/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160919.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 187 Headlines AFFORDABLE HOME: Faces "Harrison" Suit Under FLSA, Ind. Wage Act AMEDISYS INC: Court Trims Claims in Securities Class Suit AMERICAN RENAL: "Esposito" Suit Claims Securities Act Violation APPLE COMPUTERS: Faces "Cluff" Class Suit in Utah Dist. Ct. ARKANSAS: Desegration Case Settlement Stands, 8th Cir. Rules B&G FOODS: Faces "Horton" Lawsuit Over "Mislabeling" of Cereal BBI LLC: "Davis" Lawsuit Asserts FLSA Violation BEHRMAN BROTHERS: Faces "Garner" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation BENNY'S BURRITOS: Faces "Tapia" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law BIG E: "Cairo" Class Suit Removed to Florida Dist. Ct. BLUE CROSS: Faces "Mahajan" Suit Alleging False Representation BLUENRGY GROUP: "Lyons" Lawsuit Alleges Securities Laws Violation BRINK'S INC: Faces "Adkins" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Code BRINKER FLORIDA: "Lozada" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Schmitz" Suit Over FDCPA Violation COBALT MORTGAGE: Settlement Objector Barred from Contacting Class CONAIR CORP: Court Accepts Experts' Testimonies CORELOGIC NATIONAL: Bid to Strike Proposed Subclasses Denied CREDIT ONE: Court Stays Proceedings Pending Arbitration Outcome CRICKET COMMS: "Scott" Case Remanded to Maryland State Court DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 6080A NCX Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces AFS 1122 Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces AGF Spring Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Wood" Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Grove Business Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces JP Stemmons Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Landmark Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces MLRP 9660 Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces MLRP Park Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Rosewood Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces University Drive Suit Over Appraisal Policy DELUXE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Byler", Denies Transfer Bid DIAMOND TOUCH: "Ramirez" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida DOUBLE EAGLE: "Gordon" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA E.I. DU PONT: Faces "Chance" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA EASTCHESTER EVENTS: Faces "Pino" Suit Seeking to Recover Tips ELITE PERSONNEL: Sued in N.J. Over Racial Discrimination ELIZABETH ARDEN: Litigation Related to Revlon Merger Pending ENVIRONMENTAL DRILLING: "Bertothy" Suit Invokes FLSA, Wage Act ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to AmSurg Corp. EVERALBUM INC: "McLemore" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of TCPA FIFTH THIRD BANK: Miller Sues Over Illegal Phone Call Recording FIORENTINO RISTORANTE: Faces Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: "Jewett" ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ind. FXCM INC: Court Dismisses Chicago Cops Retirement Fund's Suit GABE'S CASING: Faces "Scheriger" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GLASSDOOR INC: Pincaro Suit Alleges Personal Data Breach GLENTEX INC: Faces "De La Rosa" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation GODIVA AMERICAN: Faces "Varona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GOOGLE INC: 876 Plaintiffs Severed from Corley & Amaral Cases HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Timber Ridge Suit Over Appraisal Policies HARVEST CHADDS: Faces "Bland" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act HOME PROPERTIES: Court Denies Motion to Deposit Funds INNOVENTIONS INTL: Plaintiff Retains Standing under Calif. Law ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Federman" Suit Alleging WARN Act Breach IY KHANDII: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime JOHN WEILAND: Arbitration Clause Enforceable, SC High Court Says KANSAS CITY LANDSMEN: 8th Cir. Affirmed $17K Attorney's Fee Award KOCH FOODS: Maplevale Farms Files Antitrust Suit Over Broilers LEO EDELSBERG: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Reinstates Claim in "Moyle" Case LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUXURY SUITES: Nevada Judge Rejects Settlement, 40% Fee Award MAGNA HEALTH: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Backwages MARIETTA MEMORIAL: Nurses' Suit Has Conditional Certification MEDPRO GROUP: Carrel's Breach of Contract Claim Dismissed MICHAEL SMITH: Sued Over NY Religious Corporations Law Violation MIDLAND CREDIT: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, NJ Judge Says MIDLAND FUNDING: Fraudulent Judgment Victims' Suit Dismissed MINES MANAGEMENT: O'Rourke, Schubert and Assad Suits Filed MINES MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses "Assad" Suit Over Merger Deal MODERNIZE INC: "Johansen" Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls NCR CORP: Waived Right on Class Arbitration Issue, Court Says NEVADA CHECKER: Court Dismisses "Noble" Complaint NGL WAREHOUSE Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PATHWAY LEASING: Franklin Merrill Alleges Violation of FLSA PMLRA PIZZA: Federal Circuit Appeal Lodged in "Reeves" Case REALTIME STAFFING: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims REMX INC: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, Cal. App. Says RENNERT MIAMI: "Luckett" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ROCKVILLE AUTO: Faces "Radfar" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws SIGNET JEWELERS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports SKY VIEW: Meneses Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Illegal Deductions SODEXO INC: Faces "Mejia" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Laws SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: "Richardson" Sues over Football Hazard STARBUCKS CORPORATION: "Crittenden" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. STATE STREET: Faces "Abreu" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FCRA SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Grants Class Certification in ERISA Case SUPERIOR SCHOOLS: Faces "Rumsey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SUPER QUALITY: Faces "Canizalez" Suit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Laws T-N-T OF YORK: EEOC Files Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination TJX COMPANIES: Must Defend Against Suit Over Deceptive Prices TOWN OF PARRISH: Faces "Criswell" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA TRANSUNION: Illinois Judge Narrows Claims in Sgouros Suit TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shrem" Suit Claims UNITED NATIONS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Epidemic UNITED STATES: Veterans' Suit v. Defense Dept. Dismissed UNITED STATES: 8th Cir. Revives Johnson Claims Against USDA VGC INC: Ala. Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Min. Wage Under FLSA VILLA SERENA: "Martin" Sues Over Retalliation, Unpaid OT, Wages VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Part VIVIFY SERVICES: Faces "Davis" Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct. WALGREEN CO: 7th Reverses Approval of Settlement in Merger Case WASHINGTON SUBURBAN: Wins Summary Judgment in "Floyd" Suit XE SERVICES: Motions to Dismiss on Hold Pending Arbitration ********* AFFORDABLE HOME: Faces "Harrison" Suit Under FLSA, Ind. Wage Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER HARRISON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. AFFORDABLE HOME CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02371-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., September 2, 2016), alleges willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law. AFFORDABLE HOME CARE, LLC provides homecare services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert T. Dassow, Esq. William F. Eckhart, Esq. HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS, LLC Meridian Tower 10201 N. Illinois Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46290 - and - Molly E. Nephew, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. David H. Grounds, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (612) 436-1800 Fax: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com mnephew@johnsonbecker.com AMEDISYS INC: Court Trims Claims in Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Brian A. Jackson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) in the case captioned, ROBERT F. BACH, ET AL., v. AMEDISYS, INC., ET AL, Case No. 10-00395-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.). Lead Plaintiffs Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi (Mississippi PERS) and Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System (Puerto Rico TRS) (Plaintiffs) bring the consolidated class action on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired Amedisys's publicly traded securities from August 2, 2005 to September 30, 2011 (the Class Period). They allege that Amedisys and seven current or former members of Amedisys's senior management (Individual Defendants) defrauded investors by concealing a Medicare fraud scheme in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, as promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs also bring claims against Individual Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78t(a). On November 12, 2013, Amedisys issued a press release announcing that it had agreed to enter into a $150 million settlement with the Department of Justice based upon the allegations. Defendants seek to have Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Securities Class Action Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 12(b)(6). In his Ruling and Order dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/yaljhy from Leagle.com, Judge Jackson granted the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Securities Class Action Complaint as to Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against defendants Graham, Redman, Giblin, Browne, and Schwartz and Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims against Browne and Giblin because Plaintiffs have not adequately pled Section 20(a) claims against Browne and Giblin. The Court denied with respect to Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against defendants Amedisys, Borne, and Jeter, and Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims against Borne, Jeter, Schwartz, Redman, and Graham because Plaintiff has adequately pled Section 20(a) claims against Borne, Jeter, Schwartz, Redman, and Graham. Robert F. Bach and Diane E. Bach are represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- and Marc I. Gross, Esq. -- migross@ponlaw.com -- POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP -- Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. -- gwells@cwg-law.com -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP -- J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. -- gerards@BSJFirm.com -- BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System is represented by Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP -- J. Gerard Stranch, Branstetter, Esq. -- gerards@BSJFirm.com -- STRANCH & JENNINGS Nirav T. Patel is represented by Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- Charles Michael Bollinger, Esq. -- cbollinger@nbalawfirm.com -- NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT -- Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. -- gwells@cwg-law.com -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP -- J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. -- gerards@BSJFirm.com -- BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS Amedisys Securities Investors is represented by Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. -- gwells@cwg-law.com -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP -- J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. -- gerards@BSJFirm.com -- BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS Amedisys, Inc., et al. are represented by Richard Franklin Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. -- richard@kswb.com -- and Julie Moffett McCall, Esq. -- julie@kswb.com -- KANTROW, SPAHT, WEAVER & BLITZER -- Darren A. Shuler, Esq. -- dshuler@kslaw.com -- David E. Meadows, Esq. -- dmeadows@kslaw.com -- David Tetrick, Jr., Esq. -- dtetrick@kslaw.com -- and -- Michael R. Smith, Esq. -- msmith@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING, LLP Alice Schwartz is represented by Alfred Paul LeBlanc, Jr., Esq. -- paul.leblanc@phelps.com -- Jane Robert Goldsmith, Esq. -- jane.goldsmith@phelps.com -- Jessica C. Huffman, Esq. -- jessica.huffman@phelps.com -- Karleen Joseph Green, Esq. -- karleen.green@phelps.com -- and Shelton Dennis Blunt, Esq. -- dennis.blunt@phelps.com -- PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP The Plan Administrative Committee, et al. are represented by Thomas W. Darling, Esq. -- GAUDRY, RANSON, HIGGINS & GREMILLION -- Darren A. Shuler, Esq. -- dshuler@kslaw.com -- David Tetrick, Jr., Esq. -- dtetrick@kslaw.com -- and Michael B. Wakefield, Esq. -- mwakefield@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING AMERICAN RENAL: "Esposito" Suit Claims Securities Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ESPOSITO, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN RENAL ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH A. CARLUCCI, JONATHAN L. WILCOX, and SYED T. KAMAL, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-11797 (D. Mass., September 2, 2016), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired ARA securities pursuant to a Registration Statement or on a U.S. stock exchange between April 20, 2016 and August 18, 2016, both dates inclusive. AMERICAN RENAL ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS, INC., a provider of outpatient dialysis services, owns and operates approximately 200 dialysis clinics throughout the country. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Delaney, Esq. Leslie R. Stern, Esq. Mark A. Delaney, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 542-8300 Fax: (617) 542-1194 E-mail: lstern@bermandevalerio.com mdelaney@berrmandevalerio.com - and - Robert C. Finkel, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 APPLE COMPUTERS: Faces "Cluff" Class Suit in Utah Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Apple Computers. The case is captioned Julie Cluff, Ron Cluff, Zachary Christensen, Jerri Lynn Larsen, Bodi Smith, Amanda Larsen, Kevin Smith, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Apple Computers, Case No. 2:16-cv-00916-EJF (D. Utah, August 31, 2016). Apple Computers designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane L. Christensen, Esq. Steven A. Christensen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES 9980 S 300 W ste 200 Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: (866) 861-3333 E-mail: zanechristensen@christensenyounglaw.com stevenchristen@gmail.com ARKANSAS: Desegration Case Settlement Stands, 8th Cir. Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ Circuit Judge Jane Kelly of the Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a Rule 60(b)(5) motion filed by several school districts in Arkansas seeking termination of the Garland County School Desegregation Case Comprehensive Settlement Agreement reached in the case captioned, W.T. Davis, Individually and on behalf of a Class of Taxpayers of Garland County, Arkansas, Similarly Situated, and; Garland County Chapter of the N.A.A.C.P., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Hot Springs School District; Arkansas, State of; Arkansas State Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees, Earle Love, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of Education; L.D. Harris, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Jeff Starling, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Robert L. Newton, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Dr. Harry P. McDonald, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Rae-Perry, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Elaine Scott, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Walter Turnbow, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Nancy Wood, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Garland County Board of Education; Van Smith, Individually, and as a Member of the Garland County Board of Education; Carl L. Johnson, Individually, and as a Member of the Garland County Board of Education; Flora Kimball, Individually, and as a Member of the Garland County Board of Education; Ira Livers, Individually, and as a Member of the Garland County Board of Education; John Wainscott, Individually, and as a Member of the Garland County Board of Education; E.T. Shuffield, Individually, and as a Member of the Garland County Board of Education, Defendants, Cutter Morning Star School District; Fountain Lake School District; Jessieville School District; Lake Hamilton School District; Lakeside School District; Mountain Pine School District, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 15- 1919 (8th Cir.). On August 18, 1989, W.T. Davis filed, individually and on behalf of a class of taxpayers of Garland County, Arkansas, a class action lawsuit against Garland County alleging that it maintained a racially-segregated public school system in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The parties agreed to settle the case and entered into the Agreement on November 25, 1991. In 2012, the district court, as a result of independent litigation, held the provision of the School Choice Act limiting transfers on the basis of race violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2013, the Arkansas legislature repealed the 1989 Act and replaced it with the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 2013 (2013 School Choice Act). See Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 6-18-1901 et seq. The 2013 School Choice Act removed the race-based limitation on public school transfers and included a provision preventing the receiving school district from discriminating on the basis of race. Cutter Morning Star School District, Fountain Lake School District, Jessieville School District, Lake Hamilton School District, and Mountain Pine School District (the school districts) sought termination of the Garland County School Desegregation Case Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) and relief from the district court's 1992 order enforcing it. The district court concluded that the school districts had failed to meet the standard for termination under Rule 60(b)(5) and denied their motion. On appeal, the school districts argued that their Rule 60(b)(5) motion should be governed by the standard set forth in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, which requires a party seeking modification of a consent decree to establish "that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision." In her Order dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/OGz1h2 from Leagle.com, Judge Kelly agreed with the district court that the school districts have not shown evidence of full compliance and that the change in the law presented by the school districts, standing alone, is not enough to require termination of the Agreement in the case. Hot Springs School District and Arkansas State Board of Education are represented by Allen P. Roberts, Esq. -- kroberts@cdcglobal.com -- and -- Jeremy Christopher Lasiter, Esq. -- Jeremy.Lasiter@arkansas.gov Earl Love, et al. are represented by Dan Franklin Bufford, Esq. Jess Askew, III, Esq. M. Samuel Jones, III, Esq. -- sjones@mwlaw.com -- MITCHELL WILLIAMS -- Ashley Welch Hudson, Esq. -- Ashley.Hudson@KutakRock.com -- KUTAK ROCK LLP -- Luke K. Burton, Esq. -- lburton@irell.com -- IRELL & MANELLA LLP; D. Scott Hickman, Esq. -- shickman@srvhlaw.com -- SHERRARD ROE VOIGT HARBISON W.T. Davis, et al. are represented by Quincy Byrum Hurst, Jr., Esq. -- qbyrum@hurstlaw.org -- and Justin Byrum Hurst, Esq. -- josh@hurstlaw.org -- HURST LAW GROUP B&G FOODS: Faces "Horton" Lawsuit Over "Mislabeling" of Cereal -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Horton, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. B&G Foods, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; B&G Foods North America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-06638-GW-E (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2016), alleges that the company mislabels and falsely advertises its cereal as containing maple in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. B&G Foods, Inc. and B&G Food North America, Inc. manufactures, markets and distributes Cream of Wheat Instant Hot Cereal. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald B. Malanga, Esq. LATTIE, MALANGA, LIBERTINO, LLP 3731 Wishire Boulevard, Suite 860 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (323) 938-3102 Fax: (323) 938-0110 BBI LLC: "Davis" Lawsuit Asserts FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------- EUGENE DAVIS and CALVIN WALKER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. BBI LLC Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03325-LMM (N.D. Ga., September 2, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by the Defendant against installation and repair technicians, who performed satellite television installation and repair services for the Defendant. BBI LLC's core business is performing installation and repair services for subscribers of DirecTV. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Mays, Esq. MAYS & KERR, LLC 235 Peachtree Street NE 202 North Tower Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 410-7998 Fax: (404) 855-0820 E-mail: john@maysandkerr.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Fax: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com BEHRMAN BROTHERS: Faces "Garner" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- WINIFRED MARIE GARNER and SOPHIA THEUS, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BEHRMAN BROTHERS IV, LLC and BEHRMAN BROTHERS MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-6968 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2016), seeks to recover damages equivalent to 60 days' pay and Employee Retirement Income Security Act benefits by reason of Defendants' alleged violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. BEHRMAN BROTHERS MANAGEMENT CORP. is an investment advisory firm. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 581-5005 Fax: (212) 581-2122 E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 210 S. Washington Avenue Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 433-8100 Fax: (251) 433-8181 E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com BENNY'S BURRITOS: Faces "Tapia" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES FUENTES TAPIA, CESAR GRANADOS, JAIME GUADARRAMA DE JESUS, JOSE SONTAY, RUBEN PEREZ, and JAVIER FLORES SEGUNDO Plaintiffs, v. BENNY'S BURRITOS, INC. (d/b/a BENNY'S BURRITOS), EGG WHITE, INC. (d/b/a BLOCKHEADS), 954 SECOND CORP. (d/b/a BLOCKHEADS), KIOSK 50 CORP. (d/b/a BLOCKHEADS), JOHN DOE CORP. (d/b/a BLOCKHEADS), DONALD SOFER and KENNETH SOFER, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-06957 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the N.Y. Labor Law. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a chain of Mexican restaurants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 BIG E: "Cairo" Class Suit Removed to Florida Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Fabian Cairo, and other similarly situated delivery drivers v. Big E Transport, LLC, Case No. 15-CA- 11463, was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida to the U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-02539-VMC-TGW to the proceeding. The case asserts labor-related claims. Big E Transport, LLC operates a freight shipping and trucking company in Richmond, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 W Flager St Ste 2200 Miami, FL 33130-6807 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 415-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles J. Thomas, Esq. Gregory Alan Hearing, Esq. THOMPSON, SIZEMORE, GONZALEZ & HEARING, PA 201 N Franklin St-Ste 1600, PO Box 639 Tampa, FL 33601-0639 Telephone: (813) 273-0050 Facsimile: (813) 273-0072 E-mail: cthomas@tsghlaw.com ghearing@tsghlaw.com BLUE CROSS: Faces "Mahajan" Suit Alleging False Representation -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Wyka Mahajan, individually, and as a guardian ad litem for G.D. Mahajan, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-06944-PKC (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2016), alleges that Defendant's representations concerning the availability of covered benefits under its Service Benefit Plan were materially false. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association -- http://www.bcbs.com/-- is a national federation of 36 independent and locally operated Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Damon McDougal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAMON MCDOUGAL LLC 300 Winston Drive #103 Cliffside Park, NJ 07010 Phone: (973) 536-5470 E-mail: mcdougallaw.dm@gmail.com BLUENRGY GROUP: "Lyons" Lawsuit Alleges Securities Laws Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH LYONS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BLUENRGY GROUP LIMITED, f/k/a CBD ENERGY LIMITED, RICHARD PILLINGER, TODD BARLOW, CARLO BOTTO, WILLIAM MORRO, and JAMES GREER Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-02704 (S.D. Tex., September 6, 2016), was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities, other than Defendants, who purchase or otherwise acquired the common stock of BlueNRGY, f/k/a CBD Energy Limited during the period from June 13, 2014 to October 24, 2014. BLUENRGY GROUP LIMITED and its subsidiaries operate in the global renewal energy and energy-efficiency sectors, providing various renewal energy services and technologies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith R. Lorenze, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 600-2817 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: klorenze@rosenlegal.