/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220602.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, June 2, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 104
Headlines
119 LUCKY: Scheduling Order Entered in Oritz Class Action
17TH AVE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violations
AGRIFY CORP: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
ALLIANZ SE: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Guide Issued in Crosby Suit for Discovery Disputes
AMEDISYS HOLDING: Warner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Eva Solis Seeks to Certify Class Claims
AMSHER COLLECTION: Ozturk FCRA-FDCPA Suit Tossed Without Prejudice
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Coyle Claims Removed to District of Nebraska
AURINIA PHARMA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 14 Deadline
AVOCADO MATTRESS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
BETTER MORTGAGE: Bid to Junk Class Certification in Dominguez Nixed
BLST HOLDING: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOFI HOLDING: Provisional Status of Settlement Class Approved
BOOHOO.COM USA: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Promotions
BRANDED BILLS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRITAX CHILD: Settles Lawsuit Over Harness-2-Booster Safety Seat
BTA OIL: Ricks Seek to Certify Collective Action
BUDGET BLINDS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BURGER KING: Faces Suit Over Violations of Jews' Kosher Laws
CANADIAN REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price Fixing
CANOO INC: Wants Investors' Securities Class Action Dismissed
CANUS CORPORATION: Giles Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
CAPITAL ONE: Bacs, et al., Must File Class Cert Bid by August 3
CAREDX INC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
CAREDX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 22 Deadline
CAREDX INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
CARRINGTON TEA: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Proceeds of Site Sale Part of $1B-Settlement
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Hearing Vacated in Baird Suit
CHEMOURS CO: Judge Wants Answers From Lawyers After Witness Recants
CIRCLE K STORES: Pettersen Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
CLECO CORPORATE: Securities Class Suit Over Merger Deal Ongoing
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Palmer Files Bid for Class Status
COLORADO: A.A. Class Suit Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order
COOK COUNTY, IL: Dismissal of Levin v. Retirement Board Affirmed
DARK HORSE COMICS: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DAVIS YULEE: Case Management, Scheduling Order Entered in Hrebenar
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS: Ramos Files Suit in S.D. New York
E. I. DU PONT: Total PFAS Suit Damages Could Reach US$30 Billion
EAST TENNESSEE: Markovits Stock Investigates Data Breach Claims
ENSERVCO CORP: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
ENSERVCO CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 19 Deadline
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Consolidated Insurance Suit Ongoing in NY
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Faces Brach Family Suit
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: O'Donnell Annuity Suit Ongoing
ESTATE MANAGEMENT: Rattacasa, et al., Seek Conditional Class Status
EUFAULA, AL: Willson Seeks to Certify Class of K-9 Unit Officers
FCA US: Ram Vehicles' HCU and ABS "Defective," Wilson Suit Claims
FLACK GLOBAL: Zakaria Seeks July 4 Extension for Class Cert Filing
FLINT, MI: Lead Poisoning Impacts Schoolchildren, Lawsuit Ongoing
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Time to File Reply to Class Status Bid Extended
FOURPOINT ENERGY: Settlement Classes Certified in Rounds Suit
FYRE FESTIVAL: Investors React on Prison Release of Convicted Felon
GOODYEAR TIRE: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Continued to June 20
GRAB HOLDINGS: Faces Fan Shareholder Suit in NY Court
GRAB HOLDINGS: Faces Peccarino Shareholder Suit in NY Court
HD WELLNESS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HEI HOTELS: Court Sides with Zurich in Virus Coverage Dispute
HITCH FIRE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 24 Deadline
J.M. SMUCKER: Kraljevich Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
J.M. SMUCKER: Ward Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Peanut Butter
JACOBY & MEYERS: Plaintiff Loses Second Renewed Class Status Bid
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Roman Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: M.C. Wins Class Certification Bid
JIFFYSHIRTS.COM (US): Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOHN HANCOCK: Court Amends Order Awarding Fees in Leonard Suit
JUUL LABS: Monroe County Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Summers Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Marion County Says
KIM BIMESTEFER: Discovery Stayed in G.A. Suit
KINDHUMANS PBC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LAKE CITY CREDIT: McAllister Suit Seeks to Certify Class
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Angus Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
LINK SNACKS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LTC DELIVERY: $500K Class Settlement in Herbert Suit Wins Approval
MANTECH INTERNATIONAL: Juan Monteverde Probes Securities Claims
MATT MARTORELLO: Smith Seeks to File Amended Bid for Class Cert.
MAZDA MOTOR: Guthrie Suit Removed to C.D. California
MCDONALD'S CORP: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Ortega Suit
MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL AUDIT: Acuna's Attys. Awarded $35K in Fees/Costs
MESOBLAST LIMITED: August 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
META PLATFORMS: BIPA Class Action Settlement Payouts Begin
MORPHE COSMETICS: Class Suit Alleges Injury Over Use of Eyeshadows
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 5 Deadline
MYLAN INC: Amneal Partly Compelled to Show Docs in Rochester Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 17, 2023
NAVISTAR INC: N.D. Texas Grants Bid to Dismiss Xcelerated Suit
NELNET INC: Johansson, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
NETFLIX INC: District Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Longport Suit
NETFLIX INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of July 5 Deadline
NETFLIX INC: Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing
NISSAN NORTH: Court Junks Bids to Seal Class Cert Briefing
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INJECTION: Prieto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Final OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
OKTA INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 19 Deadline
OKTA INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of July 19 Deadline
OKTA INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 19 Deadline
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Maneatis
ORIGINAL VELATIS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OSCAR HEALTH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 11 Deadline
OSCAR HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 11 Deadline
OSCAR HEALTH: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 11 Deadline
OWENS CORNING: Newhouse Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
PAN-O-GOLD BAKING: Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order Entered
PARK MANAGEMENT: Settlement Deal Entered Labor Suit
PEABODY ENERGY: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Suit
PLACE FOR ROVER: Rainey Suit Ongoing in California Court
POWER PARAGON: Class Cert Filing Deadline Continued to August 15
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Theodore Shareholder Suit in NY Court
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Han Shareholder Suit Stayed
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Tennenbaum Shareholder Suit Dismissed
RANGERS FOOTBALL: Faces Class Action Over Cinch Branding Deal
ROGERS ELECTRICAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Walker Class Suit
RTC ENTERPRISES: Hunter Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Sept. 9 Filing of Class Cert Bid Sought
SANTANDER BANK: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
SANTANDER SECURITIES: Dismissal of All Ponsa-Rabell Claims Affirmed
SBS AMERICAS INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEATTLE, WA: Judge Denies Class Certification in CHOP Lawsuit
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Cates Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit
SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Deal Reached in Labor Suit
SLEEP NUMBER: Schammas and Steamfitters Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs
SNAPCHAT INC: Faces Class Action Over Illinois BIPA Violation
SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS: Faces Samuels FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
SPECTRUM SECURITY: Jackson Lewis Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
SPRING OAKS: Thomas Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SPRUETH MAGERS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNCORP GROUP: Settles Class Action Over Superannuation Commissions
TARGET CORPORATION: Lopez Files Suit in N.D. California
THOSE CERTAIN: Lincoln Adventures Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
TIMBERLAND BANK: Rieken Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
TOBI.COM LLC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOGAS HOUSE: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: July 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Chalal Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Cheng Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Gendron Class Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Marques Class Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Shoemaker Class Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Zuo Class Action
TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON: Scheduling Order Entered in Corbitt Suit
TWO RIVERS DEMOLITION: Acosta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
U.S. SOCCER: Agrees to New CBA Following Class Action Settlement
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Averts Race Discrimination Class Action
UGI STORAGE: Tioga County Property Owners' Class Action Ongoing
UNITED SERVICES: Class Certification Expert Reports Due July 6
UNITED STATES: District of Columbia Grants Bid to Toss Glogau Suit
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Court Narrows Claims in Harrington Suit
UPSTART INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
VIATRIS INC: Plaintiffs' Firms Seek $88M Fees in EpiPen Class Suit
VICTORIA: Faces Class Action Threat Over Ambulance Dispatch Delays
VIKING RIVER: High Court Agrees to Review Iskanian Rule Challenge
VOYAGE-AIR GUITAR: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALMART INC: Merck Files Bid for Class Certification
WAVE LIFE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Seventh Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Chuluunbat Suit
WILD IDEA BUFFALO: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WILSON LOGISTICS: Moore Files Bid for Class Certification
WOOD GROUP: Workers Class Conditionally Certified in Iannotti Suit
XEROX CORPORATION: Filing for Class Status Bid Due Oct. 14
YANCEY RICHARDSON: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZAMORA COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Rum
ZEETO LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended to June 6
[*] Eighth Circuit Remands FCRA Class Action to State Court
[*] Trinidad and Tobago Group Can't Bring Class Action v. Oil Co.
*********
119 LUCKY: Scheduling Order Entered in Oritz Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN ORITZ v. 119 LUCKY
INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00957-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Mitchell S. Goldberg entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be October 17, 2022
completed by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall produce November 14, 2022
their expert report(s) by:
-- The Defendants shall produce December 5, 2022
their expert report(s) by:
-- The Plaintiffs' expert witness December 26, 2022
rebuttal reports (if necessary)
shall be produced by:
-- All expert discovery, including January 16, 2023
all depositions of expert
witnesses, shall be completed by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their February 16, 2023
motion for class certification
on or before:
with a response due: April 3, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38MCrbz at no extra charge.[CC]
17TH AVE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Fay, writing for Law Street, reports that on May 22, Marcos
Britton and Arlyn Lopez filed a class action complaint in the
Southern District of Florida against 17th Ave Foods & Grocery LLC
and its managers alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).
According to the complaint, 17th Ave is a Florida supermarket and
cafeteria doing business as Friends Meat Market. The complaint
further states that the named plaintiffs were employed by the
defendants as non-exempt employees from early 2022 until April 28.
The plaintiffs allege that during their employment with the
defendants, they had a mandatory schedule of 15 hours per day six
days a week for a total of 90 hours weekly.
Britton alleges that he was paid $750 weekly, and Lopez alleges she
was paid $720 weekly. Both plaintiffs state that their weekly
salary, when divided by their 90 hour work weeks, resulted in a
wage rate lower than the minimum wage required under the FLSA.
Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that they were not paid for the
required overtime rate for work in excess of 40 hours per week
under the FLSA.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants willfully failed to pay
the plaintiffs the required minimum wage and overtime compensation.
The complaint further purports that the plaintiffs were paid in
cash without proper pay stubs or records.
The complaint states that the named plaintiffs repeatedly
complained to Akream and Washam about the lack of payment with no
success. Further, the complaint states that on April 28, 2022, the
named plaintiffs were terminated after a co-worker maliciously
attacked Britton with a broom. The plaintiffs allege that they were
not paid for their last two weeks of work after the altercation.
Therefore, the plaintiffs bring the present case alleging violation
of the FLSA's wage and hour requirements and retaliatory discharge
and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, actual, double and
liquidated damages, back pay, attorney's fees and costs. The
plaintiffs are represented by the Palma Law Group. [GN]
AGRIFY CORP: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Agrify
Corporation (NASDAQ: AGFY), Pegasystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA), Unity
Software, Inc. (NYSE: U), and NeoGenomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEO). Our
investigations concern whether these companies have violated the
federal securities laws and/or engaged in other unlawful business
practices. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.
Agrify Corporation (NASDAQ: AGFY)
On December 16, 2021, during trading hours, market analyst Bonitas
Research published a report regarding Agrify which alleges several
issues at the Company including that "[w]e believe that Agrify
created artificial demand for its product by financing undisclosed
Company insiders to act as independent customers." Further the
report alleges that "Agrify insiders lied to investors about the
independence of its customer base in order to execute a dubious
stock promotion for self-enrichment at the expense of minority
shareholders[,]" and that "[e]vidence showed that five (5) of
Agrify's eight (8) customer announcements in 2021 are either with
undisclosed Company insiders or with unlicensed unproven
operators."
On this news, Agrify's common stock price fell sharply during
intraday trading on December 16, 2021.
For more information on the Agrify investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/AGFY
Pegasystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA)
On May 10, 2022, Appian announced that it has received a verdict
from a jury in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Virginia,
awarding it $2.036 billion in damages from Pegasystems Inc.
(NASDAQ: PEGA) for trade secret misappropriation. The jury also
found that Pegasystems violated the Virginia Computer Crimes Act.
The jury further found Pegasystems' misappropriation of Appian's
trade secrets to be willful and malicious. Appian brought the case
to trial to ensure the protection of its proprietary intellectual
property, including its trade secrets.
On this news, Pegasystems' stock dropped $13.68, or 20.75%, to
close at $52.25.
For more information on the Pegasystems investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PEGA
Unity Software, Inc. (NYSE: U)
Unity is a video game software development company.
On May 10, 2022, after the market closed, Unity announced its first
quarter 2022 financial results. The Company also reduced its fiscal
2022 guidance "due to challenges with monetization products."
Specifically, "a fault in [Unity's] platform . . . resulted in
reduced accuracy for [its] Audience Pinpointer tool, a revenue
expensive issue given that [the] Pinpointer tool experienced
significant growth post the IDFA changes."
On this news, the price of Unity stock declined by $17.83 per
share, or approximately 37%, from $48.13 per share to close at
$30.30 per share on May 11, 2022.
For more information on the Unity Software investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/U
NeoGenomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEO)
NeoGenomics specializes in cancer genetics testing and information
services and aims to provide comprehensive oncology-focused testing
menus in the world for physicians to help them diagnose and treat
cancer.
On Monday, March 28, 2022, NeoGenomics' Chief Executive Mark Mallon
stepped down as the health-testing company revealed that
first-quarter financials will miss guidance and rescinded its
forecast for the full year.
On this news, the price of NeoGenomics shares declined by $5.30 per
share, or approximately 29.8%, from $17.79 per share to close at
$12.49 per share on March 29, 2022.
For more information on the NeoGenomics investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NEO
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato,
Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]
ALLIANZ SE: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Allianz
SE (OTCMKTS: ALIZY) and Digital Turbine, Inc. (NASDAQ: APPS). Our
investigations concern whether these companies have violated the
federal securities laws and/or engaged in other unlawful business
practices. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.
Allianz SE (OTCMKTS: ALIZY)
On August 1, 2021, Allianz disclosed that "the U.S. Department of
Justice (‘DOJ') has begun an investigation concerning the
Structured Alpha Funds," and that "there is a relevant risk that
the matters relating to the Structured Alpha Funds could materially
impact future financial results of Allianz Group."
On this news, Allianz's stock price fell $2.00 per share, or 8%, to
close at $22.85 per share on August 2, 2021.
Then, on May 17, 2022, Allianz pleaded guilty to securities fraud,
admitting that it lacked internal controls and oversight for a
series of private-investment funds and made false and misleading
statements to investors. The Company agreed to pay $6 billion in
penalties and restitution.
On this news, Allianz's stock price fell $4.54 per share, or 2.1%,
to close at $208.00 on May 18, 2022.
For more information on the Allianz investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ALIZY
Digital Turbine, Inc. (NASDAQ: APPS)
On May 17, 2022, Digital Turbine announced that it will "restate
its financial statements for the interim periods ended June 30,
2021, September 30, 2021, and December 31, 2021, following a review
of the presentation of revenue net of license fees and revenue
share for the Company's recently acquired businesses." The Company
specified that "revenue for certain product lines of the recently
acquired businesses, which are separate reportable segments, will
now be reported net of license fees and revenue share, rather than
on a gross basis, as had been previously reported."
On this news, Digital Turbine's stock fell $1.93, or 7.1%, to close
at $25.28 per share on May 18, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
For more information on the Digital Turbine investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/APPS
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Guide Issued in Crosby Suit for Discovery Disputes
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRAIG CROSBY and CHRISTOPHER, JOHNSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. C21-1083-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, issues an order articulating
general guidelines and parameters for the parties to follow to
resolve their discovery disputes.
The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion to
compel, asking the Court to compel the Defendant to produce
documents responsive to the Plaintiffs' first set of requests for
production ("RFPs"), dated Feb. 8, 2022. The contested RFPs are
Nos. 1-30, 36-47, and 50-64. Amazon objects to the vast majority on
the bases of "overbreadth, irrelevance, lack of proportionality,
and undue burden."
This is the second discovery dispute presented by the parties to
the Court. As it has repeatedly indicated in the past, discovery
motions are strongly disfavored. Nevertheless, the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure allow a party to move the Court to compel an
opponent to produce discoverable information, and the Court will
discharge this obligation accordingly.
Rather than rule on each disputed RFP, Judge Coughenour articulates
general guidelines and parameters for the parties to follow, and
directs them to again engage in a good faith meet and confer
following receipt of the guidance to resolve any remaining
disputes. If the parties are unable to resolve all remaining
issues, and the Court involvement remains necessary, the parties
may utilize an expedited supplemental briefing schedule, as
described, to resolve those disputes.
I. Scope of Present Discovery
1. The Court limits the scope of discovery pre-certification
to the class certification issue. Merits discovery is not yet
permitted, unless the information sought is also necessary to
support class certification.
2. The Court notes that Mr. Craig Crosby and Mr. Christopher
Johnson, the named Plaintiffs, suffered only the alleged injury of
purchasing batteries with a lower-than-advertised battery capacity.
The batteries they purchased did not explode or ignite due to their
lack of the advertised safety features. Therefore, batteries with
certain advertised safety issues are not discoverable for purposes
of class certification.
As a result, the Defendant's responses to the Plaintiffs'
RFPs may be limited to the following products: All lithium-ion
18650 batteries and products containing lithium-ion 18650
batteries, to the extent those batteries are specifically
referenced in the Defendant's advertising and so long as those
batteries have a specifically advertised energy capacity in
milliamp-hours or amp-hours in Defendant's advertising. The Court
finds these to be substantially similar to the products purchased
by the named Plaintiffs. However, as the Defendant indicates, some
of the products the Plaintiffs identify do not contain the word
'18650' in the product description or title. At least for purposes
of discovery supporting class certification, the Defendant need
only capture products with 18650 in the advertised product name
and/or description.
II. Meet & Confer
1. The parties are instructed to meet and confer within 14
days of the Order in an effort to resolve the remaining disputes
identified in the parties' briefings, consistent with the guidance
provided.
2. If the parties are unable to arrive at an agreement, the
parties are directed to follow the following expedited briefing
schedule:
a. Within 14 days of the meet and confer, the Plaintiffs
will file a supplemental brief not to exceed six pages in length;
b. Within three business days of the Plaintiffs'
supplemental brief, the Defendant will file a written response not
to exceed six pages in length; and
c. Within two business days of the Defendant's response,
the Plaintiffs may file a supplemental reply brief not to exceed
two pages in length.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/36ruswbu from Leagle.com.
AMEDISYS HOLDING: Warner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henrietta Warner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C., Case No.
1:22-cv-00020-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., May 13, 2022), is brought for
damages and other relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and to recover unpaid overtime compensation.
The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek. By doing so, the Defendant has violated the
FLSA. The Defendant knowingly caused and permitted the Plaintiff to
regularly work more than 40 hours in workweeks. The Defendant
decided to not pay the Plaintiff at the FLSA required
time-and-one-half rate for overtime hours employees worked over 40
hours each week. In fact, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff an
hourly rate or salary. Instead, Defendant instituted a payroll
structure in which it paid the Plaintiff per patient visit for
providing services at a patient's home, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a former employee of the Defendant as a licensed
practical nurse (“LPN(s)”) from April 27, 2020 to December 1,
2020.
The Defendant is a Louisiana limited liability company and
registered with Virginia’s State Corporation Commission as a
foreign entity authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth
of Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Powers, Esq.
Steven Anderson, Esq.
MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC
8133 Leesburg Pike, Suite 130
Vienna, VA 22182
Phone: (703) 520-1326
Facsimile: (703) 828-0205
Email: rpowers@mcplegal.com
sanderson@mcplegal.com
vcaballero@mcplegal.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Eva Solis Seeks to Certify Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVA SOLIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1–100, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-10181-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the following claims:
1. The 17200 Class: Derivative Claims:
As is common in wage and hour class actions, when a claim
for a substantive violation of law is certified,
the Plaintiffs also seek certification of the "Derivative
Claims" arising from certification of a claim under
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Bus. & Prof.
Code sections 17200, et seq., which entitles aggrieved
employees to obtain a four-year look back on the statute
of limitations applicable to their claims.
The substantive four-year claims here at issue are claims
for violation of the minimum wage requirements of
California law. The Plaintiff seeks certification on
behalf of Class Members who worked at least one shift in
the State of California during the Class Period during
which they were unpaid for all time from punch-in to
punch-out as a result of AA's uniform policy of paying
wages according to employees' scheduled hours, providing
"grace" to itself for early punch in time and late punch
out time, never to its workers, and not compensating them,
at all, for all time during which they were required to be
on property in secure areas and under AA control.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of to pursue claims for
(1) failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages due, (2)
unfair business practices.
2. Overtime Subclass: For November 29 and 30, 2015, the
Plaintiff seeks certification of the claims for unpaid
overtime wages when they were not compensated for time
during which they were under AA control and worked for it
traded shifts with a co-worker and worked in excess of
eight hours in a day but were not paid overtime wages
pursuant to AA's payroll policies, thereby violating the
Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 511, 514, and 1194.
3. 17200 Uniform Maintenance Subclass: For the extended
period from November 29, 2015, the Plaintiff seeks
certification of the claims for reimbursement of uniform
maintenance expenses incurred by the Passenger Service
agents, only.
4. The Sick Leave Subclass: For the period from November 29,
2016, the Plaintiff seeks statutory awards on account of
Defendant's maintenance of an illegal Sick Leave policy,
applied to all non-exempt workers.
5. The Wage Statement Subclass: For the period from November
29, 2018, the Plaintiff seeks certification of a class on
account of AA's failure to provide wage statements which
detail its automatic thirty-minute deductions for "meal
periods".
American Airlines is a major US-based airline headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas, within the Dallas -- Fort Worth metroplex.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lR8mKC
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
Priya Mohan, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Ave.
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
pmohan@harrisandruble.com
- and -
John P. Dorigan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN P. DORIGAN
29 Bella Donaci
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
Telephone: (760) 799-7773
E-mail: jpdorigan@aol.com
AMSHER COLLECTION: Ozturk FCRA-FDCPA Suit Tossed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SELMA OZTURK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMSHER COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-18317 (D.N.J.), Judge
Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey grants Amsher's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's putative
class-action complaint and dismisses the complaint without
prejudice.
I. Background
The matter arises out of the Plaintiff's debt for cell phone
services, and subsequent debt collection efforts made by Defendant
Amsher on behalf of T-Mobile US, Inc. The Plaintiff alleges that on
May 4, 2021, the Defendant sent her a collection letter that was
"misleading" and "gave away" the Defendant's obligations as a debt
collector concerning identity theft notifications under section
1681m(g) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). As a result,
she claims that the Letter violated her rights under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.
The Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleges that sometime prior
to May 4, 2021, she incurred a financial obligation to T-Mobile,
which was referred to Defendant for collection once in default. On
May 4, 2021, the Plaintiff purportedly received and read the Letter
from the Defendant, which provided information concerning how to
make an identity theft claim if the Plaintiff believed the T-Mobile
services were obtained fraudulently using her name. The Letter also
listed the $160.00 amount of the obligation, and appears to contain
disclosures that implicate the Plaintiff's rights under the FDCPA.
On Sept. 7, 2021, the Plaintiff brought the putative class-action
against Defendant and other unnamed defendants in the Superior
Court of New Jersey for violations to sections 1692e and 1692f of
the FDCPA, as well as the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act. The
Defendant removed the action to the Court on Oct. 8, 2021, based on
the Court's federal question jurisdiction. The Defendant then filed
the motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 29, 2021, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff opposed the
motion, and the Defendant replied. Each party provided the Court
with supplemental authority, and a reply to the adversary's
supplemental authority.
II. Discussion
The Plaintiff alleges that the Letter makes false and deceptive
representations about the Defendant's legal obligations concerning
identity theft under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681m(g) of the FCRA, in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e and 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f of
the FDCPA. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Letter is
misleading because it is an attempt to collect a debt and/or
information related to a debt couched as an informational letter
concerning identity theft assistance, also in violation of Sections
1692e and 1692f.
In opposition, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff is
improperly bringing a purported violation of FCRA as a FDCPA claim.
Moreover, the Defendant asserts that the Letter is purely
informational and could not be understood as materially false,
deceptive, or misleading.
A. Article III Standing
The Plaintiff has alleged that the Letter was misleading and
deceptive by seeking to collect a debt and related information
through the guise of identity theft assistance, while also
misrepresenting Defendant's obligations concerning identity theft.
Because misleading collection letters infringe upon on the
substantive right granted by the FDCPA to be free from receiving
allegedly false or deceptive information relating to the collection
of a debt, there is indeed an allegation here of an injury-in-fact.
While the merits of this claim require further analysis, Judge
Cecchi opines that the Plaintiff has alleged this Letter risks a
harm that is sufficiently concrete to confer Article III standing.
B. FDCPA
Turning to the merits of the Plaintiff's claims, to prevail in an
FDCPA action, a plaintiff must prove that "(1) she is a consumer,
(2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3) the defendant's
challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a 'debt' as the
Act defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated a provision of
the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt."
Judge Cecchi holds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the
first and second elements of her claim: The Plaintiff was a
consumer as she incurred a debt for cell phone services that were
primarily for personal, family and household purposes, and the
Defendant is the debt collection service to which the original
creditor referred the obligation for the purposes of collection. As
to the third element, the Defendant asserts that the Letter "does
not attempt to collect a debt," which, if true, would defeat the
Plaintiff's claim. The parties also dispute element four,
specifically, whether the Letter has violated a provision of the
FDCPA, namely Sections 1692e and/or 1692f.
i. Attempt to Collect a Debt
As an initial matter, if the Letter at issue is not an attempt to
collect a debt, the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim must fail.
Judge Cecchi finds that even if the text of the Letter is largely
concerned with identity theft assistance, it nevertheless includes
bolded, express language indicating it is an attempt to collect a
debt. And although communications from debt collectors must be
considered "in their entirety," the Defendant essentially argues
the reader should ignore this language altogether.
Moreover, the Defendant's Letter clearly aims to make its debt
collection attempts more likely to succeed. By noting the amount of
debt and providing a QR code below it that allows for immediate
online payment, Defendant has offered a reminder of the debt and a
method to make payment. When the disclaimer and QR code are taken
together, they underscore that the Letter was an attempt to collect
the debt.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has, thus, sufficiently pleaded that the
Letter was an attempt to collect a debt.
ii. Violations of FDCPA
Turning to whether the Defendant violated provisions of the FDCPA,
the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated sections 1692e
and 1692f.
Judge Cecchi finds that (i) the Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim that anything in the Letter had the potential to confuse the
least sophisticated debtor; and (ii) for the reasons why the
Plaintiff fails to state a claim under section 1692e, her claims
under section 1692f also fail.
C. New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act
The remaining claim (Count 1) in the Complaint asserts a violation
of state law, namely the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act. Where
a "district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction," it may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over state law claims.
Judge Cecchi dismisses all the claims over which it has original
federal question jurisdiction without prejudice and declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
III. Conclusion
Judge Cecchi finds: (1) that the Plaintiff has standing to assert
an informational injury under the FDCPA and (2) that the Letter
does not violate the FDCPA. For these reasons, she grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiff's
complaint without prejudice. An appropriate Order accompanies her
Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/346jk5jx from Leagle.com.
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Coyle Claims Removed to District of Nebraska
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COYLE TRUCKING, INC., v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC.,
ET AL, Civil Action No. 19-3164 (E.D. Pa.), Judge R. Barclay
Surrick of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania grants in part the Defendants' Motion to Transfer
Venue or Alternatively Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
I. Introduction
Presently before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Transfer
Venue or Alternatively Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Though
there are several Defendants in the case, some with similar names,
only one Defendant was a party to the agreement with the Plaintiff
that is now at issue. The Defendants jointly request that the Court
enforces the agreement's forum selection clause.
II. Background
The dispute concerns a workers' compensation insurance plan between
Plaintiff Coyle Trucking and the Defendants. The Plaintiff
participated in a workers' compensation insurance program issued by
Defendant Continental Indemnity Co. Defendants Applied Underwriters
Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. ("AUCRA"), Applied Risk
Services, Inc. ("ARS"), and Continental are corporations that each
have no employees, are subsidiaries of Defendant Applied
Underwriters, Inc. ("Applied"), and are corporate affiliates of
each other.
The Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place
of business in Pennsylvania; Applied is a Nebraska corporation;
AUCRA is an Iowa corporation and has a principal place of business
in Nebraska, although it was previously incorporated under the laws
of the British Virgin Islands at the times relevant to the dispute;
Continental is an Iowa corporation with a principal place of
business in Nebraska; and ARS is a Nebraska corporation with an
office in Nebraska. The Plaintiff alleges that all actions taken by
AUCRA, Continental, and ARS were actually performed by Applied
employees.
In general, workers' compensation insurers provide employers with
either guaranteed cost policies, which have fixed premiums
regardless of the claims made, or retrospective rating plans, which
have fluctuating premiums (within a predetermined minimum and
maximum range) based on the claims made. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants mislead it as to the nature of the programs and
insurance rates it purchased when Continental sold it its
EquityComp workers' compensation insurance program, which was a
retrospective rating plan under the guise of a guaranteed cost
policy. Specifically, the Plaintiff complains that Defendants
represented that employers would never have to pay more than a
certain amount for full insurance coverage regardless of the actual
loss incurred by their employees and could be eligible to pay a
retrospectively reduced rate if the actual loss incurred by their
employees was less than initial projections.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants intentionally
circumvented Pennsylvania administrative regulations -- which
require the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner to approve
insurance policies -- by filing a guaranteed cost policy with the
Commissioner but using two unfiled agreements to create a
retrospective rating plan. According to the Plaintiff, these
unfiled agreements were (1) "a so-called reinsurance treaty between
Continental and AUCRA" and (2) a "Reinsurance Participation
Agreement ("RPA") to convert the workers' compensation insurance
into a retrospective rating plan." The RPA, which was between only
AUCRA and the Plaintiff, contained a forum selection clause.
The RPA was not filed with the Commissioner. The Plaintiff requests
rescission, restitution, and damages for common law fraud and
violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law (73 Pa. Stat. Sections 201-1, et seq.).
On June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action suit against
the Defendants in the District of Nebraska for violations of
Nebraska law and common law claims for essentially the same conduct
described in the complaint in the instant matter. The Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the matter as duplicative of another
class action filed in the District of Nebraska, Applied
Underwriters v. Top's Personnel, Inc., No. 15-90, which the court
denied as premature on Nov. 1, 2018. After the judge presiding over
the class action matter denied the request for class certification,
the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its pending
matter without prejudice pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
on March 21, 2019. On June 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the
complaint in the instant case in the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia, which was subsequently removed to the U.S. Court in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
III. Discussion
The Defendants move to transfer the action to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska in Omaha. The Plaintiff opposes
transfer. Under Step One, the Court assesses whether Defendant
AUCRA can enforce the forum selection clause against the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff failed to show that enforcing the parties' valid
forum selection clause would be in violation of a strong public
policy in Pennsylvania. In analyzing Step One's second inquiry
(which also concerns public interests), the private and public
interests weigh in favor of trying the case in Nebraska. Since the
forum selection clause is valid and Pennsylvania's interest in
resolving its own issues of administrative law is minor and does
not outweigh the private interests at issue, Step One supports
transferring the matter to Nebraska.
Step Two considers both the private interests of the
non-contracting Defendants and the public interest, and those
interests support transferring the claims to Nebraska as well.
Since Steps One and Two both support transfer to Nebraska, the
Defendants' Motion will be granted. Moreover, because the Motion
will be granted, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I through
V on the merits need not be reached.
A. Step One
The forum selection clause binds only the Plaintiff and AUCRA. Step
One first considers whether the forum selection clause is valid.
The Plaintiff argues that the forum selection clause is not
enforceable because the Defendants' failure to seek administrative
approval of the RPA renders its forum selection clause void and
contrary to public policy.
Judge Surrick finds that Pennsylvania's general interest in
protecting its workers' compensation policy holders would not be
harmed by transferring the matter to Nebraska. Moreover, giving
effect to the parties' forum selection clause is consistent with
Pennsylvania's public policy. Thus, there is no public policy
reason that merits voiding the forum selection clause signed by
AUCRA and the Plaintiff.
Judge Surrick also finds that since the District of Nebraska
resolves cases faster on average than our District, the relative
court congestion weighs in favor of transfer. While Pennsylvania
has an interest in deciding its own administrative law issues,
Nebraska also has an interest in deciding its own common law causes
of action. Importantly, the District of Nebraska can apply
Pennsylvania law to decide any Pennsylvania administrative
questions of law that arise. The Plaintiff has not met its burden
of showing that the public interests involved outweigh the private
interests, which weigh entirely in favor of transferring the matter
to Nebraska.
Since the forum selection clause is enforceable and no public
interest factors strongly weigh in favor of trying the matter in
Pennsylvania, Step One supports transferring the matter to the
District of Nebraska.
B. Step Two
Step Two requires courts to examine the effect of transfer on both
the public interest and the private interests of non-contracting
parties. Because the Plaintiff's previous suit against Defendants
shows that it would not be inconvenient to try the case in
Nebraska, AUCRA's non-contracting co-defendants -- Applied,
Continental, and ARS -- will be transferred to the District of
Nebraska as well.
Because the Steps One and Two both support transferring the matter
to the District of Nebraska, the last two steps need not be
reached. The Defendant's Motion to transfer is granted; the
Plaintiff's claims against all of the Defendants will be
transferred to the District of Nebraska.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Surrick grants in part the
Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue or Alternatively Dismiss the
First Amended Complaint. He transfers the Plaintiff's claims
against all of the Defendants to the District of Nebraska. An
appropriate Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/m7huh9e8 from Leagle.com.
AURINIA PHARMA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Aurinia Pharmaceuticals
Inc.") (NASDAQ: AUPH) shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 23 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between May 7, 2021 and February 25, 2022.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Aurinia
Pharmaceuticals Inc., contact us about potential recovery by using
the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/aurinia-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27508&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Aurinia Pharmaceuticals
Inc. includes allegations that the Company made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Aurinia was experiencing declining revenues; (ii) Aurinia's 2022
sales outlook for the Company's only product which it offers for
the treatment of adult patients with active lupus nephritis,
LUPKYNIS, would fall well short of expectations; (iii) accordingly,
the Company had significantly overstated LUPKYNIS's commercial
prospects; (iv) as a result, the Company had overstated its
financial position and/or prospects for 2022; and (v) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
DEADLINE: June 14, 2022
Aggrieved Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. investors only have until
June 14, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order
to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
AVOCADO MATTRESS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avocado Mattress
L.L.C. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Avocado Mattress
L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-04320 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Avocado Mattress -- https://www.avocadogreenmattress.com/ -- is a
manufacturing company that makes green and eco-conscious mattresses
and beddings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. ("Axsome" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: AXSM) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 22-cv-03925, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Axsome securities
between December 30, 2019 and April 22, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Axsome
securities during the Class Period, you have until July 12, 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.
Axsome is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the
development of novel therapies for central nervous system disorders
in the United States. The Company is developing, among other
product candidates, AXS-07, a novel, oral, rapidly absorbed,
multi-mechanistic, and investigational medicine for the acute
treatment of migraine.
Axsome consistently touted AXS-07's regulatory and commercial
prospects in anticipation of the Company's submission a New Drug
Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for AXS-07 for the acute treatment of migraine (the "AXS-07
NDA") based on the drug's positive results in two Phase 3 trials.
However, unbeknownst to investors, the Company's preparation and
eventual submission of the AXS-07 NDA was plagued with chemistry,
manufacturing, and control ("CMC") issues.
The complaint 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) Axsome's CMC practices were deficient with
respect to AXS-07 and its manufacturing process; (ii) as a result,
Axsome was unlikely to submit the AXS-07 NDA on its initially
represented timeline; (iii) the foregoing CMC issues remained
unresolved at the time that the FDA reviewed the AXS-07 NDA; (iv)
accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the AXS-07 NDA; (v) as
a result of all the foregoing, Axsome had overstated AXS-07's
regulatory and commercial prospects; and (vi) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On November 5, 2020, Axsome issued a press release reporting the
Company's third quarter 2020 results. That press release disclosed
that the Company "plans to submit the [AXS-07] NDA to the FDA in
the first quarter of 2021, versus previous guidance of the fourth
quarter of 2020, to allow for inclusion of supplemental
manufacturing information to ensure a robust submission package."
On this news, Axsome's stock price fell $5.22 per share, or 6.99%,
to close at $69.51 per share on November 5, 2020.
Then, on April 25, 2022, Axsome disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that, "[o]n April 22, 2022,
Axsome . . . was informed by the [FDA] that [CMC] issues identified
during the FDA's review of the Company's [NDA] for its AXS-07
product candidate for the acute treatment of migraine are
unresolved." That filing also disclosed that "[b]ased upon the time
remaining in the NDA review cycle, the Company expects to receive a
Complete Response Letter [('CRL')] with respect to this NDA on or
about the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of
April 30, 2022."
On this news, Axsome's stock price fell $8.60 per share, or 21.99%,
to close at $30.50 per share on April 25, 2022.
Finally, on May 2, 2022, Axsome announced that it received a CRL
from the FDA regarding the AXS-07 NDA for the acute treatment of
migraine. According to the Company, "[t]he principal reasons given
in the CRL relate to [CMC] considerations" including "the need for
additional CMC data pertaining to the drug product and
manufacturing process."
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]
BETTER MORTGAGE: Bid to Junk Class Certification in Dominguez Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lorenzo Dominguez v.
