the data breach
that was included in the class action complaint is an exponentially
larger number than the hospital disclosed earlier this year.
Plaintiff Jeremy Henderson, on behalf of himself and other affected
individuals, filed a class action complaint against the Farmington
hospital on Oct. 7. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for
relief from the alleged damages.
San Juan Regional Medical Center declined to comment on the
lawsuit, citing pending litigation.
The hospital has stressed in the past it has no evidence that any
of the information was misused.
Santa Fe attorney Kristina Martinez along with attorneys for Mason
Lietz & Klinger LLP with offices listed in Washington, D.C. and
Chicago, Illinois, did not respond to a request for interview.
Reported number of people impacted ballooned from 500 to almost
69,000
The hospital in June told The Daily Times that more than 500 people
were affected by the data breach.
The lawsuit uses a figure of 68,792 patients that were affected.
That figure is listed on the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Office for Civil Rights Breach Portal.
San Juan Regional Medical Center did not answer a question from The
Daily Times as why the number of people affected ballooned to
nearly 69,000 people.
Lawsuit levies many accusations against hospital
The 50-page class action complaint levies multiple accusations
against the hospital, going at times into extreme detail to
describe how the unauthorized access to the hospital's network has
adversely affected tens of thousands of its patients.
Henderson was notified of the data breach and that his private
information was compromised in the letter dated Sept. 13, according
to the lawsuit.
It was a year earlier, on Sept. 7-8, 2020, when the hospital
learned "an unauthorized individual" removed information from its
network.
The victims of the data breach had their names, dates of birth,
addresses, email addresses and phone numbers accessed, along with
Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, passport
numbers, driver's license numbers, health insurance information and
medical information, the lawsuit alleges.
It also claimed letters were not sent out for people with stolen
Social Security numbers and financial information until Sept. 13.
"Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff," the complaint states.
More:Navajo Nation health officials recommend continuing COVID-19
precautions as Omicron variant studied
It also alleges Henderson and other impacted individuals have been
exposed to substantial risk of identity theft and fraud and will
have to closely monitor their medical and financial information to
protect themselves.
The lawsuit also accused San Juan Regional Medical Center of
failing to properly implement basic data security practices and of
failing to implement safeguards required by Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA) regulations.
Henderson also argues the identity and fraud monitoring offered by
the hospital for up to 12 months does not compensate those affected
for time spent and damages incurred.
The complaint alleges Henderson has experienced a substantial
increase in suspicious scam and spam phone calls and text messages
as a result of the data breach. [GN]
SHELTER MUTUAL: Ali Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sayed Ali filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled Sayed Ali, and all others similarly situated
v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 5:20-cv-05032-PKH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas -
Fayetteville.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 24, 2020, the
lawsuit was removed from the Arkansas Circuit Court for Benton
County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas on Feb. 14, 2020.
According to the complaint, on January 12, 2019, Sayed Ali was
involved in a motor vehicle accident. Mr. Ali was insured under an
Arkansas motor vehicle insurance policy issued by Shelter Mutual.
As a result of the accident, Mr. Ali made a claim with Shelter
Mutual. On January 14, 2019, Shelter Mutual sent Mr. Ali a letter
regarding his "Medical Payments" claim and requested information
about Mr. Ali's Medicare eligibility. Mr. Ali verified he was
Medicare eligible but he did not complete the Medicare
questionnaire or provide his Medicare Health Insurance Claim Number
or Medicare Beneficiary Identifier.
On February 27, 2019, Mr. Ali's counsel sent Shelter Mutual a
letter informing Shelter Mutual that Mr. Ali had retained counsel.
On March 1, 2019, Shelter Mutual requested Mr. Ali's counsel to
provide Shelter Mutual with information regarding Mr. Ali's
Medicare eligibility. Shelter Mutual did not receive a response.
On September 18, 2019, Shelter Mutual sent a seventh request to Mr.
Ali's counsel for Medicare information. Counsel sent Shelter Mutual
a fax on September 19, 2019. The fax cover sheet represented
"itemized medical billings to be paid under the med pay provisions
of the policy" were attached to the fax. On October 2, 2019,
Shelter Mutual left a voicemail with Mr. Ali's counsel's office
representing no medical bills were attached to the fax. Shelter
Mutual sent a letter to Mr. Ali's counsel on October 31, 2019,
again informing counsel that Shelter Mutual did not receive any
medical bills with the September 19, 2019 fax.
Shelter Mutual emailed counsel on November 5, 2019, to follow up on
a voicemail left by counsel. The email referenced and attached the
October 31 letter which stated no medical bills were attached to
the fax. Mr. Ali's counsel's response to Shelter Mutual did not
contain any medical bills and instead stated suit would be filed
against Shelter Mutual. Shelter Mutual responded a few hours later
and again stated no medical bills were received by Shelter Mutual
in the September 19 fax. Mr. Ali's counsel responded that he had
"[d]igital confirmation [Shelter Mutual] received bills and
records."
On November 12, 2021, the Honorable P. K. Holmes III entered an
order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and denying
Plaintiff's motion to certify question. A judgment was also entered
by the Court on the same day, dismissing the case with prejudice.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's November 12
decision.
The appellate case is captioned as Sayed Ali v. Shelter Mutual
Insurance Co., Case No. 21-3746, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 2, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript is due on or before January 11, 2022;
-- Appendix is due on January 21, 2022;
-- BRIEF APPELLANT, Sayed Ali is due on January 21, 2022; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Sayed Ali, and All Others Similarly Situated,
is represented by:
William G. Horton, Esq.
HORTON LAW
1000 McClain Road, Suite 612
Bentonville, AR 72712
Telephone: (479) 268-4730
E-mail: bhorton@justicetoday.com
Defendant-Appellee Shelter Mutual Insurance Company is represented
by:
Katherine Church Campbell, Esq.
FRIDAY & ELDREDGE
3350 S. Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301
Rogers, AR 72758
Telephone: (479) 695-6040
E-mail: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com
- and -
Kevin A. Crass, Esq.
FRIDAY & ELDREDGE
2000 Regions Center
400 W. Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
Telephone: (501) 376-2011
E-mail: crass@fridayfirm.com
SOHO MASONS: Culala Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX CULALA and WALTER TENESELA, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiff, and the Class v. SOHO MASONS CORP., d/b/a
SOHO MASONS, JOHN NEVLA, and VICTOR ROTTENBERG, Case No.
1:21-cv-10405 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime premiums, unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to
time shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs further allege, pursuant to the New York Labor Law,
that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover
from Defendants: unpaid overtime premiums, unpaid wages, including
overtime wages, due to time shaving, unpaid call-in pay, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Soho Masons is a business specializing in brick and block work. It
sends its construction workers, masons, and bricklayers to
construction sites all throughout the New York City area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
SPACE EXPLORATION: Tavarez Seeks Blind's Access to Online Store
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN TAVAREZ-VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES
CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10387 (S.D.N.Y., December 6,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website, spacex.com,
allegedly contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and
Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content,
and services offered to the general public through the website.
These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a) the screen
reader fails to describe the images, (b) the screen reader fails to
read the item description link, and (c) the screen reader fails to
read an item's listed price.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. is an online retail company,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
SPECULATIVE PRODUCT: Blind Can't Access Website, Tavarez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN TAVAREZ-VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPECULATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10395-GHW (S.D.N.Y., December 6, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
speckproducts.com, allegedly contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
the screen reader fails to describe the images, (b) the screen
reader fails to read the item description link, and (c) the screen
reader fails to read an item's listed price.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Speculative Product Design, LLC is an online retail company, doing
business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
STANDARD LITHIUM: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Standard Lithium Ltd. (NYSE: SLI) resulting from
allegations that Standard Lithium may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Standard Lithium securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2209.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 18, 2021, before the market opened,
Blue Orca Capital issued an analyst report alleging Standard
Lithium's claims of 90% extraction rates of battery grade lithium
at its Arkansas demonstration sites are not supported by as-of-yet
undisclosed filings with Arkansas regulators. The analyst report
also alleged that Standard Lithium's December 2020 announcement
that the company had achieved "proof of concept" of its extraction
technology was false. According to Standard Lithium's German joint
venture partner LANXESS AG, proof of concept had yet to be achieved
and the "extraction is not fully there where we would like it to
be."
On this news, Standard Lithium share prices dropped as low as 20%
during intraday trading, damaging investors.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
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]
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Mucha, writing for HRMorning, reports that showing a
preference for younger employees can violate the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (ADEA) and land a company in court -- something
coffee giant Starbucks is facing right now.
