A.A. v. Newsom: On March 17, 2021, a San Diego County judge temporarily blocked enforcement of various regulations aimed at reopening schools in California after a group of parents of public school children filed a lawsuit. The state`s plan to reopen schools banned the reopening of middle and high schools in “purple” counties (i.e. counties with 7 to 10 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 residents). The plaintiffs also challenged the plan`s requirement that reopened schools keep at least four feet between students in classrooms. The plaintiffs argued that these provisions violated California`s constitutional and legal guarantees of quality education, educational equality, separation of powers, and due process. In her order, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Cynthia Freeland sided with the plaintiffs, calling the state`s reopening plan “selective in its applicability, vague in its terms and arbitrary in its regulations.” In response to Freeland`s order, California Health and Human Services Agency spokesman Rodger Butler said the state “will continue to lead the way in science and health as we review this order and evaluate our legal options with a focus on the health and safety of California children and schools.” Scott Davidson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, called the decision “a big endorsement of our position that distance learning is a failure, that education is a constitutional right, and that these children have been deprived of their right to distance education.”    Corporate governance claims can arise as many companies face financial challenges and even bankruptcy. Companies and their directors and officers may face class action lawsuits for breach of fiduciary and other duties to creditors and other stakeholders upon bankruptcy. 5,000 people who tested positive after returning from the Austrian resort of Ischgl have signed up for a class action lawsuit alleging that Ischgl and the Tyrol region put private gain above public health.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made a “commercial decision” not to end the season prematurely, which opened the door to three charges: creating a public danger; the spread of a reportable disease; and abuse of power through inaction. See “Coronavirus-infected après-ski in the Austrian Alps; Criminal investigations and litigation now follow thousands of tourists from the United States and Europe who fell ill after ski trips in late winter,” Washington Post, May 17, 2020, WLNR 13885110. Another China Class Action Lawsuit Alleges China Stockpiled Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Refused to Send COVID-19 Shipments to the U.S. Aharon et al v. Chinese Communist Party et al, April 7, 2020, FL U.S. Dist. Ct., South 9:20-CV-80604 Auracle Homes, LLC v. Lamont: June 16, 2020, A group of eight Connecticut homeowners sued Governor Ned Lamont (D) in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, trying to block two executive orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Executive Order 7G, issued on March 19, suspends uncritical court cases.
Executive Decree 7X, published on 10. April prohibits landlords from carrying out new evictions by July 1, provides an automatic 60-day grace period for April rent (and a 60-day grace period for May rent upon request), and requires landlords to allow tenants who have paid a deposit of more than one month`s rent to use that excess amount around April. Rent in May or June. The owners argue in their complaint that these implementing regulations “unlawfully deprived them of their constitutional right to private contracts, the right to due process, the right to equal protection of the law, and the right not to expropriate their property for public use without fair compensation.” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong defended the executive orders, saying they were “very clearly constitutional and fully legally justified.” The case was assigned to Judge Victor Allen Bolden.   “We are committed to working closely with our law enforcement partners to combat fraud, waste and abuse in our government health programs,” said Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, CMS Administrator. “The administrative actions taken by CMS protect Medicare trust funds while protecting Medicare enrollees.” Flores v. Barr: On June 26, 2020, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee ordered the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to transfer migrant children detained in ICE`s Family Residential Centers (RCFs) to their families or sponsors by July 17, 2020. The order was issued following a decree issued on 26 March. March 2020, in which the plaintiffs, representing detained minors in a long-standing class action lawsuit, alleged that the continued detention of minors “in detention centers in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and the national public health emergency” violated the Flores Regulation. The Flores Settlement is a 1997 court-supervised settlement agreement that regulates the conditions of detention and treatment of foreign migrant children in federal custody.
Gee`s order was limited to minors detained in the RCF for more than 20 days. It provided that removal “should be carried out at full deliberate speed”. The order goes on to say that ICE “must urgently enforce its existing COVID-19 protocols” prior to removal, including social distancing, wearing masks, and improving testing in all detention centers. Gee had previously ordered the federal government on April 24, 2020, to “continue to make every effort to release the minors promptly and safely,” an order challenged by ICE in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 23, 2020.   “The Department of Justice`s Health Fraud Division and our partners are committed to eradicating the systems that have exploited the pandemic,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. of the Department of Justice`s Criminal Division. “Today`s enforcement action reaffirms our commitment to use all available tools to hold accountable health care professionals, leaders and others who prioritized greed over care during an unprecedented public health emergency. A cruise line has been sued in Florida for making false and misleading statements under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of individuals who purchased securities at allegedly artificially inflated prices between February 20, 2020 and March 12, 2020, causing economic harm. The cruise line issued a press release stating, among other things, that it (i) has a positive outlook for the company despite COVID-19 and (ii) has procedures in place to protect guests and crew. Emails were leaked on news channels suggesting that the cruise line had made false and misleading statements, causing its share price to plummet. Abraham Atachbarian v. Norwegian Cruise Lines et al, March 31, 2020, FL U.S. Dist. Ct., South 1:20-CV-21386 Class Action; Douglas v.
Norwegian Cruise Lines et al., 12 mars 2020, FL USA.