Better Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-01784-JLS-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order
denying:
1. motion to deny class certification under federal rule of
civil procedure 23, and
2. motion to deny conditional certification under Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendant seeks to deny class certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 and conditional certification under the Fair
Labor Standards Act on the basis that most members of the putative
class agreed to an Employment Agreement (containing an Arbitration
Agreement) and signed a Release Agreement. However, as the Court
invalidated the Employment Agreement and the Release Agreement as
to certain putative class members, the Motions are denied.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PPK41i at no extra charge.[CC]
BLST HOLDING: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BLST Holding Company
LLC. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. BLST Holding Company
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04321 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BLST is a privately-held multi-brand, online retailer serving a
broad base of customers throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BOFI HOLDING: Provisional Status of Settlement Class Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAR MANDALEVY,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. v.
BOFI HOLDING, INC., GREGORY GARRAGBRANTS, ANDREW J. MICHELETTI,
ESHEL BAR-ADON and PAUL GRINBERG, Case No. 3:17-cv-00667-GPC-KSC
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order:
1. provisionally approving certification of the proposed
settlement class;
2. conditionally approving the proposed notice form
and proof of claim form;
3. approving lead plaintiff's plan of allocation; and
4. granting preliminary approval of class action settlement.
On April 3, 2017, Bar Mandalevy filed a putative class action
complaint against the Defendants. The Court thereafter appointed
David Grigsby as Lead Plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel.
On February 20, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a Class Action Amended
Complaint. On July 10, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed the Second
Amended Complaint (SAC), which is the operative complaint in this
action.
The Plaintiff's SAC brings two causes of action against Defendants.
First, Plaintiffs allege all Defendants are liable for violations
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. And second,
Plaintiffs allege the Individual Defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding (1) the Company's conduct related
to lending to criminals which might have exposed the Company to
liability under anti-money laundering statutes, and (2) whether
federal agencies, including the SEC, DOJ, and FDIC were
investigating the Company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lOEbUD at no extra charge.[CC]
BOOHOO.COM USA: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Promotions
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Davey, writing for Reuters, reports that Boohoo has reached a
final settlement over a U.S. class action claim alleging the
British online fashion retailer's promotions in California misled
shoppers, it said on May 24.
The group, which sells clothing, shoes, accessories and beauty
products aimed at 16- to 40-year olds, had agreed terms for a
preliminary settlement of the action in November. read more
Boohoo said the settlement is without admission of liability and
within its existing legal provisions, which stood at 17.8 million
pounds ($22.4 million) as of Feb. 28.
The settlement remains subject to review and approval by the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
"It must be a marginal positive to have the issue resolved and
covered by existing provisions," said analysts at Jefferies.
However, shares in Boohoo were down 4.5% at 0743 GMT, extending
2022 losses to 36%.
The sector was weak with ASOS (ASOS.L) down 2.4% and Next (NXT.L)
down 1.7%.
Earlier in May, Boohoo warned sales growth would slow this year,
hit by a squeeze on consumer spending, higher product return rates
and continuing supply chain and delivery problems. [GN]
BRANDED BILLS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Branded Bills LLC.
The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Branded Bills LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04289 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Branded Bills -- https://www.brandedbills.com/ -- are
revolutionizing the headwear industry with authentic leather
patches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BRITAX CHILD: Settles Lawsuit Over Harness-2-Booster Safety Seat
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Britax Child Safety Inc. has agreed
to a settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming some
models of the Harness-2-Booster safety seat are defective.
The class in this settlement consists of anyone who, when they were
a California resident, purchased a new Frontier ClickTight or
Britax Pioneer Harness-2-Booster seat from Aug. 14, 2016, up to and
including Aug. 14, 2020, for personal or household use. To be
covered under the settlement, the seat must have a manufacturing
date between Aug. 14, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2019.
Britax Child Safety Inc. makes a variety of child safety seats and
related products, such as strollers and replacement parts.
The plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Britax Child Safety
alleged the Frontier ClickTight Harness-2-Booster Seat and the
Pioneer Harness-2-Booster Seat were defective, saying "the
structure surrounding the harness and the top tether are capable of
detaching from the seat" because of a failure in the hardware
connecting the harness to the steel frame.
Britax denies any wrongdoing or liability, and says the child
safety seat products in question are safe. However, in order to
avoid further litigation, the company has agreed to the
settlement.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be entitled
to a payment of $40 for each class child seat purchased.
Known class members -- those who registered their seat purchases
with the company or for whom Britax has contact information -- will
receive their payment without having to file a claim form. Unknown
class members will need to submit a claim.
There are about 21,097 known class members and 45,608 unknown,
according to the settlement website.
If 80% to 100% of the known class members cash their checks, any
value remaining due to checks going uncashed will revert to
Britax.
If less than 80% of the known class members cash their checks, the
defendant will pay the value of any uncashed checks up to 80% of
the known class members' settlement value to Safe Kids Worldwide.
The final fairness hearing in the Britax Child Safety booster seat
settlement will take place Aug. 29, 2022.
The deadline to opt out of or object to the settlement is Aug. 10,
2022.
The deadline to submit a claim is also Aug. 10, 2022.
Who's Eligible
The class in this settlement consists of anyone who, when they were
a California resident, purchased a new Frontier ClickTight or
Britax Pioneer Harness-2-Booster seat from Aug. 14, 2016, up to and
including Aug. 14, 2020, for personal or household use. To be
covered under the settlement, the seat must have a manufacturing
date between Aug. 14, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2019.
Potential Award
$40 for each class child seat purchased
Proof of Purchase
A retailers' receipt or credit card receipt confirming purchase of
a Class Child Seat or a photo of the Class Child Seat showing the
serial number and manufacturing date of the Class Child Seat
between August 14, 2016 and September 30, 2019.
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
08/10/2022
Case Name
Margaret Stevens v. Britax Child Safety, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-07373-MCS-AS, in the U.S. District Court Central District
of California
Final Hearing
08/29/2022
Settlement Website
BritaxBoosterSeatSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Britax Boster Seat Settlement
Settlement Administrator
CPT GROUP, Inc.
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
BritaxBoosterSeatSettlement@cptgroup.com
888-412-2198
Class Counsel
Gretchen M Nelson
Gabriel S Barenfeld
NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
Christine D Spagnoli
GREENE BROILLET & WHEELER LLP
Troy Rafferty
LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY PROCTOR BUCHANAN O'BRIEN BARR & MOUGEY
PC
Defense Counsel
Erik Swanholt
Alyssa L Titche
Kristina Fernandez-Mabrie
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP [GN]
BTA OIL: Ricks Seek to Certify Collective Action
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAGE RICKS, on Behalf of
Himself and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. BTA OIL
PRODUCERS, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-00206-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for
Distribution of Notice to Potential Class Members and enter an
order granting the following:
1. Certifying this matter as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) with respect to:
"all current and former pumpers who worked for Defendant
from three years prior to the date of the signing of an
Order to the present;"
2. Ordering Defendant produce to Plaintiff’s counsel within
10 days the Class List which will include the names, dates
of employment, all personal addresses, telephone numbers
(home and mobile) and all personal email addresses for the
class members as defined above in a computer readable
format such as Microsoft excel worksheet;
3. Finding that the Notice of Rights and Consent Form are
timely, accurate, and informative;
4. Allowing Plaintiff's counsel to mail, email, and text the
Notice of Rights and Consent Form to class members within
10 days of receiving the Class List from Defendants and
send a reminder Notice of Rights and Consent Form via the
same methods 30 days after the original mailing to those
class members who have not opted into the lawsuit;
5. Allowing the Class Members to electronically execute the
Consent Form; and
6. Allowing Class Members to have 60 days from the date of
the original mailing to submit their Consent Form to
Plaintiff’s Counsel in order to participate in this
lawsuit unless good cause is found as to why their Consent
Form was untimely.
BTA Oil Producers is an oil and energy company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NwYJg6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN , PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
BUDGET BLINDS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Budget Blinds, LLC.
The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Budget Blinds, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04322 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Budget Blinds -- https://budgetblinds.com/ -- offers consumers the
convenience of shopping for window coverings and home decor items
at home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BURGER KING: Faces Suit Over Violations of Jews' Kosher Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
The Jerusalem Post reports that an application for a class-action
lawsuit against Burger King was filed on May 19 in the Tel Aviv
District Court after a religious man ate a cheeseburger at a branch
that was presented as kosher and later discovered that the cheese
was from cow's milk.
In recent months, Burger King has launched a campaign for kosher
substitutes, such as burgers with "bacon" that is not made from
pork but from turkey, as well as a "cheeseburger" that includes a
vegan cheddar "cheese". That is: a religious person can eat a
"cheeseburger" with "bacon" without violating the kosher laws of
the Jewish religion.
At the beginning of the month, the plaintiff arrived at the chain's
branch in the Azrieli Hod Hasharon mall, outside of which is a
Burger King sign that reads "kosher," and the plaintiff assumed
that the branch was kosher.
According to the motion for approval of a class-action lawsuit,
filed by attorney Amit Ben Aroya, after the plaintiff bit into a
hamburger with was what he thought was vegan cheese, he wondered
about the quality of the imitation cheese and asked at the counter
how to produce a taste so similar to regular cheese. The employee
at the counter responded that it was, in fact, ordinary cheese.
"The applicant, a religious man, was shocked. It was further made
clear to him that the branch had once been kosher, but it was no
longer kosher," read the statement.
The plaintiff further emphasized that "the violation of autonomy is
not reserved only for the kosher public - every person has the
right to know what foods they are putting into their body and no
one is allowed to mislead the consumer public about the ingredients
in their products. This is true, as stated, for everyone and is
exacerbated for the kosher observant public."
The Burger King branch stated in response that "the class
application has not yet reached the company and when it arrives we
will study it and respond accordingly. Delek, as the new
controlling owner of Burger King, adheres to all rules and training
practices in kosher branches in particular, as does Burger King."
[GN]
CANADIAN REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sampson, writing for CBC News, reports that much of the
discussion about Canada's real estate market has been dominated by
the meteoric rise in the cost of housing.
But what's often missing from that conversation is the parallel
increase in what Canadians pay in real estate commissions nearly
every time a home is bought or sold.
Commission structures vary across the country, but typically real
estate agents and their brokerage charge a percentage-based
commission on the sale price of a home.
Those fees are split between the brokerage representing the seller
and the one representing the buyer. But they're all paid by the
seller, a practice a proposed class-action lawsuit alleges is
unfair.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Toronto resident Mark Sunderland in
April 2021, argues that some of the country's largest brokerages,
as well as the Canadian Real Estate Association and the Toronto
Regional Real Estate Board, have "conspired, agreed or arranged
with each other to fix, maintain, increase or control the price . .
. for buyer brokerage services in the GTA."
The practice of making sellers pay both commissions also leaves the
door open for allegations of steering, the case alleges, because
the rule gives buyer brokerages the incentive to "steer" buyers
away from sellers offering lower commission rates.
A 2021 Marketplace investigation into the issue found that
consumers' fears around steering are not unfounded.
The Canadian Real Estate Association told CBC News it would not
comment on the Sunderland case because it's before the courts.
Meanwhile, the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board, another
defendant in the case, said it "has no involvement with and does
not consider or discuss REALTOR® commissions."
Masks are optional in most public spaces. But experts say you
should still wear one
With mask restrictions lifted in most public spaces across Canada,
it can be tempting to just forgo them all together.
But as public health experts make clear, just because mask mandates
have been lifted doesn't mean the virus is going anywhere.
Parisa Ariya, director of the Atmospheric and Interfacial Chemistry
Laboratories at Montreal's McGill University, says pretending the
pandemic is over won't protect you.
"We should not close our eyes and believe that everything is gone,"
said Ariya, who researches the ways in which airborne viruses
spread and is a leading expert in the study of bioaerosol
transmission.
She compared virus particles to a computer software algorithm --
even if you can't see it with the naked eye, it still exists and
works.
"Viruses are physical entities. Physical bodies. And the mask idea
-- it's nothing new -- it avoids and decreases transmission."
In fact, the Public Health Agency of Canada's current guidance
still advises Canadians to keep masking.
"We recommend that you wear a mask in public indoor settings," the
agency's website states.
Canada's inflation rate hits 31-year high
Prices are still going up, up, up.
The cost of living continues to rise at the fastest pace in
decades, with Canada's official inflation rate rising at a 6.8 per
cent annual pace in April, a new 31-year high.
Statistics Canada reported on May 18 that the cost of living crept
higher mainly because of increases in the cost of food and shelter.
Food prices have risen by 9.7 per cent in the past year, while
shelter costs are up by 7.4 per cent. [GN]
CANOO INC: Wants Investors' Securities Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Canoo Inc.
investors are trying to "gin up" a securities fraud claim by
ignoring disclosures the company made and alleging fraud by
hindsight, the electric vehicle company argued in federal court in
California.
Named plaintiff Vladi Shaulov says the company touted its
engineering services line in the lead-up to a merger and then
de-emphasized the business a few months after the deal was
completed, without informing Canoo investors.
Shaulov was given the lead role in the would-be class case in
February. The court approved Shaulov's selection of Pomerantz LLP
and Holzer & Holzer LLC as co-lead counsel.
The defendants moved to dismiss the suit May 20, arguing that the
plaintiff failed to plead any actionable false or misleading
statement and failed to include "any meaningful scienter"
allegations despite requirements by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Plaintiff does not allege any particularized facts showing
defendants knowingly made alleged misleading statements," the
motion says. "Plaintiff also does not allege defendants traded
stock at prices inflated by alleged misleading statements."
Canoo is represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The case is Blake v. Canoo, C.D. Cal., No. 2:21-cv-02873, 5/20/22.
[GN]
CANUS CORPORATION: Giles Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARTINEZ ANDRE GILES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CANUS CORPORATION, PG&E CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C22-00496, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Contra Costa to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 26, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-03097 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime compensation, failure to provide required meal periods and
rest periods, failure to timely pay all final wages upon
termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
wrongful termination.
Canus Corporation is a utility contractor based in California.
PG&E Corporation is a natural gas and electric service provider
headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
Alison A. Korgan, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
Alison.Korgan@lewisbrisbois.com
- and –
Anthony C. Oceguera, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95833
Telephone: (916) 564-5400
Facsimile: (916) 564-5444
E-mail: Anthony.Oceguera@lewisbrisbois.com
CAPITAL ONE: Bacs, et al., Must File Class Cert Bid by August 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bacs, et al., v. Capital
One Financial Corporation, Case No. 8:21-cv-02852 (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order granting the joint
motion to extend class certification briefing deadlines.
-- The Plaintiffs may file their motion seeking class
certification on or before August 3, 2022.
-- The Defendant is directed to file its response on or
before September 3, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act (COBRA) involving continuation coverage.
Capital One is an American bank holding company specializing in
credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts,
headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations primarily in the
United States.[CC]
CAREDX INC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises CareDx, Inc ("CareDx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CDNA) investors that a class action filed on
behalf of investors that lost money on their CareDx stock. CareDx
investors are encouraged to contact the firm to discuss their legal
rights.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.
CareDx is a diagnostics company that offers diagnostic testing
services, products, and digital healthcare software for organ
transplant patients and care providers. Testing services for kidney
and heart transplant recipients represented at least 85% of
CareDx's total revenues, and the Company's AlloSure blood test for
transplant recipients was the Company's primary source of revenue.
Additionally, the higher reimbursement payment rates for its
Medicare-approved tests drove growth of the Company's average sale
price ("ASP"), an important metric for investors. Throughout the
Class Period, CareDx reported growing revenue and strong demand in
the Company's testing services segment. Defendants also emphasized
to investors the success of the Company's RemoTraC service – a
remote, home-based, blood-drawing service that the Company launched
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. CareDx engaged in improper schemes to
inflate both testing service demand and revenue including the use
of misleading marketing materials, improper kickbacks to
physicians, and bundling testing as part of the RemoTraC service.
The Company's schemes left it at greater risk of regulatory
scrutiny. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about CareDx, investors suffered
damages.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
CAREDX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 23 disclosed that
purchasers of CareDx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CDNA) common stock between
February 24, 2021 and May 5, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period")
have until July 22, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension Fund v. CareDx,
Inc., No. 22-cv-03023 (N.D. Cal.). The CareDx class action lawsuit
charges CareDx and certain of its top executive officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-caredx-inc-class-action-lawsuit-cdna.html
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 CareDx class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than July 22, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: CareDx is a diagnostics company that provides
services and products to the organ transplant recipient community,
offering diagnostic testing services, products, and digital
healthcare software for transplant patients and care providers.
During the Class Period, defendants emphasized to investors the
success of CareDx's RemoTraC service - a remote, home-based,
blood-drawing service that CareDx launched in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic - as part of the "winning formula." Investors
were told throughout the Class Period that the RemoTraC service was
a massive success that gave CareDx the ability to "drive margins"
for testing services
But as the CareDx class action lawsuit alleges, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) CareDx had engaged in a variety of
improper and illegal schemes to inflate testing services revenue
and demand, including pushing a surveillance protocol through
inaccurate marketing materials, offering extravagant inducements or
kickbacks to physicians and other providers, and improperly
bundling expensive testing services with other blood tests as part
of the RemoTraC service; (ii) these practices, and others,
subjected CareDx to an undisclosed risk of regulatory scrutiny;
(iii) these practices rendered CareDx's testing services revenue
reported throughout the Class Period artificially inflated; and
(iv) as a result, defendants' positive statements about CareDx's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased CareDx common
stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. 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 class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world
and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
CAREDX INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: CDNA) and certain of its executive officers
(collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased CareDx common stock between February 24,
2021 and May 5, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were
damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Saxena
White is captioned: Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension
Fund v. CareDx, Inc., et al., No. 3:22-cv-03023 (N.D. Cal.)
CareDx is a diagnostics company that offers diagnostic testing
services, products, and digital healthcare software for organ
transplant patients and care providers. Testing services for kidney
and heart transplant recipients represented at least 85% of
CareDx's total revenues, and the Company's AlloSure blood test for
transplant recipients was the Company's primary source of revenue.
Additionally, the higher reimbursement payment rates for its
Medicare-approved tests drove growth of the Company's average sale
price ("ASP"), an important metric for investors. Throughout the
Class Period, CareDx reported growing revenue and strong demand in
the Company's testing services segment. Defendants also emphasized
to investors the success of the Company's RemoTraC service - a
remote, home-based, blood-drawing service that the Company launched
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants had
engaged in a variety of improper and illegal schemes to inflate
testing services revenue and demand, including pushing a
surveillance protocol through inaccurate marketing materials,
offering extravagant inducements or kickbacks to physicians and
other providers, and improperly bundling expensive testing services
with other blood tests as part of the RemoTraC service; (2) these
practices, and others, subjected CareDx to an undisclosed risk of
regulatory scrutiny; (3) these practices rendered the Company's
testing services revenue reported throughout the Class Period
artificially inflated; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
The truth began to emerge on October 28, 2021, when CareDx filed
its quarterly report for the third quarter of 2021 on Form 10-Q
with the SEC. Under the heading "United States Department of
Justice and United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Investigation," the Company revealed for the first time that CareDx
was the subject of at least three government investigations related
to its "accounting and public reporting practices." In response to
this news, CareDx's stock price fell 27%, from a closing price of
$70.34 per share on October 28, 2021, to a closing price of $51.00
per share on October 29, 2021.
Investors learned more about the nature of the government
investigations when, on April 15, 2022, CareDx's former Head of
Community Nephrology, Dr. Michael Olymbios, filed a complaint in
California Superior Court that provided extensive detail about: (1)
Defendants' misconduct, including the use of RemoTraC to improperly
bundle the Company's most expensive testing services, including
AlloSure, with other blood tests, that led to the government
investigations; (2) Defendants' knowledge of the misconduct
throughout the Class Period; and (3) their attempts to conceal the
misconduct. In response to this filing, CareDx's stock price fell
an additional 8% the next trading day, from a closing price of
$35.41 per share on April 14, 2022, to a closing price of $32.55
per share on April 18, 2022.
Finally, after the markets closed on May 5, 2022, CareDx issued a
press release announcing financial results for the first quarter of
2022, reporting a near 5% decline in the ASP of the Company's
testing services. In response to this news, CareDx's stock price
fell 18.5%, from a closing price of $31.66 per share on May 5,
2022, to a closing price of $25.87 per share on May 6, 2022.
If you purchased CareDx common stock during the Class Period and
were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be
able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to
be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California no
later than July 22, 2022. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery
in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a
recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent
Class member.
You may contact David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney
and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class
Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you
in the Class Action.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com.
Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California,
and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors.
CONTACT INFORMATION
David Kaplan, Esq.
dkaplan@saxenawhite.com
Saxena White P.A.
12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: (858) 987-0860
Fax: (858) 369-0096
www.saxenawhite.com [GN]
CARRINGTON TEA: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Carrington Tea
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Carrington
Tea Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04280-JPC (S.D.N.Y., May 25,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Carrington Farms -- http://www.carringtonfarms.com/-- has been
providing quality, delicious, non-genetically modified seeds,
grains and oils since 1999.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Cassava
Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAVA), Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (NASDAQ:
XRAY), IonQ, Inc. (NYSE: IONQ), and Singularity Future Technology,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SGLY). Our investigations concern whether these
companies have violated the federal securities laws and/or engaged
in other unlawful business practices. Additional information about
each case can be found at the link provided.
Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAVA)
On April 18, 2022, The New York Times published an article entitled
"Scientists Question Data Behind an Experimental Alzheimer's Drug."
The article addressed Cassava's experimental Alzheimer's drug,
simufilam, and reported that one of Cassava's advisers, Dr. H.Y.
Wang, had five papers he authored retracted from the scientific
journal PLoS One after an in-depth investigation revealed "serious
concerns about the integrity and the reliability of the results."
On this news, Cassava's stock price fell sharply during intraday
trading on April 19, 2022.
For more information on the Cassava investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SAVA
Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY)
On April 19, 2022, the Company issued a press release announcing
the termination of Chief Executive Officer, Don Casey, effective
immediately, and that Casey will also cease to serve as a member of
the Company's Board.
Following this news, shares of Dentsply Sirona dropped sharply by
$6.52 per share, over 13%, to close at $42.20 per share on April
19, 2022.
For more information on the Dentsply Sirona investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/XRAY
IonQ, Inc. (NYSE: IONQ)
On May 3, 2022, Scorpion Capital released a 183-page short report
regarding IonQ's management, operations, and business. The Scorpion
Capital report stated that "We conducted 25 research interviews
including 7 former employees and executives; 11 leading quantum
computing experts including seminal names in the field, some who
have published papers with IonQ's founders and are intimately
familiar with its technology; and 5 of its key "customers" and
partners. We believe our research represents the most in-depth due
diligence to date on IonQ, leading us to conclude it is just
another VC-backed SPAC scam."
For more information on the IonQ investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/IONQ
Singularity Future Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: SGLY)
On May 5, 2022, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a
report entitled "Singularity Future Technology: This Nasdaq-Listed
Company's CEO Is a fugitive, on the Run for Allegedly Operating a
Massive Ponzi Scheme.' The Hindenburg report alleged, among other
things, that ‘singularity's CEO, Yang Jie, is a fugitive on the
run from Chinese authorities for running an alleged $300 million
Ponzi scheme that lured in over 20,000 victims" and "fled to the
U.S. while at least 28 other individuals involved in the case were
sentenced to prison terms ranging from 6 months to 15 years." The
Hindenburg report further alleged that "Singularity's massive
[cryptocurrency] mining rig deal appears to be a brazen undisclosed
related party deal" and that "[w]e see little evidence that
Singularity's ‘proprietary' crypto mining rigs ever existed in
the first place. The photos and descriptions of Singularity's
miners match precisely with another brand called KOI Miner."
On this news, Singularity's stock price fell $1.95 per share, or
28.89%, to close at $4.80 per share on May 5, 2022.
For more information on the Singularity Future investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SGLY
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato,
Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Proceeds of Site Sale Part of $1B-Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Camila Dechalus, writing for Business Insider Africa, reports that
Hussain Sajwani, who owns Dubai-based DAMAC Properties, bought the
land for $120 million. The families of the victims will receive the
proceeds of the sale as part of a $1 billion settlement.
The site of a Miami condo collapse that killed 98 people in June
last year has been bought by a business partner of Donald Trump,
the Miami Herald reported.
Hussain Sajwani, the Emirati owner of Dubai-based DAMAC Properties,
was the only bidder for the 1.8 acre beachfront plot at 8777
Collins Ave, Michael Fay of commercial real estate firm Avison
Young told the paper. The agency was appointed to market the land
as part of a class action lawsuit.
The site in Surfside, Miami was where the 12-story Champlain Towers
South building stood before it collapsed on June 24 last year.
Sajwani designed two Trump-branded golf courses in Dubai and has
partnerships with Versace and Fendi.
Trump turned down a $2 billion real-estate business deal with
Sajwani in 2018 because he didn't want to be perceived as taking
advantage of the presidency.
A DAMAC spokesperson previously told the Miami Herald that Sajwani
plans to build an super-luxury condo building. The company didn't
immediately respond when contacted by Insider for comment.
The families of the condo collapse's victims reached a settlement
worth nearly $1 billion in May, after a wrongful death lawsuit
targeted the engineering firm that identified structural issues and
warned about them, the building's insurer, and nearby developers.
The Miami Herald said the proceeds of the sale would go towards the
settlement.
A November investigation found the fire alarms didn't sound before
the building collapsed, which would have given residents seven
minutes to escape.
In 2018, an engineer carrying out an inspection of the 40-year-old
building noted a "major" design flaw in the lower level that had
led to water damage and corrosion.
"While nothing can take away the pain or suffering, we are happy
that we are moving forward with this successful purchaser to help
bring closure for everyone," Fay told the Miami Herald. [GN]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Hearing Vacated in Baird Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lance Baird v. Charter
Communications, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-10621-FLA -KS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order that in
light of plaintiff filing a notice of withdrawal of motion for
class certification, the hearing on plaintiff's motion for class
certification is vacated.
Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company with services branded as Spectrum.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38no6Sw at no extra charge.[CC]
CHEMOURS CO: Judge Wants Answers From Lawyers After Witness Recants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that shareholder
lawyers who filed a securities fraud class action against The
Chemours Co -- but then decided to drop the case when a
confidential witness recanted his allegations -- are going to have
to do some explaining about who is responsible for the collapse of
the class action.
U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly of Wilmington ordered lawyers
from Saxena White and Prickett, Jones & Elliott to file the
transcript of an April deposition of the witness, a former
high-ranking Chemours executive, on June 3. Connolly also set an
Aug. 2 hearing date to determine whether shareholder lawyers
complied with Rule 11, which requires filings to be made in good
faith.(When Congress enacted legislation in 1995 to discourage
unwarranted securities class actions, lawmakers included a
provision that specifically requires judges to ascertain compliance
with Rule 11 when courts dispose of the cases. But, in practice,
the provision is rarely invoked.)
Connolly entered the order signaling his concerns about the
recanting witness after plaintiffs lawyers and Chemours counsel
from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Friedlander & Gorris filed
a stipulation and joint motion to dismiss the class action, which
alleged that Chemours, a 2015 spinoff from The Dupont Co, deceived
investors for more than two years about its liability for
remediation of contaminated environmental sites. In the joint
filing, the two sides said they agreed that neither had violated
Rule 11.
Saxena White declined to provide a statement on Connolly's Rule 11
hearing order. Chemours counsel Jonathan Moses of Wachtell did not
respond to my email.
Allegations from confidential witnesses, as you know, are often a
critical component of shareholders' securities fraud class action
complaints. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
shareholders cannot obtain discovery from defendants until they've
survived a motion to dismiss. Instead, plaintiffs lawyers routinely
hire investigators to sniff out corporate insiders -- typically,
former or disaffected employees -- whose information can bolster
the fraud claims in their initial pleadings.
Defendants, of course, don't look kindly on allegations premised on
information from confidential witnesses, so it's common for
disputes to arise over both the truthfulness of the informants and
the conduct of plaintiffs lawyers (and their investigators) in
obtaining and recounting informants' evidence. In one of the
best-known examples, The Boeing Co accused Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd in 2010 of including obviously erroneous allegations from a
purported Boeing engineer in a shareholder fraud complaint alleging
misrepresentations about the production of Dreamliner jets. Among
other problems with the witness: He was never actually employed by
Boeing.
In 2014, after a remand from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo of Chicago concluded that
Robbins Geller had failed to conduct an adequate investigation of
the witness' allegations before including them in its complaint.
But in other cases, as I've reported, corporate insiders who
willingly provided valuable information to shareholder lawyers
recanted their accounts when they realized the consequences of that
cooperation. Plaintiffs lawyers will tell you, in fact, that
corporations and their defense lawyers use intimidation tactics --
like threatening to rescind severance agreements -- to get
confidential witnesses to change their stories.
Back in 2012, for instance, Robbins Geller alleged that after
Lockheed Martin Corp learned the identity of shareholders'
confidential witnesses through discovery, the company bullied the
witnesses into recanting. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of
Manhattan held an evidentiary hearing at which he entertained
testimony from several recanting witnesses and from Robbins
Geller's investigator.
The judge found, on balance, that the investigator was far more
credible than the former Lockheed employees. He denied summary
judgment to Lockheed, bemoaning "endemic" controversies in
securities litigation over the credibility of confidential
witnesses.
We don't yet have enough information to know whether the
confidential witness in the Chemours case -- a onetime division
president named Paul Kirsch, who allegedly presented a report on
environmental remediation liability to the Chemours board in 2018
-- recanted under pressure, was misrepresented in shareholders'
complaint or changed his tune for some other reason. The transcript
of his deposition, which was conducted in April and is due to be
filed with Connolly this week, should clear up a lot of the
mystery.(Kirsch was easily identified because plaintiffs lawyers
cited his corporate title in their complaint.)
What we do know is that allegations involving Kirsh's report to the
board were only a small piece of the fraud case that plaintiffs
initially alleged. Their complaint instead centered on the
allegation that Chemours revealed its crippling liability for
environmental cleanup costs when the company filed a lawsuit
against its parent Dupont in Delaware Chancery Court in 2019.
Chemours' Chancery Court complaint, according to plaintiffs, showed
that the company knew it was insolvent at the time of the 2015
spinoff but told investors otherwise for years afterward.
In their motion to dismiss the class action, defense lawyers said
Kirsch disputed shareholders' depiction of his 2018 report to the
board. In an accompanying two-page declaration, Kirsch said the
complaint was "misleading," and that his report to the board "was
in no way an estimate of Chemours' current remediation
obligations," but was instead a long-range projection of how much
it would cost the company to meet ambitious environmental goals.
Kirsch's report became the centerpiece of the case after Connolly
threw out plaintiffs' other claims in February. The judge
acknowledged in that opinion that Chemours disputed the complaint's
depiction of Kirsch's presentation to the board. He said, however,
that Kirsch's apparent recantation would be more appropriately
considered in a Rule 11 or summary judgment motion.
The judge did suggest in February that the two sides depose Kirsch
before launching into discovery. After that deposition, shareholder
lawyers agreed that the Kirsch allegations should be stricken from
their complaint, according to their May 16 joint filing with
defendants. Without those allegations, the stipulation said,
shareholders had no live claims.
As I mentioned, Chemours and its lawyers aren't asserting
misconduct by plaintiffs counsel. Now shareholder lawyers just have
to convince the judge they didn't do anything wrong. [GN]
CIRCLE K STORES: Pettersen Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CIRCLE K STORES INC., an Arizona Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00237-H-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), certifying the following class:
"All persons in California who purchased a carton of
cigarettes from a Circle K store in California and did not
receive an advertised multi-pack discount from December 4,
2016 to the present."
The Plaintiff will also move for an order appointing Plaintiff
Pettersen as class representative and Bursor & Fisher, P.A., the
Law Offices of Stephen B. Morris, and Reali Law, A.P.C. as Class
Counsel.
Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, owned by
the Canadian multinational Alimentation Couche-Tard. Founded in
1951 in El Paso, Texas, the company filed for bankruptcy protection
in 1990 and went through several owners, before being acquired by
Alimentation Couche-Tard in 2003.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PKDA3Z
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
slitteral@bursor.com
- and -
Stephen B. Morris, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN B. MORRIS
2305 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92106
Telephone: (619) 930-5499
E-mail: morris@sandiegolegal.com
- and -
Peg J. Reali, Esq.
REALI LAW, A.P.C.
1804 Garnet Ave., Suite 475
San Diego, CA 92109
Telephone: (858) 255-8099
E-mail: preali@realilaw.com
CLECO CORPORATE: Securities Class Suit Over Merger Deal Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that it facing
a consolidated shareholder suit.
In December 2014, the court consolidated three actions and
appointed interim co-lead counsel, and dismissed the investors in
Cleco Partners as defendants, per agreement of the parties. Also,
in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition
for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.
The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish were captioned "Butler v. Cleco Corporation," Case No.
2014-10776 filed November 7, 2014, "Creative Life Services, Inc. v.
Cleco Corporation," Case No. 2014-11098 filed November 19, 2014 and
"Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 filed November 21,
2014.
In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish
or dismissed. Plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to
consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to
appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. In January
2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the
defendants' exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish.
In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also
consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so
they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish. By operation of the December 2014 order of the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, the Butler,
Cashen, and Creative Life Services actions were consolidated into
the actions pending in Rapides Parish. The Ninth Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary
injunction filed by plaintiffs in the consolidated action seeking
to enjoin the shareholder vote for approval of a Merger Agreement.
The District Court heard and denied the plaintiffs' motion.
In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. Cleco filed
exceptions seeking dismissal of the second amended petition in July
2015. The Louisiana Public Service Commission voted to approve the
2016 Merger before the court could consider the plaintiffs'
peremptory exceptions.
In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively. The
fourth amended petition, which remains the operative petition and
was filed after the 2016 Merger closed, eliminated the request for
preliminary and permanent injunction and named an additional
executive officer as a defendant.
The defendants filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the fourth
amended Petition. In September 2016, the District Court granted the
exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action and
dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana
Third Circuit Court of Appeal. In December 2017, the Third Circuit
Court of Appeal issued an order reversing and remanding the case to
the District Court for further proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco
filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking review of the
Third Circuit Court of Appeal's decision. The writ was denied in
March 2018 and the parties are engaged in discovery in the District
Court. In November 2018, Cleco filed renewed exceptions of no cause
of action and res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims. On
December 21, 2018, the court dismissed Cleco Partners and Cleco
Holdings as defendants per the agreement of the parties, leaving as
the only remaining defendants certain former executive officers and
independent directors. The District Court denied the defendants'
exceptions on January 14, 2019. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion
for certification of a class was scheduled for August 26, 2019;
however, prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement to
certify a limited class. In September 7, 2019, the District Court
certified a class limited to shareholders who voted against,
abstained from voting, or did not vote on the 2016 Merger.
On October 18, 2021, the District Court issued an order consistent
with a joint motion by the parties to dismiss all claims against
the former independent directors leaving two former executives as
the only remaining defendants.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC is a holding company based in
Pineville LA.
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Palmer Files Bid for Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTY PALMER, VARTAN
PIROUMIAN, ANN COX, and JEAN-CLAUDE FRANCHITTI, v. COGNIZANT
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION and COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
U.S. CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-06848-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two classes
and one subclass pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
-- Termination Class
"Between September 18, 2013 to the date of class
certification, all individuals who are not of South Asian
race or Indian national origin and who were terminated
while employed in the U.S., excluding any individuals
bound by an agreement to arbitrate termination claims with
Cognizant;"
-- Bench Termination Subclass
"Between September 18, 2013 to the date of class
certification, all individuals who are not of South Asian
race or Indian national origin and who were terminated from
the bench while employed in the U.S., excluding any
individuals bound by an agreement to arbitrate termination
claims with Cognizant;"
-- Hiring Class
"Between September 18, 2013 to the date of class
certification, all individuals who are not of South Asian
race or Indian national origin and who applied to a
Cognizant position in the U.S. and were not offered a
position."
Cognizant is a United States corporation headquartered in Teaneck,
New Jersey that provides information technology staffing services
to corporations.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 13, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sZ3DL0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
COLORADO: A.A. Class Suit Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.A. by and through his
grandmother, G.A.; B.B. by and through her mother, P.B., and; C.C.
by and through her mother, P.C.; individually and on behalf of a
class, v. KIM BIMESTEFER, in her official capacity as Executive
Director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and
Financing, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying
the scheduling order to stay discovery, expert witness disclosure,
discovery cut-off and dispositive motion deadline until a ruling on
the Defendant's motion to dismiss and on Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t1x7HU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert H. Farley, Jr.
ROBERT H. FARLEY, JR., LTD.
1155 S. Washington St., Suite 201
Naperville, IL 60540
Telephone: (630) 369-0103
E-mail: farleylaw@aol.com
- and -
Jane Perkins, Esq.
Kim Lewis, Esq.
NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
1512 E. Franklin St., Ste. 110
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Telephone: (919) 968-6308
E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org
lewis@healthlaw.org
COOK COUNTY, IL: Dismissal of Levin v. Retirement Board Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORI G. LEVIN, On Behalf of Herself and Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF
THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' AND OFFICERS' ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF
COOK COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-21-0467 (Ill. App.),
the Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District, Sixth
Division, affirms the judgment of the circuit court:
(i) granting the Board's motion to strike Levin's motion for
class certification and attorney fees; and
(ii) dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction.
I. Background
The administrative review case concerns the appeal by Plaintiff
Levin of the decision of Defendant Retirement Board of the County
Employees' and Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Cook County
(Board) denying her application to purchase health insurance under
the County Employees' and Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of
Cook County (Fund). The Board denied Levin's request because her
last employer was not Cook County but the State of Illinois and,
pursuant to a provision in the benefits handbook, a person was not
eligible for that insurance unless he or she was an "annuitant" as
defined by statute and his or her last job was with Cook County.
Ms. Levin appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the Board's
decision. On appeal to the Appellate Court, it reversed the Board's
order, on the basis that Levin was indisputably an annuitant and
the Board exceeded its authority in implementing the last-employer
rule, and remanded to the Board to enter an order granting Levin's
request to participate in the health insurance program retroactive
to the date of her application.