A nationwide class action lawsuit has been filed, claiming the
company was not only biased toward young workers, but it showed a
"blatant campaign of age discrimination in hiring."
Here are the details of the suit.
-- Youth recruitment program
-- The lawsuit points to several common company practices to
make its discrimination case.
The first was Starbucks' youth recruitment program, which aimed to
give more employment opportunities to young people, according to
the company's CEO. But the lawsuit claims this program was really
used as an excuse to discriminate against employees over 40.
Spotting T&E Fraud Before It Costs You
The original plaintiff who set the lawsuit in motion says age
discrimination is a "systemic" problem at the company, particularly
when it comes to management positions. As a qualified 59-year-old
employee, the plaintiff was denied a promotion to store manager.
Instead, a much younger employee was hired for the job. The
plaintiff was eventually fired.
The plaintiff assembled a class of several other employees over 40
who were also denied promotions or were fired from management
positions in favor of younger workers.
Starbucks denies the discrimination claims, stating the company has
a "clear anti-discrimination" policy, and is fighting the lawsuit
in court.
Examine practices
This lawsuit acts as a warning for employers to examine their
recruiting practices for potential hidden bias. For example, do you
do a lot of recruiting on college campuses? Do your job ads seek
"energetic new grads"? Both of these practices could be considered
age discrimination.
Recruiting heavily on social media could also cause issues, as
older applicants may not be as tech-savvy. Age discrimination
isn’t always as black and white as firing a 60-year-old employee
and hiring a 30-year-old instead. [GN]
STATE FARM: Baker Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rashad Baker, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled RASHAD BAKER, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, et al., v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00014-CDL, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Rashad Baker and Zelma Stovall were both insureds under State Farm
vehicle insurance policies. The form vehicle insurance policy under
which Plaintiffs were insured provides that State Farm "will pay
for loss caused by collision to a covered vehicle."
In their civil suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance,
the Plaintiffs argue that the formula used to determine diminished
value in their cases is flawed, and resulted in a too-small
settlement.
Arguing that every one of the thousands of other claimants like
them was also a victim of the same flawed formula, they asked Judge
Clay D. Land to certify their case as a class action lawsuit, and
to include "All persons issued a Georgia vehicle insurance policy
by State Farm who -- based on loss dates between December 7, 2017,
and the date of certification [of class action status] -- made
physical damage claims under their policies . . .."
On Sept. 2, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification holding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that
the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure were met.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 28, 2021,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration which the Hon. Judge
Clay D. Land denied saying, "Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that
even if the Court does not reconsider its conclusions on
commonality and predominance, the Court should allow Plaintiffs to
renew their motion for class certification with a narrowed class
definition. The Court acknowledged in the Denial Order that "it may
be possible in some cases to determine with common evidence which
class members are injured and thus have standing." But this is not
such a case. The Plaintiffs did not present any evidence to suggest
that there is a common way to figure out which 17(c) assessments
breached State Farm's policy and which did not. The Plaintiffs
presented no evidence of a manageable way to ascertain which class
members were injured and which ones were not. Rather, as the Court
pointed out, "the only recognized method in the present record for
proving injury and damages is a comparison of the 17(c) assessment
to a highly individualized vehicle appraisal." Nothing in
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration changes this conclusion."
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the denied motions for class
certification, miscellaneous relief, and reconsideration.
The appellate case is captioned as Rashad Baker, et al v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 21-14197, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on
December 2, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on
December 16, 2021 as to Appellant Rashad Baker; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on
December 30, 2021 as to Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RASHAD BAKER, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated; RACHAEL LEONARD, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; and ZELMA STOVALL, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jerry Alan Buchanan, Esq.
BUCHANAN & LAND, LLP
1425 Wynaton Rd., PO Box 2848
Columbus, GA 31906
Telephone: (706) 323-2848
E-mail: jab@thebuchananlawfirm.com
- and -
David Grant Coyle, Esq.
Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
WEBB KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange SE Ste 480
Atlanta, GA 30339-2049
Telephone: (770) 444-9325
E-mail: grant@webbllc.com
matt@webbllc.com
eadamwebb@hotmail.com
Defendant-Appellee STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE is
represented by:
Thomas W. Curvin, Esq.
Valerie S. Sanders, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
999 Peachtree St NE Ste 2300
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 853-8314
E-mail: tomcurvin@eversheds-sutherland.com
valeriesanders@eversheds-sutherland.com
STROM ENGINEERING: Court OKs Joint Bid to Extend Briefing Sched
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STROM
ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00147-MRH-PLD (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Patricia L. Dodge entered an order granting the
Parties' joint motion to extend the briefing schedule.
The Plaintiff shall submit his Reply in Support of his Motion for
Class Certification and his Opposition to Defendant's Motion to
Strike the Report and Testimony of Erin Hatton, Ph.D. by no later
than January 7, 2022.
Strom Engineering provides strategic planning, labor dispute
staffing, temporary workforces, and full service labor solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dD8Q30 at no extra charge.[CC]
SYNGENTA AG: Doran Sues Over Injuries Sustained From Paraquat
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES DORAN and MICHELE DORAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SYNGENTA AG; SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA SEEDS LLC; SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION AG; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; DREXEL CHEMICAL COMPANY;
and DOES 1 through 60 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01578
(S.D. Ill., December 6, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for statutory products liability, strict products
liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, conspiracy, punitive damages, and loss of
consortium.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover damages for personal
injuries sustained by Plaintiff James Doran due to his exposure to
Paraquat, an herbicide manufactured, distributed, and sold by the
Defendants. Instead of disclosing critical safety information about
Paraquat and the serious risks associated with its use and/or
exposure, the Defendants consistently and falsely represented the
safety of Paraquat.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and
negligence, the Plaintiff was exposed to Paraquat and
Paraquat-containing products, and developed Parkinson's disease.
Syngenta AG is a global provider of agricultural science and
technology, with its headquarters in Basel, Switzerland.
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC is a company that provides crop
protection chemical products and agricultural services,
headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Syngenta Corporation is a company that provides crop protection
products, headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
Syngenta Seeds LLC is a company that provides agricultural
products, headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a crop protection company based in
Basel, Switzerland.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a provider of energy services, headquartered
in San Ramon, California.
Drexel Chemical Company is a manufacturer of agricultural
chemicals, headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
John Martin Murphy, Esq.
Shawn M. Acton, Esq.
Brian R. Herberth, Esq.
Joyce Chambers Reichard, Esq.
KELLEY & FERRARO, LLP
Ernst & Young Tower
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1300
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 575-0777
E-mail: jmurphy@kelley-ferraro.com
sacton@kelley-ferraro.com
bherberth@kelley-ferraro.com
jreichard@kelley-ferraro.com
T-MOBILE US: Five Data Breach Class Suit Consolidated in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that five proposed
data breach class actions against T-Mobile U.S. Inc. have been
consolidated in the Western District of Missouri after the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found the lawsuits presented
common factual questions.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, based
in Kansas City, Mo., is "geographically central and accessible" to
T-Mobile and the plaintiffs, the JPML wrote in its Dec. 3 transfer
order.
With the consent of that court, the litigation will be assigned to
Judge Brian C. Wimes. Wimes has been on that court since 2012 and
was appointed by former President Barack Obama.[GN]
T-MOBILE US: Vash Contract Suit Moved From N.D. Ga. to W.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Stephen J. Vash, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE US, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-03384, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on December 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00852-BCW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, invasion
of privacy, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence by
failing to adequately safeguard the highly sensitive and personal
information of its customers following a data breach.
T-Mobile US, Inc. is an American wireless network operator, with
its principal place of business located at 12920 SE 38th St.,
Bellevue, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Herman, Esq.
Peter M. Jones, Esq.
Carlton Jones, Esq.