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Yu Shi, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com yshi@rosenlegal.com BRINK'S INC: Faces "Adkins" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM ADKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRINK'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:16- at-01108 (E.D. Cal., September 2, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. Brink's, Inc. is a security and protection company. The Plaintiff is represented: Adam Rose, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 225-9040 Fax: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com BRINKER FLORIDA: "Lozada" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Angel Lozada, on his behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Brinker Florida, Inc., Defendant, Case No. Case No. 1:16-cv-23736 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, and liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Labor Law. Brinker of Florida, Inc. operates as Chili's Bar and Grill where Plaintiff was employed as a server and waiter. Lozada claims to have worked off the clock and was not compensated accordingly. Defendant is represented by: Paul F. Penichet, Esq. PENICHET LAW 9655 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 310 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 373-8809 Fax: (305) 373-8810 Email: Paul@penichetlaw.com CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Schmitz" Suit Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- SHEILA SCHMITZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, and SYNCHRONY BANK, Defendants, Case No.: 16-cv-1199 (E.D. Wis., September 6, 2016), seeks redress for collection practices that allegedly violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wisconsin Statutes. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC is a collection agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com COBALT MORTGAGE: Settlement Objector Barred from Contacting Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted Defendant Cobalt's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for a corrective communication in the case captioned, FRANCENE GREWE and LORI EBELHARD, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COBALT MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. C16-577-JCC (W.D. Wash.). On April 21, 2016, the matter was filed in the Court after the parties participated in mediation. The same day, April 21, the parties sought certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and approval of the settlement achieved at mediation. On May 2, 2016, Eric Engelland moved to intervene and objected to the proposed settlement. The Court granted the motion to intervene, considered Mr. Engelland's objections, and ordered the parties to submit additional briefing before it would approve the settlement. After approving the collective action settlement and adopting a notice process, the Court has been informed that Engelland's counsel Jeff James, Esq., sent a letter to putative members of the settlement class who may also be potential class members in the Bell-Beals suit pending in King County Superior Court. Cobalt seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting Engelland, James, and the law firm of Sebris Busto James, from further communicating with the putative class until September 12, 2016, one week after Court-approved notice materials are sent. On August 11, 2016, Cobalt also moved the Court to issue a corrective communication to those contacted by Engelland. In his Order dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/x9ZYJP from Leagle.com, Judge Coughnenor found that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) are satisfied and that James's letter was misleading and potentially confusing to putative class members. Engelland and his counsel were prohibited from further contact with the putative class discussing the Grewe settlement, including communications that discourage settlement participation, until September 12, 2016 and to provide Cobalt's counsel with a list of individuals to whom James's July 28, 2016, letter was sent. Francene Grewe and Lori Eberhard are represented by Beth E. Terrell, Esq. -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC -- Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. -- Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com -- ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC Cobalt Mortgage Inc. is represented by Taylor S. Ball, Esq. -- taylorball@dwt.com -- Ryan Coby Hess, Esq. -- ryanhess@dwt.com -- and Sheehan H. Sullivan Weiss, Esq. -- sheehanweiss@dwt.com -- AVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE CONAIR CORP: Court Accepts Experts' Testimonies ----------------------------------------------- District Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert Phil Van Herle and Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the testimony of Defendant's expert Robert Carnahan in the case captioned, CYNTHIA L. CZUCHAJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-01901-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal.) The certified class action arises out of Defendant's sales of its Infiniti Pro 1875 Watt model 259/279 hair dryer. Plaintiffs allege that there are two defects in the hair dryer. First, they allege that the strain relief to the power cord of the hair dryer had a tendency to cause the power cord to fail, resulting in the expulsion of sparks and molten metal particles that presented a fire hazard and burn risk (cord defect). Second, they contend that the hair dryer's heater coils "sawed" through their mica support boards inside the barrel of the hair dryer, eventually coming into contact and short-circuiting, resulting in coils breaking and discharging from the barrel, which also presented a fire hazard and burn risk (coil defect). The parties each retained their own respective engineering experts to proffer opinions related to these alleged defects. Plaintiffs retained Phil Van Herle of 4X Forensic Engineering Laboratories. Defendant retained Robert Carnahan of Exponent Failure Analysis Associates. The experts have produced expert reports required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and have been deposed. In Defendant's motion, it argues that Mr. Van Herle is not qualified to testify about the alleged cord and coil defects and that Mr. Van Herle's opinions are not reliable because they are based on flawed or inadequate testing. Plaintiffs seek to preclude Mr. Carnahan from offering opinions on particular issues that they contend he expressed no opinion on in his Rule 26 Report. In his Order dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/vXeXdg from Leagle.com, Judge Benitez found that each party's engineering expert satisfies the requirements of Rule 702 and may testify at trial. Cynthia L Czuchaj is represented by Isam C. Khoury, Esq. -- ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Jeff Geraci, Esq. -- jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- Michael D. Singer, Esq. -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- and Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. -- tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER -- Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. -- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- BISNAR & CHASE -- Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. -- kodenbreit@mahoney- law.net -- ODENBREIT LAW, APC Conair Corporation is represented by Ryan Donald Saba, Esq. -- rsaba@rosensaba.com -- and Momo Emily Takahashi, Esq. -- mtakahashi@rosensaba.com -- ROSEN SABA LLP CORELOGIC NATIONAL: Bid to Strike Proposed Subclasses Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Defendant's motion to strike proposed subclasses in the case captioned, TYRONE HENDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORELOGIC NATIONAL BACKGROUND DATA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:12CV97 (E.D. Va.). On July 16, 2015, Plaintiffs Tyrone Henderson (Henderson) and James Hines (Hines) filed a second amended class action complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleging that Defendant National Background Data, LLC (NED) had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The SAC presents two claims under the FCRA: -- Count One alleges, on behalf of the putative nationwide class, that NBD violated the FCRA by failing to send notices to consumers and to "maintain strict procedures" to ensure that the criminal records it provided to its customers were "complete and up to date," in violation of 15 U.S.C Sec. 1681k(a). -- Count Two, an individual claim on behalf of Henderson and Hines, alleges that NBD failed to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of its reports, in violation of U.S.C. Sec. 1681e(b). On August 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification, seeking to certify of "All natural persons residing in the United States who (a) were the subject of a report sold by NBD to Verifications, ADP or HR Plus, (b) where NBD's Results Returned database indicates that it was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) where NBD's Results Returned database showed that the report contained at least one adverse criminal record hit, (d) within five years next preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency. " The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice holding that the class definition was overly broad and was not adequately tethered to the element of "incompleteness" that Plaintiffs are required to prove to succeed on their Sec. 1681k claim. In accordance with the Order, Plaintiffs filed a third motion for class certification on May 9, 2016 and proposed these subclasses: SUBCLASS 1: (i) NBD's Results Returned database shows a criminal record hit from a Virginia General District Court; (ii) NBD did not return a SSN to its customers; and (iii) the computer database of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia contains a SSN or Drivers License number associated with that criminal record. SUBCLASS 2: (i) NBD's Results Returned database shows a criminal record hit from a Pennsylvania General District Court; (ii) NBD did not return a SSN to its customers; and (iii) the computer database of the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) contains a SSN associated with that criminal record. SUBCLASS 3: (i) NBD's Results Returned database show a criminal record hit from a state Sex Offender Registry; (ii) where the age and/or date of birth provided for that consumer by Verifications, ADP or HR Plus did not match the age and/or date of birth contained in that State's publically accessible Sex Offender Registry. In support of their first and second proposed subclasses, Plaintiffs have offered the declarations of Robert Smith (Smith) and Michael Hollander (Hollander), respectively. Smith is an employee in the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia. In his declaration, Smith explains that, based on his review of a sample of General District Court records, most of the records contain Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and/or operator's license numbers. Hollander is a staff attorney at Community Legal Services, Inc., a free legal services program based in Pennsylvania. Hollander's declaration briefly discusses the operation of the records database maintained by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts and describes the procedures for accessing that database. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c), NBD filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs' proposed subclasses and the Smith and Hollander declarations offered in support thereof, arguing that: -- Plaintiffs' proposed subclasses must be stricken because Plaintiffs' "belated disclosure" of the subclasses was a "complete surprise" and "Plaintiffs had never mentioned the use of any third-party governmental databases to try and achieve class certification in this case, let alone databases that were specific to Virginia, Pennsylvania, or state sex offender websites." -- the Smith and Hollander declarations should be excluded because Plaintiffs did not disclose these witnesses as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 before attaching the declarations in support of their motion for class certification. In his Memorandum Opinion dated September 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/S6hth2 from Leagle.com, Judge Payne held that Plaintiffs did not violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 by failing to disclose the proposed subclasses and that complete rejection of the evidence from Smith and Hollander would be an excessive sanction given that the evidence was, in large part, made necessary by NBD's positions and the decision on summary judgment. Counsel were directed to develop and submit for review a plan for reopening limited discovery relating to the proposed subclasses by September 11, 2016. Tyrone Henderson and James O. Hines, Jr. are represented by Lauren K.W. Brennan, Esq. -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- David Anthony Searles, Esq. -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- and -- James Arthur Francis, Esq. -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC -- Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. -- leonard@clalegal.com -- Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. -- susan@clalegal.com -- Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. -- casey@clalegal.com -- Janelle Mason Mikac, Esq. -- janelle@clalegal.com -- and Matthew James Erausquin, Esq. -- matt@clalegal.com -- CONSUMER LITGATION ASSOCIATES PC Corelogic National Background Data, LLC is represented by Alan Durrum Wingfield, Esq. -- allan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com -- David Neal Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutmansnaders.com -- John C. Lynch, Esq. -- john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- and Timothy James St. George, Esq. -- timothy.