After the supreme court dismissed the Board's appeal from the
Appellate Court's decision but before its mandate issued, Levin
filed in the circuit court a motion to certify a class of Fund
annuitants, notify the class members, and award Levin damages and
attorney fees. The circuit court granted the Board's motion to
strike Levin's motion and dismissed the case for want of
jurisdiction.
On appeal, Levin contends that the circuit court erred because it
was revested with jurisdiction by the mandate of the supreme court
and retained jurisdiction until final disposition.
II. Analysis
On appeal, Levin contends that the circuit court erred in granting
the Board's motion to strike her motion for class certification and
attorney fees for want of jurisdiction because the court was
revested with jurisdiction by the mandate of the supreme court and
retained jurisdiction until final disposition. The Board responds
that the court did not err because (1) the appellate court mandate,
affirmed by the supreme court, was the final disposition of Levin's
administrative review action and (2) that mandate was a remand to
the Board for ministerial entry of an order granting Levin
insurance coverage rather than for a new hearing or further
factfinding.
The Appellate Court opines that its decision was a final
disposition of Levin's substantive rights, finding her entitled to
insurance coverage under the Fund and remanding to the Board for
the ministerial entry of an order to that effect. It holds that it
did not remand for further factfinding or decision-making by the
Board that could require further circuit court review of a Board
decision. Thus, its mandate was a "final disposition of the action"
so that the circuit court no longer retained jurisdiction under
section 3-104 once the Appellate Court mandate issued.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8umkje from Leagle.com.
Clinton A. Krislov -- clint@krislovlaw.com -- and Christopher M.
Hack -- chris@krislovlaw.com -- of Krislov & Associates, Ltd., of
Chicago, for the Appellant.
Mary Patricia Burns -- mburns@bbp-chicago.com -- Vincent D. Pinelli
-- vpinelli@bbp-chicago.com -- and Sarah A. Boeckman --
sboeckman@bbp-chicago.com -- of Burke Burns & Pinelli, Ltd., of
Chicago, for the Appellee.
DARK HORSE COMICS: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dark Horse Comics,
LLC. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dark Horse Comics, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04283 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dark Horse Comics -- https://www.darkhorse.com/ -- is an American
comic book, graphic novel, and manga publisher founded in
Milwaukie, Oregon by Mike Richardson in 1986.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DAVIS YULEE: Case Management, Scheduling Order Entered in Hrebenar
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAHNAZ HREBENAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DAVIS YULEE, LLC d/b/a DAVIS CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM OF YULEE, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00401-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge entered a
case management and scheduling order as follows:
-- Disclosure statements as required June 10, 2022
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
7.1 and Local Rule 3.03:
-- Deadline for disclosures providing July 14, 2022
mandatory initial:
-- Deadline for moving to join a party Dec. 2, 2022
or amend the pleadings:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline for Jan. 9, 2023
disclosing expert reports
relevant to class certification:
-- The Defendant's deadline for April 10, 2023
disclosing expert reports
relevant to class certification:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wVTtxd at no extra charge.[CC]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS: Ramos Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Department of
Homeless Services, et al. The case is styled as Jose Antonio Ramos,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Department of Homeless Services, Breaking Ground, City Of New York,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03959-VSB (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
The New York City Department of Homeless Services --
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dhs/index.page -- is an agency within the
government of New York City that provides services to the homeless,
though its ultimate aim is to overcome homelessness.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
E. I. DU PONT: Total PFAS Suit Damages Could Reach US$30 Billion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wallender, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that for
years, plaintiffs' lawyers suing over health and environmental
damage from so called forever chemicals, known collectively as
PFAS, focused on one set of deep pockets -- E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Co.
But over the past two years, there's been a seismic shift in the
legal landscape as awareness of PFAS has expanded. Corporations
including 3M Co., Chemguard Inc., Kidde-Fenwal Inc., National Foam
Inc., and Dynax Corp. are now being sued at roughly the same rate
as DuPont, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis of more than 6,400
PFAS-related lawsuits filed in federal courts between July 2005 and
March 2022.
If PFAS went into a company's finished product, odds are it's being
sued. A federal judge overseeing thousands of PFAS cases put the
risks bluntly.
"It does not take a genius to figure out that if certain motions
don't go their way, the defendants are in an existential threat to
their survival," Judge Richard Gergel said in a July 2019
proceeding.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours was named as a defendant in more than 6,100
PFAS lawsuits since 2005, the Bloomberg Law analysis found. But no
company's degree of legal jeopardy may be rising faster than 3M's.
It was named in an average of more than three PFAS-related lawsuits
a day last year, according to the analysis. The company's most
recent annual report dedicated more than 15 pages to its legal
exposure from PFAS.
Total PFAS liabilities could reach $30 billion in a "worst-case
scenario" for the company, according to some estimates.
"It's looking like 3M is going to bear the most liability, if there
is any," Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Holly Froum said. It
becomes more apparent as the court splits defendants into the
different roles they had in manufacturing PFAS-containing products,
she said.
"Some of them only made surfactant and some were the finished
product manufacturers. 3M did everything."
Cost of Durability
Nearly every American has PFAS in their bodies.
Fast food containers, cosmetics, furniture, carpeting, and
waterproof jackets are just some of the items that can contain
PFAS. The chemicals are also widely used in commercial applications
like wiring insulation, personal protective equipment, and medical
devices.
PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are some of
the most durable and water repellent materials ever discovered.
Those properties led to their widespread use beginning with PFOA
and PFOS -- two types of PFAS -- in the 1950s. Soon, products made
with PFAS like Teflon and Scotchgard were mainstays in many homes.
Today, fluoropolymers -- a group of polymers within the larger
family of PFAS -- are estimated to be a $2 billion-a-year industry.
Overall, more than 10,000 chemical substances can be classified as
PFAS in the U.S.
The durability that makes PFAS so valuable is also what creates its
health risks. The chemicals can't naturally break down, so they
accumulate in water, on soil, and in blood. Studies have shown that
high levels of PFAS can lead to increased risk of cancer, changes
in liver enzymes, and decreased vaccine response, among other
health effects.
Studies at DuPont and 3M as early as 1961 found adverse health
effects from PFAS exposure. But it wasn't until the early 2000s
that questions increasingly emerged in public about its safety.
In response, 3M phased out most use of PFOS and PFOA by 2002. E.I.
du Pont de Nemours stopped using PFOA in 2015.
Firefighting Foam
In the 1960s, the U.S. Navy worked with 3M to develop firefighting
foams that could efficiently fight liquid fuel fires -- known as
Class B fires. Water can't be used on these fires because gasoline,
which is lighter than water, rises to the surface and continues
burning. The intensity of the fires also evaporates water before it
can have an effect.
The product 3M and the Navy created was called aqueous film forming
foam, or AFFF. It utilized a blend of PFAS -- often PFOS -- and
water to create a foam that can blanket a liquid fuel fire and
suffocate it. The foam also prevents hot fuel from reigniting.
The product has been required at military bases and airports for
decades. But its frequent use in training exercises and emergencies
has elevated PFAS levels in surrounding groundwater and drinking
water. The water authority near Delaware's Dover Air Force Base,
for example, reported in 2018 that its drinking water had PFOS and
PFOA levels 2,435 times greater than the EPA's health advisory
level -- likely due to the use of AFFF.
These firefighting foams are now the source of so much PFAS
litigation that in late 2018 a special body within the federal
judiciary consolidated hundreds of cases into a single docket
called a multidistrict litigation.
At least 1,235 PFAS lawsuits were filed in 2021, according to
Bloomberg Law's analysis, and more than 97% ended up in the AFFF
MDL overseen by Gergel in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina. The MDL has become so complex that, over three
years, more than 3.5 million documents have been produced in
discovery, according to court records.
"Plaintiff lawyers tend to piggyback, so the more attention, the
more potential liability," said Matthew G. Jeweler, an attorney at
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP who specializes in insurance
coverage disputes.
The creation of an MDL may have spurred some of the change in
litigation strategy.
"That's a big criticism of MDLs," said Robert Klonoff, a professor
at Lewis & Clark Law School and author of a book on multidistrict
litigation. "They say once an MDL is filed, everybody flocks to it
and people file suit. And there are arguments that people file suit
without having the evidentiary basis for the claims and they all
get thrown in without any scrutiny. There are a lot of criticisms
in that regard that in some ways it stimulates more cases."
It's not the first MDL formed to address PFAS cases. At least two
others were created -- one to address Teflon lawsuits in 2006 and
one focused on personal injury litigation against E.I. du Pont de
Nemours in 2013.
Dark Waters
The majority of PFAS cases that Bloomberg Law identified -- 57.7%
-- were filed as part of the 2013 personal injury litigation. Those
cases focused on contamination at DuPont's Washington Works
facility in Parkersburg, W. Va., which is now owned by Chemours.
The plant was the focus of the films Dark Waters and The Devil We
Know.
But while both of those MDLs focused solely on DuPont and its
successor companies, the variety of plaintiffs and the scope of the
companies they're suing is much broader in the South Carolina MDL.
Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Michael A. London said at a summer 2021
PFAS conference that the types of claims in the firefighting foam
MDL fall into one of five categories:
-- Personal injury claims;
-- water provider claims from utilities that must pay for
cleanup of PFAS in drinking water;
-- property diminution of value claims, especially by airport
where the ground is now contaminated;
-- claims by state attorneys general with natural resource
damage cases, especially with fishing or hunting;
-- medical monitoring cases.
The biggest question is what manufacturers knew about the dangers
of PFAS and when they knew it, according to Paul Napoli, one of the
plaintiffs' co-lead counsels in the firefighting MDL.
"The deeper you dig, the more insidious it is -- the more you learn
how much these companies, these manufacturers knew about their
potential health concerns and the actual health concerns," Napoli
said.
Standing by Products
Manufacturers deny many of the claims raised in recent lawsuits and
stand by their environmental records and their products.
3M has contributed more than $1 billion to PFAS remediation and
environmental projects, spokesman Sean Lynch said.
"3M acted responsibly in connection with products containing PFAS,
including aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), and will vigorously
defend our record of environmental stewardship," Lynch said in an
email.
Chemours, when reached by email, declined to comment on its ongoing
litigation. However, the company said it has never made or sold
PFOS -- the type of PFAS that's present in many types of
firefighting foams.
Chemours spokeswoman Cassie Olszewski said that the company's
chemistry work enables essential functions in clean energy,
advanced electronics, and other product segments to function.
"With respect to many of the most critical applications that depend
on fluoropolymers, especially those that require high-speed, high
volume transmission of data, miniaturization, or extremes in
temperature, there are currently no viable alternatives to
fluoropolymers," Olszewski said in a written statement.
A representative for DuPont de Nemours stressed the separation of
the current company known as DuPont from its predecessor E.I. du
Pont de Nemours (EID).
EID's chemical business and its fluorochemicals line was spun off
into Chemours in 2015. EID subsequently merged with Dow Chemical
Co. to create DowDuPont in 2017 but by 2019 the company spun off
its materials science business to Dow Inc., its specialty products
business to Dupont de Nemours, and the remainder of EID including
the agriculture business became Corteva.
Chemours sued DowDuPont in 2019, alleging that the company
offloaded potentially unlimited environmental liabilities in the
spin-off. Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva reached a settlement in
January 2021 that includes a $4 billion cost sharing arrangement
for PFAS liabilities.
Corteva declined to comment for the story.
DuPont de Nemours is now focused on the specialty products market
and not involved in production of fluoropolymers, according to
company spokesman Daniel Turner.
"DuPont de Nemours has never manufactured PFOA, PFOS or
firefighting foam," Turner said in an emailed statement. "While we
don't comment on pending litigation, we believe the complaints are
without merit, and are examples of DuPont de Nemours being
improperly named in litigation. We look forward to vigorously
defending our record of safety, health and environmental
stewardship."
Made with Flourish
Struggling to Pay
The companies being sued are largely relying on the "government
contractor" defense -- which the Supreme Court recognized in 1988
as limiting manufacturers' liability when producing military
products to government specifications.
Johnson Controls International PLC, a multi-national conglomerate
whose subsidiaries produced PFAS-containing firefighting foams,
told shareholders in a 2020 earnings call that its executives "feel
very good" about the company's limited PFAS exposure.
"The majority of the foam at issue is specified and used by the
U.S. government and military, and therefore, subject to the
government contractor defense," CEO George Oliver said.
But the defense hasn't been applied to PFAS producers. The court in
South Carolina is currently weighing whether companies can use the
defense for many of the pending MDL claims, and that ruling could
be the deciding factor in billions of dollars worth of cases. A
ruling is expected as soon as this summer.
Even if the defense can be applied to PFAS lawsuits, it likely
wouldn't apply to many of the cases which don't involve military
bases, multiple lawyers told Bloomberg Law. Adding to uncertainty
is a recent decision in a Georgia case where a federal judge
dismissed claims against primary manufacturers of PFAS but not
secondary manufacturers that treated carpets with PFAS.
A spokeswoman for Johnson Controls declined to comment.
Once the ruling on the contractor defense is out, three cases are
on the shortlist to serve as bellwether trials in the AFFF MDL. All
involve utilities alleging that PFAS manufacturers contaminated
drinking water.
Those cases are "in some ways like the canary in the coal mine,"
according to Gergel.
The water providers don't have to prove individual customers are
injured, so if they can't win their cases, it could spell trouble
for the other claims that require even more complex legal
arguments, the judge said in a July 2019 status conference. A
bellwether trial could take place as early as the first quarter of
2023.
Anaheim, Calif., is one of those local governments suing 3M,
DuPont, and other companies for PFAS contamination that prompted it
to shut down contaminated water sources and implement cleanup. It's
spending $150 million to construct a new water treatment program
and $1.5 million a month to ship in non-contaminated water until a
decontamination facility is complete. Anaheim raised water rates
while promising customers it'd go after PFAS polluters to recover
the cost of the clean-up.
"They didn't create this problem," Anaheim's water engineering
manager Michael Moore said of his city's water customers. "This
wasn't even here in Anaheim. It was created outside of the area and
worked its way here. They shouldn't have to bear the responsibility
for that."
Data reporter Jasmine Han contributed to this article and graphics.
[GN]
EAST TENNESSEE: Markovits Stock Investigates Data Breach Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, a law firm experienced in data breach
cases, is investigating claims on behalf of victims of a data
breach involving data entrusted to East Tennessee Children's
Hospital.
East Tennessee Children's Hospital is private, independent,
not-for-profit, 152-bed pediatric medical center located in
Knoxville, Tennessee. East Tennessee Children's Hospital's primary
service area includes eastern Tennessee, southwestern Virginia,
southeastern Kentucky and western North Carolina. If you received a
notice of data breach letter from East Tennessee Children's
Hospital, please contact us as soon as possible to understand your
legal rights in response to the data breach.
WHAT HAPPENED?
On March 13, 2022, East Tennessee Children's Hospital identified an
unauthorized individual may have accessed the company's private IT
systems.[1] In response, East Tennessee Children's Hospital engaged
in an investigation of the incident to learn more about its causes
and confirmed that certain data containing victim's personal
information was accessed between March 11, 2022 and March 14,
2022.[2]
East Tennessee Children's Hospital did not notify victims of the
breach until May 19, 2022.[3] East Tennessee Children's Hospital
hasn't determined the full scope of the compromise yet, but that it
decided to inform all individuals whose information was likely
impacted.
WHAT INFORMATION WAS EXPOSED IN THE DATA BREACH?
East Tennessee Children's Hospital Association Inc has disclosed
the following information was included in the data breach:
full names,
Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers,
state identification cards/information,
medical data,
health insurance information, and
financial account information.
WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE EAST TENNESSEE
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL DATA BREACH?
If you would like to have a free, confidential consultation with an
attorney to learn more about your rights and potential legal
remedies in responding to the East Tennessee Children's Hospital
data breach, please contact Markovits, Stock & DeMarco attorney
Terry Coates at (513) 651-3700, email us at msd@msdlegal.com, or
submit a Case Evaluation request. [GN]
ENSERVCO CORP: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Enservco
Corp. (NYSE: ENSV), Teladoc Health, Inc. (NYSE: TDOC), Rollins,
Inc. (NYSE: ROL), and Tupperware Brands Corporation (NYSE: TUP).
Our investigations concern whether these companies have violated
the federal securities laws and/or engaged in other unlawful
business practices. Additional information about each case can be
found at the link provided.
Enservco Corp. (NYSE: ENSV)
advertisement
On April 18, 2022, Enservco disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that it had "concluded that the
Company's previously issued condensed consolidated financial
statements as of and for the quarters ended March 31, 2021, June
30, 2021 and September 30, 2021 (collectively, the ‘Relevant
Periods') should no longer be relied upon due to the Company's
utilization of certain deferred tax liabilities in 2021" and that
"[t]he Company intends to amend its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q
for the Relevant Periods to reflect restatements of its condensed
consolidated financial statements for the Relevant Period."
On this news, Enservco's stock price fell sharply during intraday
trading on April 19, 2022.
For more information on the Enservco investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ENSV
Teladoc Health, Inc. (NYSE: TDOC)
On April 27, 2022, Teladoc reported first quarter financial results
for the quarter that ended on March 31, 2022. The company announced
it was revising and lowering its 2022 outlook due to a
"lower-than-expected" yield on the Company's marketing spend and a
net loss of $41.48 per share, which was attributed to a "non-cash
goodwill impairment charge of $6.6 billion."
Following this announcement, the company's stock price dropped by
$24.27 per share or more than 43% to close at $31.56 per share on
April 28, 2022.
For more information on the Teladoc investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TDOC
Rollins, Inc. (NYSE: ROL)
On October 28, 2020, Rollins disclosed a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") investigation into how the Company
established accruals and reserves at period-end and the impact of
those accruals and reserves on reported earnings for periods
beginning January 1, 2015. The Company's subsequently filed Annual
Report later disclosed the results of an internal Company-initiated
investigation that found a significant deficiency in the Company's
internal controls relating to the documentation and review of
accounting entries for certain reserves and accruals. Then, on
October 29, 2021, Rollins reported that it had initiated
discussions with the SEC staff regarding a potential investigation
resolution.
For more information on the Rollins investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ROL
Tupperware Brands Corporation (NYSE: TUP)
advertisement
On May 4, 2022, the Company announced poor operating results,
coming in far below estimates: Adjusted EPS from continuing
operations 12 cents, estimate 53 cents; and net sales $348.1
million, estimate $362.5 million. Furthermore, the Company withdrew
its full year 2022 guidance, and named a new CFO. The Company
attributed the poor performance to the conflict in Russia and
Ukraine. Interestingly, when pressed by analysts on a conference
call, the Company acknowledged that Russia and Ukraine only
accounted for 2% of its revenue.
On this news, the price of Tupperware shares declined by $5.76 per
share, or approximately 32.16%, from $17.91 per share to close at
$12.15 per share on May 4, 2022.
For more information on the Tupperware investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TUP
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
ENSERVCO CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on May 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Enservco Corp. ("Enservco" or the "Company")
(NYSE American: ENSV) in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Enservco securities between May 13,
2021 and April 18, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until July 19, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Enservco, through its subsidiaries, provides well enhancement and
fluid management services to the onshore oil and natural gas
industry in the United States.
Recently, the Company has employed several tactics in an apparent
effort to strengthen its balance sheets. For example, in August
2020, Enservco's Board of Directors approved a transaction to,
inter alia, exchange 50% of the Company's subordinated debt with
Cross River Partners, L.P. ("Cross River Partners"), a related
party. Enservco's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Richard A.
Murphy, is managing member of Cross River Capital Management, LLC,
the general partner of Cross River Partners. On February 3, 2021,
Enservco exchanged the remaining 50% of its subordinated debt with
Cross River Partners. In addition, the Company awarded a warrant to
Cross River Partners to purchase up to 150,418 additional shares of
the Company's common stock in the future at an exercise price of
$2.507 per share.
Moreover, during the second quarter of 2021, Enservco amended
payroll tax returns originally filed for the third and fourth
quarters of 2020 to claim refundable Employee Retention Credits
("ERCs") -- a type of tax credit provided for under the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES Act") -- for
those periods.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Enservco had defective
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, there were errors in
Enservco's financial statements relating to, inter alia, its
transactions with Cross River Partners and accounting for ERCs;
(iii) accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its
financial statements and delay the filing of its 2021 annual report
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); (iv) the
Company downplayed the true scope and severity of its financial
reporting issues; (v) accordingly, the Company could not file its
delayed 2021 annual report with the SEC within its initially
represented timeline; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On March 28, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that it had
"concluded that the Company's previously issued condensed
consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarters ended
March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021"
(collectively, the "Relevant Periods") "should no longer be relied
upon largely because of the Company's accounting for a conversion
of debt to equity with a related party," namely, Cross River
Partners. The Company further advised that it had "misinterpret[ed
the] eligibility for certain employee retention tax credits under
relevant provisions of the [CARES Act]" and would "amend its
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods to reflect
restatements of its condensed consolidated financial statements for
the Relevant Periods."
On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.45 per share, or
12.3%, to close at $3.21 per share on March 28, 2022.
On March 31, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that it
could not timely file the Company's annual report on Form 10-K with
the SEC for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2021 because
the Company was "in the process of restating [its] financial
statements and preparing amendments to its Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q filings for the Relevant Periods, which must be completed
prior to the completion and filing of the [Company]'s Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2021."
On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or
7.78%, to close at $2.49 per share on April 1, 2022.
On April 4, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that its
Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Marjorie A. Hargrave, "is
departing the Company and will no longer be an executive officer
and employee of the Company effective April 22, 2022."
On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.19 per share, or
7.48%, to close at $2.35 per share on April 5, 2022.
On April 11, 2022, Enservco filed amended quarterly reports with
the SEC for the Relevant Periods, each of which reported adjusted
net losses that increased, and adjusted other income that
decreased, significantly for their respective periods.
Then, on April 18, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that
the Company "will not be filing its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021 within the 15-day extension period provided
by the Company's 12b-25 filing" because it "intends to [again]
amend its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods
to reflect restatements of its condensed consolidated financial
statements for the Relevant Periods."
On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.38 per share, or
10.47%, to close at $3.25 per share on April 19, 2022.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Enservco shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Consolidated Insurance Suit Ongoing in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that
it is facing a putative class action was filed in the District of
Arizona in 2017 and consolidated in federal court in New York.
The consolidated amended class action complaint alleges breach of
contract, misrepresentations in violation of Section 4226 of the
New York Insurance Law, violations of New York General Business Law
Section 349 and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law
and the California Elder Abuse Statute.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs, and, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest with respect to their claim concerning
Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the
plaintiffs and the putative class and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims.
In August 2020, the federal district court issued a decision
certifying nationwide breach of contract and Section 4226 classes,
and a New York State Section 349 class.
In March 2022, the federal district court issued a summary judgment
decision, denying in significant part but granting in part
Equitable Financial's motion and denying the motion filed by
plaintiffs in the coordinated actions.
Equitable Financial, collectively with its consolidated
subsidiaries, provides variable annuity, life insurance and
employee benefit products to both individuals and businesses.
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Faces Brach Family Suit
---------------------------------------------
Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that
it is facing a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York
in February 2016, entitled "Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company."
This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all
owners of UL policies subject to Equitable Financial's certificate
of insurance (COI) rate increase. In early 2016, Equitable
Financial raised COI rates for certain universal life (UL) policies
issued between 2004 and 2008, which had both issue ages 70 and
above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and
post-judgment interest, with respect to their claim concerning
Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the
plaintiffs and the putative class and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims.
In August 2020, the federal district court issued a decision
certifying nationwide breach of contract and Section 4226 classes
and a New York State Section 349 class. Owners of a substantial
number of policies opted out of the Brach class action. Most
opt-out policies are not yet the subject of litigation. Others
filed suit previously, including five federal actions that have
been coordinated with the Brach action and contain similar
allegations along with additional allegations for violations of
state consumer protection statutes and common law fraud.
In March 2022, the federal district court issued a summary judgment
decision, denying in significant part but granting in part
Equitable Financial's motion and denying the motion filed by
plaintiffs in the coordinated actions. Equitable Financial has
commenced settlement discussions with the Brach class action
plaintiffs and plaintiffs in the coordinated actions.
Equitable Financial, collectively with its consolidated
subsidiaries, provides variable annuity, life insurance and
employee benefit products to both individuals and businesses.
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: O'Donnell Annuity Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that
it is facing a putative class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased variable annuities from Equitable Financial, which were
subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy and
who suffered injury as a result thereof. Plaintiff asserts a claim
for breach of contract alleging that Equitable Financial
implemented the volatility management strategy in violation of
applicable law.
In August 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court
entitled "Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company." This
lawsuit seeks an award of damages individually and on a classwide
basis, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees,
expert witness fees and other costs. In 2015, the case was
transferred to the Southern District of New York and, in 2018,
transferred back to Connecticut Superior Court. In August 2019, the
court granted Equitable Financial's motion to strike, which sought
dismissal of the complaint, and in September 2019, Plaintiff filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint. Equitable Financial filed
renewed motions to strike and to dismiss and for an entry of
judgment in October 2019. In August 2020, the court granted
Equitable Financial's motion for entry of judgment. Plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal and in February 2022, the Connecticut Appellate
Court reversed the Superior Court's entry of judgement.
In April 2022, the Connecticut Supreme Court granted Equitable
Financial's petition to review the decision of the Connecticut
Appellate Court.
Equitable Financial, collectively with its consolidated
subsidiaries, provides variable annuity, life insurance and
employee benefit products to both individuals and businesses.
ESTATE MANAGEMENT: Rattacasa, et al., Seek Conditional Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Albert Rattacasa,
Johnathon Hammonds, Kaleb Riggan, David Biecker, Brendan Dutchak,
Benjamin Clough, Julie Evans, and Brent Carey, On Behalf of
Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, v. Estate Management
Services, Inc. and John Milton Crabb, III, Case No.
9:22-cv-01251-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. authorizing to proceed as a collective action for overtime
wage compensation under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf
of the following nationwide class:
"All current and former Spray Technicians and Airboat
Captains who were employed by Estate Management Services
and/or John Crabb who were not paid overtime wages for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week from
[three years from the date of the Court's Conditional
Certification Order] to the present."
2. authorizing mailing and emailing of the proposed Notice to
all putative plaintiffs who worked during the time period
beginning three years prior to the filing of this action
through the present; and
3. requiring the Defendants to produce a list containing the
names, addresses, and emails of all potential opt-in
plaintiffs potential parties to this action can receive
notice of this action.
The Plaintiffs are a former Spray Technicians and Airboat Captains
of the Defendants who files this action against Defendants for
claims for unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), on behalf of themselves and other current and
former similarly situated Spray Technicians and Airboat Captains
employed by the Defendants within the last 3 years.
Estate Management provides support and management of probate, trust
and estate property assets.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38TC4Mf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY LAW
652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A
Charleston, SC 2943
Telephone: (843) 588-5587
E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
EUFAULA, AL: Willson Seeks to Certify Class of K-9 Unit Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN WILLSON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CITY OF EUFAULA, Case No. 2:21-cv-00817-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifyig
the following collective:
"All Officers in Defendant's K-9 unit since December 13,
2018."
The Plaintiff and the members of the collective are sufficiently
similarly situated that conditional certification of the proposed
collective is appropriate.
The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of certain former and
current employees of the Defendant, to recover overtime wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Eufaula is the largest city in Barbour County, Alabama.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GoErmF
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Edmondson, Esq.
Courtney Lowery, 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: Elaura@sanfordlawfirm.com
courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robbie Alexander Hyde, Esq.
ALEXANDER HYDE, LLC
2138 Moore’s Mill Road, Suite A
Auburn, AL 36830
Telephone: (334) 246-2333
Facsimile: (334) 246-2334
E-mail: robbie@alexanderhyde.com
FCA US: Ram Vehicles' HCU and ABS "Defective," Wilson Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON WILSON, PATRICK KRENEK, and DONALD AKRIDGE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US
LLC and STELLANTIS N.V., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00447-ALM
(E.D. Tex., May 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
fraud/fraudulent omission, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' manufacturing and distribution
of 2017-2018 Ram 2500s and 2017-2018 Ram 3500s vehicles with
defective hydraulic control units (HCU) and anti-lock braking
system (ABS). As a result of the defect, the vehicles become more
difficult to control and driving the vehicles becomes dangerous.
The Defendants knew or should have known about the defect but
omitted the information to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
consumers. In addition, the Defendants have failed to issue a
recall or offer another remedy. Had the Defendants disclosed the
defect on their website, through their dealership, in their
warranty manual, or elsewhere, the Plaintiffs and Class members
would not have made the purchase, or would have paid less for the
vehicles, the suit says.
FCA US LLC is an automobile manufacturer with its principal place
of business in Auburn Hills, Michigan.
Stellantis N.V. is the parent company of FCA US LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
Austin P. Smith, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE, PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com
austin@swclaw.com
- and –
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
Riley W. Prince, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 W. Randolph Street, Suite 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
rprince@barnowlaw.com
FLACK GLOBAL: Zakaria Seeks July 4 Extension for Class Cert Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAIDA ZAKARIA v. FLACK
GLOBAL METAL, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01146-MTL (D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time until
July 4, 2022 to file motion to certify class action.
This request is predicated on procuring evidence in custody of the
Defendants in support of the motion for Certification. Undersign
states that an attempt to obtain immediate discovery information
from the Defendants to file this Motion within the deadline set by
the court has been ignored by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff is in continuing efforts to obtain requested
discovery to file the motion for certification for a merits review
by the court.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MUmX3Y
at no extra charge.[CC]
FLINT, MI: Lead Poisoning Impacts Schoolchildren, Lawsuit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Hanover, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that
the children of Flint, Michigan have been doubly ravaged—by lead
poisoning and more than two years of SARS-CoV-2 infections and
deaths. Now in the sixth wave, COVID cases in Flint's Genesee
County are rising by 69 percent, and despite ongoing outbreaks,
schools remain open face-to-face. At the same time, a lawsuit now
alleges that the city's young people "acquired brain injuries" due
to ingestion of lead.
The contamination of Flint's water at the hands of General Motors,
Governor Rick Snyder, and the entire city, state and national
Democratic and Republican establishment exposed nearly 30,000
schoolchildren to lead, a neurotoxin that attacks developing brains
and nervous systems.
The current class action lawsuit, one of many, targets engineering
consultants contracted by the city (Veolia North America and
Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam) during the 2014 switch to Flint River
water. It has brought to light some of the devastating and
widespread educational and mental health challenges the city's
children and their teachers face.
Testifying on May 10 and 12, neuropsychologist Mira Krishnan
provided evidence that Flint children are suffering brain injuries
due to being subjected to lead-in-water.
Dr. Krishnan, a specialist in neurodevelopmental disorders and
impacts of complex trauma, examined four children, who she said
exhibited hyperactivity, impulsivity and weaknesses in various
subject matters in the classroom. Such problems can amplify over a
lifetime. One of the children, she said, showed impairments that
"very rarely would be seen in a random sampling of children from
the community . . . who didn't have some sort of brain injury."
The terrific price inflicted on these young people is more the rule
than the exception in Flint. According to a report in the New York
Times, a staggering 70 percent of the students evaluated by the
city's Neurodevelopmental Center of Excellence have required school
accommodations for issues like attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, dyslexia or mild intellectual impairment.
"We have a school district where all that's left are damaged kids
who are being exposed to other damaged kids, and it's causing more
damage," Stephanie Pascal, a 23-year veteran teacher, told the
Times. [GN]
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Time to File Reply to Class Status Bid Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oliger, et al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01146 (E.D. Ark.),
the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky entered an order on motion for
extension of time to file response/reply:
-- Requiring Defendant to respond to the class certification
and notice motions prior to that deadline is not justified.
-- The Court will give Plaintiffs until November 15, 2022, to
file amended class certification and notice motions.
-- The Defendant will then have until December 6, 2022, to
respond.
-- The Plaintiffs will then have until December 20, 2022, to
reply.
The nature of suit states breach of contract.
Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production
company.[CC]
FOURPOINT ENERGY: Settlement Classes Certified in Rounds Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenny Wayne Rounds and
Randy Carl Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FourPoint Energy, LLC n/k/a Unbridled Resources, LLC,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00052-P (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gary M.
Purcel entered an order that:
-- The Settlement Classes should be certified for the purposes
of this Settlement, as the Settlement Classes meet all
certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 for a settlement class.
The certified Settlement Classes are defined as follows:
Class I
"All non-excluded persons or entities who were royalty
owners in the Class I Wells during the Claim Period.
Excluded from Class I are: (1) Defendant and the Released
Parties; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of
the United States of America and the State of Oklahoma; (3)
any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or
Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2);
(4) publicly traded oil-and-gas companies and their
affiliates; (5) Dan McClure, Kelly McClure, Charles David
Nutley, and Danny George, and their relatives or affiliated
entities or trusts; and (6) persons or entities that
Plaintiffs’ Counsel may be prohibited from representing
under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional
Conduct.
Class II
"All non-excluded persons or entities: i. Whose payments
from Defendant for oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells
during the Claim Period were outside of the timeframes
imposed by the PRSA; and did not include statutory interest
under the PRSA; and/or ii. Whose oil-and-gas proceeds from
Oklahoma wells were paid by Defendant during the Claim
Period to state entities as unclaimed or presumptively
abandoned property without statutory interest under the
PRSA.
Excluded from Class II are: (1) Defendant and the Released
Parties; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of
the United States of America and the State of Oklahoma; (3)
any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or
Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2);
(4) publicly traded oil-and-gas companies and their
affiliates; (5) Dan McClure, Kelly McClure, Charles David
Nutley, and Danny George, and their relatives or affiliated
entities or trusts; and (6) persons or entities that
Plaintiffs’ Counsel may be prohibited from representing
under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional
Conduct.
-- The Court further preliminarily approves the form and
content of the proposed Short Form Notice, Long Form
Notice, and Summary Notice.
-- The Court also preliminarily approves the proposed manner
of communicating the Short Form Notice, Long Form Notice,
and Summary Notice to the Settlement Classes, and finds it
is the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons and
entities entitled to receive such notice, and fully
satisfies the requirements of applicable Constitutional
standards and other applicable laws, including due process
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z2giAu at no extra charge.[CC]
FYRE FESTIVAL: Investors React on Prison Release of Convicted Felon
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne Roundtree, writing for Rolling Stone, reports that Billy
McFarland, the man behind the doomed Fyre Festival in 2017, was
partially made a free man when he was released early from prison
and transferred to a halfway house in Brooklyn, New York.
The 30-year-old still had another 14 months to serve on his
six-year sentence for wire fraud after he duped investors out of
$26 million over the disastrous festival that ended up serving
pathetic cheese sandwiches to ticket holders while they were
effectively stranded in The Bahamas.
One such investor is John Nemeth, who works as a director of a
construction company in New York and says he lost $180,000 of his
life savings by trusting McFarland. Nemeth tells Rolling Stone that
it was "a joke" to learn that the failed entrepreneur was sprung
out of prison early.
"The man should be in jail for the rest of his life; he ruined my
life," he says. "I'm never gonna recoup that money. He stole it. He
has no business being out of jail. That's what happens when you are
born from rich parents and you can afford the best lawyers, but you
can't pay back the people that you've robbed."
McFarland's six-year sentence was already considered relatively
light, as he was facing up to 40 years after pleading guilty to two
counts of wire fraud, not to mention the extra time he faced for
swindling $150,000 from customers in a separate ticket scam he had
launched while he was out on bail.
"We know how the judicial system works," shrugs one ticket holder
who was involved in one of the lawsuits against McFarland. (The
person requested anonymity.) "You have the right attorney, or you
have somebody that knows somebody, and it's the reason he gets six
years instead of 20. I don't know why he got a shorter sentence,
but I definitely think it should have been more than six."
After being bounced around five different facilities since 2018,
McFarland is expected to stay at a halfway house until August,
according to records provided to Rolling Stone by the Bureau of
Prisons.
The biggest question now is if McFarland will be able to repay the
millions of dollars in restitution that he owes the 100 investors
who sunk more than $27.4 million in his various ill-fated
businesses. Moreso, how does the convicted serial entrepreneur plan
on making such a large sum of money with such a tarnished
reputation?
According to his lawyer, Jason Russo, McFarland is already hatching
potential plans on how to "generate income," putting together a
team of professionals who will "brainstorm and come up with ideas
in entertainment and other avenues." "His sole priority and focus
is how he can make these people whole and get their money back for
them," Russo said in a statement. "That's what he's been focusing
on."
Nemeth is skeptical of McFarland launching another business
venture. "I hope that nobody invests in him," he says, before
adding, "but I hope that I get my money back."
Andy King is a bit more optimistic. The event planner got roped
into trying to save the festival in the eleventh hour and became an
instant meme after his appearance in the Netflix documentary Fyre.
In an interview with Rolling Stone, he called McFarland a "bright
kid" but someone who needs to focus on "doing good instead of doing
bad."
"I haven't been to prison and hopefully I never will go, but you do
hear many different stories of how prison can change people
drastically," he says. "Maybe I'm hoping that's the case, that he's
more of a changed person.
"It's fascinating; what do you do in Billy's situation?," King
adds. "How do you handle extreme failure? Where do you go from
here? He's had some time, obviously, to really think about how he
is actually trying to pay back the $26 million. What's he going to
do to create a clean slate? And is there a life after prison where
he can create a positive legacy?"
"He has good ideas," the ticket holder adds. "I'll give him that.
He understands marketing and getting the attention of the
demographic . . . I mean, he's gonna try something . . . [but] can
he actually just set something up, a new app for whatever and
follow through and just do it correctly?"
McFarland did try to get a jump on his next business venture while
behind bars. When COVID-19 was spreading quickly across prisons in
spring of 2020, McFarland launched Project-315, a non-profit
venture aimed at helping prisoners reach their families and loved
ones from behind bars by spotting inmates the $3.15 for a 15-minute
call home. (As of publication of this article, the site is no
longer active.)
In October 2020, McFarland began another side hustle, this time
starting a podcast called Dumpster Fyre. "At long last, the
uncensored, complete story of Fyre Festival. With Billy McFarland.