HERMAN JONES LLP
3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 504-6500
Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com
pjones@hermanjones.com
cjones@hermanjones.com
T-MOBILE USA: Espanoza Consumer Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHANIE ESPANOZA, JONATHAN MORALES, and ALEX
PYGIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01119, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
December 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00855-BCW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, negligence
per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
Washington State Consumer Protection Act, the California Consumer
Privacy Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the
California's Unfair Competition Law by failing to adequately
safeguard the highly sensitive and personal information of its
customers following a data breach.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. is an American wireless network operator, with
its principal place of business located at 12920 SE 38th St.,
Bellevue, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
- and –
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777‐7777
Facsimile: (916) 924‐1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429‐2290
Facsimile: (202) 429‐2294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 429‐2290
Facsimile: (202) 429‐2294
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
- and –
William Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Truist Place
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500‐1500
Facsimile: (813) 435‐2369
E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
TENCENT MUSIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley on
behalf of investors in Tencent Music Entertainment Group. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-09564, is on behalf
of all those investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Tencent
shares contemporaneously with Defendants' unlawful trades from
March 22, 2021 through and including March 29, 2021 (the "Class
Period"), pursuant to Sections 20A, 10(b), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C.
Secs. 78t-1, 78j(b), and 78t(a).
If you are a shareholder who purchased Tencent's securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 27, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos"), a family office
investment fund, was founded and run by Sung Kook Hwang ("Hwang"),
a former portfolio manager of Tiger Asia Management, a hedge fund
he also founded.
Goldman Sachs is a global financial services institution. Goldman
Sachs served as one of Archegos' prime brokers, helping it make
trades and lending it capital in the form of margin lending.
Morgan Stanley is a global financial services institution. Morgan
Stanley served as one of Archegos' prime brokers, helping it make
trades and lending it capital in the form of margin lending.
Archegos described itself as focused on public stocks in the U.S.,
China, Japan, South Korea, and Europe. Its assets of approximately
$10 billion included the likes of ViacomCBS Inc. ("ViacomCBS"),
Vipshop Holdings Ltd., Discovery Inc., Farfetch Ltd. ("Farfetch"),
Gaotu Techedu, Inc., Baidu Inc. ("Baidu"), iQIYI Inc., and
Tencent.
Archegos took big, concentrated positions in these companies
through financial instruments called "total return swaps," whereby
the underlying securities (stocks) are held by banks that broker
the investments. The swaps allow investors such as Archegos to bet
on stock price moves, often with high levels of leverage, without
owning the underlying securities. Instead, banks buy and hold the
stocks and give the fund a performance-related return. The fund
secures the trades by giving the bank collateral, such as cash or
equities.
These swaps also allow investors to take huge positions while
posting limited funds up front, in essence borrowing from the bank,
which, in turn, also enables investors the ability to maintain
anonymity, even as Archegos, for example, was estimated to have had
exposure to the economics of more than 10% of multiple companies'
shares. Since investors holding more than 10% of a company's
securities are deemed to be company insiders and are subject to
additional regulations around disclosures and profits, these swaps
were particularly beneficial to Hwang.
Moreover, Archegos utilized the leverage provided by its swaps
strategy to gain exposure to more than $50 billion worth of
securities. Again, this strategy was designed in part to allow
Hwang a means to avoid margin limits and regulatory disclosure
requirements.
Unbeknownst to investors and regulators, several large brokerage
banks, including Defendants, each had simultaneously allowed
Archegos to take on billions of dollars of exposure to volatile
equities through swaps contracts, dramatically elevating the risk
posed by these concentrated positions.
Hwang's swaps strategy began backfiring in March as the stock price
of companies in which Archegos had significant exposure, including
Baidu, which saw its shares dropping in value more than 20% from
its February highs, and Farfetch, which experienced a 15% decline,
began to sell off.
However, it was a March 23, 2021 announcement by ViacomCBS that
ultimately swept out the rug from under Archegos. On that day, in
what was perceived to be an effort to take advantage of its
meteoric stock price rally, ViacomCBS announced a new $3 billion
offering to help fund investments in its streaming service,
Paramount+, which had launched earlier in the month.
According to later reports citing people familiar with the matter,
this announcement put significant stress on Archegos, since news of
the deal sparked a slide in ViacomCBS's share price, adding to
Archegos' mounting losses. In fact, according to the same report in
The Wall Street Journal (published April 6, 2021), the fund had
already started selling some of its position in ViacomCBS to try to
offset losses, which only added pressure on the stock.
On March 24, 2021, ViacomCBS priced that offering. 20 million
shares of its Class B common stock were going to be made available
at $85 a share and 10 million shares of its 5.75% mandatory
convertible preferred stock were going to be made available at $100
a share. In addition, the underwriters, led by Defendants (among
others), were going to receive an option to purchase up to an
additional 3 million Class B shares and up to an additional 1.5
million shares of mandatory convertible preferred stock. All told,
ViacomCBS expected to raise $3.06 billion if both options were
exercised.
Unfortunately, not all were convinced that ViacomCBS deserved such
a lofty valuation. For example, on March 25, 2021, one of Wall
Street's most influential research firms, MoffettNathanson,
published a report questioning the company's value, downgrading the
stock to a "sell," and setting a price target of only $55 per
share, compared to the company's $85 offer. "We never, ever thought
we would see Viacom[CBS] trading close to $100 per share," read the
report, which was written by Michael Nathanson, a co-founder of the
firm. "Obviously, neither did ViacomCBS's management," it
continued, citing the new stock offering.
In the wake of that report, ViacomCBS's stock cratered, losing more
than half its value in less than a week. Indeed, by the close of
trading on Friday, March 26, 2021, ViacomCBS was worth $48 per
share.
This proved to be extremely problematic for Archegos, which had
traded ViacomCBS on margin (i.e., with borrowed money). Because
Archegos had to maintain a certain amount of collateral to satisfy
its lenders, and since the value of ViacomCBS stock drastically
declined, Archegos needed enough collateral to cover, or else a
margin call (where the lender can force a sell-off of the stock to
bring the investor back into compliance with margin requirements),
could be triggered.
On March 27, 2021, it was reported that Archegos failed to cover
and, as a result, had to liquidate more than $20 billion of its
leveraged equity positions on Friday, March 26, 2021.
Archegos' fallout received wide media coverage in the days and
weeks following the firm's remarkable liquidation for a number of
reasons, including the fact that it dragged some of the world's
most esteemed financial institutions into the mud alongside it.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
sold a large number of Tencent shares during the week of March 22,
2021, while in possession of material, non-public information.
According to subsequent media reports, Defendants unloaded large
block trades consisting of shares of Archegos' doomed bets,
including billions worth of Tencent securities, late Thursday,
March 25, 2021, before the Archegos story reached the public,
sending Tencent's stock into a complete tailspin.
As a result of these sales, Defendants avoided billions in losses
combined.
Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they were
prohibited from trading based on this confidential market-moving
information, but traded anyway, disposing to Plaintiff and other
members of the Class their Tencent stock before the news about
Archegos was announced and Tencent's shares plummeted.
As a result, Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged from
Defendants' violations of U.S. securities laws.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
URL: http://www.pomlaw.com.
Contact Information:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
TENET FINTECH: Robbins LLP Reminds of January 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased Tenet Fintech Group Inc. f/k/a Peak Fintech Group Inc.
(OTC PINK:PKKFF) securities between September 2, 2021 and October
13, 2021. Tenet Fintech purports to be the parent company of
innovative financial technology subsidiaries operating in China's
commercial lending industry.
Tenet Fintech Group Inc. (PKKFF) Misled Investors Regarding its
Acquisitions
According to the complaint, Tenet Fintech, then known as Peak
Fintech Group Inc., began trading on the NASDAQ on September 9,
2021. At that time, the Company, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Wuxi Aorong Ltd., purportedly owned 51% of Asia Synergy
Financial Capital Ltd. ("ASFC"). On September 14, 2021, the Company
issued a press release announcing the acquisition of the Heartbeat
Insurance Platform from Huayan Kun Tai Technology Company Ltd.
However, the Company did not own 51% of ASFC and Huayan did not own
the Heartbeat platform.
On September 28, 2021, Tenet Fintech withdrew its Form 40-K filed
with the SEC and stated that its common shares would no longer be
listed on the NASDAQ. On September 30, 2021, the Company's shares
began trading on the OTC. As a result, the Company's share price
fell over 17%, to close at $7.50 on September 30, 2021.
On October 4, 2021 and again on October 13, 2021, Grizzly Reports
published articles challenging the ownership of the Company's
assets and noting suspicious transactions and self-dealing.
If you purchased Tenet Fintech Group Inc. (PKKFF) securities
between September 2, 2021 and October 13, 2021, you have until
January 18, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff
for the class.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Tenet Fintech Group Inc. settles or to receive free alerts
when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock
Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.[GN]
THOMPSON CREEK: Bailey Appeals Defective Windows Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lawrence Bailey, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Lawrence Bailey, William
Estrada, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Thompson Creek Window Company, a Maryland corporation; Rick
Wuest, an individual; Case No. 8:21-cv-00844-LKG, in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.
