Feb 28, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Loandepot.com, LLC – Alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act Violations
On February 27, 2018, a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action complaint was filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, against Loandepot.com, LLC. The lawsuit alleges that beginning in April 2017, Loandepot.com, “a marketer and seller of loans and related products,” placed multiple telephone calls to the Plaintiff’s cell phone soliciting Loandepot.com’s business. Defendant Loandepot.com, allegedly, attempted to contact the Plaintiff’s cellular telephone from telephone number (813) 330-3850, among others.
The calls Plaintiff received were, allegedly, not for emergency purposes; were placed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular service for which the Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls; and for which Loandepot.com did not possess Plaintiff’s prior express consent to receive such calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, pursuant to, respectively, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).
The Plaintiff, Miguel Napoles, brought the class action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the United States who, within the past four years, received any solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Loandepot.com to a cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice without having previously consented to receiving such calls. The class action seeks statutory damages of $500 for each and every TCPA violation and triple, or treble, damages of $1,500 for each and every knowing or willful TCPA violation.
Have You Received Unsolicited, Unwanted or Harassing Autodial, Automated or Prerecorded “Robocalls” or Text Messages to Your Cellular Telephone from Telemarketers, Banks or Credit Card, Mortgage, Student Loan or Other Companies on Your Cell Phone Without Your Prior Express Consent?
Have You Received Debt Collection Robocalls On Your Cellular Telephone Where You Requested Not to Receive, or Opted-Out from Receiving, Automated Debt Collection Calls?
Have You Received “Junk Fax” Advertisements That You Did Not Consent to Receive?
If so, you may have grounds to bring a private right of action, or lawsuit, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to try and recover statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each TCPA violation. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney at no cost or obligation to you about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Feb 27, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Sorrento Therapeutics Announces That Its Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for The Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2017 Should No Longer Be Relied Upon
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating claims on behalf of the investors of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. to determine whether Sorrento Therapeutics and certain of its officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
On February 26, 2018, post-market, Sorrento Therapeutics (NASDAQ:SRNE) announced that SRNE’s
. . . Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Audit Committee”) of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. . . . after discussion with [Sorrento’s] independent registered public accounting firm, concluded that [Sorrento’s] unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017 should no longer be relied upon as a result of the conclusion by the Audit Committee that an other-than-temporary impairment in value had occurred in [Sorrento’s] equity method investment in Immunotherapy NANTibody, LLC (“NANTibody”) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017. In February 2018, NANTibody notified [Sorrento Therapeutics] that in July 2017 NANTibody acquired assets from a party related to its 60% owner, NantCell, Inc., for approximately $90 million cash. As a result, [Sorrento Therapeutics] reassessed the recoverability of its equity method investment in NANTibody and, on February 26, 2018, [Sorrento] and Audit Committee concluded that a previously unrecorded other-than-temporary impairment in value had occurred in its equity method investment in NANTibody as of September 30, 2017. The resulting impact on [Sorrento’s] 40% equity interest in NANTibody is a $36.0 million impairment on equity method investment in [Sorrento’s] condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017. This impairment expense will not result in cash expenditures in past or future periods.
[Sorrento Therapeutics] will restate its unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and other financial information contained in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2017 (the “Form 10-Q”), to reflect the impact of the impairment in the value of [Sorrento’s] equity investment in NANTibody by filing an amendment to the Form 10-Q on or about February 26, 2018. (Emphasis added)
On this news, the stock price of Sorrento Therapeutics dropped during intraday trading on February 27, 2018, closing at $8.45, down 4.52% from SRNE’s previous close of $8.85.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
Sorrento Therapeutics Investors and Shareholders
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, SRNE stock shares and have questions or concerns about the securities investigation or your potential legal rights, please contact John A. Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Feb 26, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Collective Action Claims National Oilwell Rig Welders Were Not Paid Overtime for Work in Excess of Forty Hours Per Week – Unpaid Overtime Wages Sought
On February 23, 2018, a collective action was filed by Plaintiff Juan Villarreal individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated National Oilwell Varco rig welders to recover unpaid overtime wages from National Oilwell Varco, L.P. and NOV GP Holding, L.P (“National Oilwell Varco”).