And many others," read the description. But after eight episodes,
the plan was derailed when McFarland was put in solitary
confinement for 90 days for his involvement in the short-lived
podcast.
It's proof McFarland didn't exactly have a spotless record in
prison, although the Bureau of Prisons credited McFarland's early
release to The First Step Act, a reform law passed in 2018 aimed
that allows inmates to earn "good time credit," according to the
agency's website.
Prior to his stint in solitary confinement for the secret podcast,
McFarland was busted for a "significant disciplinary action" in
2019, according to Air Mail, when New York prison officials found
he had smuggled in a recording device that was hidden inside a pen.
He was reportedly given 40 days in solitary confinement for the
infraction.
While McFarland's attorney says he's focused on paying back his
victims, the government has already shown signs of doubting his
commitment to making amends, according to Air Mail.
The entrepreneur had been approached by both Netflix and Hulu to
appear in their rivaling documentaries about the shitshow of a
festival when McFarland allegedly tried to hustle Netflix director
Chris Smith out of $250,000 to be interviewed for the project. When
Smith turned him down, McFarland countered for $125,000.
McFarland eventually went with Hulu, whose co-director Jenner Furst
said McFarland was paid much less than $250,000. But none of the
money McFarland earned from participating in the documentary ever
found its way to his victims, Air Mail reported.
And some 277 ticket holders who thought they finally came to an end
of their legal battle with Fyre Festival organizers last year when
they reached a $2 million settlement agreement, later learned their
expected $7,200 payout would actually be closer to $280. The
festival's bankruptcy trustee told a New York court that payout
would have to be drastically reduced because it only had $78,000 in
its coffers after setting aside a remaining $1.1 million for
accountants and legal costs.
It doesn't bode well for winners of a separate $5 million suit, or
the hundreds of investors who are collectively out $26 million. And
that's just those in the United States. Some small businesses in
Great Exuma were nearly financially decimated by the burden they
took upon to help pull off Frye Festival, only to be left in the
lurch.
Maryann Rolle, the owner of Exuma Point Bar and Grill, spent more
than $50,000 of her own savings to continue feeding the stranded
concertgoers, leaving her credit score in tatters. "Just take it
away and let me start a new beginning . . . it really pains me when
I have to talk about it," she told The Guardian in 2019.
Rolle was eventually able to recoup all of her costs, thanks to a
GoFundMe that raised more than $240,000, later saying she was able
to give away half of that money to other hurting businesses and
charities.
King also says he's been involved in paying back small businesses
in Exuma, noting the reason why he even agreed to participate in
the Netflix documentary was to "drive awareness and to drive funds
to the local Bahamians."
"I'm proud of that," he says. "Are there still people who are out
money? I'm sure, absolutely. But as much as I could do, I did. It
wasn't my responsibility -- I was brought in to try to help save a
music festival, I never got paid anything. But at the end of the
day, what do you want your legacy to be?"
As for McFarland, there's a long road ahead. "Will he be able to
regain credibility, I just don't know," King adds. "I just think
you certainly haven't heard the last of Billy McFarland. He's out;
he's back. I'm looking forward to speaking with him and to hear
what his plans are. How he's going to raise this money and what
he's thinking. And hopefully, how he's going to change his legacy.
And done right, it'll help me too." [GN]
GOODYEAR TIRE: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Continued to June 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIN ESRAELIAN, as an
individual, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, v.
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Case No.
2:22–cv–00413-JFW-JPRx (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F.
Walter entered an order that the deadline for the Plaintiff to file
his motion for class certification is continued from May 20, 2022
to June 20, 2022.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is an American multinational
tire manufacturing company founded in 1898 by Frank Seiberling and
based in Akron, Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PPJTmE at no extra charge.[CC]
GRAB HOLDINGS: Faces Fan Shareholder Suit in NY Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Grab Holdings Limited disclosed in its Form F-1 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that it is
facing a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York captioned "Fan v. Grab
Holdings Limited et al.," Case No. Case 1:22-cv-03277, filed in
April 21, 2022.
Said case is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who have alleged they suffered damages as a result of alleged
misstatements and omissions in its SEC filings regarding its
reported financials, business operations, and future prospects, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
Grab operates primarily in deliveries, mobility and digital
financial services sectors in 480 cities across Cambodia,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand
and Vietnam.
GRAB HOLDINGS: Faces Peccarino Shareholder Suit in NY Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grab Holdings Limited disclosed in its Form F-1 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that it is
facing a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York captioned "Peccarino v. Grab
Holdings Limited et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-02189 filed in March 16,
2022.
Said case is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who have alleged they suffered damages as a result of alleged
misstatements and omissions in its SEC filings regarding its
reported financials, business operations, and future prospects, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
Grab operates primarily in deliveries, mobility and digital
financial services sectors in 480 cities across Cambodia,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand
and Vietnam.
HD WELLNESS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HD Wellness, LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HD Wellness, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04314 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HD Wellness focuses on helping clients attain and maintain their
health and fitness goals through individualized clean eating
programs and workouts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
HEI HOTELS: Court Sides with Zurich in Virus Coverage Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celeste Bott, writing for Law360, reports that a third Illinois
appellate panel has held that COVID-19 doesn't cause a "physical
loss" of property that would trigger insurance coverage, siding
with Zurich American Insurance Co. against claims from seven hotels
that are part of the HEI Hotels & Resorts portfolio. [GN]
HITCH FIRE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hitch Fire Inc. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Hitch Fire Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04311 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hitch Fire -- https://hitchfire.com/ -- offers a collection of
grills, grilling stations, grilling tools, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. ("Innovative
Industrial Properties") (NYSE: IIPR) shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 23 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between May 7, 2020 and April 13, 2022.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Innovative Industrial
Properties, contact us about potential recovery by using the link
below. There is no cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/innovative-industrial-properties-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27513&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Innovative Industrial
Properties includes allegations that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Innovative Industrial Properties' focus is to be a cannabis
company lender rather than a REIT; (2) that the true values of the
Company's properties are significantly lower than Innovative
Industrial Properties represents; (3) there are existential issues
in its top customers; (4) as a result, its top customers may not be
able to continue making payments to Innovative Industrial
Properties and the Company would face significant issues replacing
these customers; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
DEADLINE: June 24, 2022
Aggrieved Innovative Industrial Properties investors only have
until June 24, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order
to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
J.M. SMUCKER: Kraljevich Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The J.M. Smucker
Company. The case is styled as John Kraljevich, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The J.M. Smucker
Company, Case No. 5:22-cv-00134-GFVT (E.D. KY., May 25, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.
The J. M. Smucker Co., also known as Smucker --
https://www.jmsmucker.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of food
products in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
- and -
Thomas R. Coffey, Esq.
MORGAN POTTINGER MCGRAVEY, P.S.C. - LOUISVILLE
401 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1200
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 560-6742
Fax: (502) 585-3498
Email: TRC@mpmfirm.com
J.M. SMUCKER: Ward Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Peanut Butter
---------------------------------------------------------------
NAYTHAN A. WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 5:22-cv-00885 (N.D. Ohio, May 26, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty, negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent
design defect, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
strict liability, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and
punitive damages.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Jif peanut
butter products sold in the U.S. between February 2022 and May
2022. The Defendant advertised the products' ingredients as high
quality and safe for human consumption, however, the products sold
within the said period were contaminated with Salmonella. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers seek refunds and all
other economic losses suffered as the result of their purchases of
Jif peanut butter products contaminated with Salmonella, says the
suit.
The J.M. Smucker Company is an American manufacturer of food
products, headquartered in Orrville, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Baker, Esq.
THE BAKER LAW GROUP
107 S. High Street, Suite 400
Columbus, OH 43215
E-mail: andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net
- and –
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
E-mail: roy@akimlawfirm.com
paul@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
JACOBY & MEYERS: Plaintiff Loses Second Renewed Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY HARDING and ESTATE
OF JEFFREY HARDING, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, et al., Case No.
2:14-cv-05419-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez entered an order that:
-- the Plaintiff the Estate of Jeffrey Harding's second
renewed motion for class certification, is denied;
-- the Plaintiffs are not permitted to file any further
motions to certify a class in this matter;
-- the Defendants' motion to strike, is denied as moot;
-- because Plaintiff the Estate of Jeffrey Harding filed its
brief in support of its second renewed motion for class
certification under seal, the Opinion shall initially be
filed under seal.
-- By May 23, 2022, the parties shall inform the Court, via a
letter filed on the docket, if any portion of the Opinion
should remain under seal and the legal basis for doing so.
If the Court does not receive any such submission, the
Opinion & Order will be unsealed on May 24, 2022.
Jacoby & Meyers is an American law firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PGVEff at no extra charge.[CC]
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Roman Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORIA ROMAN, GERARDO
VAZQUEZ, and JUAN AGUILAR, JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William
Alsup entered a tentative order:
-- granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification;
-- granting in part and denying the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment; and
-- denying the Defednant's motion for summary judgment as to
all certified claims and issues.
This tentative order would grant plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as to (1) failure to pay minimum wage for (a) travel
time during the work day and (b) mandatory training, (2) failure to
reimburse for expenses incurred for (a) required uniforms and (b)
necessary cleaning supplies and equipment, and (3) unlawful
deductions of (a) franchise fee royalties and (b) cleaning revenue
royalties for the following group: all unit franchisees who signed
a franchise agreement with a master franchisee in the state of
California and who performed cleaning services for defendant from
December 12, 2004, to the latest date on which a named plaintiff
terminated employment.
This tentative order would deny class certification as to the
remaining labor code claims and issues. This tentative order would
grant summary 15 in favor of plaintiffs on all certified claims and
issues. As to Labor Code Section 226, this tentative order would
deny as moot both parties' motions for summary judgment.
A separate order on the instant briefing would resolve the parties'
motions for summary judgment as to the uncertified, individual
claims and issues that remain in this action. A trial on the class
damages issues would be held on Sept. 12, 2022, with a final
pretrial conference on Sept. 7, 2022.
The Plaintiffs claim the defendant misclassified them and the
putative class members as independent contractors. They allege
defendant violated California minimum wage, overtime, expense
reimbursement, and unlawful deduction laws, and they seek
compensation on behalf of the putative class.
The Defendant was an international janitorial cleaning business. It
implemented a franchising model with three tiers. The top tier
consisted of defendant, Jan-Pro International, Inc.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38k4MWf at no extra charge.[CC]
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: M.C. Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.C. and T.G., on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v. JEFFERSON
COUNTY, NEW YORK; COLLEEN M. O'NEILL, as the Sheriff of Jefferson
County, New York; BRIAN R. McDERMOTT, as the Undersheriff of
Jefferson County; and MARK WILSON, as the Facility Administrator of
Jefferson County Correctional Facility, Case No.
6:22-cv-00190-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd
entered an order that:
-- The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted.
The Plaintiffs' claims are certified as a class action on
behalf of a class defined as:
"all non-pregnant individuals who are or will be detained
at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility and had or
will have prescriptions for agonist medication for opioid
use disorder at the time of entry into defendants' custody,
as well as two subclasses, one each for class members
subject to pretrial and postconviction custody,
respectively.
Named plaintiffs M.C. and T.G. are appointed as class
representatives and the New York Civil Liberties Union
Foundation is appointed as class counsel.
-- The plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on
behalf of the class is granted.
Pending a final decision on the merits of this action, it
is ordered that the defendants are immediately
preliminarily enjoined to provide plaintiffs and the now-
certified class with agonist medication for opioid use
disorder during their detention in defendants' custody in
accordance with the requirements set forth in New York
Correction Law section 626. The bond requirement is waived.
On March 1, 2022, the plaintiffs filed the civil rights action
against Jefferson County and Sheriff Colleen M. O'Neill,
Undersheriff Brian R. McDermott, and Jail Administrator Mark
Wilson.
The individual defendants are sued in their official capacities.
Plaintiffs' five-count complaint contends that defendants maintain
a policy of banning opiate use disorder (OUD) medication (MOUD) for
non-pregnant individuals in their custody, and that this ban
violates a putative class's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and
related state law.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PMhwFV at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Terry T. Ding, Esq.
Molly K. Biklen, Esq.
Antony P.F. Gemmell, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 19 th Fl.
New York, NY 10004
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa M. Bennett. Esq.
BARCLAY DAMON LLP
125 East Jefferson Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
JIFFYSHIRTS.COM (US): Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jiffyshirts.com (US),
L.P. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jiffyshirts.com (US),
L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-04284 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
JiffyShirts -- https://www.jiffyshirts.com/ -- is the #1 US online
reseller of blank imprintable clothing for teams, corporates, and
promotional apparel markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
JOHN HANCOCK: Court Amends Order Awarding Fees in Leonard Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY LEONARD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE
POPLAWSKI 2008 INSURANCE TRUST; PHYLLIS POPLAWSKI; PBR PARTNERS,
BRIGHTON TRUSTEES, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for COOK STREET
MASTER TRUST III; BANK OF UTAH, solely as security intermediary for
COOK STREET MASTER TRUST III; PEAK TRUST COMPANY, AK, on behalf of
and as trustee for SUSAN L. CICIORA TRUST and STEWART WEST INDIES
TRUST; and ADVANCE TRUST & LIFE ESCROW SERVICES, LTA, as securities
intermediary for LIFE PARTNERS POSITION HOLDER TRUST, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN
HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK and JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.), Defendants, Civil Action No.
18-cv-04994-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York issues an
order amending the previously entered March 17, 2022 Order awarding
fees, expenses, and incentive award.
Class Plaintiffs Jeffrey Leonard, in his capacity as Trustee of the
Poplawski 2008 Insurance Trust; Phyllis Poplawski; PBR Partners,
Brighton Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and as Trustee for Cook Street
Master Trust III; Bank Of Utah, solely as Security Intermediary for
Cook Street Master Trust III; Peak Trust Company, AK, on behalf of
and as Trustee for Susan L. Ciciora Trust and Stewart West Indies
Trust; and Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary for Life Partners Position Holder Trust, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of the proposed Settlement Class, entered
into a settlement with Defendants John Hancock Life Insurance Co,
of New York and John Hancock Life Insurance Co. (U.S.A.);
On March 17, 2022, the Court previously entered an Order awarding
fees, expenses, and incentive awards. On the same day, it held a
fairness hearing and entered its Order granting final approval of
the class action settlement and certifying the settlement class.
Having further considered the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Incentive Awards,
supporting declarations, oral argument presented at the fairness
hearing, the complete records and files in the matter, and for the
reasons stated on the record during the May 17, 2022 fairness
hearing, Judge Hellerstein issues the Order amending the previously
entered March 17, 2022 Order awarding fees, expenses, and incentive
award by (a) striking the term "$34,400,000" in paragraph 2 and
replacing it with "$27,000,000" and (b) adding the following
provision: "Class Counsel will not receive attorneys' fees or be
reimbursed expenses until after the Settlement Administrator sends
for delivery a settlement check to each Settlement Class Member
within 44 days after the Final Settlement Date under Section 2.3 of
the Settlement Agreement."
The Order will become effective immediately.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Amended Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2amwthwd from Leagle.com.
JUUL LABS: Monroe County Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
MONROE COUNTY SCHOOLS, MONROE COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03096 (N.D.
Cal., May 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the West Virginia
Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Monroe County Schools is a school district with its administrative
offices located at 9875 Willow Bend Road, Union, West Virginia.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
716 Lee St. E.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-9322
E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Summers Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMERS COUNTY SCHOOLS, SUMMERS COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03103-WHO
(N.D. Cal., May 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the West
Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Summers County Schools (SCS) is a school district with its
administrative offices located at 418 Temple Street, Hinton, West
Virginia.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
716 Lee St. E.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-9322
E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Marion County Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARION COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, MARION COUNTY, STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES;
ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-03079 (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Marion County Board of Education is a school district with its
administrative offices located at 1516 Mary Lou Retton Drive,
Fairmont, West Virginia.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
716 Lee St. E.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-9322
E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com
KIM BIMESTEFER: Discovery Stayed in G.A. Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.A. et al v. Bimestefer,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02381 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Regina M.
Rodriguez entered an order staying discovery and vacating all case
deadlines pending resolution of the motion to Dismiss and Motion
for Class Certification.
The parties are ordered to contact Chambers within 10 days of a
ruling on either of these motions to discuss setting a scheduling
conference or, if necessary, continuing the stay until both motions
are ruled on.
The suit alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities
Act.[CC]
KINDHUMANS PBC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kindhumans PBC. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Kindhumans PBC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04310 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kindhumans -- https://kindhumans.com/ -- was created to celebrate
the good in humanity by elevating community, commerce, and
world-changing causes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
LAKE CITY CREDIT: McAllister Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA MCALLISTER, on
Behalf of herself, and Others Similarly Situated, v. LAKE CITY
CREDIT, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00041-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
consisting of:
"all persons with addresses within the state of Mississippi
(ii) who were sent letters identical or similar from the
Defendant, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act
section 1692g, to recover a debt allegedly owed by said
consumers which was not returned undeliverable by the United
States Postal Service during the period of time one-year
prior to the filing of this Complaint through 21 days after
the filing of this Class Action Complaint."
The Plaintiff allegedly owed Fingerhut an outstanding balance on an
account. The alleged Debt was incurred for personal, family, or
household purposes.
The Defendant obtained the Debt of Plaintiff from Fingerhut and
others similarly situated by purchase or assignment from creditors
of various debts. By correspondence dated November 29, 2021, the
Defendant arranged for the preparation and transmittal of a letters
to Plaintiff, Ms. McAllister at her residence in an attempt to
collect their Fingerhut account Debt.
The Defendant writes and sends such letters to others similarly
situated as Plaintiff in it's debt collection process.
The Defendant's November 29, 2021, and December 28, 2021 letters to
Ms. McAllister. The Defendant sends collections letters to
consumers.
Lake City Credit is a collection agency.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wWd8x2
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Howard Gunn, Esq.
Post Office Box 157
310 South Hickory Street Aberdeen ms 39730
Telephone: (662) 369-8533
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Angus Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as John L. Angus, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lincoln National
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01878-RBS (E.D. Pa., May
13, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company --
https://www.lincolnfinancial.com/public/individuals -- provides
insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gaetan Alfano, Esq.
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP
1818 Market Street, Suite 3402
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 320-6200
Fax: (215) 981-0082
Email: gja@pietragallo.com
- and -
Michael B. Adamson, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1900 Avenue Of The Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Phone: (310) 789-3100
Email: madamson@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
James E Delbello, Jr., Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Cira Centre
2929 Arch St Suite 800
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: (215) 252-9600
Email: james.delbello@hklaw.com
LINK SNACKS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Link Snacks, Inc. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Link Snacks, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04288 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Link Snacks, Inc., better known as Jack Link's --
https://www.jacklinks.com/ -- is an American snack company best
known as the producer and marketer of the eponymous brand of beef
jerky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
LTC DELIVERY: $500K Class Settlement in Herbert Suit Wins Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM HERBERT, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LTC DELIVERY LLC and MEDICINE
CHEST INSTITUTIONAL PHARMACY LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:19-CV-01856-X (N.D. Tex.), Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
grants in part the Parties' Joint Motion to Approve FLSA Collective
Action Settlement Agreement.
I. Background
Plaintiff William Herbert and a group of opt-in plaintiffs worked
as delivery drivers for LTC. Medicine Chest Institutional Pharmacy,
LLC (M Chest) contracts with LTC to deliver pharmaceutical products
to M Chest's Texas customers. And LTC engages with drivers to
perform the deliveries for M Chest. LTC classifies the drivers as
independent contractors.
Herbert sued the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) alleging that the drivers were misclassified as independent
contractors, that they were jointly employed by LTC and M Chest,
and that the Defendants violated both minimum wage and overtime
requirements. The Defendants deny these allegations in their
entirety. The Court granted the parties' joint motion for
conditional certification, and following the issuance of notice, 65
opt-in Plaintiffs joined the collective action.
The parties executed a settlement agreement in September 2021, and
then filed the instant motion to approve the settlement agreement.
The Defendants deny the allegations in the suit but stipulate and
agree that, for settlement purposes, the requisites for
establishing collective action certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act are met with respect to the Plaintiffs.
The settlement provides for payment of a total of $500,000 to be
distributed to 65 opt-in Plaintiffs. One-third of the settlement
fund, $167,666.67, is allocated as attorneys' fees and costs to
counsel. Herbert, the named Plaintiff, will receive a $7,500
service award and opt-in Plaintiff Charles Leake will receive a
$2,500 service award. After attorneys' fees, costs, and service
awards, the average settlement share is $4,974.36 -- the opt-in
Plaintiffs will receive $170.11 per work week.
The Defendants will receive a full release of the collective
members' claims in the action. Specifically, the opt-in Plaintiffs
agreed to release all claims "arising out of or related to the
payment of wages that accrued while working for the Defendants at
any time during the" three years before the date each plaintiff
opted-in to the lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs will not "release any prospective rights or non-wage
claims." And "Non-Responding Opt-in Plaintiffs will not release any
claims that they may have against Defendants, as the Defendants
will seek dismissal of their claims without prejudice, and their
rights will not otherwise be affected by the Settlement
Agreement."
II. Analysis
A. Bona Fide Dispute
First, the Court must determine whether a bona fide dispute exists
as to the number of hours worked or compensation due. The parties
point to multiple remaining bona fide disputes: First, they
disagree about whether the Plaintiffs were properly classified as
independent contractors who did not receive overtime and minimum
wages. Second, M Chest specifically contends that even if the
drivers were properly classified as employees, it is not a joint
employer under the law and therefore not responsible for any of the
claimed damages. Third, the Defendants maintain that
decertification of the class would be required due to
individualized issues relating to each opt-in Plaintiff's claim --
which the Plaintiffs oppose. Finally, the parties dispute the
appropriate measure of damages.
Based on the disputed issues, Judge Starr concludes that there are
doubts about whether the Plaintiffs would prevail on the merits.
Therefore, he finds the agreement is a resolution of bona fide
disputes.
B. Fair and Reasonable
Next, Judge Starr must determine whether the settlement agreement
is fair and reasonable. In evaluating the settlement agreement, the
Court must consider six factors: (1) whether the settlement was a
product of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense, and
likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings
and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the factual and legal
obstacles prevailing on the merits; (5) the possible range of
recovery and the certainty of damages; and (6) the respective
opinions of the participants, including class counsel, class
representative, and the absent class members. In "considering these
factors, the court also should keep in mind the presumption in
favor of finding a settlement fair and the overriding public
interest in favor of settlement."
Applying these factors, Judge Starr concludes the terms of the
settlement agreement are fair and reasonable. He finds no evidence
of fraud or collusion in the case. The case has been pending since
2019, and there are numerous factual and legal issues remaining.
The parties have agreed to a reasonable distribution formula, which
will be used to determine the disbursement of the settlement funds
to the Plaintiffs. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' release of claims is
fair and reasonable because it is limited to only those claims
"arising out of or related to the payment of wages" that they may
have against the Defendants and any accompanying claims for
attorney's fees and costs.
The parties propose a total of $10,000 in service awards to two
Plaintiffs: $7,500 to the named Plaintiff Herbert, and $2,500 to
opt-in Plaintiff Leake. Judge Starr finds that the parties have not
provided sufficient justification for the size of the service
awards in the case.
Judge Starr also finds that the amount of attorney's fees is fair
and reasonable. The Plaintiffs' attorneys are awarded $167,666.67
-- one-third of the $500,000 settlement fund. This finding is
consistent with other settlement agreements approved in this
district.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Starr grants the motion in part,
approves the settlement, pursuant to and as set forth in the
parties' Settlement Agreement and Release, except for the proposed
service award. The parties are ordered to file supplemental
briefing justifying the service awards within 14 days of the
Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhehpck from
Leagle.com.
MANTECH INTERNATIONAL: Juan Monteverde Probes Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating ManTech
International Corp. (MANT), relating to its proposed acquisition by
funds managed by The Carlyle Group Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, MANT shareholders will receive $96.00 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/mantech-international-corp. 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 2018-2021 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, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in MANT 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]
MATT MARTORELLO: Smith Seeks to File Amended Bid for Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD LEE SMITH, JR.,
individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, v. MATT
MARTORELLO, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01651-AR (D. Or.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting him leave to
correct the factual record and file his First Amended Motion for
Class Certification.
The Plaintiff filed his Motion for class certification on May 2,
2022. After the filing of the motion, the Plaintiff learned of the
factual error in the motion, and Plaintiff promptly confirmed the
error by obtaining records related to his banking activities.
Unrelated to this correction of the record, the Plaintiff granted
Defendants 45 days to respond to the Motion for Class
Certification, and the deadline for response is now June 16, 2022.
With only a correction of the factual record about his banking
activities, the Plaintiff has not created any delay for Defendants'
response to the Amended Motion for Class Certification which,
operating under the current timeline for the Motion for Class
Certification, is not due for more than a month, the lawsuit says.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 13, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LO8oO3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
John B. Scofield, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
628 East 9th Street
Houston TX 77007-1722
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
cbc@caddellchapman.com
aet@caddellchapman.com
jbs@caddellchapman.com
- and -
Steve D. Larson, Esq.
Steven C. Berman, Esq.
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 227-1600
Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com
sberman@stollberne.com
MAZDA MOTOR: Guthrie Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gary Guthrie, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No.
30-02022-01255320 was removed from the Orange County Superior
Court, Yellowstone Co. to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 25, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-01055 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Contract Dispute.
Mazda Motor of America, Inc. -- http://www.mazdausa.com/-- doing
business as Mazda North American Operations Inc., retails
automobile vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Jahmy Stanford Graham, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP
19191 South Vermont Avenue Suite 900
Torrance, CA 90502
Phone: (424) 221-7400
Email: jahmy.graham@nelsonmullins.com
MCDONALD'S CORP: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Ortega Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ORTEGA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MCDONALD'S
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-10068-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jesse M. Furman entered a civil case management plan
and scheduling order:
-- Any motion to amend or to join June 13, 2022
additional parties shall be filed
no later than:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed Sept. 9, 2022
no later than:
-- All expert discovery, including Sept. 9, 2022
reports, production of underlying
documents, and depositions, shall
be completed no later than:
-- Initial requests for production June 13, 2022
of documents shall be served by:
-- The Plaintiff shall file a motion Oct. 10, 2022
for class certification:
-- Any opposition shall be filed by: Nov. 9, 2022
-- The next pretrial conference is Dec. 9, 2022
scheduled for:
McDonald's Corporation is an American multinational fast food
corporation, founded in 1940 as a restaurant operated by Richard
and Maurice McDonald, in San Bernardino, California, United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wIVMlC at no extra charge.[CC]
MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL AUDIT: Acuna's Attys. Awarded $35K in Fees/Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS ACUNA, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL AUDIT, INC.
d/b/a MCA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No.
9:21-cv-81256-WPD (S.D. Fla.), Judge William P. Dimitrouleas of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of an Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Costs and Expenses.
I. Background
The case arises out of debt collection letters mailed by the
Defendant between July 17, 2020 and July 16, 2021. Plaintiff Acuna
received one such letter and sued Defendant on behalf of himself
and similarly-situated individuals who received similar letters,
arguing that Defendant's debt collection conduct violated sections
1692e, 1692e(5) and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"). The Defendant denies
that its conduct violated the law.
The parties' settlement will create a non-reversionary $7,600 class
settlement fund, with money distributed pro-rata to each class
member who submitted a timely and valid claim, and pertinent here,
a separate award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
costs and expenses. The class notice advised class members that the
class counsel, Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC ("GDR"), will ask the
Court for up to $40,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses.
The Class counsel filed its fee motion on March 18, 2022 -- in
advance of the deadline for class members to file an objection to
the settlement -- asking the Court for approval of a total award of
$35,000 for attorneys' fees, costs, and litigation expenses. The
amount sought is unopposed and, pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, would be paid after final settlement approval, separate
and apart from the class settlement fund and the Plaintiff's
individual payments.
The Court referred the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of
an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Costs
and Expenses to Magistrate Judge William Matthewman. Judge
Matthewman held a hearing on the Motion on April 22, 2022 and
entered a Report and Recommendation on the Motion on April 26,
2022. Judge Matthewman recommends that the Court awards the
Plaintiff his attorney's fees in the amount of $34,514.10 and
litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $485.90, for a total
award of $35,000 in favor of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant. No objections were timely filed to Judge Matthewman's
Report and Recommendation.
The Court also heard argument on the fee motion at the final
fairness hearing on May 20, 2022.
II. Discussion
Judge Dimitrouleas finds GDR's requested award of $35,000 is
supported and reasonable. The United States Supreme Court has
stated that an hourly rate is reasonable when it is "in line with
those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers
of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation." Senior
partner James L. Davidson has 17 years of experience and as of
March 18, 2022, billed 51 hours on the matter at $500 per hour.
Partner Jesse S. Johnson has more than 12 years of class action
litigation experience and as of March 18, 2022, billed 7 hours on
this matter at $450 per hour. These rates are within the range of
reasonableness for FDCPA class litigation. GDR's hourly rates are
reasonable and appropriate.
GDR's request for an award for between 68 and 78 hours is
warranted. The reasonable number of hours multiplied by the
attorneys' respective rates results in a total estimated lodestar
of between $33,650 and $38,650. Also significant is that the
requested fees are well in line with those awarded in recent
consumer protection class actions. GDR also employed that
experience in negotiating a favorable result that avoids protracted
litigation, trial, and appeals.
Finally, subsumed within the $35,000 sought by GDR is $485.90 for
litigation costs and expenses for the filing fee for the complaint,
service of process on the Defendant, and mailing costs. The
categories of expenses for which GDR seeks reimbursement are the
type of expenses routinely charged to paying clients in the
marketplace.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Dimitrouleas adopts and approves Magistrate
Judge Matthewman's Report and Recommendation. He grants the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of an Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Costs and Expenses.
The Plaintiff is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of
$34,514.10 and litigation costs and expenses in the amount of
$485.90, for a total award of $35,000 in favor of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendant.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mszsck87 from Leagle.com.
MESOBLAST LIMITED: August 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on May 23 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of Mesoblast Limited American
Depository Shares (NASDAQ: MESO):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who purchased American Depository
Shares of Mesoblast Limited ("Mesoblast") ("Mesoblast ADS") during
the period between December 13, 2018 and October 2, 2020, inclusive
(the "Settlement Class") and were damaged thereby:
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $2,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.
A hearing will be held on August 15, 2022 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Philip H. Halpern at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr.
Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 300 Quarropas
Street, White Plains, New York, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
March 28, 2022 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses
should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.strategicclaims.net/Mesoblast/. You may also obtain copies of
the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
In re Mesoblast Class Action Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205, Media, PA
19063; Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004; Fax: (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no
later than August 7, 2022. If you are a Settlement Class Member and
do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement,
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion to the Claims Administrator such that it is received no
later than July 25, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than July 25, 2022, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Mesoblast, or
its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Sara Fuks, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
info@rosenlegal.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In re Mesoblast Class Action Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004
info@strategicclaims.net [GN]
META PLATFORMS: BIPA Class Action Settlement Payouts Begin
----------------------------------------------------------
5Chicago reports that if you're an Illinois Facebook user, you may
have recently received a check in the mail from the company as part
of a seven-year, $650 million Class Action Lawsuit.
According to the Class Action settlement administrator, checks
between $200-$400 to more than 1.4 million people started getting
mailed out May 9.
In the lawsuit, Class Members allege the company broke the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting and storing
biometric data -- physical characteristics -- of users without
their consent, through things like facial recognition technology.
Facebook users might more commonly know this as "Tag Suggestions"
notifications.
Here's what else to know about the Class Action Lawsuit, and how to
find out if you're a Member.
What the Illinois Facebook Lawsuit Says, and How Facebook
Responded
According to the Settlement Administrator, "Facebook users in
Illinois sued Facebook claiming that its "Tag Suggestions" feature
and other features involving facial recognition technology,
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
That law, passed in 2008, says companies are not allowed to
collect, store, or give out "biometric data," which includes things
like face or fingerprint scans, without first giving notice and
obtaining personal consent. The act also requires companies to
specify how the information would be retained, and when it would be
destroyed
This case alleges that Facebook specifically broke the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by using facial recognition
technology to create face templates that can be used to identify
users in photos without the proper notice and consent.
Facebook denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability.
Facebook changed its technology in 2019, replacing the tool with a
broader facial recognition setting, which was turned off by
default. The website announced it would shut down its recognition
software entirely in 2021.
More information can be found about the lawsuit here.
I'm An Illinois Facebook User. Am I a Class Action Member?
According to the settlement website, Facebook's records were used
to identify certain Class Members. Those people should have
received notice through email or on Facebook.
You might have gotten a notice if you are a current or former
Facebook user in Illinois who uploaded a photograph of yourself or
were "tagged" in a photograph on Facebook after June 7, 2011.
If photographs of you that were uploaded to Facebook after June 7,
2011 did not result in the creation of a face template while you
lived in Illinois, you are not part of the Class.
Not everybody in Illinois who uses Facebook is included.
How to Know if You'll Get a Payout
According to the settlement website, "Facebook users located in
Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after
June 7, 2011" are eligible for a payout.
To have filed a valid claim under the Settlement, you must have
lived in the State of Illinois for a period of at least 183 days (6
months).
The deadline to file a claim form was November 23, 2020.
If you did not file a claim by that date -- even if you are an
Illinois Facebook user, and meet the above above criteria -- you
are not a Class Action Member, and you will not receive a payout.
How Much Are the Checks For?
If you are a Class Member that filed filed a claim by the deadline,
you should receive approximately $200 to $400 per person from the
$650 million Settlement Fund, the settlement website states.
More specifically, the document titled "Order re: Final Approval,
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, And Incentive Awards" dated Feb. 26,
2021 states that "it is one the largest settlements ever for a
privacy violation, and it will put at least $345 into the hands of
every class member interested in being compensated."
When Will I Receive My Check?
Payments started getting mailed out to members on May 9, 2022.
"It will take about two weeks to finish mailing the checks and
processing the electronic payments," the settlement website
states.
"If you are expecting a payment but haven't yet received it, we ask
that you wait until mid-June before making an inquiry."
I Don't Remember If I Filed a Claim, or got a Notification. How Can
I Find Out If I am Included?
Here's who to call to confirm, or get help:
Settlement Administrator: 1-844-799-2417
Edelson PC, lawyer appointment to the case: 1-866-354-3015
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, lawyer appointed to the case:
1-800-449-4900
Labaton Sucharow LLP, lawyer appointed to the case: 1-888-219-6877
[GN]
MORPHE COSMETICS: Class Suit Alleges Injury Over Use of Eyeshadows
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Francis, writing for HBW Insight, reports that a class
action in California federal court targets Morphe Cosmetics for the
sale and marketing of eyeshadows containing unapproved colors for
eye-area use that three consumers say inflicted physical injury.
They seek to represent consumers nationwide, citing breach of
warranties, negligence, false advertising, and other claims. [GN]
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net
Element, Inc. (NASDAQ: MULN) (NASDAQ: NETE) between June 15, 2020
and April 6, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important
July 5, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action
commenced by the Firm.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Mullen 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 Mullen class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5459 or 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 July 5, 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. Many of these firms do not
actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen
that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate
the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm
represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its
practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative
litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities
class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mullen overstates its ability
and timeline regarding production; (2) Mullen overstates its deals
with business partners, including Qiantu Motors; (3) Mullen
overstates its battery technology and capabilities; (4) Mullen
overstates its ability to sell its branded products; (5) Net
Element did not conduct proper due diligence into Mullen
Technologies; (6) the Dragonfly K50 was not (solely) delayed due to
the COVID-19 pandemic; and (7) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the Mullen class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5459 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 5 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc. ("Mullen
Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc.") (NASDAQ: MULN)
shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 23 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between June 15, 2020 and April 6, 2022.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Mullen Automotive,
Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc., contact us about potential recovery
by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/mullen-automotive-inc-f-k-a-net-element-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27517&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Mullen Automotive, Inc.
f/k/a Net Element, Inc. includes allegations that the Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Mullen overstates its ability and timeline
regarding production; (2) Mullen overstates its deals with business
partners, including Qiantu; (3) Mullen overstates its battery
technology and capabilities; (4) Mullen overstates its ability to
sell its branded products; (5) Net Element did not conduct proper
due diligence into Mullen Technologies; (6) the Dragonfly K50, a
luxury sports car, was not (solely) delayed due to the COVID-19
pandemic; and (7) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
DEADLINE: July 5, 2022
Aggrieved Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc. investors
only have until July 5, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff
in order to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
MYLAN INC: Amneal Partly Compelled to Show Docs in Rochester Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE and DAKOTA DRUG, INC.,
Plaintiffs v. MYLAN INC.; MYLAN SPECIALITY L.P.; CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION; CAREMARK PCS HEALTH, L.L.C.; CAREMARK L.L.C.; CVS
CAREMARK PART D SERVICES LLC; CAREMARK RX, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS
HEALTH LLC; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS INC.;
MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; UNITED HEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED;
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; OPTUM INC.; OPTUMRXHOLDINGS,
L.L.C.; and OPTUM RX INC., Defendants, AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
Respondent, Case No. 22-MC-0007 (ECT/JFD) (D. Minn.), Magistrate
Judge John F. Docherty of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs Rochester
Drug Co-Operative and Dakota Drug, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Nonparty
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC to Produce Documents Responsive to a
Rule 45 Subpoena.
I. Background
The case is a small spinoff from a larger action, In re: EpiPen
Direct Purchaser Litigation, Case No. 20-CV-0827 (ECT/JFD) (D.
Minn.) ("In re EpiPen"). The Plaintiffs filed the operative First
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in that parent action
on Oct. 20, 2021. In re EpiPen is a case about the price of
EpiPens, an Epinephrine-Auto-Injector ("EAI") that can be used to
inject a life-saving dose of epinephrine into a person having a
severe, allergic reaction.
The Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a proposed class of
pharmaceutical wholesalers, that Defendants Mylan Inc. and Mylan
Specialty L.P. (collectively "Mylan") paid bribes and kickbacks to
three Defendant groups of pharmacy benefit managers or "PBMs" --
companies that administer prescription benefit plans for insurance
companies and health care plans. In exchange, the PBM Defendants
gave Mylan's EpiPen favorable placement in the formularies (a list
of drugs and devices covered by a health insurance company) that
the PBM Defendants prepared for their clients.