Plaintiffs Lawrence Bailey and William Estrada, who commenced this
action on April 2, 2021, are residents of the State of Maryland and
the Commonwealth of Virginia respectively, and the purchasers of
windows sold by TCWC. In the June 4, 2021 amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege that TCWC and its owner, Rick Wuest, have
misrepresented the energy efficiency of TC 900/7900 and 7800 St.
Claire series double-pane windows sold to them and other similarly
situated individuals, in violation of, among other things, the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act and the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act of 1977.
On June 21, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration and to dismiss or to stay this matter, and a memorandum
in support thereof. On July 6, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a
response in opposition to Defendants' motion. On July 20, 2021, the
Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion. Thereafter,
the Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a hearing on Defendants'
motion.
On November 1, 2021, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order
granting Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or
stay; denying-as-moot Plaintiffs' motion for a hearing; and
dismissing the complaint.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Lawrence Bailey v. Thompson
Creek Window Company, Case No. 21-2345, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on December 2, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants LAWRENCE BAILEY and WILLIAM ESTRADA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Timothy Bosson, Esq.
BOSSON LEGAL GROUP
8300 Arlington Boulevard
Fairfax, VA 22031
Telephone: (571) 438-9513
E-mail: tbosson@bossonlaw.com
- and -
Karl Josef Protil, Jr., Esq.
SHULMAN ROGERS
12505 Park Potomac Avenue
Potomac, MD 20854-6803
Telephone: (301) 230-5200
E-mail: kprotil@shulmanrogers.com
Defendants-Appellees THOMPSON CREEK WINDOW COMPANY, a Maryland
Corporation; and RICK WUEST are represented by:
John Augustine Bourgeois, Esq.
Bradley Mills Strickland, Esq.
KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA
1 South Street
Baltimore, MD 21202-0000
Telephone: (410) 752-6030
E-mail: jbourgeois@kg-law.com
bstrickland@kg-law.com
TIMINY R/R: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Riley Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
AARON RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIMINY R/R CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-02288 (N.D. Ohio, December 6, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt employees overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee from approximately November 2019 to July 2021.
Timiny R/R Construction, Inc. is a specialty railroad track
construction company, with its principal place of business located
at 28510 Lemoyne Road, Millbury, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
TMC RESTAURANT: Plummer Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOLLENTA PLUMMER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TMC RESTAURANT OF CHARLOTTE, LLC
dba MEN'S CLUB OF CHARLOTTE; LLOYD J ACE, III; ABDUR RASCHID
CHAWDHARY; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 3; and DOES 4 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00648-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.,
December 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
minimum wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and
forced tip sharing.
The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at Men's Club of
Charlotte, located at 444 Tyvola Road, Charlotte, North Carolina.
TMC Restaurant of Charlotte, LLC is an owner and operator of an
adult-oriented entertainment facility under the name Men's Club of
Charlotte, located 444 Tyvola Road, Charlotte, North Carolina.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randall J. Phillips, Esq.
CHARLES G. MONNTETT III & ASSOCIATES
6842 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28211
Telephone: (704) 376-1911
Facsimile: (704) 376-1921
E-mail: rphillips@carolinalaw.com
- and –
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
8827 W. Olympic Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: kristensen@cz.law
- and –
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liner Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GAYLE LINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES 1 through
250, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV44417 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., December 6, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Business and Professions Code including unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime, failure to pay all wages and on a timely
basis, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums,
unpaid rest period premiums, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver in
California.
Uber Technologies, Inc. is an American mobility as a service
provider based in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 733-2498
Facsimile: (562) 733-2498
E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Retirees Misled about VSL Program, Yustman Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR YUSTMAN, VICTORIA FELLOWS, MARIA DEGLAUVE, RON OZAKI,
BERNHARD J. ORNELLAS, and ERNEST HEWSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED AIRLINES,
INC., UNITED AIRLINES FRONTLINE VOLUNTARY SEPARATION LEAVE PROGRAM,
UNITED AIRLINES CONSOLIDATED WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, and UNITED
AIRLINES RETIREE MEDICAL PROGRAM, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-09432 (C.D. Cal., December 6, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.
According to the complaint, United Airlines breached its fiduciary
duties by, among other things, promising the Plaintiffs that they
could participate in any early retirement programs offered within
36 months of their retirements but then reneging on its promise to
employees who retired in the 36 months preceding January 21, 2021.
United Airlines prevented these retirees from participating to its
Frontline Voluntary Separation Leave (VSL) Program by failing to
inform them about the program and failing to give them an
opportunity to apply for benefits under the program. United
Airlines further breached its fiduciary duties by actively
misinforming employees that the VSL was not an early out program
when, in actuality, the VSL Program was not different in any
material way from prior early out programs offered by United
Airlines, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and the Class seek a declaration that they are
retired employees who were eligible to participate in the VSL
Program offered to employees on January 21, 2021 and entitled to
benefits under the VSL Program.
United Airlines, Inc. is a major American airline company
headquartered in Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq.
Susan Meter, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
E-mail: ehopkins@kantorlaw.net
smeter@kantorlaw.net
VAIL CORPORATION: Roberds Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAUL GREG ROBERDS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE VAIL CORPORATION WHICH WILL DO
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, HEAVENLY
VALLEY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
SC20210164, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of El Dorado to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California on December 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-01153 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide overtime periods, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to
pay timely wages upon employment termination and during employment,
failure to provide compliant wage statements, failure to indemnify
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
The Vail Corporation, doing business as Vail Resorts Management
Company, is a resort company, headquartered in Colorado.
Heavenly Valley, Limited Partnership is a hospitality company based
in Nevada. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
VAXART INC: Delaware Court Narrows Claims in Stockholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE VAXART, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION,
Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-0767-PAF (Del. Ch.), Judge Paul A.
Fioravanti, Jr., of the Court of Chancery of Delaware entered a
Memorandum Opinion:
a. granting the motions to dismiss by the Vaxart Defendants
and the Armistice Defendants as to Counts I, IV and V;
and
b. requesting supplemental briefing and submission of
documents cited in the Complaint.
Vaxart is a small biotechnology company that embarked on developing
a vaccine for COVID-19 in the early stages of the pandemic. In
early June 2020, the Company's board of directors agreed to amend
two warrant agreements between the Company and its one-time
majority stockholder. The warrant amendments permitted the
stockholder to beneficially own a greater number of Vaxart shares
upon exercise of the warrants. In effect, it enabled the
stockholder to exercise and dispose of the warrant shares faster
than under the terms of the original warrants. A few days later,
Vaxart stockholders voted on an amendment to the Company's
incentive compensation plan to increase the number of shares
eligible for grant. A few weeks after those two events, the Company
announced that it had been selected to participate in a non-human
primate study sponsored by Operation Warp Speed, the federal
government's program to accelerate the development and distribution
of a COVID-19 vaccine. The Company's stock price jumped upon the
announcement.
The Plaintiffs in the action are Vaxart stockholders who have
asserted a variety of claims arising from the three events
described above. They allege that the Company's board and former
majority stockholder had knowledge of Vaxart's selection to
participate in the non-human primate study before the board
approved the warrant agreement amendments and before the
stockholder vote on the amendment to the equity incentive plan.
They allege the board withheld the disclosure of that information
until after those two events so as to benefit themselves in the
form of spring-loaded option grants, and to benefit the former
majority stockholder, which exercised the warrants and sold most
all of the underlying shares within two days of the public
announcement of Vaxart's participation in the non-human primate
study.
The Plaintiffs have asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting.
On Sept. 8, 2020, Plaintiff Galjour filed his complaint. On Oct. 9,
2020, the Vaxart Defendants and the Armistice Defendants both moved
to dismiss that complaint in its entirety. On Oct. 20, 2020,
Plaintiffs Jacquith and Paul Bergeron filed their complaint. The
court consolidated the actions on Nov. 12, 2020. On Dec. 14, 2020,
the court entered an order establishing a leadership structure for
the Plaintiffs and designated the Jacquith-Bergeron complaint as
the operative complaint. The Defendants moved to dismiss the
operative complaint. The court heard argument, taking the matter
under submission on Aug. 24, 2021.