The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, claims National Oilwell Varco violated the Fair Labor Standards Act “‘ . . . by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees ‘for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours . . . at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were] employed.’”
According to the collective action, Plaintiff Villarreal was employed by National Oilwell Varco as a rig welder who regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff, though, did not receive overtime pay for all hours worked at the minimum wage and for hours worked beyond 40 at a rate of time and one-half as required by federal law. Additionally, it is alleged that National Oilwell Varco should have known that the Plaintiff was not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provisions.
The lawsuit contends that rig welders employed by National Oilwell Varco are similarly situated to the Plaintiff, because rig welders have similar job duties, regularly work in excess of forty hours per week, and are not paid overtime for the hours rig welders worked in excess of forty per week as required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) and (4) are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees and costs from National Oilwell Varco pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
If you served as a rig welder for National Oilwell Varco, you may have legal rights and options under federal and state wage laws. If you wish to discuss your potential legal options and claims, please contact Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Feb 26, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Alleged Failure to Pay International Paper Production Workers the Proper Overtime Rate
On February 23, 2018, a class and collective action was filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, by Plaintiff Alexis Bryant individually and on behalf of all other production workers employed by International Paper Company within the past three years for the company’s alleged failure to include shift premiums in the regular rate of pay when calculating the overtime compensation of International Paper production workers.
The plaintiff, according to the complaint, was employed as an hourly employee by International Paper as a production worker at International Paper’s plant in Conway, Arkansas and regularly worked more than forty hours per week. The plaintiff and other production workers also received regular, non-discretionary cash awards, upon meeting certain objective and measurable criteria, as well as one and one-half (1.5) of their base hourly rate for each hour worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek. International Paper, allegedly, did not include the cash awards into the regular rate of pay for production workers when calculating the overtime pay amount.
The complaint’s class and collective overtime pay claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act against International Paper seek, among other things, payment for all hours worked, including payment of overtime premium for all hours worked for International Paper in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and liquidated damages. International Paper’s alleged failure to include shift premiums in production worker overtime pay resulted in a failure to pay full overtime during weeks when production workers worked more than 40 hours.
If you served as a production worker, you may have legal rights and options under federal and state wage laws. If you wish to discuss your potential legal options and claims, please contact Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Feb 26, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Operator of More Than 300 Panera Bread Franchises Subject of Two Overtime Pay Lawsuits on Behalf of Panera Bread Assistant Managers to Whom Covelli Enterprises Allegedly Failed to Pay Overtime for Work Beyond 40 Hours Per Week
On January 9, 2018, a collective and class action was brought against Covelli Enterprises, Inc. in United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, by Plaintiff Erin E. Kis on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Panera Bread Assistant Managers for Covelli Enterprises’ alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Law.
According to the complaint, Covelli Enterprises owns and operates more than 300 Panera Bread franchises in Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. The Plaintiff, who regularly worked more than 40 hours per week as an Assistant Manager at a Panera Bread restaurant in Wadsworth, Ohio, was not an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act and did not receive pay for her hours worked beyond 40 per week, as required by law.
The overtime lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages at one and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond 40 a week and liquidated damages at one and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond 40 a week.
On February 22, 2018, a collective action was filed by Plaintiff Chelsea Romano against Covelli Enterprises, Inc. in United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, for improperly classifying Plaintiff and other Panera Bread Assistant Managers as exempt from federal overtime compensation, thereby depriving Assistant Managers of overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
According to the collective action complaint, Covelli Enterprises is the single largest Panera Bread franchisee, operating more than 260 Panera Bread restaurants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Florida, and Ontario, Canada with revenue of approximately $614.3 million in fiscal 2015.
The Plaintiff, according to the collective action complaint, served as an Assistant Manager from approximately September 2014 until August 2016 in Johnstown, Pennsylvania and worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay for hours she worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Among other relief, the collective action seeks unpaid overtime and liquidated damages.
Panera Bread Assistant Managers
If you served as a Panera Bread Assistant Manager and believe you have claims for unpaid overtime, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