The Plaintiffs claim that Mylan and the PBM Defendants violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c), when they perpetrated this commercial
bribery scheme, and that Mylan also violated Section Two of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2, because Mylan gained a monopoly
position in the EAI market through commercial bribery, rather than
legitimately. The Plaintiffs allege that, because the PBMs have
power to confer market share on favored products, and because Mylan
bribed the PBM Defendants to favor the EpiPen, Mylan could raise
the price of EpiPens without risking its dominant position in the
EAI market. And in fact, even though the EpiPen was more expensive
than competing EAIs, allege the Plaintiffs, EpiPen had a 98% share
of the EAI market, with sales of EpiPens exceeding one billion
dollars per year.
Amneal manufactures and markets the Adrenaclick AG, an EAI device
that competes with the EpiPen. The Plaintiffs' Subpoena to Amneal
seeks responsive materials to RFP Nos. 3-5, as narrowed through the
parties' meet-and-confers.
RFP No. 3 requests: Documents and communications in the Relevant
Time Period relating to Amneal's views about (1) pricing strategies
for Amneal's EAI Drug Device; (2) the impact of changing price on
formulary placement, coverage, sales, revenue, and profits, and
PBMs' correlating actual or potential reactions; (3) Amneal's
ability to manufacture its EAI Drug Device and supply the market;
and (4) strategies for achieving formulary placement for Amneal's
EAI Drug Device.
RFP Nos. 4-5 request: Any agreements, offers, or negotiations with
the PBM Defendants in this case or their related entities (i.e.
Express Scripts, OptumRx, Caremark, CVS and any corporate parents
or affiliates).
As narrowed, the "Relevant Time Period" for these three requests is
between March 1, 2012, through Dec. 31, 2018. The Plaintiffs have
also offered to further limit this period to between Jan. 1, 2013
through Dec. 31, 2018.
The parties in the In re EpiPen parent action have been in
discovery since March of 2021. Fact discovery is scheduled to close
on Oct. 1, 2022. As part of discovery in the In re EpiPen action,
the Plaintiffs seek evidence that could convince a jury that the
Defendants' alleged commercial bribery and kickback scheme
facilitated Mylan's intentionally harmful conduct, which caused
antitrust injury.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Subpoena to Amneal seeks the
production of materials related to negotiations between Respondent
Amneal -- one of Mylan's EAI-device competitors—and the PBM
Defendants named in the In re EpiPen parent action, in order to see
whether the "Defendants' schemes caused the PBM Defendants to
reject or ignore lower cost competing products like Amneal's
Adrenaclick AG product when they chose the EpiPen as the favored
EAI formulary product." The Plaintiffs claim that, even though the
Adrenaclick's price was lower than the EpiPen's during the period
of the alleged bribery and kickback scheme, the price of an EpiPen
rose from $219 to $609 without any apparent concern on Mylan's part
for how the EpiPen's cost might cause it to lose its competitive
advantage in the EAI market. Thus, according to the Plaintiffs,
Amneal's negotiations with the PBM Defendants are relevant to their
claims in the In re EpiPen action.
The Plaintiffs argue that the relevance of RFP Nos. 3-5 is further
shown by the fact that, after the commercial bribery/antitrust
scheme allegedly stopped sometime in 2017, several things happened,
among them that: Mylan reduced the price of EpiPens; the PBM
Defendants offered better formulary placements for EAI products
that compete with EpiPen; and Amneal's Adrenaclick AG product
increased from a 5.9% market share to a 28% market share. They
claim that this makes Amneal -- as an alleged nonparty victim of
the scheme between Mylan and the PBM Defendants -- an appropriate
recipient of information requests in In re Epipen.
Consequently, on April 28, 2021, the Plaintiffs served on Amneal
the disputed Rule 45 Subpoena duces tecum containing seven RFPs. In
response, on July 12, 2021, Amneal served limited productions,
along with its Responses and Objections to any further productions
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B). Amneal
generally objected on relevance grounds, asserting that information
about the Adrenaclick AG was irrelevant in a case about an entirely
separate product -- the EpiPen -- and also because the Plaintiffs'
request was allegedly overbroad, seeking over a decade of
historical materials that would be costly and difficult for Amneal
to produce.
The Plaintiffs claim that in response to Amneal's objections they
"significantly narrowed the scope of the Subpoena," prompting
Amneal to produce some additional documents for which it claims a
production cost of $50,000. Meet-and-confers then took place over
several months, resulting in an agreement that Amneal's productions
had satisfied three of the Subpoena's RFPs, but that Amneal's
responses to RFP Nos. 3-5 and 73 "'remained outstanding.'"
After reaching this impasse in negotiations, the Plaintiffs filed a
Motion to Compel Amneal to produce the requested responsive
materials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York ("SDNY"), the district in which they had served the
Respondent with the Subpoena. When filing their Motion, the
Plaintiffs simultaneously requested transfer of their Motion to the
District of Minnesota, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45(f) (permitting such transfers), because the Court has
familiarity with the related In re: EpiPen case. The SDNY granted
the Plaintiffs' transfer request on Dec. 29, 2021 without deciding
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, which is now before the Court to
decide.
In their Motion, the Plaintiffs allege that, instead of fully
producing the materials requested by their Rule 45 Subpoena, the
Respondent has produced only a few documents that are either
publicly available or irrelevant, and has otherwise improperly
refused to produce the requested documents, claiming they are
irrelevant and disproportionate. Amneal contends that even the
narrowed versions of RFP Nos. 3-5 present a hugely burdensome
fishing expedition that "seeks essentially every document in any
way related to three different companies' various epinephrine
products going back nine years." At oral arguments during the
motion hearing, the Plaintiffs opposed Amneal's contention that
their Subpoena requests -- as narrowed -- were overly broad.
Following the motion hearing, the Court issued the following Order:
Following oral arguments at the motion hearing held on 2/23/2022,
on Wednesday, 3/9/2022, the Plaintiff will provide the Court via
chambers email with: (1) a copy of its January 2022 letter to
Amneal proposing custodians to run search terms against, and (2) a
copy of Amneal's letter in response to the Plaintiffs' letter. If
nonparty Amneal wishes to object to this ordered production, Amneal
will send its written objections to the Court via chambers email on
or before Monday, 3/7/2022.
On March 7, Amneal provided their objections to the Court, but
instead of raising procedural objections to the Court's Order that
the Plaintiffs supplement the record with the ordered production of
correspondence, Amneal submitted a 20-page response that included
substantive objections to the Plaintiffs' January letter,
argumentation against the broader Motion to Compel, and an exhibit
of past correspondence that the Court had not requested.
On March 9, the Plaintiffs provided their January letter to the
Court, noting that "to date, Amneal has not provided a substantive
response to their January Letter, nor has it objected to their
submission of this letter to the Court." Under the Local Rules of
this District, "parties must not file a reply memorandum in support
of a nondispositive motion" unless they receive "the court's prior
permission." The Court ordered no such surreply from Amneal on the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, and declines to consider Amneal's
additional substantive argumentation that was not properly
submitted by grant of the Court.
II. Discussion
The questions before the Court are: (A) whether the Plaintiffs have
made the required threshold showing of relevance for RFP Nos. 3-5
(as narrowed); if yes, (B) whether the Respondent has met its
burden to show the information is actually irrelevant, or that the
burden and expense of producing it is disproportional; (C) whether
the Plaintiffs have taken reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue
burden or expense on the Respondent while requesting this
information; and (D) whether the undue burden, if any, requires the
Court to quash or modify the Subpoena.
Judge Docherty take each question in turn, then considers (E)-(F)
Respondent's additional requests to be reimbursed by the Plaintiffs
for its past, present, and future costs related to this Subpoena
and Motion.
A. Plaintiffs' Burden to Demonstrate Threshold Relevance
RFP Nos. 4-5, as narrowed and combined, request: Any agreements,
offers, or negotiations with the PBM Defendants in the case or
their related entities (i.e. Express Scripts, OptumRx, Caremark,
CVS and any corporate parents or affiliates).
As narrowed, the "Relevant Time Period" for these three requests is
between March 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2018. The Plaintiffs have
also offered to further limit this seven year period to six years
spanning Jan. 1, 2013 to Dec. 31, 2018.
The Plaintiffs argue that, because the Adrenaclick and EpiPen
products were and are market rivals, materials demonstrating
Amneal's ability to compete or not against Mylan during the period
of the alleged bribery and kickback scheme are relevant to their
burden to prove their allegations in In re EpiPen are true: That
Mylan's dominance in the EAI market came from the bribes and
kickbacks it paid to the PBM Defendants.
Judge Docherty finds that RFP Nos. 3-5 seek relevant information,
with one exception: Related entities of the PBM Defendants who are
not current parties to the In Re EpiPen lawsuit cannot provide a
factfinder with inferences about the named PBM Defendants' alleged
intentional engagement in racketeering enterprises with
anticompetitive goals; at best, they could provide insights about
their own intentions and actions, but those are not relevant to the
commercial bribery and antitrust claim elements that Plaintiffs
need to prove. Thus, Amneal need not produce any materials relating
to their strategies, actions (including proposed agreements,
offers, and negotiations), and observations about entities who are
not current parties to the In re EpiPen lawsuit.
The Court proceeds next to whether Amneal can successfully rebut
the relevance of the discovery that the Plaintiffs seek, as limited
by the Court's exclusion of unnamed PBM affiliates.
B. Amneal's Argument that the Discovery Sought is Irrelevant
Amneal argues that "Request No. 3 is patently irrelevant to the
action" and, therefore, the Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden to
show the required threshold relevance to support their RFPs and the
Motion. Amneal contends that its internal observations (or those of
its predecessors) about the PBMs during EAI product negotiations
are wholly unrelated to the Plaintiffs' claims in the action.
Judge Docherty finds that the requests sought in RFP Nos. 4-5 are
relevant. He agrees that to capture Amneal's observations about its
proposed agreements, offers, or negotiations with the PBM
Defendants (themselves relevant evidence of what concrete actions
Amneal and the PBM Defendants each took in relation to each other
and the EAI market during the period of the alleged scheme), the
internal communications within Amneal surrounding those dealings
with the PBMs are also relevant, and are necessarily within
Amneal's control rather than the PBM Defendants'.
Thus, Judge Docherty finds that RFP Nos. 4-5 seek materials that
are relevant to the alleged anticompetitive intent and conduct of
Mylan's monopoly -- and the alleged racketeering actions of the PBM
Defendants whose commercial bribery with Mylan facilitated it --
and that Amneal has raised no convincing argument that such
materials are, instead, irrelevant.
C. Amneal's Argument that the Discovery Sought is Disproportionate
Turning now to proportionality, Amneal argues that Request Nos. 3-5
seek materials that are disproportionate because the discovery
sought is "overly broad and unduly burdensome." At the motion
hearing, Amneal repeatedly claimed that the Plaintiffs' request is
overbroad because the Plaintiffs want every sales and manufacturing
document that Amneal has. Amneal also argues that the Plaintiffs'
request is unfairly burdensome because it demands that Amneal
produce commercially sensitive materials to its customers, a
competitor, and negotiating partners -- all without the protection
of an Attorneys'-Eyes-Only tier within a protective order that has
been crafted to reflect Amneal's interests as a nonparty in the
action.
Judge Docherty finds that some of the information that the
Plaintiffs seek in RFP. Nos. 3-5 is not only relevant, but is
proportionally necessary to fill in key gaps in the facts. He says,
the Plaintiffs believe Amneal's documents may contain observations
about the PBM Defendants' intent and conduct during the period of
the alleged antitrust/commercial bribery scheme -- observations
that few entities would be able to capture because the number of
product competitors in the EAI market has been so small. If the
Plaintiffs' allegations are true, then Amneal has sustained
antitrust injuries because of the Defendants' antitrust and
commercial bribery scheme; but this does not exempt Amneal from
bearing the reasonable burden that subpoenas regularly place upon
nonparties to provide relevant and proportional discovery in line
with Rule 26.
The Court has found some of the Plaintiffs' requests in RFP Nos.
3-5 relevant and has carefully weighed the parties' proportionality
arguments above. Before reaching a holding on proportionality,
Judge Docherty considers the special proportionality considerations
governed by Rule 45 in which a party requests discovery from a
nonparty.
D. The Sufficiency of Plaintiffs' Steps Taken to Avoid Undue Burden
on a Nonparty Under Rule 45
The Plaintiffs argue that it has repeatedly compromised with Amneal
and attempted to narrow its already targeted requests and eliminate
additional alleged undue burdens, but Amneal has refused to produce
more than "four publicly available documents" and "66 largely
irrelevant documents." Amneal argues that the "Plaintiffs have made
basically no effort 'to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on'
Amneal."
Judge Docherty finds that, even considering that Amneal is a
nonparty under Rule 45 and that the Plaintiffs and the Court must
protect Amneal from undue burden and expense, some productions in
response to RFP Nos. 3-5 are not only relevant, but proportional.
As to Amneal's productions to date that Amneal claims have already
unfairly overburdened it, Judge Docherty finds this is not so.
Amneal has produced four public documents with ease, 66 documents
with the Plaintiffs' assistance, and -- without being asked -- has
run a self-imposed document search yielding over 156,000 hits based
on its own selection of custodians and its own search terms.
As to the costs of searching archived documents from Amneal's
predecessors, the burden of producing these documents is
significant because of how these archived documents are stored. For
such documents, Judge Docherty agrees with Amneal that it is
appropriate to shift some of the costs to recover these materials
in readable and searchable form to Plaintiffs. Therefore, Amneal
will produce a detailed invoice setting forth the precise estimates
for the costs it anticipates in producing the relevant materials,
as limited by the Order.
As to Amneal's concern for the risk it takes in producing these
commercially sensitive materials to customers, a competitor, and
negotiating partners, Judge Docherty agrees that the existing
Protective Order does not adequately safeguard Amneal's
productions. However, he also agrees with the Plaintiffs that stale
information does not jeopardize Amneal's competitive abilities to
the same degree as current information. Therefore, the parties in
this action only (the Plaintiffs and Amneal) will meet-and-confer
on this issue and will agree upon a protective order that includes
a "Highly-Confidential - Attorneys'-Eyes-Only" tier with
protections for Amneal's productions from 2017 and 2018 that may
jeopardize Amneal's competitive abilities.
Judge Docherty further finds that the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery does not outweigh its likely benefit, and that
responsive productions to RFP Nos. 3-5, as modified for relevance
and proportionality by the Order pursuant to Rules 26(b) and
45(d)(1), should be made by Amneal.
Additionally, Judge Docherty finds that in their January letter,
the Plaintiffs proposed adequately narrowed parameters for the
requested searches for RFP Nos. 3-5 -- including a limited period
of six years spanning Jan. 1, 2013 through Dec. 21, 2018, and
limited custodians and search terms -- along with instructions to
Amneal to provide the hit count so that the searches may be further
narrowed. Amneal will proceed according to the reasonable plan that
the Plaintiffs propose, and in compliance with the Order.
Non-archived responsive materials that fall within the relevant and
proportional limitations set by this Order will be produced on or
before June 20, 2022. Archived responsive materials that fall
within the relevant and proportional limitations set by the Order
will be produced on or before July 20, 2022.
E. Amneal's Request for Cost-Shifting for Ordered Productions
Amneal claims that the Plaintiffs' burdensome requests justify a
court order shifting all future production-related costs onto
Plaintiffs, rather than forcing it to rely on their promise "that
they 'will gladly consider reimbursement of a portion of Amneal's
costs.'" Amneal claims that, because it will be put to considerable
expense if any production is ordered, the Court must protect Amneal
from unfairly shouldering the costs of their compliance,
particularly where the Plaintiffs' requests are so broad.
As stated, Judge Docherty holds that the Plaintiffs will cover 80%
of the costs to recover relevant and proportional materials
contained in a storage system predating Amneal's current data
storage system. This cost-shifting will include all aspects of that
data's production to the Plaintiffs. For the responsive materials
that are within Amneal's current data storage system, the burden
and expense are not as great, and the Plaintiffs will bear 20% of
the costs of producing those materials that they authorize Amneal
to produce. Amneal is cautioned, however, based on its previous,
costly, self-imposed search, that the Plaintiffs will not be
required to bear any portion of the cost of productions for which
they have not specifically asked.
F. Amneal's Request for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Amneal contends that, because the Plaintiffs have failed to take
steps to avoid overburdening it, sanctions covering its costs and
fees to date related to their Subpoena and the instant Motion to
Compel are appropriate. Finding that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently demonstrated their steps undertaken to avoid
overburdening Amneal, and that Amneal has self-imposed a large part
of its costs and burdens, Judge Docherty declines to award Amneal
any past costs or attorneys' fees for its responses to this
Subpoena, or for its defense against the Motion to Compel.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings
therein, Judge Docherty grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, as he set forth.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr2av277 from Leagle.com.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 17, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLYDE WILLIAM TYNES, JR.,
v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, dba Mr. Cooper, Case No.
2:21-cv-02221-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dennis M. Cota
entered an order setting the following pre-trial schedule for this
litigation:
-- The parties shall exchange initial Sept. 30, 2022
lists of expert witnesses no later
than:
-- The parties shall exchange lists Oct. 31, 2022
of rebuttal expert witnesses no later
than:
-- All expert discovery shall be Feb. 17, 2023
completed and all motions pertaining
to expert discovery shall be
noticed to be heard by:
-- All non-expert discovery shall be March 10, 2023
completed and all motions pertaining
to non-expert discovery shall be
noticed to be heard by:
-- Any motion for class certification March 17, 2023
shall be filed by:
-- All dispositive motions shall be May 17, 2023
filed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3akw8w5 at no extra charge.[CC]
NAVISTAR INC: N.D. Texas Grants Bid to Dismiss Xcelerated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, XCELERATED TRANSPORTATION, GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff v.
NAVISTAR, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-3036-L (N.D.
Tex.), Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants Navistar's
motion to dismiss filed on Oct. 6, 2021.
I. Background
Xcelerated brings the case that involves the purchase and operation
of 10 International ProStar semi-trucks with MaxxForce engines
manufactured by Defendant Navistar. The case was originally filed
in the Court on Sept. 16, 2015. On Oct. 28, 2015, the case was
transferred to the MDL Court in the Northern District of Illinois
(Case MDL No. 2590, ECF# 142). For five years, this case sat in the
MDL Court while the lead plaintiffs' counsel and Navistar, Inc.,
litigated class action claims. On Jan. 21, 2020, Judge Gotschall
approved settlement of the class action claims. Xcelerated opted
out of the class action settlement.
On Sept. 30, 2020, a Conditional Remand Order was entered by the
MDL Panel remanding the case back to the Court for the handling of
further litigation. On Oct. 5, 2020, the Court ordered Xcelerated
to amend its complaint to allege proper diversity facts so as to
give it clarity as to its ability to handle the subject matter. On
Oct. 19, 2020, Xcelerated -- in compliance with the Court's Order
-- amended its complaint and alleged additional facts. On Oct. 26,
2020, the Court sua sponte, dismissed Xcelerated's case without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on its
apparent failure to adequately plead sufficient facts invoking
subject matter jurisdiction.
On Sept. 8, 2021, Xcelerated filed its Second Amended Complaint,
which is the live pleading in the action. In the Second Amended
Complaint, Xcelerated alleges the following causes of action:
Breach of Express Warranty; Breach of Implied Warranty; Breach of
Contract; Fraud; and Fraud by Nondisclosure. Navistar now moves to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
II. Discussion
Navistar contends that dismissal is proper under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, it argues that:
(1) the Plaintiff's fraud claims are barred by the economic loss
doctrine; (2) the Plaintiff failed to identify any actionable
misrepresentation for its fraud and express warranty claims; (3) in
the alternative, the Plaintiff failed to plead its fraud claims
with the required particularity; (4) the Plaintiff failed to allege
the existence of a contract term that was breached; (5) Navistar
conspicuously disclaimed all implied warranties; and (6) the
Plaintiff has not identified any contract, statute, or law
authorizing an award of attorneys' fees.
In response, Xcelerated clarifies that it "is not pursuing any
claim for breach of contract, implied warranty, or attorney's fees
and will omit these claims from any amended pleading if leave is
granted." It also clarifies that "the only express warranty claim
being pursued by it is based on Navistar's boilerplate written
warranty," not alleged misrepresentations made by Navistar or its
agents.
Xcelerated does, however, contend that their remaining fraud
claims—Fraud and Fraud by Nondisclosure—are not barred by the
economic loss doctrine and are well pleaded under Rule 9(b).
Finally, Xcelerated requests leave to amend its complaint to (1)
address any pleading deficiencies related to its fraud claims; (2)
remove its claims for breach of contract, implied warranty, and
attorney's fees; and (3) clarify its claim for breach of express
warranty to only include allegations based on "Navistar's
boilerplate written warranty."
Navistar does not oppose Xcelerated's request for leave to amend
"so long as any alleged express warranties not based on an alleged
breach of the applicable limited written warranties are dismissed
with prejudice."
Judge Lindsay finds that good cause exists to grant Xcelerated
leave to amend its complaint. He opines, although a scheduling
order has been entered, the action against Navistar is in its early
stages and the Court does not believe, nor does Navistar argue,
that it will be prejudiced if Xcelerated is granted leave to amend
its complaint.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he explained, Judge Lindsay grants the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Plaintiff's claims of Breach
of Contract, Implied Warranty, and Attorney's Fees, and dismisses
them with prejudice, as the Plaintiff has agreed to abandon these
claims. He, therefore, dismisses with prejudice these claims.
Further, Judge Lindsay grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
with respect to the Plaintiff's claims of Fraud, Fraud by
Nondisclosure, and Breach of Express Warranty and grants the
Plaintiff leave to amend its pleadings. Accordingly, any third
amended complaint by Xcelerated must be filed by June 6, 2022, and
must be limited to revising its Fraud and Fraud by Nondisclosure
claims and amending the Breach of Express Warranty claim to be
based only on allegations concerning an alleged breach of
Navistar's written warranty.
If Xcelerated wishes to amend its pleadings to assert new or
additional claims, it must first seek and obtain leave of court.
Failure to file a third amended complaint by June 6, 2022, will
result in dismissal of the Plaintiff's remaining claims of Fraud,
Fraud by Nondisclosure, and Breach of Express Warranty under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which relief can be
granted, or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b) for failure to
comply with a court order.
It is so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/45kc53rs from
Leagle.com.
NELNET INC: Johansson, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JOHANSSON, JON
PEARCE, and LINDA STANLEY, on behalf of themselves and the Class
Members, v. NELNET, INC., a Nebraska Corporation, NELNET
DIVERSIFIED SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company,
and NELNET SERVICING LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company,
Case No. 4:20-cv-03069-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order that the action may proceed on behalf of a
class against the Defendants:
The Plaintiffs are federal student loan borrowers who, on June 15,
2020, filed a Class Action Complaint against the Defendants
alleging that Nelnet improperly canceled or failed to renew
Plaintiffs' Income-Driven-Repayment (IDR) plans, improperly delayed
the process whereby borrowers enroll in and renew such plans, and
improperly placed the loans of countless borrowers into hardship
forbearance during the IDR recertification process causing unpaid
accrued interest to be "capitalized," or added to the borrower's
principal balance.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a modified nationwide class and
several subclasses (based on the law of their respective states)
that includes the following persons: Borrowers who (1) were
enrolled in a hardship forbearance (2) without their written
consent (3) while their IDR applications were pending. The modified
class definition is based on computer search queries that Nelnet
performed during discovery at Plaintiffs' request.
If certified, the class will consist of approximately 128,000
similarly situated borrowers who have suffered substantial losses
as a result of Nelnet's conduct, the lawsuit says.
Nelnet is a United States-based conglomerate that deals in the
administration and repayment of student loans and education
financial services. The company is headquartered in Lincoln,
Nebraska.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wWMD9g
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER
& GOODWIN, LLC
20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
cmiller@edcombs.com
- and -
Anthony Fiorentino, Esq.
FIORENTINO LAW OFFICES, LTD.
432 N Clark St., No. 202
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 853-0050
Facsimile: (312) 853-3254
E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com
- and -
David A. Domina, Esq.
DOMINA LAW GROUP PC LLO
2425 South 144 th Street
Omaha, NE 68144
Telephone: (402) 493-4100
Facsimile: (402) 493-9782
E-mail: DAD@dominalaw.com
NETFLIX INC: District Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Longport Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOROUGH OF LONGPORT and TOWNSHIP OF IRVINGTON,
Plaintiffs, v. NETFLIX, INC. and HULU, LLC, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 21-15303 (SRC) (MAH) (D.N.J.), Judge Stanley R. Chesler
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants
the motions to dismiss respectively filed by Defendants Netflix and
Hulu.
I. Background
The matter comes before the Court on the motions to dismiss
respectively filed by Defendants Netflix and Hulu as to the class
action complaint filed against them by Plaintiffs Borough of
Longport and Township of Irvington on behalf of a putative class of
New Jersey municipalities in which either Defendant has provided
video service. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The Court has
reviewed the papers submitted and proceeds to rule without oral
argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.
In 1972, the New Jersey legislature enacted the Cable Television
Act to among other things, promote the development of cable
television service, ensure the fair distribution of that service,
and "to protect the interests of the several municipalities of this
State in relation to the issuance of municipal consents for the
operation of cable television companies within their several
jurisdictions, and to secure a desirable degree of uniformity in
the practices and operations of cable television companies in those
several jurisdictions," New Jersey Statutes Annotated ("N.J.S.A.")
Section 48:5A-1, et seq. (the "CTA"). Pursuant to the CTA, the
Legislature created a regulatory framework by which cable
television companies were obligated to obtain a municipality's
consent to operate within the municipality's borders, but the
ultimate decision of whether to franchise the cable television
company was vested with the Board of Public Utilities (the "BPU").
In 2006, the New Jersey Legislature amended the CTA and instituted
a framework by which a cable television company could, as an
alternative to the requirement that the company seek consent from
municipalities on an individual basis, obtain a "system-wide
franchise" from the BPU. A "system-wide franchise" authorizes "a
cable television company to construct or operate a cable television
system in any location within New Jersey in which the cable
television company, at the time of the issuance of the system-wide
franchise, either has plant or equipment in use for the provision
of any consumer video, cable or telecommunications service,
including telephone service, or has proposed to place such plant or
equipment into use to provide such service." Cable television
companies are required to make annual franchise payments in each
municipality in which they own or operate cable systems and provide
cable services in the amount of two percent of the on gross
revenues received from the provision of cable services in that
municipality.
II. Discussion
The Defendants offer up numerous independent bases by which to
dismiss the Complaint, including that: (i) the CTA does not grant
Plaintiffs a private right of enforcement; (ii) the CTA does not
extend to the Defendants' services; (iii) the imposition on
Defendants of fees such as those provided by the CTA is preempted
under federal law; (iv) the application of the CTA to the
Defendants would violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act; (v) the
application of the CTA to the Defendants would violate their First
Amendment rights; and (vi) even if the Complaint stated a claim for
relief, the primary jurisdiction doctrine makes it inappropriate
for the Court to render a decision in the first instance.
Because Judge Chesler finds that the Plaintiffs do not have a
private right of action against the Defendants, he declines to
consider the Defendants' other arguments. He explains that a
plaintiff cannot bring claims to enforce a statute if it does not
have a private right of action. Where a statute fails to include an
express private right of action, a Court may consider whether the
statute provides an implied one.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted the factors set forth by
the United States Supreme Court in determining whether a statute
confers an implied private right of action, including whether: (1)
plaintiff is a member of the class for whose special benefit the
statute was enacted; (2) there is any evidence that the Legislature
intended to create a private right of action under the statute; and
(3) it is consistent with the underlying purposes of the
legislative scheme to infer the existence of such a remedy.
In considering these factors collectively, and with the "primary
goal" of discerning the underlying legislative intent, Judge
Chesler finds that the Plaintiffs do not have an implied private
right of action under the CTA. Accordingly, their claims must fail
for this reason alone.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Chesler grants the Defendants'
motions. Because the Plaintiffs do not have a private right of
action, any amendment to the Complaint would be futile and leave to
amend is denied. An appropriate Order will be issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3dk4ky75 from Leagle.com.
NETFLIX INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of July 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 5, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: NFLX) common stock or call options, or sold put options,
between October 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Netflix investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/netflix-inc-1/. 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 January 20, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that
it "slightly over-forecasted paid net adds in Q4," adding 8.3
million subscribers compared to the 8.5 million forecast. The
Company also stated that, despite "healthy" retention and
engagement, it only expected to add 2.5 million net subscribers
during first quarter 2022, below the 4.0 million net adds in the
prior year period.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $110.75, or 21.7%, to
close at $397.50 per share on January 21, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Then, on April 19, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported
that it lost 200,000 subscribers during the first quarter of 2022,
compared to prior guidance expecting the Company to add 2.5 million
net subscribers. The Company cited the slowing revenue growth to
four factors, including account sharing with an estimated 100
million additional households and competition with other streaming
services.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $122.42, or over 35%,
to close at $226.19 per share on April 20, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Netflix was exhibiting slower acquisition
growth due to, among other things, account sharing by customers and
increased competition from other streaming services; (2) that the
Company was experiencing difficulties retaining customers; (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was losing
subscribers on a net basis; (4) that, as a result, the Company's
financial results were being adversely affected; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Netflix common stock or call
options during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later
than July 5, 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]
NETFLIX INC: Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Mudit Chhikara, writing for Movieweb, reports that Netflix has
acquired Fantastic Beasts director David Yates' next film, Pain
Hustlers, for a staggering $50 million. Emily Blunt is attached to
star in the film, which is described as a conspiracy comedy-drama,
similar in tone to American Hustle, The Big Short, and The Wolf of
Wall Street.
The plot synopsis for Pain Hustlers (via Deadline) reads:
Although Pain Hustlers' premise is quite intriguing, is the film
really worth $50 million? Apparently, Netflix thinks so. Pain
Hustlers is Netflix's first major Cannes Film Market deal, and the
company does seem confident in the crime drama's chances of
success.
Interestingly, this news comes amid reports of Netflix facing
financial troubles due to overspending on content. Just a few days
ago, the streamer laid off more than 150 employees to counter
dwindling subscribers and slow revenue growth. And Netflix released
new guidelines for the staff, urging them to spend the consumers'
money wisely and leave the company if they find the content
offensive.
It is clear that the free rein Netflix gave to its employees
adversely affected the company's growth, and it is now trying to
make better long-term creative decisions. Netflix is also facing a
class-action lawsuit for similar reasons -- misleading shareholders
about subscriber growth.
Amidst so many setbacks and fan uproar over frequent cancellations
of TV shows, if Netflix is willing to put up $50 million for a
streaming exclusive crime comedy like Pain Hustlers, then the film
must be something truly special.
Pain Hustlers is written by acclaimed author Wells Tower. Lawrence
Grey is producing the film through his Grey Matter Productions
along with David Yates and Yvonne Walcott Yates' Wychwood Pictures.
Pain Hustlers doesn't have a release date yet but will commence
production in late August.
Pain Hustlers is set to film this August, and David Yates could be
occupied in post-production till next year. What impact will it
have on Warner Bros.' Wizarding World plans? Fantastic Beasts: The
Secrets of Dumbledore was released this April to mixed reviews and
massively underperformed at the box office. WB has previously
stated that the plans for the final two films in the Fantastic
Beasts series will depend on the reception of The Secrets of
Dumbledore. And with David Yates moving on to other projects after
being with the studio since 2007, it's apparent that WB is
reconsidering its Wizarding World universe.
But that doesn't mean the franchise is dead. Fans would be
delighted to know that the new Warner Bros. Discovery CEO, David
Zaslav, is looking to make more Harry Potter content for HBO Max.
As per the recent report by The Wall Street Journal, Zaslav will
meet with controversial author J.K. Rowling to further discuss the
matter. Hopefully, Yates will return for at least one last film to
satisfactorily conclude the Fantastic Beasts series.
As for Emily Blunt, she'll next appear alongside Cillian Murphy in
Christopher Nolan's period thriller Oppenheimer. She is also in
talks to return in Jungle Cruise 2 and A Quiet Place 3. [GN]
NISSAN NORTH: Court Junks Bids to Seal Class Cert Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Nissan North America, Inc.
Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-00843 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order denying the two motions
to seal related to the parties' class certification briefing.
The motion to certify class to which these motions pertain was
denied without prejudice to refiling when this case was
consolidated with Bereda, et al. v. Nissan North America, et al.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00098.
The motions to seal are denied without prejudice to refiling with
the renewed motion to certify class.
Because the Court has not ruled on the propriety of sealing these
documents, they shall remain under seal. This decision bears no
weight on the Court’s review of forthcoming motions to seal.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MUuG1L at no extra charge.[CC]
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INJECTION: Prieto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northern California
Injection Molding, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Fernando Prieto,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Northern
California Injection Molding, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2022-00319965-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
13, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Northern California Injection Molding, Inc. is a plastics company
based in Rancho Cordova, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361-5600
Phone: 805-270-7100
Fax: 805-270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: 818-609-0807
Fax: 818-609-0892
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Final OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN KENDALL,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS, INC., KEVIN C. TANG, MICHAEL HEARNE and JOHN
G. LEMKEY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01828-H-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting final approval of the proposed class action
settlement, which provides an aggregate recovery in the
form of the Settlement Amount of $12,750,000.00 as
documented within the Stipulation of Settlement dated
November 18, 2021;
2. certifying the Settlement Class; and
3. approving the Plan of Allocation.
Odonate is a pharmaceutical company. The company develops medicines
for the treatment of cancer. It offers product tesetaxel which is
orally administered chemotherapy agent that belongs to a class of
drugs known as taxanes, which are widely used in the treatment of
cancer.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z4fIlU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq.
Jennifer Banner Sobers, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
E-mail: mltuccillo@pomlaw.com
jbsobers@pomlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
OKTA INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on May 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Okta, Inc. ("Okta" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: OKTA) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Okta securities between March 5,
2021 and March 22, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until July 19, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Okta provides identity solutions for enterprises, small and
medium-sized businesses, universities, non-profits, and government
agencies in the U.S. and internationally. The Company offers a
variety of cybersecurity products and services. Following its
completed merger with Auth0, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Auth0"), on May 3, 2021 (the "Merger"), Okta began providing
additional Auth0 products related to cybersecurity and login
solutions.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had
inadequate cybersecurity controls; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems
were vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did
experience a data breach caused by a hacking group, which
potentially affected hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta
initially did not disclose and subsequently downplayed the severity
of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
likely to have a material negative impact on Okta's business,
financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On or around March 21, 2022, hackers known as LAPSUS$ posted
screenshots on their Telegram1 channel showing what they claimed
was Okta's internal company environment. Thereafter, on March 22,
2022, the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Defendant Todd
McKinnon ("McKinnon"), posted a statement on his Twitter account,
disclosing that, "[i]n late January 2022, Okta detected an attempt
to compromise the account of a third party customer support
engineer working for one of our subprocessors"; that "[t]he matter
was investigated and contained by the subprocessor"; that "[w]e
believe the screenshots shared online are connected to this January
event"; and that, "[b]ased on our investigation to date, there is
no evidence of ongoing malicious activity beyond the activity
detected in January."
On this news, Okta's stock price fell $2.98 per share, or 1.76%, to
close at $166.43 per share on March 22, 2022.
Later, on March 22, 2022, during after-market hours, in a statement
on Okta's website, the Company's Chief Security Officer ("CSO"),
Defendant David Bradbury ("Bradbury"), disclosed, inter alia, that
"[a]fter a thorough analysis of [the LAPSUS$] claims, we have
concluded that a small percentage of customers - approximately 2.5%
- have potentially been impacted and whose data may have been
viewed or acted upon."
Following Okta's updated statement, multiple news outlets reported
that hundreds of the Company's clients were potentially affected by
the January 2022 data breach. For example, on March 23, 2022, CNN
published an article entitled "Okta concedes hundreds of clients
could be affected by breach[,]" noting that, despite the Company's
statement that "a small percentage of customers - approximately
2.5% - have potentially been impacted[,]" the Company "has over
15,000 customers, according to its website." That same day, Reuters
and others published similar reports.
Separately, Okta was downgraded by Raymond James from "strong buy"
to "market perform," noting, among other things, that "[w]hile
partners were willing to trust Okta's track record, the handling of
its latest security incident adds to our mounting concerns."
Following Okta's after-market update and Raymond James downgrade,
the Company's stock price fell $17.88 per share, or 10.74%, to
close at $148.55 per share on March 23, 2022.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Okta shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
OKTA INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of July 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on May 23 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Okta, Inc. ("Okta" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OKTA). The class
action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Okta securities
between March 5, 2021 and March 22, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until
July 19, 2022 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/okta-submit-your-losses-class-action-news
There is no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate
cybersecurity controls; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems were
vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a
data breach caused by a hacking group, which potentially affected
hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose
and subsequently downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v)
all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on Okta's business, financial condition, and
reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Okta class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Okta class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead
plaintiff process please refer to
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
OKTA INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 31
disclosed that investors that purchased or otherwise acquired Okta,
Inc. OKTA securities between March 5, 2021 and March 22, 2022,
inclusive (the Class Period) have until July 19, 2022 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in, No. 22-cv-02990 (N.D. Cal.). The
class action lawsuit charges Okta and certain of its top executive
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-okta-inc-class-action-lawsuit-okta.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Okta provides identity solutions for enterprises,
small and medium-sized businesses, universities, non-profits, and
government agencies in the United States and internationally.