On Aug. 4, 2020, the plaintiffs not involved in the instant case
initiated separate litigation against Floroiu, Latour, Davis,
Finney, Yedid, Boyd, and Maher (the "California Defendants") in the
California Superior Court in San Mateo County (the "California
Litigation"). On Nov. 25, 2020, the plaintiffs in the California
Litigation filed a Second Amended Complaint. On Dec. 30, 2020, the
California Defendants filed a demurrer. On March 15, 2021, the
California Superior Court granted the demurrer, without prejudice
and with leave to replead. On June 17, 2021, the plaintiffs in the
California action filed a Third Amended Complaint. On Aug. 18,
2021, the California Defendants filed a demurrer to the Third
Amended Complaint. Briefing is ongoing.
Discussion
The Complaint contains five counts. Count I is a derivative claim
alleging the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Warrant Amendments. Count II is a derivative unjust
enrichment claim alleging the Director Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by issuing spring-loaded options in violation of
the 2019 Plan. Count III is a direct claim alleging Floroiu,
Latour, Davis, Finney, Yedid, and VanLent breached their fiduciary
duty by failing to disclose Vaxart's selection to participate in
the OWS study prior to the stockholder vote on the 2019 Amendment.
Count IV is a derivative unjust enrichment claim against Armistice.
Count V alleges Armistice breached its fiduciary duties as a
controlling shareholder or, in the alternative, aided and abetted
the Director Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. In the
alternative, the Plaintiffs allege Armistice aided and abetted the
Director Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties in
approving the Warrant Amendments.
1. Armistice Was Not a Controlling Stockholder at the Time of the
Transaction.
The Plaintiffs allege that Armistice was a controlling stockholder,
owing fiduciary duties to Vaxart and its stockholders. The
allegations of control permeate the Complaint and underlying
allegations that the Demand Board is incapable of considering a
demand to assert the claims asserted in the action.
Judge Fioravanti holds that the Plaintiffs do not allege that
Armistice owned more than 50% of Vaxart's voting power at the time
of any of the challenged transactions. The only transaction in
which it is alleged that Armistice received an improper benefit is
the Warrant Amendments. The presence of Armistice designees Boyd
and Maher on the Board also does not establish control. The
Plaintiffs' bare allegations of Floroiu's prior employment at
Armistice do not support an inference that Armistice dominated him
or that Floroiu would be unable to exercise his fiduciary duties
out of fear for retribution. The bare allegation that Floroiu
worked at McKinsey with Boyd, many years ago -- the Complaint lacks
any mention of duration -- is similarly weak.
The Plaintiffs do not even attempt to explain how Floroiu's
appointment as Vaxart's CEO bears the imprint of Armistice's
influence other than asserting that Floroiu was "Armistice's former
senior analyst." For reasons discussed, the bare assertion fails to
sustain an inference of indebtedness, let alone control.
That leaves Plaintiffs with the allegation that Armistice was a
controller because it obtained a Warrant Amendment on favorable
terms. That allegation is inherently circular, Judge Fioravanti
opines, but even if that assertion were true, he says more is
needed. There are no well-pleaded allegations that Armistice had
the ability to or exercised control over the Board at the time of,
or with respect to, any of the challenged transactions.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not created a pleadings-stage
inference that Armistice owed fiduciary duties to Vaxart as a
controller.
2. Demand Is Not Excused as to Claims Concerning the Warrant
Amendments.
Even if Armistice were a controller, Judge Fioravanti opines that
that would not, by itself, excuse demand. He concludes that the
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that at least half the members
of the Demand Board was incapable of fairly and impartially
considering a litigation demand as to the Warrant Amendments. The
Plaintiffs concede that Wilson, who joined the Demand Board after
the alleged wrongdoing, would be impartial as to any demand with
respect to the claims in the Complaint. On the other hand, the
Defendants concede that Boyd and Maher are not independent and
disinterested as to the Warrant Amendments. The Plaintiffs must
therefore allege particularized facts to support a reason to doubt
that two of the remaining five members of the Demand Board are
capable of considering a demand.
Judge Fioravanti finds that (i) the Complaint's barebones
allegations that Floroiu once worked at Armistice and with Boyd at
McKinsey do not come close to satisfying the Plaintiffs' burden of
pleading facts that credibly call into question a director's
independence; (ii) the Complaint thus fails to sustain the
reasonable inference the Stock Option Recipients received a
material benefit from the Warrant Amendments or stood to lose a
related material benefit by challenging the decision to approve the
Warrant Amendments; and (iii) the Plaintiffs failed plead
particularized facts that the directors who approved the challenged
transaction "harbored self-interest adverse to the stockholders'
interests, acted to advance the self-interest of an interested
party from whom they could not be presumed to act independently, or
acted in bad faith.
In sum, Judge Fioravanti holds that a majority of the Demand Board
did not either receive (i) a material benefit from the Warrant
Amendments; (ii) face a substantial risk of personal liability for
the claims related to the Warrant Amendments; or (iii) lack
independence from someone satisfying either (i) or (ii). The claim
alleging breach of fiduciary duties for approval of the Warrant
Amendments is dismissed because demand is not excused.
3. Plaintiffs' Fiduciary Duty Claim for Insider Trading
The Plaintiffs next allege that "the Armistice Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by trading on material, nonpublic
information" -- their alleged knowledge of the OWS study selection.
To successfully plead that a corporate fiduciary breached his
fiduciary duties by engaging in insider trading -- a so-called
Brophy claim -- a plaintiff "must show that: 1) the corporate
fiduciary possessed material, nonpublic company information; and 2)
the corporate fiduciary used that information improperly by making
trades because she was motivated, in whole or in part, by the
substance of that information." The doctrine's focus is "preventing
unjust enrichment based on the misuse of confidential corporate
information."
Judge Fioravanti holds that the Complaint fails to plead sufficient
facts to support the reasonable inference that any of the other
Director Defendants approved the Warrant Amendments to receive a
material benefit from Armistice's alleged insider trading; lacked
independence from Armistice, Boyd, or Maher; or faced a substantial
risk of personal liability from approving the Warrant Amendments.
Most pertinent, the Complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to
sustain the inference that the Defendant Directors were motivated
to "to enrich" Boyd and Maher in any way and thus invited a
substantial risk of liability for conferring a benefit on the
Armistice directors out of disloyalty or otherwise in bad faith.
The claims against the Armistice Directors are accordingly
dismissed because demand was not excused.
4. Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Armistice
Count IV is an unjust enrichment claim against Armistice premised
on the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board for
approving the Warrant Amendments. The Plaintiffs allege that "the
Warrant Amendments allowed Armistice to realize nearly $267 million
in cash proceeds over two trading days" and that "these benefits
were derived from improper means." As the predicate claim alleging
breach of fiduciary duty has been dismissed for failure to make a
demand, the claim alleging unjust enrichment must be dismissed as
well.
5. Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims or, in the alternative, Aiding
and Abetting Claims Against Armistice
Count V is a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Armistice. To
state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must first
allege that the defendant "actually owed a fiduciary duty."
Judge Fioravanti opines that this claim fails because Armistice did
not owe a fiduciary duty to Vaxart or its stockholders.
Plaintiffs argue that, in the alternative, Armistice is liable for
aiding and abetting the Director Defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties in approving the Warrant Amendments. To state a claim for
aiding and abetting, a plaintiff must allege: "(1) the existence of
a fiduciary relationship, (2) the fiduciary breached its duty, (3)
a defendant, who is not a fiduciary, knowingly participated in a
breach, and (4) damages to the plaintiff resulted from the
concerted action of the fiduciary and the non-fiduciary."
Judge Fioravanti holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
sufficient facts to support their theory that any other members of
the Demand Board would be unable to consider a litigation demand
against Armistice or the Armistice Directors. Armistice was not a
controlling stockholder. Even assuming the fund received a material
benefit from the Warrant Amendments, no members of the Board were
dependent on Armistice, the Complaint fails to allege
particularized facts creating a reasonable doubt as to the capacity
of a majority of the Demand Board to impartially consider a demand.
Demand is not excused, and the aiding and abetting claim is
dismissed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons he stated, Judge Fioravanti granted the
motions to dismiss by the Vaxart Defendants and the Armistice
Defendants as to Counts I, IV and V. He requested supplemental
briefing and submission of documents cited in the Complaint, which
will be detailed in a separate letter to the parties.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tc4swjyc from Leagle.com.
Stephen E. Jenkins, F. Troupe Mickler, IV, ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory V. Varallo, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Jeroen van Kwawegen,
Daniel E. Meyer, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP, in New York City; Gustavo F. Bruckner, Samuel J.