The class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate cybersecurity controls; (ii)
as a result, Okta's systems were vulnerable to data breaches; (iii)
Okta ultimately did experience a data breach caused by a hacking
group, which potentially affected hundreds of Okta customers; (iv)
Okta initially did not disclose and subsequently downplayed the
severity of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed,
was likely to have a material negative impact on Okta's business,
financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a result, Okta's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Okta
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. 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 class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone – more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world
and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
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 [GN]
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Maneatis
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maneatis v. Brown et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00286 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman
entered an order certifying two classes of plaintiffs in the Maney
class action:
-- the Damages Class, which includes all adults incarcerated
in Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) facilities who
were incarcerated on or after February 1, 2020, and while
incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed
with COVID-19 (and if they became incarcerated after
February 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise
diagnosed with COVID-19 at least 14 days after they
entered ODOC custody); and
-- the Wrongful Death Class.
However, the defendants in the Maney case are seeking to appeal the
Court's class certification opinion. In light of the further delay,
the Court lifts the stay of this action. The Court invites Maney
class counsel to appear in this case with Plaintiff's consent. The
parties shall submit a joint proposed case management schedule by
June 3, 2022, Judge Beckerman says.
This case was stayed pending resolution of a class certification
motion in a related case (Maney, et al. v. Brown et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-00570-SB).
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]
ORIGINAL VELATIS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Original Velatis,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Original Velatis, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04316 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Velatis -- https://www.velatis.com/ -- has been making small batch
gourmet handcrafted caramels since 1866.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
OSCAR HEALTH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 11 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the "Company")
(NYSE: OSCR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, and docketed under 22-cv-04103, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Oscar Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims against under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Oscar
Class A common stock, pursuant and/or traceable to the company's
IPO, you have until July 11, 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.
[Click here for information about joining the class action]
Oscar is a health insurance company that claims to be the first
such company "built around a full stack technology platform" which
will "allow [Oscar] to continue to innovate like a technology
company and not a traditional insurer."
On March 4, 2021, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which forms part of
the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 36,391,946
shares of Class A common stock at a price of $39.00 per share. The
Company received net proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion from
the Offering. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used
to repay in full outstanding borrowings, including fees and
expenses, under Oscar's Term Loan Facility ($167 million), and the
remainder proceeds were to be used for general corporate purposes.
The complaint alleges that, the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) that
Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and treatment
costs; (2) that Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3)
that Oscar would be negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior
year Risk Adjustment Data Validation ("RADV") result relating to
2019 and 2020; (4) that Oscar was on track to be negatively
impacted by significant Special Enrollment Period ("SEP")
membership growth; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On August 12, 2021, Oscar disclosed that the Company's Medical Loss
Ratio ("MLR") for the second quarter of 2021 was 82.4%, an increase
of 2170 basis points year-over year. The Company claimed that
"[t]he MLR increased to 82.4% in 2Q21 from 60.7% in 2Q20, primarily
driven by meaningfully lower utilization in 2Q20 as a result of
COVID-19, as well as higher COVID-19 testing and treatment costs
and a return to more normalized utilization in 2Q21." The Company
also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $73.1 million,
an increase of $32.1 million year-over-year.
On November 10, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its third quarter 2021
MLR increased 920 basis points year-over-year, to 99.7%. The
Company claimed that the MLR increase was "primarily driven by
higher net COVID costs as compared to the net benefit in 3Q20, an
unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV)
result, and the impact of significant SEP membership growth." The
Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $212.7
million, an increase of $133.6 million year-over-year.
During a conference call held the same day, Scott Blackley, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer, stated: "We recognized
approximately $20 million of risk adjustment expense this quarter
related to our risk adjustment data validation audit or RADV
results. The RADV exercise is atypical this year due to COVID. It
spans two years, 2019 and 2020. The majority of the RADV headwinds
relate to the 2019 audit results, which were recently completed."
On this news, Oscar's share price fell $4.05 per share, or 24.5%,
to close at 12.47 per share on November 11, 2021.
By the commencement of this action, Oscar stock has traded as low
as $5.47 per share, a nearly 86% decline from the $39.00 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]
OSCAR HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSCR)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering"), of the important July 11, 2022 lead
plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Oscar securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement 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 Oscar class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6200 or 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 July 11, 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. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the Registration
Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state
that: (1) Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and
treatment costs; (2) Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID-19
costs; (3) Oscar would be negatively impacted by an unfavorable
prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result relating
to 2019 and 2020; (4) Oscar was on track to be negatively impacted
by significant Special Enrollment Period (SEP) membership growth;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Oscar's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Oscar class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6200 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
OSCAR HEALTH: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 11 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Attention Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar") (NYSE: OSCR) shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 23 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Oscar Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's March 2021 initial public offering.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Oscar, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/oscar-health-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27520&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Oscar includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Oscar was
experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and treatment costs; (2)
Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3) Oscar would be
negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment
Data Validation result relating to 2019 and 2020; (4) Oscar was on
track to be negatively impacted by significant SEP membership
growth; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
DEADLINE: July 11, 2022
Aggrieved Oscar investors only have until July 11, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
OWENS CORNING: Newhouse Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARCELL NEWHOUSE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. OWENS CORNING INSULATING SYSTEMS, LLC;
OWENS CORNING SALES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 22CV397048, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on May 26, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-03108 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
Owens Corning Insulating Systems, LLC is a provider of insulation
services, headquartered in Ohio.
Owens Corning Sales, LLC is a manufacturer of non-wood building
materials, headquartered in Ohio. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
Tiffany Phan, Esq.
Nasim Khansari, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: cconway@gibsondunn.com
tphan@gibsondunn.com
nkhansari@gibsondunn.com
PAN-O-GOLD BAKING: Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZIZA NELSON, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. PAN-O-GOLD BAKING
COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00125-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference order
as follows:
1. Amendments to the pleadings: July 1, 2022
2. The Plaintiff's motion for September 26, 2022
preliminary certification of
the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) class:
3. Motion & Brief To Certify April 3, 2023
Classes:
4. Disclosure of liability experts
Plaintiffs: May 15, 2023
Defendants: June 29, 2023
5. Deadline for filing dispositive September 15, 2023
motions:
6. Disclosure of damages experts
Plaintiffs: November 1, 2023
Defendants: December 15, 2023
7. Discovery Cutoff: January 22, 2024
8. Settlement Letters: January 22, 2024
9. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and February 9, 2024
all motions in limine:
10. Objections: February 23, 2024
11. Final Pretrial Conference: March 5, 2024
12. Trial: March 18, 2024
Pan-O-Gold Baking Company is a food production company offering
bread, buns, bagels, muffins, donuts, and rolls.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z4YPY8 at no extra charge.[CC]
PARK MANAGEMENT: Settlement Deal Entered Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that in January
2022, the parties in a February 21, 2020 complaint filed against
Park Management Corp. (operating as Six Flags Discovery Kingdom) in
the Superior Court of Solano County, California, on behalf of a
purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags
Discovery Kingdom, have entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the lawsuit. The settlement is subject to preliminary and
final approval by the court.
Said complaint alleges violations of California law governing
payment of wages, wage statements, and background checks, and seeks
statutory damages under federal and California law and attorneys'
fees and costs.
Six Flags own and operate regional theme parks and waterparks.
PEABODY ENERGY: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Peabody Energy Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08024-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge P Kevin Castel entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be December 9, 2022
completed no later than:
-- Interrogatories to be served by: November 9, 2022
-- Depositions to be completed by: December 9, 2022
-- Requests to Admit to be served November 9, 2022
no later than:
-- The next Case Management February 13, 2023
Conference is scheduled for:
Peabody Energy is a coal mining and energy company headquartered in
St. Louis, Missouri. Its primary business consists of the mining,
sale, and distribution of coal, which is purchased for use in
electricity generation and steelmaking.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PGVX9T at no extra charge.[CC]
PLACE FOR ROVER: Rainey Suit Ongoing in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Rover Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 12, 2022, that on October 26, 2021, a pet care
provider filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, captioned "Claire Rainey
v. A Place for Rover, Inc., alleging that the company misclassified
pet care providers in California as independent contractors in
violation of the California Labor Code, and alleged various wage
and hour claims under the California Labor Code and unfair
competition claims under the Business and Professions Code.
The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
civil penalties, attorney's fees, and other forms of relief. On
January 19, 2022, the Company removed the class action to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, where it is
now pending.
In January 21, 2022, the same plaintiff filed a representative
action under PAGA in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, captioned "Claire Rainey v. A Place for Rover, Inc.,"
alleging the same. The plaintiff is seeking civil penalties under
PAGA, attorney's fees, and other forms of relief.
In March 18, 2022, the company removed the PAGA lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, where it is
now pending.
Rover Group, Inc. (formerly known as Nebula Caravel Acquisition
Corp.) and its wholly owned subsidiaries is headquartered in
Seattle, Washington, with offices in Spokane, Washington and
internationally in Barcelona, Spain. It provides an online
marketplace and other related tools, support and services that pet
parents and pet care providers can use to find, communicate with,
and interact with each other.
POWER PARAGON: Class Cert Filing Deadline Continued to August 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK BURNS in his
individual and representative capacities, v. POWER PARAGON, INC.
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-01452-CJC-JDE
(C.D. Custal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order
that the scheduling order is amended as follows:
The deadline for Plaintiff to file and have heard any class
certification motion is continued to August 15, 2022.
Power Paragon provides engineering, development, manufacture, and
integration of power conversion and distribution systems.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NYx3kD at no extra charge.[CC]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Theodore Shareholder Suit in NY Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (PCT) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that a class action
complaint was filed against PCT, certain senior members of
management and others, asserting violations of federal securities
laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint generally alleges that the applicable defendants made
false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public
filings regarding its technology, PCT's business and PCT's
prospects. Said complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida by William C. Theodore.
In July 14, 2021, the court granted a motion to consolidate said
suit. The consolidated amended complaint seeks to represent a class
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PCT's securities
between November 16, 2020, and May 5, 2021, certification of the
alleged class, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. is a Florida-based corporation focused
on commercializing a patented purification recycling technology for
restoring waste polypropylene into resin.
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Han Shareholder Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (PCT) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that in November 3, 2021,
Byung-Gook Han, a purported PCT shareholder, derivatively and
purportedly on behalf of PCT, filed a shareholder derivative action
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
captioned "Byung-Gook Han v. Otworth et. al.," Case No.
1:21-cv-01569-UNA against certain senior members of PCT's
management and PCT's directors. The suit is currently stayed
administratively closed.
Said case alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and breaches of fiduciary duties and bringing claims for unjust
enrichment and waste of corporate assets. Han's derivative suit
generally alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements in press releases, webinars and other public
filings regarding its technology, PCT's business and PCT's
prospects. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, reform of the
company's corporate governance and internal procedures, unspecified
restitution from the Individual Han Defendants, and costs and fees
associated with bringing the action.
On January 19, 2022, the court in the Han Derivative Suit granted
the parties' joint stipulation to stay the suit and
administratively closed the matter pending the disposition of the
motions to dismiss in the other pending class action lawsuits.
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Tennenbaum Shareholder Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (PCT) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that a class action
complaint filed against PCT, certain senior members of management
and others, asserting violations of federal securities laws under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act was voluntarily
dismissed.
The complaint generally alleges that the applicable defendants made
false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public
filings regarding its technology, PCT's business and PCT's
prospects. Said complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida by David Tennenbaum against PCT,
certain senior members of management.
In July 14, 2021, the court granted a motion to consolidate the
Class Action Lawsuits and on July 27, 2021, Tennenbaum filed a
motion to voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. is a Florida-based corporation focused
on commercializing a patented purification recycling technology for
restoring waste polypropylene into resin.
RANGERS FOOTBALL: Faces Class Action Over Cinch Branding Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Indycelts reports that the Rangers refusal to show the branding of
Cinch at Premiership matches had SPFL clubs on the brink of a class
action against the 10 year old club the below report in The Times
has stated.
Had the Ibrox club won the Premiership it would have proved to be a
"stress point" which could have seen the deal between Cinch and the
entire Scottish pyramid torn up leaving clubs without much needed
finance.
This would have lead to the shortfall being met by TRFC who were
the club in breach of the deal with the entire league.
The deal with Cinch goes for another 4 years, if they do not comply
this means that should The Rangers win a premiership title, Cinch
will withhold monies or worse still, tear up the deal.
This means a Old Firm win equals a court date and damages, or even
worse, the loss of the league sponsor and a court date and
damages.
Their self interest with relation to Douglas Parks used car selling
firm is a complete joke, they simply must comply.
The sponsorship deal is paid in increments, with the next tranche
due "in the next 2 to 3 weeks" if this isn't paid as Cinch can
withhold it by rights as one particular club is in breach, "it will
leave a major hole in their (clubs) finances."
Watch this one going forward, Sevco may well find themselves in
court against 41 clubs, if it were any other club in the pyramid we
would all be against them already. [GN]
ROGERS ELECTRICAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Walker Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul J. Walker v. Lin R.
Rogers Electrical Contractors, et al., Case No.
8:22-cv-00408-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney
entered an scheduling order as follows:
1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
completed by February 9, 2023. Discovery motions must be
filed and heard prior to this date.
2. The parties shall have until April 10, 2023 to file and
have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
amend the pleadings.
3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, June 12,
2023 at 03:00 PM.
4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, June 20, 2023
at 08:30 AM.
5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 – Private
Mediation.
6. The parties shall have until February 23, 2023 to conduct
settlement proceedings.
7. The parties shall file with the Court a Joint Status
Report no later than five days after the ADR proceeding is
completed advising the Court of their settlement efforts
and status.
8. The Plaintiff shall have until September 12, 2022 to file
and have heard any class certification motion.
Lin R. Rogers Electrical Contractors, Inc. provides electrical,
lighting, and technology contracting services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lQt7pN at no extra charge.[CC]
RTC ENTERPRISES: Hunter Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RTC Enterprises, Inc.
The case is styled as Samuel Hunter, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. RTC Enterprises, Inc., Case No.
2022-30709-CICI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., May 13, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Discrimination, Employment or Other."
RTC Enterprises Inc. is located in Elizabeth City, North Carolina
and is part of the Nondepository Credit Intermediation
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN P A
20 N Orange Ave. 14th Floor
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Sept. 9 Filing of Class Cert Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE DEMARTINI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., an Ohio Corporation, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-05952-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
stipulate as follows.
a. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will be
filed by September 9, 2022 (currently set for June 24,
2022).
b. The Defendant's Opposition due by October 28, 2022
(currently set for August 5, 2022).
c. The Plaintiff's Reply due by December 2, 2022 (currently
set for September 2, 2022).
d. Hearing on Motion for Class Certification on or about
December 16, 2022 (currently set for October 7, 2022) or
a date thereafter that is convenient for the Court.
Safelite was founded in 2004. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of paint, glass, and wallpaper.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NEbzt6 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff Marie Demartini, are:
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: christina@ jameshawkinsaplc.com
james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
The Attorneys for Plaintiff Willie Austin Jr., are:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Piya Mukherjee, Esq.
Victoria Rivaplacio, Esq.
Charlotte E. James, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com
kyle@bamlawca.com
aj@bamlawca.com
aj@bamlawca.com
piya@bamlawca.com
victoria@bamlawca.com
charlotte@bamlawca.com
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Leah Cameron, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 981-3233
Facsimile: (415) 981-3246
E-Mail: lcameron@cdflaborlaw.com
- and -
Daneil J. Clark, Esq.
Michael J. Shoenfelt, Esq.
Amanda M. Miggo, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008
Columbus, OH 43216-1008
Telephone: (614) 464-5497
Facsimile: (614) 719-4760
E-mail: DJClark@vorys.com
MJShoenfelt@vorys.com
ammiggo@vorys.com
SANTANDER BANK: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL SANCHEZ, SHAUNSEY JACKSON, MICHELLE ROMANO, JONI HENDERSON,
RABIA AHMED, ANDREA BLANCHARD, PEARL MONTEIRO, and PETER SANO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A., a subsidiary of Santander
Holdings USA, Inc.; GHOUS AGHA; KRISTEN RIMEK; and NADIA JOSEPH;
JOHN & JANE DOE 1-10; XYZ CORPORATION (1-10), Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-05775 (D.N.J., May 26, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and wage-and-hour laws in
various states in the U.S., unjust enrichment, sex and disability
discrimination, violation of New Jersey's Conscientious Employee
Protection Act, retaliation, fraudulent inducement and promissory
estoppel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as branch operations
managers.
Santander Bank, N.A., a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.,
is a banking firm with its principal executive offices located at
75 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephan T. Mashel, Esq.
MASHEL LAW, LLC
500 Campus Drive, Suite 303
Morganville, NJ 07751
Telephone: (732) 536-6161
Facsimile: (732) 536-6165
E-mail: smashel@mashellaw.com
- and –
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Hwy N. Ste. 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
SANTANDER SECURITIES: Dismissal of All Ponsa-Rabell Claims Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORGE PONSA-RABELL; CARINA PEREZ-CISNEROS ARMENTEROS;
MARILU CADILLA-REBOLLEDO, by herself and on behalf of her
children's accounts, Plaintiffs, Appellants, YGRC MINOR CHILD; CIRC
MINOR CHILD Plaintiffs v. SANTANDER SECURITIES LLC; SANTANDER
BANCORP; SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.; BANCO SANTANDER PUERTO RICO;
BANCO SANTANDER, S.A., Defendants, Appellees, Case No. 20-1857 (1st
Cir.), the U.S. States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
affirms the district court's adoption of the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissal of all
claims.
I. Introduction
Before the First Circuit is a dispute between brokerage customers
of Santander, who, lacking a crystal ball, purchased special Puerto
Rico securities during a recession in Puerto Rico, but before the
crash of the bond market. These purchasers (the "Ponsa-Rabell
Plaintiffs" or "Plaintiffs") brought a securities class action
against Santander asserting claims under federal securities laws
and Puerto Rico law. The district court adopted the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing all claims. On
appeal, the Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs dispute only the federal
securities claims (more on that later).
II. Background
The Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs purchased Puerto Rico Municipal Bonds
(PRMBs) and other securities heavily concentrated in PRMBs,
including Puerto Rico Closed End Funds (PRCEFs) and Puerto Rico
Open End Funds (PROEFs) (the "PRMB securities") from Dec. 1, 2012,
to Oct. 31, 2013. PRMBs are bonds used by the Puerto Rican
government to finance their "commercial operations." The buyers of
the PRMBs loan the issuer money in exchange for a set number of
interest payments. The issuers guarantee payment of the monthly
yield and principal by a certain maturity date.
The PRMB securities were marketed to the public through
prospectuses that were specific to each fund. The prospectuses
(also called offering statements or official statements) disclosed
the fund's investment objectives, risk factors, and tax
consequences, among other useful information. Relevant to this
dispute, these prospectuses included specific sections that clearly
described the investment risks attendant to investment in each
particular fund. Despite the potential risks, the PRMB securities
were attractive investments for Puerto Rico residents for some
years, as they generally offered higher interest than comparable
investments and were exempt from Puerto Rico and U.S. income and
estate taxes.
Prior to and throughout the Class Period, Puerto Rico was
experiencing an economic recession. Given the nature of the PRMB
securities, investing in them during a recession was risky. As of
December 2012, the PRMB securities' funds were highly concentrated
in PRMBs and highly leveraged. This is because during the
recession, Puerto Rico issued billions of dollars in PRMB
securities, which it used to pay off existing debts, or as the
complaint complains, used "debt to pay debt." The sales of PRMB
securities were not used to help stimulate (or in this case,
revive) the Puerto Rican economy "or alleviate its social needs."
During the Class Period, Puerto Rico's deficit increased to
approximately $2.2 billion, and eventually, those debts became
unpayable.
In 2012, various public sources began issuing warnings about the
increasing risks attendant to holding PRMB securities. As previewed
by these public statements on the overall infirmity of the Puerto
Rico economy in 2012 and 2013, so too was the municipal bond market
suffering, exemplified by a period of heightened volatility, rising
yields, and downward pressure on the price of PRMBs. The bond
market eventually crashed in the fall of 2013, resulting in
financial losses for all those who invested in PRMB securities.
Because Santander knew that the PRMB securities were risky, it
actively tried to rid itself of its inventory. When Moody's
downgraded Puerto Rico's GO rating to Baa3 (i.e., basically junk
bond status), Santander began reducing its PRMB securities
inventory at a more rapid clip because of its concern of risk
exposure given the direction of the market. While Santander was
ridding itself of PRMB securities, it was also selling them to the
Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs.
By October of 2013, the market for PRMB securities had crashed. In
the meantime, Santander managed to reduce its PRMB inventory from
$35 million to $105,000, and its PRCEF inventory from $9.2 million
to $6.8 million. The Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs weren't as lucky, and
suffered severe economic losses following the crash. Their
complaint alleges that had the risks of investing in the PRMB
securities been disclosed by Santander, they would have never
purchased PRMB securities. Santander replies that all risks were
adequately disclosed to the Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs by Santander,
and that the investment risks they complain of were generally known
to the public.
Four years after the bond market crashed, the Ponsa-Rabell
Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint against Santander. They
have amended their complaint a few times, leaving the First Circuit
with what they style the Third Amended Complaint (the "complaint").
In broad strokes, the complaint alleges that Santander devised a
"scheme to defraud" investors into purchasing the PRMB securities
by omitting information about the state of the market (and thus the
riskiness of the investment), and about its own program to rid
itself of PRMB securities, in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 of the Exchange Act of 1934 (the "securities claims").
In addition to the securities claims, the Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs
also brought claims under Section 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act
and Puerto Rico law.3 Santander moved to dismiss the complaint, and
the magistrate judge recommended dismissal. They filed objections
to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, Santander
responded in turn, and the district court adopted the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety, dismissing the federal law claims
with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice, entering
judgment. A notice of appeal timely followed.
III. Analysis
At issue are the Ponsa-Rabell Paintiffs' federal securities claims
under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act of 1934. To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.'
In their complaint, the Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs plead that there
were allegedly material omissions (rather than any affirmative
misrepresentations on the part of Santander). In their blue brief,
the Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs take up lots of pages trying get past
the go. Through the use of a nifty chart, they identify two
disclosures contained in a fund prospectus generated when the fund
was initially offered, which they contend are fatally defective
because of information Santander omitted.
The disclosures read first: "there is no Assurance that a Secondary
Market for the Offered Bonds will Develop" and second "the
Underwriters are not obligated to do so meaning to guarantee a
secondary market and any such market making may be discontinued at
any time at the sole discretion of the Underwriters." These two
statements are misleading, the Plaintiffs contend, in light of
Santander's failure to disclose a couple of material facts which
they say were necessary in order to make what facts Santander did
disclose not misleading, to wit, the deteriorating market
conditions in Puerto Rico and Santander's economic take on those
conditions, and second, Santander's failure to disclose that they
were ridding their own inventory of PRMB securities and doing so at
an accelerated pace.
The two statements Santander did disclose are misleading in light
of the alleged omissions, say the Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs, because,
in a nutshell, (1) they were made prior to Santander reducing their
PRMB inventory; (2) they were not made at the time they purchased
the securities during Class Period; and (3) even if the information
that was omitted was public, it did not relieve Santander of its
duty to disclose the information to them at the point of purchase.
In other words, the First Circuit takes the Plaintiffs' argument to
mean that Santander was under an ongoing obligation to update its
prospectuses with the information they allege was material (and
omitted). Taking the two alleged omissions one by one, the First
Circuit starts with the Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs' claim that
Santander should have disclosed to them information regarding the
deteriorating market conditions for Puerto Rico bonds.
Unfortunately, their contention is not in line with the First
Circuit's precedent -- it is not a material omission to fail to
point out information of which the market is already aware --
citing Baron v. Smith, 380 F.3d 49, 57 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing In
re Donald Trump Casino Sec. Litig., 7 F.3d 357, 377 (3d Cir.
1993)). Indeed, the Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs' own complaint points
to public statements about the deteriorating economy in Puerto
Rico, quoted supra. The case law is clear. Santander was simply not
under any duty to repeat information already known or readily
accessible to investors.
The second alleged omission relates to Santander failing to
disclose that it was ridding itself of PRMB securities. They argue
that "if the risks were material enough for Santander to divest
itself of those securities, they certainly were material enough for
it to have a duty to disclose those risks to the Plaintiffs at the
time of the purchases."
Upon a diligent search of the Plaintiffs' complaint, the First
Circuit has found no allegations of a special relationship, or any
particularized investment instructions the Plaintiffs may have
given Santander, that would support a duty to disclose the
allegedly omitted information pled by the Ponsa-Rabell Plaintiffs.
The magistrate judge so eloquently observed in his Report and
Recommendation, that the Plaintiffs have not described specific
statements by the Defendants that they wish to challenge.
Because it concludes there is no actionable omission, the First
Circuit has no need to address the remaining scienter dispute.
IV. Conclusion
Spying no error with the district court's conclusion, and reviewing
for itself with fresh eyes, the First Circuit affirms. Each party
will bear its own costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/37fwd86n from Leagle.com.
Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan -- QuetglasLaw@gmail.com -- with whom Jose
F. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Offices, and Quetglas Law Firm,
P.S.C. were on brief, for the Appellants.
Francesca Eva Brody -- FBRODY@SIDLEY.COM -- with whom Andrew W.
Stern, Nicholas P. Crowell, James O. Heywort, Sidley Austin LLP,
Nestor M. Mendez, Jason R. Aguilo Suro, and Pietrantoni Mendez &
Alvarez LLC were on brief, for the Appellees.
SBS AMERICAS INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SBS Americas Inc. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SBS Americas Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04309 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SBS Americas Inc. is a Domestic Business Corporation located in New
York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SEATTLE, WA: Judge Denies Class Certification in CHOP Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Hill Seattle reports that a legal bid that could have added
hundreds of Capitol Hill residents and businesses to the federal
lawsuit against the City of Seattle over "deliberate indifference"
in its response to the CHOP occupied protest zone in the summer of
2020 has been denied.
Meanwhile, a handful of Pike/Pine and 12th Ave small businesses
that had been part of the suit have dropped out as it continues
into its third year of litigation seeking damages from the city
over the protest zone.
In a ruling earlier in May, a U.S. District Court judge denied the
effort at class certification in the CHOP lawsuit, rejecting
arguments from plaintiffs that people living and doing business in
a 16-block area near the unrest amid dangerous clashes between
campers, demonstrators, and police in the protest zone should be
eligible to join the potentially multi-million dollar suit.
Judge Thomas Zilly ruled the lawsuit does not meet the requirements
for a class action because of the specific damages to each
plaintiff.
"Plaintiffs in this case claim they were subject to diverse harms
(violence, vandalism, harassment, blocked streets and sidewalks,
excessive noise, and reduced business revenue) caused by the City's
actions, or inaction, in relation to CHOP," Zilly writes, noting
that cases of class action precedent include plaintiffs alleging
the same "unlawful harm" like "mass arrest without probable cause,"
for example.
Former Mayor Jenny Durkan's missing text messages from the period
continue to loom in the background of the case.
Lawyers for the mix of Capitol Hill real estate developers,
property owners, and small businesses argued that revelations from
earlier this year around missing texts from city leaders including
then SPD Chief Carmen Best, Seattle Fire Chief Harold Scoggins, and
Durkan justify class action status in the lawsuit given potential
damages to a wide swath of Seattle citizens.
Zilly said he agreed that the allegations around the texts "are
certainly troubling, and will no doubt be the subject of future
motion practice," citing details from the plaintiffs about the
flimsy excuse for the missing messages -- they mayor's phone was
allegedly dropped into water:
When Plaintiffs spoke with City technicians who were involved in
managing the Mayor's phone, the technicians indicated that Mayor
Durkan never informed them that she dropped her phone into the
water. The technicians also indicated that they could have
recovered her text messages had Mayor Durkan informed them of the
issue at or near the time that the text messages went missing.
But Zilly disagreed that the issue qualified the CHOP lawsuit for
class action status.
The summer 2020 lawsuit was filed as the CHOP camp was still
occupied, led by Capitol Hill-based developer Hunters Capital and a
group of real estate and business plaintiffs seeking to be
determined financial damages for a group of businesses in the
Pike/Pine and 12th Ave areas around the camp and protest zone. The
list of plaintiffs grew to including developers Hunters Capital,
Redside Partners and Madrona Real Estate, businesses Cafe Argento,
Northwest Liquor, Bergman's Lock and Key, Car Tender, Tattoos and
Fortune, Sage Physical Therapy, Richmark Label, and property owners
including Onyx Homeowners Association as well as a handful of
individual residents. After CHOP's clearance, E Pine's Rancho
Bravo, 12th and Pike's Sway and Cake boutique, and Nagle's Cure
cocktail bar joined the roster.
Now in its third year of litigation, a handful of small businesses
including Rancho Bravo, Sage Physical Therapy, the liquor shop, and
Cafe Argento, the 12th Ave coffee shop the New York Times featured
in its August 2020 profile on the case, have since dropped out of
the lawsuit.
Others including Car Tender and Bergman's Lock and Key have moved
from the neighborhood or gone out of business.
Both the city and the plaintiffs have agreed to seal many documents
in the case due to concerns about confidentiality around
information around financial losses and building rents included in
the arguments. The city's response to fight the effort to certify
the class action has also been sealed over confidentiality
concerns. It's not known how large a pool of damage and financial
losses is being alleged.
The remaining plaintiffs including Hunters Capital and the other
real estate concerns plus businesses Richmark Label, Sway and Cake,
and Cure, since moved to 15th and Pine, must now decide how to
proceed in the case.
The protest zone formed in early June 2020 around the evacuation of
police from the East Precinct building and the barriers at 12th and
Pine and in Cal Anderson amid ongoing Black Lives Matter protests
and marches. The early events were recognized as a center of
protest and also for art and community even as there were reports
of open-carry enthusiasts joining the crowds and a regular presence
of armed sentries posted around the area as part of camp security.
The city worked out a new layout plan with protesters to better
open the area to traffic and emergency vehicles but there was
growing unease about Seattle Police's limited presence in the zone
around 11th and Pine and Cal Anderson Park. For weeks, Seattle
Police refused to respond to calls in the volatile area and reports
of property damage, graffiti, and theft in the area exploded.
The presence of armed campers and security volunteers and the
shooting deaths of two teenagers eventually led to the July 1st
order for police to raid and sweep the protest zone and clear the
camp.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that the city exhibited
"deliberate indifference" in its policies and response to the
protests and camps on Capitol Hill, saying City Hall "acted with
full knowledge that its actions would and did harm residents,
business owners, and property owners."
"The City was inundated with formal and informal complaints,
lawsuits, and tort claims, and the City repeatedly acknowledged
that its actions caused crime and vandalism to increase in the
area," the lawyers at firm Calfo Eakes write. "Yet the City let the
situation exist for nearly a month before it finally decided to
cease its support for CHOP."
Under former City Attorney Pete Holmes, the city's defense
maintained that a case seeking damages against Seattle City Hall
"require allegations that the government directly caused harm."
"Here, while City officials were unmistakably supportive of
peaceful protected speech and seriously concerned about
accompanying criminal activity, even had they exhibited the total
nonchalance about CHOP activities which Plaintiffs' claim,
"[a]ction taken by private entities with the mere approval or
acquiescence of the State is not state action," Holmes wrote in
2020.
New City Attorney Ann Davison is now leading the city's response in
the suit. [GN]
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Cates Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siemens Industry,
Inc. The case is styled as Patrick Cates, Bryan Butakis, Nels
Gordon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01914-MHC (N.D. Ga., May
13, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.
Siemens AG -- https://www.siemens.com/ -- is a German multinational
conglomerate corporation and the largest industrial manufacturing
company in Europe headquartered in Munich with branch offices
abroad.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (770) 444-0773
Email: adam@webbllc.com
flemond@webbllc.com
- and -
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Lori G. Kier, Esq.
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Ave
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (610) 200-0583
Email: jbk@sstriallawyers.com
mds@sstriallawyers.com
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
MCCUNE, WRIGHT LLP
555 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (610) 200-0580
SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that it is
facing a consolidated securities class action complaint currently
on appeal in the Fifth Circuit filed against the company and
certain of its former executive officers.
The two initial cases were consolidated in an action captioned
"Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six Flags
Entertainment Corp., et al.," Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (March 2,
2020, N.D. Tex.) and an amended complaint was filed on March 20,
2020.
In May 8, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. were
appointed as lead plaintiffs, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP was appointed as lead counsel, and McKool Smith PC was
appointed as liaison counsel. In July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants made materially false or
misleading statements or omissions regarding the company's
business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with
respect to the development of its Six Flags branded parks in China
and the financial health of its former partner, Riverside
Investment Group Co. Ltd., in violation of the federal securities
laws. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages and
other relief on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of its
publicly traded common stock during the period between April 24,
2018 and February 19, 2020.
In August 3, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On March 3, 2021, the district court
granted defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint in its
entirety and with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend or
set aside judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint on
March 31, 2021, which the district court denied on July 26, 2021.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief on
June 17, 2021, which the district court denied on June 18, 2021.
On August 25, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the district court's
decisions granting defendants' motion to dismiss, denying
plaintiffs' motion to amend or set aside judgment, and denying
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental brief.
Plaintiffs' appeal is captioned "Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Ret. Sys. v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., et al.," Case No. 21-10865 (5th
Cir.). The appeal is fully briefed and oral argument was held on
March 7, 2022.
Six Flags own and operate regional theme parks and waterparks.
SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Deal Reached in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that the
parties in a complaint filed against the company and Six Flags
Concord, LLC in the Superior Court of Solano County, California on
April 20, 2018, on behalf of a purported class of current and
former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom have entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit and the court granted
preliminary approval on March 30, 2022.
The complaint alleges violations of California law governing, among
other things, employee overtime, meal and rest breaks, wage
statements, and seeks damages in the form of unpaid wages and
related penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Six Flags own and operate regional theme parks and waterparks.
SLEEP NUMBER: Schammas and Steamfitters Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security
Funds, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Sleep Number Corporation; Shelly R. Ibach; and David
R. Callen, Defendants, and Ricardo Dario Schammas, Movant, Case No.
21-2669 (PJS/BRT) (D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issues an
order granting in part and denying in part:
a. Ricardo Dario Schammas' Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and for Approval of Lead and Liaison Counsel; and
b. Steamfitters' requests that it be made a co-lead plaintiff
with Schammas if the Court decides to appoint him.
I. Background
On Dec. 14, 2021, Plaintiff Steamfitters filed a securities class
action against Sleep Number and certain senior executives under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. Steamfitters alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements, which
eventually led to Steamfitters and other class members who
purchased common stock in Sleep Number between Feb. 18, 2021 and
July 20, 2021, to suffer "significant losses and damages for which
they seek redress."
The same day it filed its Complaint, Steamfitters, pursuant to
Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the PSLRA, published a notice announcing
the action had been filed against the Defendants and advised
investors in Sleep Number securities that they had sixty days to
file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff.
Pursuant to Steamfitters's notice, Schammas (who purchased Sleep
Number securities during the Class Period) filed his motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff. In his motion, Schammas makes two
requests. First, he asks the Court to appoint him as lead plaintiff
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Sleep Number between Feb. 18, 2021 and July 20, 2021.
Second, he requests the Court approves his selection of Pomerantz
LLP as lead counsel and Forsgren Fisher McCalmont DeMarea Tysver
LLP as liaison counsel. Steamfitters opposes.
II. Analysis
A. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
The first question presented to the Court is who should be
appointed lead plaintiff in the litigation. On the one hand,
Schammas argues that he should be appointed lead plaintiff because
he has the largest financial interest in the outcome of the
litigation and satisfies the requirements of typicality and
adequacy of representation under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. On the other hand, Steamfitters argues it should
be the lead plaintiff because, even though Schammas may have
"suffered a numerically larger loss," the difference in loss is
"minimal" and that, as an institutional investor, it is the
"paradigmatic lead plaintiff candidate.
Judge Thorson finds that Schammas meets the PSLRA's three
presumption requirements under 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I), and that the PSLRA's preference for
institutional investors does not supplant the PSLRA's presumption
requirements. Accordingly, Schammas is presumptively the most
adequate lead plaintiff.
Having found Schammas is presumptively the most adequate lead
plaintiff, the burden lies with Steamfitters to rebut Schammas'
presumptive status by offering proof that Schammas "(aa) will not
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; or (bb)
is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable
of adequately representing the class."
Judge Thorson finds that Steamfitters has offered speculations and
concerns, which does not satisfy its burden to offer proof that
Schammas is an inadequate representative of the class. Thus,
Schammas is eligible for appointment as a lead plaintiff.
In the alternative, Steamfitters seeks to join Schammas as a
co-lead plaintiff if this Court should appoint Schammas. Judge
Thorson holds that the appointment of co-lead plaintiffs in the
case will offer several benefits. The "different perspectives" that
Schammas and Steamfitters bring as individual and institutional
investors "will materially add to the overall quality of lead
representation in the case." Schammas and Steamfitters can "pool
financial resources, knowledge and experiences" and "reap the
'benefits of joint decision-making' when pressed with difficult
choices that may arise in such large litigation matters." A co-lead
plaintiff structure will "help to ensure that adequate resources
and experience are available to the prospective class in the
prosecution" of the class action.
In sum, the appointment of an individual investor and institutional
investor as co-plaintiffs will ensure adequate representation of
the class. Accordingly, Judge Thorson appoints Schammas and
Steamfitters as co-lead plaintiffs.
B. Appointment of Counsel
Having selected the most adequate plaintiffs, the next step under
the PSLRA is for the "most adequate plaintiffs" to "select and
retain counsel to represent the class," subject to approval by the
court. In the case, the appointed co-lead plaintiffs seek approval
of their selection of the law firms Pomerantz LLP (for Schammas)
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (for Steamfitters) to serve as
lead counsel.
Judge Thorson approves the appointment of Pomerantz LLP and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-lead counsel "provided that there is
no duplication of attorney's services, and the use of co-lead
counsel does not in any way increase attorneys' fees and expenses."
In addition, she recognizes that both local law firms are eminently
qualified, and they will be appointed to serve as Liaison Counsel.
However, since it is unclear how the Liaison Counsel will serve,
other than as each lead plaintiff's local counsel, the Lead Counsel
for the co-lead plaintiffs must meet and confer to better define
the role of their respective local counsel as Liaison Counsel to
ensure no duplication of work.