Adams, Daryoush Behbood, POMERANTZ LLP, in New York City; Sascha N.
Rand, Rollo C. Baker, IV, Silpa Maruri, Jesse Bernstein, Charles H.
Sangree, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, in New York City;
Stanley D. Bernstein, Matthew Guarnero, BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP, in
New York City; William J. Fields, Christopher J. Kupka, Samir
Shukurov, FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP, in New York City, Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs.
Brock E. Czeschin, Andrew L. Milam, RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.,
in Wilmington, Delaware; Riccardo DeBari, Renee Zaytsev, Mendy
Piekarski, THOMPSON HINE, in New York City, Attorneys for Andrei,
Wouter W. Latour, Todd Davis, Michael J. Finney, Robert A. Yedid,
Anne M. VanLent, and Nominal Defendant Vaxart, Inc.
Matthew F. Davis, Abraham C. Schneider, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Douglas A. Rappaport, Kaitlin D.
Shapiro, Elizabeth C. Rosen, Madeleine R. Freeman, AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for
Defendants Steven Boyd, Keith Maher, Armistice Capital, LLC.
VOYETRA TURTLE: Tavarez Seeks Blind Customers' Equal Website Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN TAVAREZ-VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOYETRA TURTLE BEACH, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10399 (S.D.N.Y., December 6, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
turtlebeach.com, allegedly contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
the screen reader skips over certain text on the page, (b) the
screen reader fails to describe the images, and (c) the screen
reader fails to read an item's listed price.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc. is an online retail company, doing
business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
WOOD GROUP: Fails to Properly Pay Cement Inspectors, White Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLY WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WOOD GROUP MUSTANG, INC., and RHI TALENT USA
INC. F/K/A ALTABLUE INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-03985 (S.D.
Tex., December 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly
situated inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Portal-to-Portal Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cement inspector/civil
inspector from October 15, 2018 until April 26, 2019.
Wood Group Mustang, Inc. is a construction engineering company
based in Houston, Texas.
RHI Talent USA Inc., formerly known as Altablue Inc., is an
engineering services firm based in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
XTO ENERGY: Sanders Sues Over Inspection Specialists' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
THADDEUS SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XTO ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01725-UNA (D. Del., December 7, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated inspection specialists for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inspection
specialist.
XTO Energy, Inc. is an international natural gas and oil producer
operating throughout five divisions in the United States, Western
Canada, and South America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 North Market St., 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and –
Clif Alexander, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 844-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Likely to Pay $25 to Users as Part of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
siasat.com reports that video conferencing platform Zoom has
reached a settlement in a class-action lawsuit over alleged privacy
and security issues, media reports say.
If a user used the app before July, then they could be eligible to
receive money as a result, reports The Verge.
The company has agreed to pay $85 million while continuing to deny
the allegations and any liability.
There are two groups eligible to file a claim. If a user paid for a
Zoom Meetings App subscription between March 30, 2016 and July 30,
2021, they can file a claim for $25 or 15 per cent of what they
paid for that subscription (excluding optional add-ons).
The second bucket is if users are not eligible for the first group
but they "registered, used, opened or downloaded the Zoom Meeting
App" between March 30, 2016 and July 30, 2021, users can file a
claim for $15.
However, if a user has only used Zoom with an "Enterprise-Level
Account" or a government account, they are excluded from the
settlement.
Claims must be submitted by March 5, 2022. Users can file a claim
online or by mailing a completed claim form, the report said.
However, payment amounts "may increase or decrease" depending on
how many people submit claims, according to the settlement's
website.
The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court, and a
final approval hearing is scheduled for April 7, 2022. [GN]
[*] Baker & Hostetler Attorney Discusses Various Insurance Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Johnson, Esq., of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that property and casualty class action activity
has continued at a fast clip so far this year. More of the same
claims -- total loss, tag, tax and title, labor depreciation,
diminished value, and medical payments -- all garnered attention
alongside new(er) claims that premiums at filed rates were too high
and a bizarre twist in New Mexico for uninsured/underinsured
policies.
Challenging Pandemic Rates
Last year saw several class actions filed against insurers in
Illinois alleging that insurers charged too much for auto premiums
during the pandemic because of reduced driving. [2020 4Q] Since
that time, several more have been filed in Nevada.
One court refused to dismiss all claims. Siegal v. GEICO Casualty
Co., 523 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Ill. 2021). The court allowed a
claim for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act to proceed, based in part on certain
statements by the insurer about passing on savings. The court
recognized that whether those statements were a proximate cause of
the purchase of insurance was tenuous, but it found the required
causation allegation to be minimal and "best left to the trier of
fact." The court also refused to dismiss for lack of standing
entities with whom the plaintiff had no contractual relationship --
a jurisdictional question -- citing to a 19-year-old Seventh
Circuit decision that class certification must precede standing
questions. To compound the error, the court later refused to allow
an interlocutory appeal of the decision. 2021 WL 2413155.
But another court in the same district came to a different
conclusion. In Ridings v. American Family Ins. Co., the court
refused to find any deceptive conduct from allegations of a failure
to disclose as part of the insurer's premium relief program. 2021
WL 722856 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2021). As the court noted, "Ridings
does not argue that the pandemic somehow nullified her insurance
contract, and under its terms, American Family was not required to
provide premium relief in the event that it received fewer claims
than expected. American Family could have done nothing. . . . All
that's alleged is that Ridings continued to pay the premiums she
owed under her insurance contract. And because of the relief
program, Ridings actually paid less than that." The rest of the
plaintiff's claims were dismissed as well. The same judge adopted
the logic in Ridings in dismissing a similar action against another
insurer. Kopsaftis v. Progressive Universal Ins. Co., 2021 WL
780715 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 1, 2021).
That theory was later applied in claims to recover "excess"
premiums following business closures. While the heavy regulatory
control of rates and the filed-rate doctrine make these claims a
bit of a stretch, one California court refused to dismiss these
claims. Boobuli's LLC v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., No.
3:20-cv-07074, dkt. no. 54 (N.D. Calif. Oct. 5, 2021). The court
rejected application of the filed-rate doctrine, using a bit of
circular logic, because the insured "is not seeking to challenge
the rate itself, but the misapplication of the rate"; [how could a
rate affect an insured other than by its application?]. In
fairness, California law does have some statutory and case law
restrictions narrowly construing the filed-rate doctrine, which
serve to limit the authority of this decision.
Boobuli's was also supported by a series of bulletins issued by the
California commissioner of insurance ordering insurers to report on
how they will return premiums. The latest concludes that extensive
analysis of data received led the department to conclude that
policyholders were paying "inflated premiums" because of the
reduced risk of loss. Bulletin 2021-3 (Mar. 11, 2021). Query
whether, if everyone hits the road to travel when life returns to
normal and the industry is under an increased risk of loss,
there'll be an announcement from DOI of premium "undercharges."
Other courts have weighed in on claims asserting reduction or
refund of premiums during the pandemic. G.O.A.T. Climb & Cryo, LLC
v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2021 WL 2853370 (N.D. Ill. July 8,
2021) (holding that "settled law holds that charging an
unconscionably high price generally is insufficient to establish a
claim for unfairness"; that where a plaintiff could freely shop for
alternative products at a more acceptable price, "it is difficult
to see how the premium that [an insurer] charged and that [an
insured] freely paid could be 'unfair' under the ICFA"; and that
"[a]n insurance contract cannot be called unfair under the ICFA
simply because the purchase proved in hindsight to be a losing
bet"); Grossman v. GEICO Cas. Co., 2021 WL 5229080 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
13, 2021) (dismissing action on filed-rate grounds because the
plaintiff's insurance rates "were filed with NYDFS" and were "only
allegedly 'excessive' in retrospect, and the fact that these rates
were approved by NYDFS renders them per se reasonable and
unassailable"); Jones v. GEICO Cas. Co., 2021 WL 3602855 (D. Ariz.
Aug. 13, 2021) (declining to find purportedly "unfair windfall" to
be unconscionable and noting that "Plaintiff's argument ignores the
inherent risk parties take on when entering into an insurance
agreement" and that "[c]ourts do not rescind a contract just
because the results appear unfair in hindsight").
Total Loss Claims
As previously reported, claims attacking the methodology used to
value and pay total loss claims have been revived, having
previously had a run some 15-20 years ago. [See 2018 4Q] Class
actions challenging the valuation of vehicles under total loss
claims have been filed in several states, including Washington,
North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia and Florida,
among others.