III. Order
Therefore, based on the file, records, and submissions therein,
Judge Thorson grants in part and denies in part Schammas' Motion
for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of Lead and
Liaison Counsel. She appoints Schammas and Steamfitters as co-lead
plaintiffs. The respective selection of Lead Counsel and Liaison
Counsel is approved, provided no work is duplicated. The Lead
Counsel will meet within 14 days following the Order to define the
roles of their Liaison Counsel (in addition to local counsel) to
ensure that there is no duplication of work.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yaeduach from Leagle.com.
Brian Cochran, Esq. -- bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, LLP; Francis Paul McConville, Esq. --
fmcconville@labaton.com --Labaton Sucharow LLP; and Karen Hanson
Riebel, Esq., Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, counsel for the
Plaintiff.
Bret A. Puls, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, John A. Neuwirth, Esq., and
Stefania Di Trolio Venezia, Esq. -- stefania.venezia@weil.com --
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, counsel for the Defendants.
Michael Grunfeld, Esq. -- mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com -- Joseph Alexander
Hood, II, Esq., and Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq., Pomerantz LLP;
Robert J. Gilbertson, Esq., Matthew D. Forsgren --
mforsgren@forsgrenfisher.com -- Forsgren Fisher McCalmont DeMarea
Tysver LLP, and Peretz Bronstein, Esq. -- peretz@bgandg.com --
Bronstein, Gerwitz & Grossman, LLC (NY), counsel for the Movant.
SNAPCHAT INC: Faces Class Action Over Illinois BIPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Polarbear reports that two Illinois residents allege in a new
lawsuit that Snapchat is violating a state privacy law by scanning
and storing faceprints. On May 11, attorney James C. Vlahakis, of
the Sulaiman Law Group, of suburban Lombard, filed suit in Chicago
federal court against Snap Inc. The class-action lawsuit was filed
on behalf of named plaintiffs Maribel Ocampo and Adrian Coss.
The 33-page complaint alleges Lenses feature by Snapchat violates
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The lawsuit aims to cover all Illinois residents who used the
Snapchat app and had their biometric information or identifiers
obtained through the app without first providing written consent as
mandated by the Illinois BIPA.
Recently, about 1.42 million Illinois Facebook users received
settlement checks of up to $400 for collecting and storing
"biometric data" without consent. Google has also agreed to pay
$100 million to end the claims against them, related to face scans
in the Google Photos app. [GN]
SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS: Faces Samuels FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT A. SAMUELS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INTEGRATED, LLC
and BKEA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01087-JRS-MG (S.D.
Ind., May 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated customer
support advisors overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Samuels worked as a customer support advisor from March 30,
2020 until the termination of his employment on March 8, 2022.
Software Solutions Integrated, LLC is a computer software company,
with its principal place of business in Shelby County, Illinois.
BKEA, Inc., doing business as K&K Management Solutions, is a
computer software company, with its principal place of business in
Hendricks County, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin C. Ellis, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
320 N. Meridian St., Ste. 615
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 824-9747
E-mail: bellis@hkm.com
SPECTRUM SECURITY: Jackson Lewis Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonora M. Schloss, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that the underlying action,
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, was a class action brought
by former and current employees, alleging violations of meal period
violations. The plaintiffs sought not only premium wages for the
violations but also waiting time penalties and penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements. The results of the
trial court decision were mixed and appealed.
The California Court of Appeal case discussed several issues
including whether unpaid premium wages for meal and rest period
violations entitled an employee to recover waiting time penalties
under Labor Code section 203 and wage statement violations under
Labor Code 226. The Court of Appeal deemed premium pay for missed
meal and rest periods not "wages" thus not entitling employees to
waiting time or wage statement violation penalties.
On appeal the California Supreme Court considered the following
questions:
1. Does a violation of Labor Code section 226.7, which requires
payment of premium wages for meal and rest period violations, give
rise to claims for waiting time penalties or violations of wage
statement requirements when the employer does not include the
premium wages in the employee's wage statements but does include
the wages earned for meal breaks?
2. If so, what is the applicable prejudgment interest rate for
unpaid premium wages owed under Labor Code section 226.7?
For the first question, the California Supreme Court held contrary
to the prior Court of Appeal decision, stating that the extra pay
for missed meal and rest periods constitutes "wages" and therefore
must be reported on statutorily required wage statements pursuant
to Labor Code section 226 and paid within statutory deadlines when
an employee separates from employment pursuant to Labor Code
section 203.
The ruling by the California Supreme Court means that if an
employer fails to pay premium pay for missed meal and rest periods,
additional penalties for failure to provide an accurate wage
statement and waiting time penalties may also be recoverable by
plaintiffs.
As to the second question, the Court held that the rate of
prejudgment interest that applies to amounts due for failure to
provide meal and rest periods is the 7 percent default rate set by
the state Constitution. [GN]
SPRING OAKS: Thomas Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Valerie Thomas, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Spring Oaks Capital, LLC, Case No.
2021 CH 05345 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on May 13, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02533 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Spring Oaks Capital, LLC -- https://springoakscapital.com/ -- is an
innovative and technology-focused consumer debt purchasing and
collections platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth Barrow Mccormick, Esq.
GREAT LAKES CONSUMER LAW FIRM, LLC
73 W. Monroe St., Suite 100
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 971-6787
Email: seth@glclf.com
- and -
Celetha Chatman, Esq.
COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 757-1880
Email: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stacie Elaine Barhorst, Esq.
KAPLAN PAPADAKIS & GOURNIS PC
180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2108
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 726-0531
Email: sbarhorst@kpglaw.com
SPRUETH MAGERS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sprueth Magers, LLC.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Sprueth Magers, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04294-JPO (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Spruth Magers -- https://spruethmagers.com/ -- is a commercial art
gallery owned by Monika Sprüth and Philomene Magers, with spaces
in London, Berlin, Los Angeles and offices in Cologne, Hong Kong,
and Seoul.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (917) 796-7437
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
SUNCORP GROUP: Settles Class Action Over Superannuation Commissions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Miklos Bolza, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports that
a class action brought against Suncorp over excessive
superannuation commissions has settled in the NSW Supreme Court.
The settlement was announced on May 23 on the first day of a
hearing in which Suncorp was accused of paying commissions that
negatively impacted customer offerings and led to higher fees.
Lawyers still have to iron out the final details of the agreement
which was expected to be presented to the court on May 24.
The settlement will have to be approved by the court before any
amounts are distributed to Suncorp's customers.
The class action, which was also filed against directors Geoffrey
Summerhayes and Sean Carroll, alleges that Suncorp paid conflicted
remuneration to advisers selling its superannuation products.
These commissions influenced which super brands were recommended by
advisers, the lawsuit claims.
Conflicted remuneration was banned on July 1, 2013 as a result of
Future of Financial Advice Reforms.
The class action sought a refund of these excess fees to each
affected superannuation member's account. [GN]
TARGET CORPORATION: Lopez Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation.
The case is styled as Krystal Yvette Lopez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case
No. 5:22-cv-03069 (N.D. Cal., May 25, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American big
box department store chain headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL AND LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Email: jonas@dovel.com
THOSE CERTAIN: Lincoln Adventures Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINCOLN ADVENTURES LLC et
al v. THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON MEMBERS OF
SYNDICATES et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00235-CCC-ESK (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order certifying the
following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):
"All persons or entities in the United States who purchased
or renewed a contract of insurance with any Lloyd's
Syndicates from January 1, 2002 through February 12, 2016."
The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs
Lincoln Adventures, LLC and Michigan Multi-King, Inc. as
representatives of the Class.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g) to confirm Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Zwerling, Schacter & Zwerling as Class
Counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39Zs6ZM
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
- and -
Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
Justin M. Tarshis, Esq.
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER
& ZWERLING, LLP
41 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 223-3900
Facsimile: (212) 371-5969
- and -
Dan Drachler, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP
1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 895-5005
Facsimile: (206) 895-3131
- and -
Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West -- Plaza One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
- and -
H. Sullivan Bunch, Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
& BALINT, P.C.
2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
- and -
Robert M. Foote, Esq.
Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ
& O'NEIL, LLC
10 West State Street, Suite 200
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 232-7450
Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
- and -
Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
- and -
David M. Foster, Esq.
DAVID M. FOSTER, P.C.
30833 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 209
Farmington, MI 48334
Telephone: (248) 855-0940
Facsimile: (248) 855-0987
TIMBERLAND BANK: Rieken Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHERYL RIEKEN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. TIMBERLAND BANK, Case No. 22-2-05814-1, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for
Pierce County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington on May 26, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-05385 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of
charging improper fees.
Timberland Bank is a state-chartered community bank based in
Hoquiam, Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Fred B. Burnside, Esq.
Rose S. McCarty, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com
rosemccarty@dwt.com
TOBI.COM LLC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tobi.com, LLC. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Tobi.com, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04306 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tobi -- https://www.tobi.com/ -- is an online fast fashion
retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
TOGAS HOUSE: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Togas House Of
Textiles, LLC. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Togas House Of
Textiles, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04323 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Togas -- https://www.togas.com/ -- is a pioneer in luxury
custom-made services, home textiles and readymade bedding
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: July 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRETT HAWKES,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, TD
GROUP US HOLDINGS LLC,
TD BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
TD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
STEPHEN BOYLE, TIM HOCKEY, BRIAN
LEVITT, KAREN MAIDMENT, BHARAT
MASRANI, IRENE MILLER, JOSEPH
MOGLIA, WILBUR PREZZANO, and THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 2020-0360-PAF
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
This notice is for all record holders and beneficial holders of TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation ("Ameritrade") common stock at any
point during the period from and including November 25, 2019, the
date of the definitive merger agreement between Ameritrade and The
Charles Schwab Corporation, through and including October 6, 2020,
the date the Merger closed (the "Settlement Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used in
this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary
Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release dated March 25,
2022 (the "Stipulation").
Please read this SUMMARY NOTICE carefully. Your rights will be
affected by a class action lawsuit pending in this court.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiff Brett Hawkes
("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the Settlement Class, and
(ii) defendants (a) The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its affiliates TD
Group US Holdings LLC ("TD Group US"), TD Bank USA, National
Association ("TD Bank USA"), and TD Bank, National Association ("TD
Bank N.A." and together with TD Group US and TD Bank USA, "TD
Bank"); (b) Tim Hockey, Brian Levitt, Karen Maidment, Bharat
Masrani, Irene Miller, Joseph Moglia, Wilbur Prezzano, and Stephen
Boyle (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and (c) The
Charles Schwab Corporation ("CSC," and together with TD Bank and
the Individual Defendants, "Defendants") have entered into a
proposed settlement for, among other consideration, $31,500,000
(the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the
Stipulation entered into between Plaintiff and Defendants dated
March 25, 2022, a copy of which is available at
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com. If approved by the Court, the
Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on July 11, 2022
at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Vice
Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or by telephone
or video conference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among
other things: (i) determine whether the Action may be permanently
maintained as a non-opt out class action and whether the Settlement
Class should be certified permanently, for purposes of the
Settlement, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and
23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff may be permanently
designated as representative for the Settlement Class and
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class,
and whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel have
adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class in the
Action; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be
approved by the Court; (iv) determine whether the Judgment,
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation,
should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against
Defendants; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should
therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether the application by
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, including Plaintiff's application for an incentive award,
should be approved; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, the application by
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, and/or Plaintiff's application for an incentive award;
and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought
before the Court in connection with the Settlement.
Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person
or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the
Settlement website, www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
contacting the Settlement Administrator at Ameritrade Merger
Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91212, Seattle,
WA 98111, 1-888-964-2135. A copy of the Notice can also be
downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Closing Date Stockholders in accordance with the
proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan
of allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Closing Date Stockholder will be
eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund
equal to the product of (i) the number of shares held by the
Eligible Closing Date Stockholder at the time such shares were
converted into the right to receive the Merger Consideration in
connection with the Closing of the Merger and (ii) the "Per-Share
Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing
the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of
shares held by all of the Eligible Closing Date Stockholders at the
time such shares were converted into the right to receive the
Merger Consideration in connection with the Closing of the Merger.
As explained in further detail in the Notice at paragraphs 37-42,
pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net
Settlement Fund to Eligible Closing Date Stockholders will be made
in the same manner in which Eligible Closing Date Stockholders
received the Merger Consideration. Eligible Closing Date
Stockholders do not have to submit a claim form to receive a
payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel's application for an
award attorneys' fees and expenses, including Plaintiff's
application for an incentive award, must be filed with the Register
in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
delivered to Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel
such that they are received no later than June 27, 2022, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
Ameritrade Merger Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91212
Seattle, WA 98111
1-888-964-2135
info@AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel:
Peter B. Andrews
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, Delaware 19807
1-302-504-4957 Ext. 1
pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
Edward Timlin
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
or
David Tejtel
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, New York 10507
1-888-529-1108
dtejtel@fotpllc.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE [GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Chalal Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chalal v. Toyota Motor
North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02450 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge James R. Cho entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The Court extends the deadline for completing fact
discovery and submitting class certification motions to
July 21, 2022.
-- The in-person conference set for May 23, 2022 is adjourned
to July 28, 2022 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11D South before
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho.
-- Parties shall notify the Court by July 25, 2022 if they
wish to convert the in-person conference to a telephonic
conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Toyota Motor is the operating subsidiary that oversees all
operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada, Mexico, and
the United States.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Cheng Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheng v. Toyota Motor
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00629 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The Court extends the deadline for completing fact
discovery and submitting class certification motions to
July 21, 2022.
-- The in-person conference set for May 23, 2022 is adjourned
to July 28, 2022 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11D South before
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho.
-- Parties shall notify the Court by July 25, 2022 if they
wish to convert the in-person conference to a telephonic
conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Toyota Motor is the operating subsidiary that oversees all
operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada, Mexico, and
the United States.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Gendron Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elizabeth Gendron v.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02947
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge James R. Cho entered a
scheduling order as follows:
-- The Court extends the deadline for completing fact
discovery and submitting class certification motions to
July 21, 2022.
-- The in-person conference set for May 23, 2022 is adjourned
to July 28, 2022 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11D South before
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho.
-- Parties shall notify the Court by July 25, 2022 if they
wish to convert the in-person conference to a telephonic
conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Toyota Motor North America is the operating subsidiary that
oversees all operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada,
Mexico, and the United States.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Marques Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marques, et al., v. Toyota
Motor North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00629
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge James R. Cho entered a
scheduling order as follows:
-- The Court extends the deadline for completing fact
discovery and submitting class certification motions to
July 21, 2022.
-- The in-person conference set for May 23, 2022 is adjourned
to July 28, 2022 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11D South before
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho.
-- Parties shall notify the Court by July 25, 2022 if they
wish to convert the in-person conference to a telephonic
conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Toyota Motor North America is the operating subsidiary that
oversees all operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada,
Mexico, and the United States.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Shoemaker Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shoemaker v. Toyota Motor
North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04381 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge James R. Cho entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The Court extends the deadline for completing fact
discovery and submitting class certification motions to
July 21, 2022.
-- The in-person conference set for May 23, 2022 is adjourned
to July 28, 2022 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11D South before
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho.
-- Parties shall notify the Court by July 25, 2022 if they
wish to convert the in-person conference to a telephonic
conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Toyota Motor North America is the operating subsidiary that
oversees all operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada,
Mexico, and the United States.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Zuo Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zuo v. Toyota Motor North
America, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04624 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The Court extends the deadline for completing fact
discovery and submitting class certification motions to
July 21, 2022.
-- The in-person conference set for May 23, 2022 is adjourned
to July 28, 2022 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11D South before
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho.
-- Parties shall notify the Court by July 25, 2022 if they
wish to convert the in-person conference to a telephonic
conference.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Motor Vehicle Product
Liability.
Toyota Motor is the operating subsidiary that oversees all
operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada, Mexico, and
the United States.[CC]
TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON: Scheduling Order Entered in Corbitt Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE CORBITT,
Individually and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated
Individuals, v. TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-00899-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe
entered an order:
1. The parties, through counsel, shall August 15, 2022
jointly report to the Court,
in writing, as to whether they
wish to have a settlement conference
before a magistrate judge, attempt
mediation under Local Civil Rule 53.3,
or pursue some other form of alternative
dispute resolution, for assistance in
resolving the case and, if so,
indicate by what date they will be
prepared to commence such proceedings
on or before:
2. Fact discovery regarding Plaintiff's Nov. 11, 2022
claims and potential class certification
shall be completed on or before:
3. The Plaintiff shall file any motion Dec. 2, 2022
for class certification on or before:
4. The Defendant shall file any response Dec. 30, 2022
to Plaintiff’s motion for class
certification on or before:
The Trustees of Princeton University is a 40-member board
responsible for managing Princeton University's endowment, real
estate, instructional programs, and admission.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MWjUIt at no extra charge.[CC]
TWO RIVERS DEMOLITION: Acosta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Two Rivers
Demolition, Inc., et al. The case is styled as David Acosta, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Two Rivers Demolition,
Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00320561-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 25, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Two Rivers Demolition -- https://demolition.global/ -- is a leading
provider of demolition and environmental remediation services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
U.S. SOCCER: Agrees to New CBA Following Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daniels, writing for Bleach Report, reports that U.S. Soccer
will provide equal pay to members of its men's and women's national
teams after an agreement on new collective bargaining agreements
was reached on May 18.
Andrew Das of the New York Times reported the USMNT and USWNT
agreed to place all of their earnings into a single pool, including
a "notable concession" from the men's side to include the money
from the lucrative men's FIFA World Cup, that will then be divided
equally among all players who take part in international matches.
"No other country has ever done this," U.S. Soccer president Cindy
Parlow Cone said. "I think everyone should be really proud of what
we've accomplished here. It really, truly is historic."
The new CBA contracts run through 2028, and initial projections
suggest full-time national team players can expect annual payments
from U.S. Soccer around $450,000, a figure that could more than
double in years where one of the teams makes a "successful" World
Cup run, per Das.
At least some financial windfall is guaranteed for the next two
men's World Cups. The USMNT qualified for the 2022 event in Qatar
and will automatically be included in the 2026 field as a co-host
alongside North American neighbors Canada and Mexico.
The USWNT is also a virtual lock to make the 2023 and 2027 women's
World Cups as the top-ranked team in the FIFA rankings.
Meanwhile, it's estimated 90 percent of the money U.S. Soccer
receives from FIFA for World Cup participation will go toward the
new contracts, and the governing body also agreed to split
commercial revenue with the players.
Cone said questions about whether U.S. Soccer can continue to
handle its core purpose of growing the sport nationwide are fair in
wake of the agreements, per Das.
"There's no denying that money that we have to pay our national
teams is money that's not reinvested in the game," she said. "And
people can take that perspective. But the way I look at it is that
our job is to try to figure out how all three groups can work
together to grow the pie so that everyone is benefiting."
The contracts to guarantee equal pay come after U.S. Soccer and
prominent members of the USWNT settled a class action equal-pay
lawsuit in February that included a $24 million payment to the
players.
Megan Rapinoe, one of the driving forces in the equal-pay push by
the women's team, said on ABC's Good Morning America at the time
that the settlement was a major turning point for their efforts.
"This is a huge win for all women," Rapinoe said. "I think we're
going to see that in the coming days and hopefully this will be a
day we look back on in a number of years when we're a little bit
older and say that's the moment that everything changed."
The USMNT's union backed the women's effort to secure equal pay
during the lawsuit.
USMNT defender Walker Zimmerman said on May 18 that internal
negotiations among men's players "wasn't always the smoothest"
process, but they ultimately came to the realization there was "no
other way to get this done" other than splitting the World Cup
revenue, per Das.
"Trying to voice what you believe should happen, what is possible,
what is right—those conversations are difficult," Zimmerman said.
"But at the end you have a group of players both on the men's and
women's side who came together and got it done."
The men's team's preparations for the 2022 World Cup will continue
in June with a total of four matches—two friendlies against
Morocco and Uruguay and two CONCACAF Nations League matches against
Grenada and El Salvador.
The women's next matches are also in June, when they play Colombia
in two friendlies prior to the finals of the CONCACAF Women's
Championship in July. [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Averts Race Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mulvaney, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. drivers who argued the rideshare giant's
star-rating process racially discriminates against its workers
again lost their class action bid in a California federal court.
The lawsuit, which cited a new survey of 20,000 drivers, didn't
adequately allege facts to support that the star-rating system has
a racially disparate impact, nor that the company intentionally
discriminated against the would-be lead plaintiff, said Judge Vince
Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California ruled on May 23.
He gave the drivers leave to amend their complaint again because
"it is conceivable that a more sophisticated effort at alleging
racial disparity in driver terminations could overcome a motion to
dismiss."
The survey didn't show that drivers of color are terminated for low
ratings compared to White drivers, partially because the survey
results presented by plaintiffs' counsel only surveyed terminated
drivers and not a sample of Uber's total driver population,
Chhabria said.
"The survey methodology, in short, uses the wrong denominator," he
wrote. He later continued, "The survey described in this complaint
is essentially meaningless. Which means that this complaint, like
the prior version, does not plausibly allege racial disparity in
terminations of Uber drivers."
Chhabria, during a March 17 motion to dismiss hearing, questioned
the reliability of a survey taken of Uber drivers, which was
included in the most recent amended complaint.
Plaintiff Thomas Liu brought the case against the app-based
ride-hailing company in October on behalf of all non-White drivers
nationwide. He alleged that drivers were fired after customers
racially discriminated against them by giving them unfavorable
marks using the app's built-in driver rating system, in violation
of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The survey received responses from roughly 4,000 drivers alleging
evidence of disparity among drivers who were deactivated because of
low ratings. Uber prompts customers to rate drivers on a scale of 1
to 5 stars, and then "deactivates" workers whose average rating it
deems unsatisfactory, according to the lawsuit.
The survey found that 17.4% of White respondents indicated they had
been deactivated by Uber, compared with 24.6% of Asian workers,
24.1% of Black, 24.9% who identified as other, and 16% who
responded as Latinx. The survey asked drivers if they were
"Latinx," and many workers who identified as Latino, Hispanic, or
Mexican American indicated as "other," according to the complaint.
Liu also said that, while driving for Uber in San Diego, he
experienced signs of bias such as customers canceling when they saw
his photograph, or asking in an unfriendly manner "where he was
from." He claims Uber terminated him in October 2015 because his
average customer rating fell below its minimum of 4.6.
Survey Questioned
The judge grilled the drivers' attorney, Shannon Liss-Riordan, on
whether the numbers in the survey were significant and what
conclusions could be drawn from the results. She acknowledged it
wasn't a "perfect" survey but contained enough, before discovery,
to show that a disparity potentially exists.
"How can I draw any meaning from the percentages," he asked. "As
far as I can tell you haven't given me the information about the
racial breakdown of the sample population you surveyed, it's
completely uninformative."
Liss-Riordan said that the only percentages that matter are the
racial breakdown of the number of drivers who were deactivated. The
judge insisted that the sample size wasn't helpful in making a
determination on whether the case should move forward. He further
said that the use of "Latinx" represented a disconnect and didn't
pass a "wokeness" test.
Uber's attorney, Andrew Spurchise, argued that there would be
problems down the road in determining class size and agreed that
the survey didn't prove a potential disparity issue existed.
"That's the kind of thing you get to the bottom of in this case, we
have a lot of questions to ask Uber," Liss-Riordan said. "I think
the results of the survey here are more than enough to survive a
motion to dismiss."
Chhabria previously granted Uber's motions to dismiss in July and
March 2021 but allowed the plaintiffs a chance to refile a
complaint in both instances, acknowledging that Liu's theory was
plausible.
Littler Mendelson PC represent Uber. Lichten & Liss-Riordan
represents Liu.
The case is Liu v. Uber, N.D. Cal., No. 3:20-cv-07499, motion to
dismiss granted 5/23/22. [GN]
UGI STORAGE: Tioga County Property Owners' Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP is representing
property owners in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, who allege to have
been subjected to a de facto taking of their subterranean oil and
gas rights by UGI Storage Company ("UGI"), a public utility with
the power of eminent domain.
In November 2009, UGI filed an application with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission ("FERC") to, among other things, take
ownership and to operate the Meeker Storage Field -- an underground
natural gas storage facility -- and create a 3,000-foot protective
buffer zone around this storage area. The buffer zone, which
encompasses some 2,980 acres, is designed to prohibit fracking and
drilling operations that could come too close to UGI's underground
storage areas. In October 2010, FERC issued an order partially
certifying the buffer zone and indicating that UGI would need to
meet certain requirements, including providing proper notification
to affected property owners in the buffer zone, before FERC would
give UGI final authority to fully implement this buffer zone. The
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that in the ensuing twelve
years, UGI has not provided required notice to property owners
about its proposed buffer zone and how the buffer zone has
adversely impacted owners' rights and the values of properties
located in the buffer zone. Plaintiffs also allege that UGI has yet
to pay just compensation to property and property rights owners
within the buffer zone.
The clients we represent allege that UGI's conduct has effectively
prohibited any fracking activities from occurring on those
properties. Essentially, oil and gas exploration companies are
avoiding the buffer zone because of UGI's conduct. Their properties
are situated above the Utica and Marcellus shales in a region of
Northcentral Pennsylvania where fracking activities are abundant.
Our clients have alleged that UGI's conduct amounts to an unlawful
taking of the property rights of owners of oil and gas rights that
are situated within the buffer zone. The law of eminent domain
applies and requires that persons who have had property taken are
entitled to just compensation. As such, we are attempting to
recover appropriate monetary relief for the clients we represent in
these cases.
On November 29, 2021, CSKD secured a landmark unanimous ruling from
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that clarified the distinction
between de facto and de jure takings and found that UGI possessed
the power of eminent domain with respect to our clients'
properties.
The Supreme Court remanded the cases to the Commonwealth Court for
further proceedings. The case is active and ongoing. [GN]
UNITED SERVICES: Class Certification Expert Reports Due July 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, et al v. United Services Automobile Association (USAA)
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-21530 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Darrin
P. Gayles entered an order on motion for extension of time as
follows.
-- The deadline to conduct non-expert class certification and
exemplar discovery is extended until June 6, 2022.
-- The Plaintiffs' class certification expert reports shall be
due on June 2, 2022. The Defendants' class certification
expert reports shall be due on July 6, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Medicare Act.
The United Services Automobile Association is a San Antonio-based
Fortune 500 diversified financial services group of companies
including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal
inter-insurance.[CC]
UNITED STATES: District of Columbia Grants Bid to Toss Glogau Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORDAN JAY GLOGAU, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-470 (JEB) (D.D.C.), Judge
James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia grants the Government's Motion to Dismiss.
I. Background
In the lawsuit seeking to have the Court throw out the 2016
Presidential election, pro se Plaintiff Jordan Glogau minces no
words. His introductory sentence sets the tone: "Never in the
history of the United States has one person come so close to
destroying this nation and its institutions." He asks in his Prayer
for Relief for the Court to "annul the 2016 Presidential Election.
Void all laws, appointments, treaties, regulations, executive
orders of the Trump Administration. Everything done during the
Trump administration was fraudulent, simply clear the deck."
II. Analysis
Article III of the Constitution limits the power of the federal
judiciary to the resolution of "Cases" and "Controversies." Because
"standing is an essential and unchanging part of the
case-or-controversy requirement of Article III," finding that a
plaintiff has standing is a necessary "predicate to any exercise of
the Court's jurisdiction."
The doctrine of standing "requires federal courts to satisfy
themselves that the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in
the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of
federal-court jurisdiction." To establish Article III standing, an
injury must be 'concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent;
fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a
favorable ruling.'
While the Plaintiff's pleadings -- which include the Complaint, his
"Supplemental Memorandum," and both Oppositions to the Motion to
Dismiss, -- fail to establish standing for multiple reasons, Judge
Boasberg need only mention one: They allege no injury. To
demonstrate his standing, Glogau must contend that he suffered a
distinct harm that can be traced to Donald Trump's win in the 2016
election. That he simply has not done.
Indeed, he appears to acknowledge as much when he says, "It is
hoped that the court will permit other individuals and
organizations to join this suit, in the spirit of a class action
suit, for the purpose of providing lawful standing." While he may
contend that the country has been grievously damaged, he never
alleges how he himself was injured. Even if he had alleged some
injury, he would not satisfy the redressability prong of standing
because the Court would be powerless to order the type of relief he
seeks.
III. Conclusion
Because the Plaintiff's allegations do not state a cognizable
injury, Judge Boasberg will issue a contemporaneous Order
dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. He, accordingly, grants the Government's Motion to
Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yjr8v92h from Leagle.com.
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Court Narrows Claims in Harrington Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERELL HARRINGTON and DESERAE COOK, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UPMC and
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-497 (W.D. Pa.),
Judge W. Scott Hardy of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in part the
Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
The motions were brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and filed by the University of Pittsburgh
Medical Center ("UPMC") and by Allegheny County.
I. Background
Plaintiffs Cherell Harrington and Deserae Cook filed a Complaint in
Civil Action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and two putative classes,
alleging various claims against UPMC and Allegheny County via its
Office of Children, Youth and Families ("AC-CYF") arising out of
UPMC's purported disclosure of their confidential medical
information to AC-CYF for the purpose of targeting them with highly
intrusive, humiliating and coercive child abuse investigations
starting before taking their newborn babies home from UPMC's
hospitals shortly after childbirth.
The Defendants removed the case to the Court, and the Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") alleging several claims against UPMC and AC-CYF
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of the 1st, 4th,
and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, a claim
against AC-CYF for violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and
Pennsylvania common law claims against UPMC for breaches of
physician-patient confidentiality.
The Plaintiffs allege that, in accordance with past practices,
policies, and/or agreements with AC-CYF, UPMC unjustifiably and in
bad faith disclosed to AC-CYF both their and other patients'
confidential medical information concerning self-reported prior
drug use or "unconfirmed" positive results of surreptitiously
conducted drug tests, knowing that AC-CYF routinely accepted and
acted on UPMC's disclosures to conduct unwarranted and highly
intrusive, humiliating, coercive, and unconstitutional child abuse
investigations, in some instances commencing while the patients
were still in their private hospital rooms shortly after
childbirth.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes. The first class,
called the "UPMC Class," putatively consists of the following: "All
women who on or after March 11, 2018, were subjected to urine drug
tests while admitted to a UPMC facility for the purpose of giving
birth, whose newborns tested negative for controlled substances and
whose urine drug test results or other medical information related
to substance use was disclosed to AC-CYF."
The second class, called the "AC-CYF Class," putatively consists of
the following: "All new mothers who, on or after March 11, 2018,
were subjected to investigation by AC-CYF based solely on reports
of past marijuana use or a urine drug test that tested positive for
marijuana."
The Plaintiffs assert the following claims on behalf of themselves
and these putative classes:
a. At Count One, the Plaintiffs assert claims against UPMC
alleging it breached its duty of patient confidentiality recognized
by Pennsylvania common law and falsely portrayed them as abusers of
illegal drugs.
b. At Count Two, the Plaintiffs assert claims against UPMC
and AC-CYF pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of
their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution to be free from government intrusion "into family
privacy including upon the birth of a child."
c. At Count Three, the Plaintiffs assert claims against UPMC
and AC-CYF pursuant to Section 1983 for violations of their rights
to privacy in personal and confidential medical records under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
d. At Count Four, Harrington asserts a claim against AC-CYF
pursuant to Section 1983 for threatening to report her to a judge
and require her to submit to monthly drug tests unless she
participated in the POWER program, which required her to answer
questions about her personal life and thus violated her right to be
free from compelled speech, in violation of the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
e. At Count Five, the Plaintiffs assert claims against UPMC
and AC-CYF pursuant to Section 1983 alleging that they subjected
new mothers, but not similarly situated men, to unwarranted highly
invasive, burdensome, humiliating, and unconstitutional child abuse
or child neglect investigations, in violation of the Equal
Protection Cause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
f. At Count Six, Harrington asserts a claim against AC-CYF
pursuant to Section 1983 alleging that it violated the Fourth
Amendment by requiring her to submit to drug tests based solely on
a hospital report of an unconfirmed positive test for marijuana
while pregnant and without any basis to believe that she abused or
neglected her children.
g. At Count Seven, Harrington asserts a claim against AC-CYF
alleging that it required Harrington to submit to a urine drug test
in violation of her right to privacy under Art. I, Sec. 8, of the
Pennsylvania Constitution.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs against both UPMC and AC-CYF.
They also seek punitive damages against UPMC.
Both UPMC and AC-CYF filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). UPMC contends that
it made good faith reports to AC-CYF that two of its patients had
used marijuana during pregnancy and that these reports alone cannot
convert it into a state actor implicating constitutional and other
claims. UPMC also contends that it is immune from claims of breach
of physician-patient confidentiality because it was required to
disclose medical information pursuant to the Pennsylvania Child
Protective Services Law ("CPSL").
AC-CYF contends that Plaintiffs' constitutional claims should be
dismissed against it because they were never deprived of legal or
physical custody of their children, nor were the Plaintiffs'
relationships with their children and family interfered with in any
material sense beyond the investigation itself. It also contends
that the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims cannot advance in the
absence of a municipal policy or custom that violates Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights or is otherwise the moving force behind the
constitutional torts committed by individual AC-CYF employees.
II. Discussion
Section 1983 functions as a "vehicle for imposing liability against
anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person of 'rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.'"
Section 1983 does not create substantive rights by its own terms,
but it instead provides remedies for violations of rights that are
established elsewhere in the Constitution or in federal law. To
establish a claim under Section 1983, two criteria must be met: 1)
the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person
acting under color of state law; and 2) the conduct must deprive
the plaintiff of rights secured under the Constitution or federal
law.
A. Is UPMC a State Actor?
While the parties do not dispute that AC-CYF is a state actor
susceptible to claims under Section 1983, the Plaintiffs' federal
constitutional claims against UPMC at Counts Two, Three, and Five
of the Amended Complaint are also predicated on UPMC being a state
actor despite it being a non-governmental health care entity. The
Plaintiffs allege that UPMC, in coordination with AC-CYF, created
and implemented a policy or practice of disclosing to AC-CYF both
their and other pregnant labor and delivery patients' confidential
medical information concerning self-reported prior drug use or
"unconfirmed" positive results of drug tests administered without
their knowledge and consent, for the purpose of intruding "into
family privacy including upon the birth of a child."
The Plaintiffs also allege that UPMC and AC-CYF infringed upon
their private and confidential medical information and
discriminated against them based upon sex by subjecting them to
drug tests and subsequent child abuse investigations while not
subjecting their male partners or other men likely to have custody
of a newborn or very young children to such drug tests and
investigations. The Plaintiffs assert that UPMC's conduct is state
action in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Upon reviewing the detailed factual allegations contained in the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and the inferences reasonably drawn
therefrom and considering the fact-intensive nature of the inquiry
required of the Court by the Third Circuit, Judge Hardy opines that
it is apparent that th Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a plausible
claim that UPMC was a willful participant in joint activity with
AC-CYF to infringe upon their constitutionally protected rights
such that UPMC is a state actor in the case.
B. Constitutional Violations Caused by a Policy or Custom
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are state actors who are
liable for constitutional violations caused by a policy or custom
in accordance with Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436
U.S. 658 (1978). They must allege more than violations of their
rights caused by an AC-CYF or UPMC employee; the Plaintiffs must
also sufficiently plead that those alleged violations are
attributable to AC-CYF and UPMC.
Judge Hardy holds that the Plaintiffs plausibly pled the existence
of a deliberately indifferent policy or custom that caused
constitutional deprivations sufficient to state facially plausible
Section 1983 claims against AC-CYF and UPMC. Accordingly, the
Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied to the extent that they
seek the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims based
on a failure to plead municipal liability under Monell.
C. Infringement of Plaintiffs' Familial Integrity in Violation of
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
In Count Two of their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege
claims against UPMC and AC-CYF pursuant to Section 1983 for
violations of their substantive due process rights, under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to be free
from government intrusion "into family privacy including upon the
birth of a child."
Judge Hardy has found no controlling Third Circuit authority
requiring physical separation of parent and child. Even though the
Plaintiffs do not allege a physical separation of parent and child,
they do plausibly allege that these purportedly unjustified actions
interfered with their familial integrity, particularly the delicate
and intense relational bond emerging between mother (and father)
and newborn immediately before, during, and after childbirth.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied to the
extent that they seek the dismissal of Count Two of the Amended
Complaint alleging infringements of the Plaintiffs' familial
integrity in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
D. Infringement of Plaintiffs' Private and Confidential Medical
Information in Violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment
In Count Three of their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege
that UPMC and AC-CYF infringed upon their private and confidential
medical information in violation of their substantive due process
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Under the circumstances, Judge Hardy opines that it is reasonable
to infer that the purported breaches of trust caused by the
Defendants' alleged invasions of privacy erode these vitally
important relationships between maternity patients such as the
Plaintiffs and their medical providers. These alleged circumstances
must then be weighed against the legitimate and important
governmental interest in disclosing and using such private medical
information to protect children from abuse.
There are express statutory mandates, notably the CPSL and the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), that
provide the contours for when and to what degree such information
may be reported by UPMC and used by AC-CYF. At this preliminary
juncture, however, the Plaintiffs have pled enough to plausibly tip
the balance of these factors towards establishing viable
constitutional privacy claims.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied to the
extent that they seek the dismissal of Count Three of the Amended
Complaint alleging infringements of the Plaintiffs' private and
confidential medical information in violation of the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
E. Compelled Speech in Violation of the First Amendment
At Count Four of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Harrington
alleges a claim against AC-CYF for violating her First Amendment
right to be free from compelled speech. In furtherance of this
claim, Harrington contends that AC-CYF threatened to report her to
a judge and require her to submit to monthly drug tests, without
justification, unless she answered a series of questions about her
personal life through mandated participation in the POWER program.
Judge Hardy finds that Harrington does not appear to be contending
that AC-CYF sought to compel involuntary affirmation of objected-to
beliefs or to embrace a particular government-favored message. In
fact, Harrington's threadbare averments supporting her free speech
claim offer no specifics as to what speech, if any, she contends
had been coerced. Rather, as pled, Harrington narrowly alleges that
AC-CYF threatened to report her to a judge and require her to
submit to monthly drug tests unless she answered a series of
questions about her "personal life."