Some claims allege vendors' estimating software methodology for
identifying comparable vehicles in total loss valuation reports,
which includes calculating base values and making condition
adjustments, is not statistically valid but rather is wholly
arbitrary. Others allege somewhat the opposite -- that the insurer
does not pay what the vendors' software reports but follows an
arbitrary measure of reducing that amount. Defense of class
certification can be highly dependent on what specific states' laws
provide for valuing total loss claims, and it typically requires
expert opinions to attack plaintiffs' sample selection methodology
to show that proof of liability requires individual inquiries.
Several courts have already held that proof of undervaluation (and
thus injury) is an individual issue that precludes class
certification. Lundquist v. First National Insurance Company, No.
C18-5301RJB, 2020 WL 6158984 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2020); Signor v.
Safeco Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-61937, 2021 WL 1348414 (S.D. Fla. Feb.
18, 2021); Curtis v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., No. 17-cv-176, 2020
WL 2461482, at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 12, 2020); Prudhomme v. GEICO
Ins. Co., No. 15-cv-00098 (W.D. La. Dec. 22, 2020); Morgan v.
Massachusetts Homeland Ins. Co., 69 N.E.3d 584, (Mass. App. 2017).
The Eighth Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of total loss
claims, holding that Arkansas law does not require that insurers
justify deviation from a cash settlement method in determining
value of a total loss, only that the method chosen is documented.
Moffitt v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 11 F.4th 958 (8th Cir.
2021). Other total loss class actions are currently pending in
other circuit courts of appeals, either on class certification or
of merits decisions. Lara v. First National Insurance Company, Case
No. 21-35126 (9th Cir.) (appeal of denial of class cert.);
Prudhomme v. Gov't Empl. Ins., Case No. 21-30157 (5th Cir.) (appeal
of denial of class cert.); Signor v. Safeco Ins. Co., Case No.
21-13148 (11th Cir.) (appeal of denial of class cert. and summary
judgment for insurer).
Tax, Tag and Title Class Action Update
One insurer resolved tax, tag and title claims in a class
settlement in a deal announced this fall, which would pay "up to"
$19.5 million to policyholders who claimed the insurer didn't pay
the full amount of sales tax and regulatory fees after their
vehicles were deemed total losses. In re: GEICO General Insurance
Co., No. 4:19-cv-03768 (N.D. Calif.). The settlement also would
supplant a $6.5 million judgment entered in 2018 in favor of the
plaintiffs in a related case that had been on appeal in the
Eleventh Circuit. Roth v. GEICO General Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3412852
(S.D. Fla. June 14, 2018), vacated and remanded, 2020 WL 5507208
and 2020 WL 6301350 (11th Cir. Aug. 27, 2020). Another settlement
was filed in Hindes v. Ohio Mut. Ins. Co., No. 20cv007627, Franklin
Cty., Ohio, Common Pleas Court.
More cases have been filed so far this year. See, e.g., Tyler v.
Mid-Century Insurance Company, No. 1:21-cv-04514-MLB (N.D. Ga.).
Labor Depreciation Cases Labor On
Like Sisyphus continually pushing that boulder uphill, labor
depreciation class actions seemingly never end. Following the Sixth
Circuit's finding that policies' lack of definition of depreciation
was ambiguous under Ohio law, the district court in one of those
cases denied class certification, in part because of the aggressive
inclusion of commercial with residential policyholders with
differing policy limitations periods and differing policy
provisions. Cranfield v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2021 WL
3376283 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2021).
On a different front, as emboldened plaintiffs continue to add more
states to alleged classes, efforts to challenge a single
plaintiff's ability to represent policyholders from multiple states
will grow. In one case, a court refused to dismiss or to strike
class allegations because of the dissimilarities of multiple
states' laws or because of lack of standing and personal
jurisdiction based on Bristol-Meyers Squib arguments. Cedarview
Mart, LLC v. State Auto Prop. and Cas. Co., 2021 WL 1206597 (N.D.
Miss. Mar. 30, 2021). This decision, though, was on an initial
motion and not after class certification briefing.
States continue to arrive at contrasting conclusions. In May, the
South Carolina Supreme Court held that an insurer is not prohibited
from including an estimate of the depreciation of embedded labor
costs in its calculation of actual cash value. Butler v. The
Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Co., 858 S.E.2d 407 (S.C.
2001). But in September the Illinois Supreme Court reached the
opposite conclusion, that the failure to define depreciation in
policies to include labor rendered them ambiguous, and thus it
followed the insured's view that it did not. Sproull v. State Farm
Fire and Cas. Co., 2021 IL 126446 (Ill. Sept. 23, 2021).
Insurers should continue to evaluate their nonmaterial depreciation
practices for structural damage claims on a state-by-state basis.
The most effective way to eliminate this exposure is to adopt an
ACV endorsement that specifically defines what types of
depreciation can be deducted, but it can be addressed short term by
changing depreciation settings for estimating programs.
Puzzling New Mexico Uninsured/Underinsured Policy Decision
A few years ago, a number of class actions were filed against
insurers in New Mexico federal district court, alleging that
underinsured motorist coverage was illusory at minimum limits and
seeking to recover premiums. The district court certified a legal
question to the New Mexico Supreme Court of "whether the
underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage on a policy that provides
minimum uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) limits of $25,000
per person/$50,000 per accident is illusory for an insured who
sustains more than $25,000 in damages caused by a minimally insured
tortfeasor [and] [i]f so, . . . whether insurance companies may
charge premiums for such a policy." Crutcher v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co., 2021 WL 4520651, *1 (N.M. Oct. 4, 2021).
Important to know is that the New Mexico Legislature requires
insurers to offer UM/UIM coverage at those minimum limits, which
are also the minimum limits of insurance required of drivers.
"[O]nly if the motorist purchases higher than minimum liability
coverage may higher than minimum UM/UIM coverage be purchased." Id.
at *3-4. New Mexico follows the gap theory, under which an injured
insured is covered by UIM up to the amount of UM/UIM protection
purchased, which is offset by available liability proceeds.
The court decided that UM/UIM coverage at minimum limits "is
illusory in that it may mislead minimum UM/UIM policyholders to
believe that they will receive underinsured motorist benefits, when
in reality they may never receive such a benefit" and that insurers
must adequately disclose the limitations of minimum UM/UIM coverage
- namely, that a policyholder may never receive UIM benefits. Id.
at *1. The court acknowledged the insurer's argument that the
coverage does provide value when a tortfeasor is uninsured, but it
decided to bifurcate a unitary UM/UIM coverage by declaring that
the coverage was not properly disclosed for the other "half" of the
risk (UIM), disregarding the role of the regulator in approving
rates based on risk (for which UIM may be much less than half).
Moreover, as explained by the dissent, multiple scenarios in actual
cases show it to be inaccurate that UIM never, in practice,
provides UIM benefits to insureds with minimum-limits policies. Id.
at *9.
The court deflected reliance on the statutory requirement to offer
the coverage by assuring that the legislature's "intent was not to
sanction the deception of those consumers in their selection of
policies and coverage levels" and that instead the only "deception"
was in selling policies with coverage exactly as prescribed by New
Mexico law. Regardless, insurers have an obligation to disclose to
policyholders that "purchase of the statutory minimum of UM/UIM
insurance may come with the counterintuitive exclusion of UIM
insurance if the insured is in an accident with a tortfeasor who
carries minimum liability insurance." Id. at *8. Not to be outdone,
the New Mexico superintendent of insurance has required insurers to
publish a disclosure and an exclusion to a scenario under UIM
coverage that is already excluded. Bulletin 2021-024 (Nov. 9,
2021). Clear?
No Certification of Diminished Value Claims
Asserting Georgia claims, plaintiffs lost out in a bid to certify
automobile diminished value claims. Baker v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 2021 WL 4006124 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 2, 2021), reconsideration
denied, 2021 WL 4810620. Plaintiffs relied heavily on an expert's
opinion that the use of a specific formula always resulted in
underassessment of diminished value, based on his review of a
sample of claims. The court found more persuasive the insurer's
expert opinion, that the plaintiffs' expert chose a
nonrepresentative sample that was too small. Vehicles in his sample
had an average mileage of nearly half that of claims in the alleged
class, reflecting a bias toward newer and more expensive vehicles,
and it was overinclusive of more severely damaged vehicles. Because
the rejected expert's opinion was the primary basis to show
classwide proof, the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) was
not met.
Homeowner's Property Damage Claims Fail
One federal court rendered class certification moot by throwing out
a homeowner's alleged claims against an insurer based on how his
property damage claim was estimated and paid. In Beyers v.
Consolidated Ins. Co., the plaintiff alleged damage when he was not
paid for general contractor overhead and profit for roof and gutter
damage alone, he was not paid a separately itemized amount for a
starter course of shingles in lieu of a waste factor, and a program
to value replacement shingles sold by an insurer's vendor wasn't an
accurate replacement cost. 2021 WL 1061210 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 19,
2021).
The court first granted motions in limine on the plaintiff's
experts' reports in support of these theories, finding their
opinions unreliable and not supported within the industry. Moving
to the merits, there was no evidence that a general contractor was
needed to coordinate repairs to just a roof and gutters, so
overhead and profit were not owing, and the plaintiff was fully
compensated for the cost of a starter row of shingles within the
estimated waste factor paid for replacement shingles. Finally, the
fact that replacement shingles were estimated based on a supplier
contracting with the insurer at a lower price than available in
stores doesn't change that the plaintiff was fully indemnified for
replacement shingles. An abbreviated appeal of this decision was
later dismissed.
Medical Payments Claims Certified
Healthcare providers convinced a federal court to certify claims
that the insurer improperly underpaid personal injury protection
claims in violation of its policy by paying only 80 percent of the
value of the claims. Rosenberg v. Government Employees Ins. Co.,
No. 19-cv-61422, dkt. no. 200 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2021). The
claims center on use of a code to reduce payments to 80 percent of
the billed amount. Much of the class certification analysis focused
on ascertainability, and the court agreed with the plaintiff's
experts that providers could be identified through analysis of the
insurer's claims data. Predominance was not found by the court to
be much of an issue because of the common method of determining
whether or not a code was used to adjust the providers' claims, but
there was scant discussion of how the existence of use of the code
alone would establish liability for the plaintiff's cause of
action.
Medicare Secondary Payer Act Class Actions
Cases asserting claims against insurers for reimbursement of
assigned claims under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA)
continue to be active. A Central District of California court sua
sponte dismissed one action, on the eve of the class certification
hearing, for lack of standing. MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC v. Mercury
General, 2021 WL 3615905 (Aug. 12, 2021). The court found that the
plaintiff had failed to show that exemplar claims of beneficiaries
alleged in the complaint incurred injury in fact. The class
certification briefing and evidence did not show that the defendant
failed to pay for a reason prohibited by the MSPA, and spreadsheets
of claims with various data fields filed by the plaintiff did not
prove a failure to pay by the insurer.
Other courts recently have taken a tougher stance at the pleading
stage of these claims, in some cases going beyond surface
allegations of injury to dismiss complaints. MSP Recovery Claims,
Series LLC v. Amerisure Insurance Co., 2021 WL 358670 and 2021 WL
1711684 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 1 and April 15, 2021); MSP Recovery Claims,
LLC v. Metropolitan Gen. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 804716 (S.D. Fla. Mar.
3, 2021); MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. AIG Property Cas. Co.,
2021 WL 1164091 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2021); MSP Recovery Claims,
Series LLC v. Endurance American Ins. Co., 2021 WL 706225 (S.D.
Fla. Feb. 23, 2021); MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. NGM Ins.
Co., 2021 WL 1172810 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2021).
One state court, though, has not only granted class certification
of MSPA claims based on the equivalent of Rule 23(b)(2) but also
then promptly granted summary judgment against the insurer and
issued discovery sanctions. MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. IDS Property
Casualty Ins. Co., Case No. 2015-027940-CA-01, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Aug. 6, 2021). This was the
plaintiffs' second crack at class certification, having failed at
certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class. IDS Property Casualty
Ins. Co. v. MSPA Claims 1, LLC, 263 So. 3d 122 (Fla. Ct. App.
2018).
More recently, a qui tam complaint listing a number of property and
casualty insurers filed by the same plaintiffs' group was unsealed
a few months ago. United States of America, ex rel., MSP WB, LLC v.
Under Seal Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12165-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich).
In contrast to the private cause of action asserted in other cases,
here, the plaintiffs are suing on behalf of the government to
collect from property and casualty insurers that fail to do enough
to submit identification data to the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services sufficient to match claimants with Medicare
beneficiaries. The complaint also seeks to recover primary payments
against insurers for Medicaid claims for which the government is
secondary. [GN]
[*] Carlton Fields Attorney Discusses Various Insurance Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Feather, Esq., of Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra,
discussed various Real Property, Financial Services, & Title
Insurance class actions.
Foreclosure / Reverse Mortgage: Surviving spouse who did not sign
the note did not qualify as a "borrower" by signing the mortgage
and related documents - OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Leek-Tannenbaum, No.
3D18-244 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 17, 2021) (reversed with directions to
enter judgment of foreclosure)
Financial Services Update
TCPA / Class Action Settlement: Court rejected proposed class
action settlement, which would award $25 in damages for each valid
claim, because it was on the low end of comparable TCPA settlements
and did not distinguish between class members whose cell phones
were called once and those who were called multiple times, proposed
class representative award of $15,000 is excessive - Estate of
O'Shea v. Am. Solar Sol., Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00894 (S.D. Cal. Oct.
25, 2021) (denying without prejudice joint motion for preliminary
approval of settlement)
TCPA / Class Action Settlement / Class Rep Award: Proposed class
representative award of $15,000 is excessive - Estate of O'Shea v.
Am. Solar Sol., Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00894 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2021)
(denying without prejudice joint motion for preliminary approval of
settlement)
TCPA / Class Certification: Class certification denied where
plaintiff failed to identify a method by which the class could be
ascertained, and determining whether an individual was within the
proposed class would necessarily entail an individualized analysis
to determine whether they had an established business relationship
- Sapan v. Yelp, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-03240 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021)
(denying motion to certify class)
FCRA / Notification: Consumer failed to state claim against
furnisher for failing to remove notation that her account was in
dispute where consumer failed to plead that she directly notified
any entity that she no longer disputed the account - Hunter v.
Equifax Info. Sols., LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00639 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 12,
2021) (dismissing complaint with leave to amend)
FCRA / Standing: Consumers who challenged credit reporting agency's
procedures, arguing they led to potential inaccuracies, failed to
establish standing because they did not suffer concrete harm;
potential future harm is not sufficient for Article III standing -
Maddox v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., N.A., No. 19-1774 (2d Cir.
Nov. 17, 2021) (vacating district court order denying defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanding for dismissal)
Title Insurance Update
Enforcement of Settlement Agreement: Covenant not to sue in release
and settlement agreement barred developer and investors' claims
against title insurer - ALR Oglethorpe, LLC v. Fidelity Nat'l Title
Ins. Co., No. A21A0989 (Ga. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2021) (affirming
summary judgment in favor of title insurer)
Contribution / Indemnification: Title insurer was not joint
tortfeasor with law firm, and thus investors had no right to seek
contribution or indemnification from title insurer - ALR
Oglethorpe, LLC v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co., No. A21A0989 (Ga.
Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2021) (affirming summary judgment in favor of
title insurer)
Class Action / Unfair Competition: Individual lacked standing, as
either an individual or a class representative, to bring an unfair
competition law claim seeking restitution and injunctive relief
against title insurer because individual failed to show that he
suffered an injury in fact and lost money or property as a result
of unfair competition - Villanueva v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Co., No.
H041870, H042504 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2021) (reversing trial
court's decision and entering an order directing dismissal in favor
of title insurer)
Removal / Remand: Defendant's untimely removal to the wrong venue
required that the action be remanded to state court instead of
transferred to the appropriate federal district court - Fidelity
Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. CRH Americas, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00688 (M.D.
Pa. Nov. 17, 2021) (overruling defendant's objections to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granting the title
insurer's motion to remand)
Sales & Use Tax: Sales and use tax as applied to title insurer's
lease of business equipment did not violate Article XIII, § 28(f)
of California Constitution - First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Cal. Dep't
of Tax & Fee Admin., No. D077970 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2021)
(reversing trial court's judgment and vacating writ of mandate)
[GN]
[*] Train Operators Can't Appeal $93MM Ticket Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Siliva Martelli, writing for Law360, reports that a London
competition tribunal has denied three train operators permission to
appeal a decision that allowed passengers to go ahead as a class in
a GBP93 million ($123 million) lawsuit accusing the railway
companies of charging them double for journeys. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***