While he finds that the Amended Complaint does contain adequate
factual averments to plausibly establish the requisite compulsion,
C.N. v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 430 F.3d 159, 189 (3d Cir. 2005),
Judge Hardy also concludes that the Amended Complaint is devoid of
allegations as to what POWER's questions entailed, and thus he
cannot assess whether to apply strict or intermediate scrutiny,
much less discern whether those questions pass constitutional
muster.
Accordingly, AC-CYF's motion to dismiss is granted to the extent
that it seeks the dismissal of Count Four of the Amended Complaint.
Count Four is dismissed without prejudice.
F. Discrimination Based on Sex in Violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
In Count Five of their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege
that UPMC and AC-CYF violated their rights under the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by jointly effectuating a
policy or practice of collecting information from new mothers
regarding their prior drug use, but not having or implementing a
corresponding policy or practice of collecting such information
about prior drug use by their male partners or other similarly
situated men likely to have custody of a newborn or very young
children.
Based upon the averments contained in the Amended Complaint and
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the Plaintiffs' favor,
Judge Hardy finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged a cognizable
equal protection claim and that they cannot plausibly allege
additional facts by amendment to allege Plaintiffs and the fathers
were similarly situated to establish such a claim. Accordingly, the
Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted to the extent that they
seek the dismissal of Count Five of the Amended Complaint. Those
claims are dismissed with prejudice.
G. AC-CYF's Drug Test of Harrington in Violation of the Fourth
Amendment
At Count Six, Harrington asserts a claim against AC-CYF alleging
that it violated the Fourth Amendment by requiring her to submit to
drug tests based solely on a hospital report of an unconfirmed
positive test for marijuana while pregnant and without any basis to
believe that she abused or neglected her children.
Under the totality of the circumstances, Judge Hardy holds that the
averments plausibly allege that Harrington did not voluntarily
consent to such drug tests, and AC-CYF will need to proffer
evidence during discovery to satisfy its burden to the contrary.
Accordingly, AC-CYF's motion to dismiss is denied to the extent
that it seeks the dismissal of Count Six of the Amended Complaint
alleging a violation of Harrington's Fourth Amendment rights.
H. Infringement of Harrington's Right to Privacy in Violation of
the Pennsylvania Constitution
At Count Seven of the Amended Complaint, pursuant to the Court's
supplemental jurisdiction, Harrington asserts a claim against
AC-CYF alleging that it required her to submit to a urine drug test
in violation of her right to privacy under Art. I, Sec. 8, of the
Pennsylvania Constitution. AC-CYF seeks to dismiss this claim
insofar as the Plaintiffs seek monetary damages derived from
violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Plaintiffs do not
address this issue in their briefing.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has held that "'neither
Pennsylvania statutory authority, nor appellate case law has
authorized the award of monetary damages for a violation of the
Pennsylvania Constitution.'" While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
has not specifically addressed the issue, federal courts have
adhered to the reasoning of the Commonwealth Court in refusing to
recognize such claims for money damages.
Accordingly, AC-CYF's motion to dismiss is granted to the extent
that it seeks the dismissal of a request for monetary damages in
Count Seven based on alleged violations of the Pennsylvania
Constitution. Any such request for relief in Count Seven is
dismissed with prejudice, thus limiting the request for relief in
Count Seven to non-monetary relief only.
I. Breach of Common Law Duty of Physician-Patient Confidentiality
Finally, at Count One of the Amended Complaint, pursuant to the
Court's supplemental jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs assert claims
against UPMC for purportedly breaching its common law duty to keep
all patient communications, diagnoses, and treatment information
confidential. UPMC seeks dismissal of these claims contending that
its alleged disclosures to AC-CYF were made in good faith, and it
therefore is immune from liability pursuant to the CPSL, citing 23
Pa. C.S. Section 6318(a)(1).
Based upon the averments, Judge Hardy finds that the Plaintiffs
sufficiently pled facts to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence of bad faith to overcome the good
faith presumption warranting immunity. Accordingly, UPMC's motion
to dismiss is denied to the extent that it seeks the dismissal of
Count One of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Hardy grants in part and denies
in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6). Counts Four and Five of the Amended Complaint are
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Count Four is dismissed without prejudice to amendment
with sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and Count Five is dismissed with prejudice. To the extent
that Harrington requests monetary damages in Count Seven, such
request for relief is also dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, thus limiting the
request for relief in Count Seven to non-monetary relief only. The
Defendants' motions are denied in all other respects.
An appropriate Order will follow.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4z395b8z from Leagle.com.
UPSTART INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Attention Upstart, Inc. ("Upstart") (NASDAQ: UPST) shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 23 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Upstart, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/upstart-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27521&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Upstart includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Upstart's
AI model could not adequately account for macroeconomic factors
such as interest rates that impact the market-clearing price for
loans; (2) as a result, Upstart was experiencing a negative impact
on its conversion rate; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to use its balance sheet to fund loans; and (4) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
DEADLINE: July 12, 2022
Aggrieved Upstart investors only have until July 12, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
VIATRIS INC: Plaintiffs' Firms Seek $88M Fees in EpiPen Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports that five plaintiffs' firms are seeking $88 million in
legal fees for their lead roles in a $264 million class action
antitrust settlement in a case that alleged Viatris, the drugmaker
formerly known as Mylan, maneuvered to delay generic competition to
the EpiPen allergy treatment.
The firms, Sharp Law; Keller Rohrback; Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd; Pritzker Levine; and Burns Charest, on May 20 asked a US
federal court judge in Kansas to grant final approval of the
settlement with Mylan, which was sued over its marketing strategy
for the life-saving EpiPen auto-injection device.
A preliminary deal was announced in February shortly before the
start of a scheduled trial, and if approved it would add to $345
million that Pfizer Inc, manufacturer of the EpiPen, agreed to pay
last year to resolve related claims against the company.
The same five co-lead firms were awarded $115 million in legal
fees, or one-third of the settlement, in the Pfizer settlement. The
attorneys are seeking the same percentage in the case that
consumers and third-party payors brought against Mylan.
Plaintiffs' lawyers Rex Sharp and Lynn Sarko on May 23 did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mylan and a lawyer for the company, Adam Levin of Hogan Lovells,
did not immediately respond to similar requests. Mylan and Pfizer
did not admit any wrongdoing as part of their settlements.
Mylan's move to raise the price of a pair of EpiPen devices to $600
from $100 flooded U.S. courts with lawsuits in 2016. The complaints
accused Mylan and Pfizer of engaging in anticompetitive conduct to
maintain a market monopoly.[GN]
VICTORIA: Faces Class Action Threat Over Ambulance Dispatch Delays
------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reports that Victoria's triple-zero
authority could be facing an emergency call of its own, with the
threat of a class-action lawsuit after recent deaths linked to
systemic failures in the service.
Law firm Slater and Gordon believes thousands of Victorians could
join the suit against the Emergency Services Telecommunications
Authority, after reports of a series of errors that led to at least
15 deaths and multiple injuries, including to children, since
2014.
An investigation by Slater and Gordon found longer-than-usual call
wait times and ambulance dispatch delays resulted in thousands of
"avoidable" and "unnecessary" health complications.
"The health system has been under strain in recent years, but
Victorians should always be able to register a call for help," the
firm's Gemma Leigh-Dodds said in a statement on May 24.
"ESTA's critical role means its shortcomings are not just
unfortunate, we believe they have led to multiple deaths and
injuries that could have been prevented."
Slater and Gordon said it is investigating whether those affected
are entitled to compensation.
"We believe ESTA has breached its statutory and common law
obligations by not providing its required service when callers
expect to be connected to urgent medical help in a timely manner,"
Leigh-Dodds said.
The emergency services minister, Jaclyn Symes, said the government
was committed to act as a "model litigant" in any potential class
action over the call-taking service.
"There is no action yet," she told parliament.
It comes after a string of recent deaths, which have been linked to
ambulance delays.
A budget estimates hearing was told at least 21 Victorians have
died while waiting on ambulances over the past six months.
Failures in the triple-zero system were blamed for 18 of those
deaths, with three attributed to paramedics not getting to patients
on time.
In October last year, Melbourne girl Alisha Hussein, 14, died after
a delayed ambulance dispatch.
Her mother was put on hold for 15 minutes after calling
triple-zero, despite ESTA's requirement that 90% of calls be
answered within five seconds.
In April last year, a woman in her 30s died while waiting more than
six hours for an ambulance in Caulfield North.
The opposition's emergency services spokesperson, Brad Battin,
described the deaths as a failure by the Victorian government.
"The real reason this legal action is happening is Daniel Andrews
has disrespected those families by not reading the report into the
issues happening in triple zero, creating delays and causing death
here in Victoria," Battin said.
A damning report into the ESTA, led by former Victoria police chief
commissioner Graham Ashton, was released by the state government on
May 19.
ESTA will now be rebadged as Triple Zero Victoria and undergo
significant changes to improve performance standards. [GN]
VIKING RIVER: High Court Agrees to Review Iskanian Rule Challenge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran D. Hartley, Esq., -- kieran.hartley@aalrr.com -- of
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, disclosed that employers
regularly rely on agreements to arbitrate in order to manage their
workplace risks, but the state of the law is in flux -- leaving
employers with questions. An arbitration agreement is any agreement
for the parties to litigate in private arbitration rather than in
court, and agreements can be reached by employers individually with
the employees or collectively through a collective bargaining
agreement ("CBA") with arbitration provisions. Arbitration
agreements will usually have a class waiver, preventing litigation
from becoming a multi-million dollar class action.
Arbitration generally carries the advantages of lowering litigation
complexity, avoiding irrational jury verdicts, and limiting
exposure to individual claims. Downsides include that employers
must foot the expensive bill for arbitration -- and arbitrations
carry virtually no right to appeal an unfavorable award. Businesses
often find the advantages outweigh the downsides.
Both California and federal law strongly favor agreements to
arbitrate, but federal law is stronger due to the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA"). The FAA mandates enforcement of
arbitration agreements over employee objections in most instances.
Challenges to arbitration agreements under the FAA are limited to
very narrow grounds, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.
Moreover, the FAA strongly favors class action waivers, ensuring
the arbitration remains individualized. But this favor does not
historically extend to claims under California's Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The Supreme Court of the United
States may change this soon.
California enacted PAGA in 2004 to enhance wage and hour
enforcement. PAGA authorizes private lawsuits by any employee
against their employer -- on behalf of all company employees -- for
civil penalties triggered by any violation of the Labor Code.
Unlike class actions, PAGA has low procedural and evidentiary
barriers before trial, but the level of civil penalties rivals or
exceeds a comparable class action. The explosion in PAGA litigation
over the last decade has been alarming to California businesses, to
say the least.
But arbitration agreements and attempts to implement representative
waivers are historically to no avail. California views PAGA as
fundamentally a substitute for a law enforcement action and
accordingly regards PAGA claims as immune from arbitration. The
California Supreme Court articulated this view in Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation Los Angeles (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, which later lower
court rulings further refined and which is now colloquially
regarded as the Iskanian rule. Naturally, the Iskanian rule makes
PAGA-only litigation the weapon of choice for many litigants.
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review a challenge
to the Iskanian rule in the matter entitled Viking River Cruises v.
Moriana (Dkt. No. 20-1573). The case presents an opportunity for
the Court to directly rule whether an arbitration agreement
purporting to waive PAGA proceedings must be enforced under the
FAA. Key considerations may include how much control the State can
delegate to employees before PAGA enters the FAA's scope.
Stay tuned for a ruling by July 2022. Possible outcomes may range
from complete waivers of PAGA to limiting PAGA claims to
arbitration with conditions. After the Supreme Court rules,
California can always amend PAGA to work around the ruling, while
Congress could always amend the FAA to exclude wage and hour claims
altogether. Regardless, Viking River Cruises is a case to watch.
Construction industry employers may take heart that Labor Code
section 2699.6 already provides an exemption from PAGA for any
construction industry employee covered by a qualifying CBA. To
qualify, a CBA must:
-- Address wages, hours of work, working conditions, and
overtime pay
-- Guarantee employees at least 30% more than the state minimum
wage
-- Clearly and unambiguous waive the requirements of PAGA
-- Prohibit all Labor Code violations that would be subject to
redress by PAGA
-- Provide a grievance and binding arbitration procedure for
those Labor Code claims
-- Authorize the arbitrator to award all remedies otherwise
available under the Labor Code, except any penalty payable to the
Labor & Workforce Development Agency
Janitorial services enjoy a similar exemption, and the Labor Code
is speckled with CBA-based exemptions. These are useful benefits to
companies that choose to bargain with a union, but companies should
ensure their CBAs qualify with the assistance of counsel.
Employers should also take note of several other significant
changes in arbitration.
The "Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual
Harassment Act" -- also known as H.R. 4445 -- was enacted in March
2022. H.R. 4445 exempts sexual assault and sexual harassment claims
from the FAA if the claims arose or accrued after the law passed.
The exemption is at the accuser's sole election. This means that
employers can no longer invoke the FAA going forward in cases
related to sexual assault and sexual harassment disputes. Exactly
how "related" the case must be is unclear -- and sure to become a
flashpoint of ongoing litigation and uncertainty.
The National Labor Relations Board's General Counsel intends to
scrutinize how and when arbitration agreements are implemented as
potential unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations
Act. There will be more information to come on this issue as
charges are filed and investigated.
Finally, be on the lookout for developments in litigation over
Assembly Bill 51 ("AB 51"). AB 51 prohibits requiring employees, as
a condition of employment, to sign agreements to arbitrate
California Fair Employment and Housing Act or Labor Code claims.
The law carries potential criminal charges for forcing the
arbitration agreements on employees, but appears to have no impact
on a company's right to enforce valid agreements once signed.
Business associations obtained an injunction against AB 51 as soon
as it passed. (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States v.
Bonta (9th Cir. 2021) D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02456). AB 51 is currently
paused on appeal awaiting further consideration (after a confusing
panel ruling) by the 9th Circuit, which has decided to hold off
until the Supreme Court of the United States rules on Viking River
Cruises v. Moriana. For now, the AB 51 injunction will stay in
place for those arbitration agreements covered by the FAA.
Employers should review their existing arbitration agreements, and
CBAs as applicable, with the assistance of experienced employment
counsel and consider applicable changes. Employers with questions
and in need of assistance should contact the authors or their usual
counsel at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo for guidance. [GN]
VOYAGE-AIR GUITAR: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Voyage-Air Guitar,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Voyage-Air Guitar, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-04317 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Voyage-Air Guitar, Inc. -- https://voyageairguitar.com/ -- makes a
full range of folding acoustic guitars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
WALMART INC: Merck Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS MERCK, individually
and as a representative of the class, v. WALMART INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02908-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the following proposed Class:
"The 110,527 individuals to whom Sterling Infosystems
applied an R3 code and sent pre-adverse action notice on
Walmart's behalf from June 3, 2015 through January 8,
2019;"
2. designating the Plaintiff Thomas Merck as Class
Representative;
3. appointing Berger Montague PC and Terrell Marshall Law
Group, PLLC as Class Counsel.
The Court should certify this case as a class action because the
proposed Class meets the requirements for certification under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23. The Class satisfies the Rule 23(a) prerequisites of
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, the Plaintiff
contends.
Walmart allegedly disqualified more than 100,000 individuals from
employment without first providing them the pre-adverse action
notice required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lS4fy5
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
jhashmall@bm.net
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
enusser@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Michael J Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
mwilson@meyerwilson.com
WAVE LIFE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wave Life LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Wave Life LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04318
(S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wave Life -- https://wavelife.us/ -- offers performance offshore
water wear and clothing made with high technology fabrics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Seventh Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Chuluunbat Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNENSAIKHAN CHULUUNBAT, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
21-1584 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit vacates the district court's dismissal of the action and
remands for further proceedings.
I. Introduction
Mr. Chuluunbat is trying to pursue a class action against the firm
of Weltman, a debt collector, which allegedly sent misleading
letters to him and others similarly situated. The district court
dismissed the action for failure adequately to assert an actual
injury. Chuluunbat appealed.
II. Background
After Chuluunbat defaulted on a credit card debt to Discover Bank,
Discover hired Weltman for collection services. Weltman sued in the
Circuit Court of Cook County on behalf of Discover, which retained
ownership of the debt. The complaint included a Weltman reference
number and stated that the debt was incurred on a credit card
number ending in 1116. After a trial, in which Chuluunbat
participated, judgment was entered against Chuluunbat for $3,607.02
plus $366.63 in costs. The judgment did not mention interest, which
accrues at a rate of nine percent per year by statute.
Weltman attempted to satisfy the judgment through Chuluunbat's
employer and another of his banks but was unsuccessful. Weltman
then sent Chuluunbat a letter on Jan. 16, 2020. The letter
indicated that it related to the 1116 credit card account, and it
used the same Weltman reference number that appeared in the Cook
County case. The letter did not, however, mention the judgment or
interest. Instead, it stated that an "account" had a "balance due"
of $4,212.90. It offered to settle the debt for 40 cents on the
dollar if Chuluunbat paid before April 30, 2020, in which case the
"balance due" would be $1,685.16. He did not pay by that date.
Instead, on May 1, 2020, he called a Weltman representative, who
told him that he now owed $4,306.29. Only after Chuluunbat later
contacted his lawyer did he realize that the interest on the
judgment was increasing daily.
Mr. Chuluunbat sued Weltman, alleging that it had violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending him a misleading
letter. He complained that Weltman (1) described the debt as an
"account" even though it had been reduced to a judgment, (2) listed
two different amounts as the "balance due," and (3) did not tell
him that the debt was increasing daily. He did not specify how the
allegedly misleading letter injured him, but he did assert that he
"could not afford to pay" the settlement it offered.
After Weltman moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the district court ordered the parties to
submit simultaneous briefs on whether Chuluunbat had standing to
sue in light of the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Nettles v.
Midland Funding LLC, 983 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2020). They did
so, and Chuluunbat also moved for leave to amend his complaint,
arguing that his proposed amended pleading established standing
under Nettles and other recent cases decided after he filed his
initial complaint. His proposed amended complaint stated that he
would have "pursued a different course of action" if he had known
that the "account" Weltman was collecting was the judgment. He also
alleged that if he had known that post-judgment interest was
accruing, he would have "sought to resolve the alleged debt over
other debts he had at the time" with lower interest rates. The
proposed amended complaint does not state whether he could have
paid off the debt or whether he was solvent.
The district court granted Chuluunbat's motion to amend his
complaint but, in the same order, dismissed his case for lack of
Article III standing. Relying on Nettles, the court ruled that
Chuluunbat lacked a concrete injury because his amended complaint
did not allege "that he had the ability to pay the debt owed, that
he actually paid other debts instead, or that he took any
detrimental step as a result of the alleged confusion." The court
also reasoned that Chuluunbat must have known about the interest
because the amount that the Weltman representative told him he owed
had increased since the letter. The court dismissed the complaint
without prejudice based on the lack of standing, entered judgment,
and closed the case. Chuluunbat appealed.
III. Discussion
The issue on appeal is therefore whether the amended complaint
sufficiently alleged Article III standing -- a question the Seventh
Circuit reviews de novo. To establish standing, Chuluunbat had to
"clearly allege facts" showing that he (1) suffered a concrete and
particularized injury (2) that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct, and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.
A defendant may challenge standing in two ways at the pleading
stage: Through a facial attack contending that standing does not
exist even if the allegations are true, or through a factual attack
challenging the truth of the allegations pertinent to standing. In
response to the latter, a plaintiff must offer proof of standing,
and the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings.
A.
Mr. Chuluunbat first defends the facial adequacy of his amended
complaint. He points out that he alleged that he would have taken
the settlement offer, which would have saved him thousands of
dollars, had he known that his "balance" was a judgment that was
increasing daily. Weltman's failure to follow the statute, he
asserts, harmed him financially. He distinguishes his case from
others in which a plaintiff alleged a violation of the FDCPA
without detailing how the defendant's action caused harm.
The Seventh Circuit finds that Chuluunbat's amended complaint
alleged an injury in fact that is both fairly traceable to Weltman
and redressable by a favorable judicial decision. It holds that
Chuluunbat alleged dollars-and-cents harm resulting from the
letter. Chuluunbat's allegations are not inherently implausible;
they permit a reasonable inference that he did not understand the
nature of the debt to which Weltman referred in its letter.
Chuluunbat also adequately pleaded a causal connection. In any
event, even if Chuluunbat had known the law surrounding
post-judgment interest, the letter still could have caused injury
by leading him to believe that Weltman was collecting a separate
debt -- one that was not a judgment and thus not subject to
post-judgment interest.
The third standing requirement, redressability, is not disputed.
The district court could redress Chuluunbat's injury by awarding
statutory or compensatory damages.
B.
That brings the Seventh Circuit to Weltman's factual attack on
Chuluunbat's standing. In its supplemental brief in the district
court, Weltman argued that Chuluunbat could not have paid his debt
to Discover over other debts because he was insolvent at all
relevant times, as he represented in prior cases. This raises a
question of fact (whether Chuluunbat could have paid the settlement
offer) underlying Chuluunbat's allegation of an injury (that he
would have paid it but for the letter misleading him). If payment
within a reasonable time was impossible for him, then nothing
Weltman did could have injured him.
When the defendant challenges the truth of the facts underlying the
plaintiff's allegations of standing, the district court must
resolve any dispute before determining whether the plaintiff has
standing. Because the district court did not so in the present
case, Weltman asks the Seventh Circuit to look to the evidence and
determine that Chuluunbat lacked a concrete injury because he was
not capable of paying the credit card debt regardless of whether
the letter misled him.
That is not the way the Seventh Circuit normally proceed, however;
instead, it relies on the district court to make this type of
factual finding in the first instance. That, it believes, is the
best approach in the case. First, whether Chuluunbat would have
been able to pay either the $1,685 or other, lower-interest, bills,
is a question of fact. Second, Chuluunbat had little opportunity to
respond to the factual attack.
To determine whether Chuluunbat has alleged an injury that confers
standing, the district court must resolve whether he could have
paid the settlement amount before the offer closed or successfully
changed the order of other payments.
IV. Conclusion
The Seventh Circuit thinks that the district court acted too
quickly. Chuluunbat's complaint alleged that the debt collector
sent him a misleading letter that induced him to forgo settling and
instead to allow interest on his debt to accrue at a high rate.
This was enough. At that early stage, he was not required also to
allege that he could have paid the debt or that he did pay other
debts instead of this one. And although the debt collector raised a
factual dispute about Chuluunbat's solvency based on statements he
made in other litigation (on the theory that he lacks standing to
sue if he was unable to pay), the district court should have
resolved that dispute with an evidentiary hearing.
For these reasons, the Seventh Circuit vacates and remands for
further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2efndxsk from Leagle.com.
WILD IDEA BUFFALO: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wild Idea Buffalo Co.
LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wild Idea Buffalo Co.
LLC., Case No. 1:22-cv-04307 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Wild Idea Buffalo Company -- https://wildideabuffalo.com/ -- is
the leading provider of grass fed, naturally raised buffalo in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
WILSON LOGISTICS: Moore Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MOORE, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated persons, v. WILSON
LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 6:21-CV-03212-BP (D. Mo.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying under Rule 23 a class of:
"all "D Seat" drivers who participated in any part of
Defendant's training program" (orientation through
obtaining CDL) in Missouri since August 12, 2016;"
2. conditionally certifying a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) comprised of all current
and former D, C, and B seat drivers who worked for
Defendant during the past three years;" and
3. requiring the parties to meet and confer on the form of
Notice to be sent to the Rule 23 and FLSA classes, and
ordering Defendant to produce names, and last known
contact information for the class and collective action
members.
Mr. Moore is a commercial truck driver formerly employed by Wilson.
Mr. Moore brings this action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated drivers, who were classified by Wilson as "D,"
"C," and "B" seat drivers, on the grounds that defendant failed to
pay him and other similarly situated drivers minimum wage pursuant
to the FLSA, and Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NWu9wL
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Virginia Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
Matthew R. Crimmins, Esq.
CRIMMINS LAW FIRM LLC
214 S. Spring Street
Independence, MO 64050
Telephone: (816) 974-7220
Facsimile: (855) 974-7020
E-mail: m.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
- and -
Garrett M. Hodes, Esq.
HODES LAW FIRM, LLC
900 Westport Road, 2nd Floor
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 931-1718
Facsimile: (816) 994-6276
E-mail: garrett@hodeslawfirm.com
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3261
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
WOOD GROUP: Workers Class Conditionally Certified in Iannotti Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRIS IANNOTTI, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WOOD GROUP MUSTANG, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-958-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Judge David W. Dugan of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Iannotti, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, brings tes complaint against the Defendant, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act ("IWPCA"). The Plaintiff seeks to bring the FLSA
claim as a nationwide collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), and the Illinois-law claims as a class action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23.
Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification. The Defendant timely opposed the Motion, and the
Court held a hearing on May 4, 2022.
II. Background
The FLSA prohibits employers from requiring an employee to work
more than 40 hours in a workweek unless the employee receives
compensation of at least one-and-a-half times their regular rate.
For violations of this provision, the FLSA authorizes collective
actions by employees on behalf of themselves and other employees
who are "similarly situated."
Plaintiff Iannotti is a former employee of the Defendant. He
alleges that he, and others similarly situated, worked as day rate
employees of the Defendant, and were paid a flat amount for each
day worked regardless of the number of hours they worked. The
Plaintiff alleges on his own behalf, and on behalf of the potential
class, that the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by using this
"day rate scheme" to pay its employees a day rate without overtime
pay for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court conditionally certifies a
collective action, defining the potential class as: All employees
Wood Group paid according to its day rate pay plan in the past
three years."
The Defendant opposes certification, arguing that Plaintiff cannot
prove potential members of the proposed class are "similarly
situated" such that resolving the class claims will require highly
individualized inquiries. It further argues that if a conditional
class is certified, that the class should be limited to Defendant's
employees who worked in Illinois. The Defendant renews its
jurisdiction argument, asserting that the Court would lack personal
jurisdiction over it as to any claims brought by employees who did
not live or work in Illinois, i.e., the out-of-state opt-in
plaintiffs.
III. Discussion
The parties disagree as to whether the Plaintiff and the proposed
class are similarly situated. The Plaintiff argues that the
proposed class is similarly situated because all members are
non-exempt employees who were paid a flat daily rate without
overtime and regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week but were
not compensated for those excess hours. Conversely, the Defendant
argues that the proposed class is not similarly situated because of
the individual differences in the employees' alleged guaranteed pay
rates and job duties. In short, it argues that the differences will
require individual assessments of each employee's salaries and job
duties rendering representative discovery and evidence difficult.
In sum, given the minimal burden on Plaintiff at the conditional
certification stage, Judge Dugan finds that certification is
appropriate. However, he must address the scope of the proposed
class and the issue of its personal jurisdiction over potential
opt-in plaintiffs. He finds that there is a considerable nationwide
split on this issue, in addition to two pending petitions for writ
of certiorari currently before the Supreme Court.
Considering this split, and the potential for a forthcoming
decision on the petitions for writ of certiorari which may result
in binding precedent on this exact issue, Judge Dugan is hesitant
to definitively rule on this issue until the petitions for writ of
certiorari have been ruled on, and if one is granted, the resulting
opinion issues. However, the is equally cognizant that a delay in
rendering a decision here may result in the running of the statute
of limitations and the expungement of individual rights.
Mindful of this tension, Judge Dugan finds it appropriate to
continue with certification and limit the scope of the proposed
class to those potential plaintiffs with a connection to Illinois.
While he is cognizant that this ruling could negatively impact the
potential rights of the out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs, unless
binding guidance on this issue becomes imminent, Judge Dugan
declines to extend its jurisdiction beyond proper bounds.
As to the potential impact on out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs, at
the May 4, 2022 hearing, the parties discussed the possibility of
an agreement to toll the applicable statute of limitations period
should one of the pending writ of certiorari be granted. The
parties informed the Court by e-mail correspondence dated May 18,
2022 that they have reached an agreement to toll the statute of
limitations of putative class members as of May 4, 2022, and
request an order confirming the same.
Although notice will be limited to only those plaintiffs whose
claims have a connection to Illinois, in order to avoid prejudice
to out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs, Judge Dugan finds it appropriate
to exercise its discretion and toll the statute of limitations for
the claims of "All employees Wood Group paid according to its day
rate pay plan in the past three years regardless of their
connection to Illinois." Given the current inconsistency in the law
on this subject, and the potential for forthcoming binding
precedent on this issue, exceptional circumstances exist. Both
parties have acted in good faith and have been diligent in their
pursuit of the matter, and the Court will not punish the potential
plaintiffs for ambiguity in law in this area.
Consequently, to avoid prejudice to the potential class of
out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs, Judge Dugan tolls the statute of
limitations from May 4, 2022 until the later of: (1) 30-days from
the entry of an order denying the petitions for writ of certiorari
in Canaday and Waters, or (2) should one or both of the petitions
be granted, 30-days from the issuance of the corresponding
opinion(s) from the United States Supreme Court. He believes this
is fair to the class, does not prejudice the Defendant, and is
consistent with other district courts' interpretations. The
parties, however, are granted leave to seek appropriate relief from
the Order should appropriate circumstances arise.
IV. Disposition
For the stated reasons, Judge Dugan grants the Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Certification consistent with the provisions of his
Order. The Plaintiff's proposed class is limited to those potential
plaintiffs whose claims have a connection to Illinois. Accordingly,
Judge Dugan certifies the case as a collective action under the
FLSA and authorizes the Plaintiff to send notice under Section
216(b) of the FLSA to: All employees Wood Group paid according to
its day rate pay plan in the past three years with a connection to
the State of Illinois.
Judge Dugan does not, however, approve the proposed notice attached
to the Plaintiff's Motion. Instead, he directs the parties to
confer regarding disputes as to the form of notice. The parties
will make every effort to resolve outstanding issues between
themselves. The parties will submit a joint proposed notice, or
separate notices if an agreement cannot be reached, to the Court's
proposed documents e-mail address by June 3, 2022.
Finally, the claims of all potential opt-in-plaintiffs, defined as
"All employees Wood Group paid according to its day rate pay plan
in the past three years regardless of their connection to Illinois"
are TOLLED effective from May 4, 2022 until the later of: (1)
30-days from the entry of the orders denying the petitions for writ
of certiorari in Canaday and Waters, or (2) should one or both of
the petitions be granted, 30-days from the issuance of the
corresponding opinion(s) from the United States Supreme Court. The
parties are directed to file a status report with the Court within
5-days of the Supreme Court's decisions on the petitions for writ
of certiorari in Canaday and Waters.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 20, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p98ch2n from Leagle.com.
XEROX CORPORATION: Filing for Class Status Bid Due Oct. 14
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS CARRIGAN, MICHAEL
VENTI, & YELLE, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. XEROX CORPORATION, THE XEROX
CORPORATION PLAN ADMINISTRATOR COMMITTEE, JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
3:21-cv-01085-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala
entered an order:
-- Any party with a claim or March 22, 2023
counterclaim for damages
shall serve a damages analysis
on the other parties on
or before:
-- Any motion for class October 14, 2022
certification must be filed
by Plaintiffs no later than:
-- Any motion related to preclusion May 22, 2023
of an expert must be filed by:
Xerox is an American corporation that sells print and digital
document products and services in more than 160 countries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NCHoCh at no extra charge.[CC]
YANCEY RICHARDSON: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yancey Richardson
Fine Art, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Yancey
Richardson Fine Art, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04303-ER (S.D.N.Y., May
25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Yancey Richardson Gallery -- https://www.yanceyrichardson.com/ --
is a dealer of fine art photography, based in New York City and
founded by Yancey Richardson.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (917) 796-7437
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
ZAMORA COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Rum
-------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action contends that Don Papa rum should more accurately be
represented as "imitation rum" since the product contains glycerin,
vanillin, caramel color, sugar and other added ingredients.
The 14-page case out of Illinois claims that Don Papa rum, made by
defendant Zamora Company USA, a subsidiary of Diego Zamora S.A., is
not rum "as this spirit is defined by regulations and understood by
consumers." According to the filing, rum is defined federally as a
class of spirits that are "distilled from the fermented juice of
sugar cane, sugar cane syrup, sugar cane molasses, or other sugar
cane by-products at less than 95 percent alcohol by volume (190
proof)," with the taste and attributes of rum and "bottled at not
less than 40 percent alcohol by volume (80 proof)."
The lawsuit states that "multiple independent laboratory analyses"
of the Don Papa rum, reportedly one of the few rums sourced from
outside the Western Hemisphere, in the Philippines, concluded that
the product contained additional glycerin, which provides
sweetness, viscosity and body to distilled spirits, and vanillin
and sugar.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff, an Illinois resident, and
other consumers believed that the Don Papa rum at issue was made
only from sugar and/or molasses and was aged for the number of
years indicated on the product's label.
Moreover, the case claims that the manufacturer's representation
that the rum's black color comes from being treated in casks is
"questionable."
"Though manufacturers are permitted to add coloring, flavoring, and
blending materials to distilled spirits, they are required to
disclose this unless an exception applies," the lawsuit says.
"Glycerin, vanillin, caramel color and added sugar are not
essential components of rum."
The complaint also claims that the added ingredients are "not
customarily employed in rum in accordance with established trade
usage." Ultimately, the additives cause Don Papa rum to be "an
imitation rum," and require the product to be labeled accordingly,
the lawsuit says.
"The addition of coloring and flavoring causes the Product to
simulate the class of flavored rums because it conforms to the
standard of identity for rum but for these additional ingredients,"
the filing reads.
Lastly, the lawsuit contends that the label statement that the Don
Papa rum is "aged up to 7 [or 10] years in Oak Barrels" is
misleadingly in that it creates among consumers the incorrect
impression that the blended rums are "very close or equal to seven
years, when they are not." According to the suit, the product is a
mix of younger and older rums, and the oldest is seven years old.
"The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially
less than its value as represented by Defendant," the complaint
alleges.
The suit looks to represent all persons in Illinois, Virginia,
Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, West Virginia, Kansas, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina and Utah
who bought Don Papa-brand rum within the applicable statute of
limitations period. [GN]
ZEETO LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended to June 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ZEETO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01646-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbra
Major entered an order granting Plaintiff motion for an extension
of time to move for class certification, up to and including June
6, 2022.
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 20, 2021. On
December 10, 2021, the Parties submitted a Joint Discovery Plan,
setting forth November 11, 2022, as the proposed deadline to move
for class certification.
On December 20, 2021, the Parties attended an Early Neutral
Evaluation conference before Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ga6s18 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Robert Lozeau, Esq.
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
1939 Harrison Srtreet, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 836-4200
E-mail: michael@lozeaudrury.com
- and -
Rory Pendergast, Esq.
THE PENDERGAST LAW FIRM, PC
3019 Polk Avenue
San Diego, CA 92104
Telephone: (619) 344-8699
Facsimile: (619) 344-8701
E-mail: Rory@rorylaw.com
- and -
Stephen A. Klein, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 907-4654
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: sklein@woodrowpeluso.com
[*] Eighth Circuit Remands FCRA Class Action to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
PreEMPLOY reports that a panel of Eighth Circuit judges had
rejected a class-action lawsuit that accused a data center of
violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it rescinded a
conditional offer of employment after performing a background check
which revealed a prior criminal conviction. The panel found that
the class representative had failed to show that she had suffered
harm from the potential employer's decision to revoke the
conditional offer of employment, nor had she disputed the accuracy
of the report. As a result, the panel reversed the lower court's
ruling that she possessed standing under the FCRA.
The purported class action was filed by the class representative in
February 2016, alleging that the data center had performed three
violations of the FCRA, including taking adverse employment action
prior to providing a copy of the report, failing to provide a
suitable FCRA disclosure prior to taking adverse employment action,
and exceeding the scope of authorization by obtaining more
information than was disclosed in the authorization.
Both parties managed to reach a tentative settlement agreement for
the claims through mediation. However, days later, the Supreme
Court released its opinion in the case of Spokeo v. Robins, which
found that a plaintiff must have suffered concrete harm in order to
hold Article III standing. Following this, the defendant moved for
dismissal on the grounds that the class representative lacked
standing, which was denied. The district court found that the
standing to bring a claim is irrelevant to whether or not the
representative has the standing to enforce a settlement agreement.
Following this, the district court judge ordered the parties to
submit their settlement agreement, to which both parties complied.
The case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit by the defendant, which
found "that the district court erred by not assessing standing
before enforcing the settlement agreement." The court found that
this is necessary because, without Article III standing, a federal
court lacks the subject-matter jurisdiction to preside over the
claim. The court vacated approval of the settlement agreement and
remanded the case for a determination as to whether the class
representative held standing. The court found that the plaintiff
held standing on all three claims. The defendant once again
appealed.
The appeals panel found that the class representative lacked
Article III standing to bring FCRA claims before a federal court.
Specifically, according to the panel's opinion regarding the claim
of adverse action, "Neither the text of the FCRA nor the
legislative history provide support for Schumacher's claim that she
has a right under the FCRA to not only receive a copy of her
consumer report but also discuss directly with the employer
accurate but negative information within the report prior to the
employer taking adverse action."
Similarly, the panel found that the defects in the FCRA disclosure
did not result in concrete harm. For the claim that the background
check exceeded the scope of authorization, the court found that
even should it have exceeded the scope of authorization, this would
only have resulted in an invasion of privacy to which there were no
factual allegations provided to the court. As a result, the court
remanded the case with orders to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, upon which it will return to a state court. [GN]
[*] Trinidad and Tobago Group Can't Bring Class Action v. Oil Co.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Crosby, writing for Law360, reports that the top court
for British overseas territories ruled on May 23 that a Trinidad
and Tobago group claiming to represent victims of an oil spill
could not bring a class action against an oil company because the
organization did not have the right to represent residents. [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 2022. 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 ***