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP CREDIT ONE: Court Stays Proceedings Pending Arbitration Outcome --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied A.D.'s motion for class certification, denied Credit One's motion to dismiss, and granted Credit One's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the case captioned, A.D., by and through her guardian ad litem Judith Serrano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 14 C 10106 (N.D. Ill.). Credit One is a national bank that provides banking services and credit cards throughout the United States. Judith Serrano, the plaintiff's mother, has been one of its customers since about 2003, when she opened a credit card account with Credit One and began using the card for everyday purchases. A.D., Serrano's daughter, is not an account holder and is not named on her mother's account. A.D. filed this suit against Credit One in December 2014 after receiving "at least twelve calls at different times" from Credit One to her cellular phone. She alleged that these calls were made "using an automatic telephone dialing system," and that she never gave consent to receive such calls. Credit One answered A.D.'s complaint in February 2015. In its answer, it asserted an affirmative defense in which it "reserved its right to compel arbitration." It provided no further explanation. Credit One moved to stay proceedings in April 2015 to await an anticipated FCC ruling, moved for leave to file a third-party complaint against Serrano in May 2015, and moved to transfer venue in August 2015. The Court denied each of these motions, none of which was based upon the asserted affirmative defense that this dispute was subject to arbitration. Credit One moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that A.D. and the members of the putative class did not suffer a justiciable injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing to sue as required by Article III of the Constitution. Credit One also moves to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss the case pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the Cardholder Agreement applicable to Serrano's Credit One account. A.D. opposes both motions and moves to certify a class of similarly situated persons who also received autodialed telephone calls without first giving Credit One consent to call them. In his Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/ik9A6D from Leagle.com, Judge Kennelly concluded that A.D. has identified a concrete injury-in-fact that she herself suffered, and she has alleged that the injury is fairly traceable to Credit One's conduct and is judicially redressable. And because A.D. has standing, the Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over her case. A.D. is bound to the terms of the Cardholder Agreement, and Credit One has a contractual right to arbitrate the dispute and denied the motion for class certification. The Court accordingly stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration. A joint status report regarding the status of arbitration proceedings is to be filed as of February 28, 2017. A. D. is represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq. -- mark@ankcorn.com -- ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC; and Roberto Carlos Robledo, Esq. -- roberto@robertorobledo.com -- LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ROBLEDO Credit One Bank, N.A. is represented by David Jay Kaminski, Esq. -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- and Charles R. Messer, Esq. -- messerc@cmtlaw.com -- CARLSON & MESSER LLP; Gordon Kenneth Walton, Esq. -- Walton@novakjuris.com -- WALTON LAW GROUP LLC CRICKET COMMS: "Scott" Case Remanded to Maryland State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge George L. Russell, III of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiff Michael A. Scott's motions to remand and to strike new materials and arguments or for leave to file a surreply in the case captioned, MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant. MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. GLR-15-3330, GLR-15-3759 (D. Md.). Sometime between July 2013 and March 2014, Scott purchased two Samsung Galaxy S4 cellphones from Cricket that cost "hundreds of dollars each." The paperwork accompanying the cellphones expressly stated that Cricket's Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network provided "unsurpassed nationwide coverage." Unbeknownst to Scott, however, at least as early as July 2013, AT&T had acquired Cricket and intended to shut down Cricket's CDMA network and switch previous Cricket customers to AT&T's Global Systems for Mobile (GSM) network. Though Cricket knew the CDMA network would be shut down, Cricket "locked" Scott's cellphones for use exclusively on Cricket's CDMA network. This rendered Scott's cellphones "useless and worthless" and "obsolete." Scott filed a putative Class Action Complaint on September 24, 2015 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (Scott I). Scott defines the class as "all Maryland citizens who, between July 12, 2013 and March 13, 2014, purchased a CDMA mobile telephone from Cricket which was locked for use only on Cricket's CDMA network." Scott raises a single claim for violation of the MMWA stemming from alleged breaches of express warranties and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Court removed Scott I and Scott II to the instant court. In the motion, Scott presents three primary arguments for why the Court should grant his Motion to Remand. First, Cricket does not sufficiently allege the number of class members and amount in controversy required for CAFA jurisdiction because Cricket's Notice of Removal addresses a class that Cricket defined, not the far more narrow class that Scott defined in his Complaint (the Class). Second, even assuming Cricket met its preliminary burden of sufficiently alleging federal jurisdiction, Cricket failed to present facts demonstrating federal jurisdiction because Cricket's facts, like its allegations, are broader than the Class. Third, Scott is the only named plaintiff in the putative MMWA class action and the MMWA expressly prohibits federal jurisdiction over MMWA class actions with fewer than 100 named plaintiffs. Among other things, Cricket argued the Court should not remand the case because federal jurisdiction exists under the look-through doctrine discussed in Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009). Scott contends that even assuming the look-through doctrine applies, remand is warranted because Cricket's Notice of Removal is based entirely on the look-through doctrine and the Court does not have CAFA or federal-question jurisdiction. In his Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/ZE4B43 from Leagle.com, Judge Russell, III concluded that Cricket fails to prove federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence because Cricket does not tailor its evidence to Scott's narrowly defined Class and that Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) provides no basis for the Court's jurisdiction over Scott II. The Court denied as moot Scott's motion to strike new materials and argument or for leave to file surreply. Michael A. Scott is represented by: Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq. Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTS. 102 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 402 Towson, MD 21204 Tel:(410)825-2300 Cricket Communications, LLC is represented by Reginald Goeke, Esq. -- rgoeke@mayerbrown.com -- and Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP -- John Edward McCann, Jr., Esq. -- jmccann@milesstockbridge.com -- MILES AND STOCKBRIDGE PC DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 6080A NCX Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ 6080A NCX, LLC (6060 North Central Expressway) v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10904 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces AFS 1122 Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- AFS 1122 Alma Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10954 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces AGF Spring Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- AGF Spring Creek Coit II, Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10947 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Wood" Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Wood v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16- 10935 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Davis, Esq. DAVIS LAW OFFICE, PC 5605 FM 423, Suite 500-327 Frisco, TX 75034 Telephone: (817)829-5010 Facsimile: (469)535-3023 E-mail: davislawoffice@yahoo.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Grove Business Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Grove Business Park Joint Venture v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10902 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Lang, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731-6758 Facsimile: (469) 854-3336 E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces JP Stemmons Suit Over Appraisal Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- JP Stemmons LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC- 16-10945 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Dallas A. Sessions, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com dsessions@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Landmark Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Landmark at Laurel Heights LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10898 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com kdonovan@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces MLRP 9660 Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ MLRP 9660 Dilworth LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10919 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Dallas A. Sessions, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com dsessions@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces MLRP Park Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ MLRP Park West Crossing LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10920 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Dallas A. Sessions, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com dsessions@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Rosewood Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosewood Court LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10939 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Dallas A. Sessions, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com dsessions@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces University Drive Suit Over Appraisal Policy ----------------------------------------------------------------- University Drive LLC (Collins Center) v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10938 (D. Tex, August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Dallas A. Sessions, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com dsessions@gpd.com DELUXE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Byler", Denies Transfer Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and denied its motion to transfer venue of the case captioned, ALEXANDRA BYLER, KAY CATLIN, JENNIFER GRAVES, and ELIZABETH O'LEARY, Plaintiffs, v. DELUXE CORPORATION, d/b/a DELUXE CHECK PRINTERS, Defendant, Case No. 16CV493 AJB (JLB) (S.D. Cal.). Named Plaintiffs Alexandra Byler, Kay Catlin, Jennifer Graves, and Elizabeth O'Leary (Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated consumers, allege they were charged excessive, deceptive, unfair, and unethical fees for the delivery of new and replacement checks by Defendant. The shipping costs at issue are for the following shipping options: (1) "Basic: Standard Delivery": $8.00; (2) "Better: Four-Day Express Delivery": $32.45; and (3) "Best: Checks Next Day": $49.60. Plaintiffs allege that these charges violated the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business & Professions Code; the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA); the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA); the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A; and similar consumer protection statutes of other states Plaintiffs' main contention is that the shipping and delivery charges are not reasonably related to the costs Defendant incurred in delivering or shipping the checks to consumers. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant maintains other websites under other brand names besides Deluxe, which use the same manufacturing facilities and provide the same delivery services as Defendant does for its Deluxe brand checks. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant charges significantly less for the same service through those alternative websites, which, according to Plaintiffs, establishes that the charges assessed on Deluxe's website do not represent the actual charges incurred in shipping and handling. Defendant raises both a facial and factual challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant's facial attack alleges that Plaintiffs' claimed injury is not facially plausible, and the factual attack alleges that Plaintiffs' allegations are too speculative. In his Order dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Zz7dJt from Leagle.com, Judge Battaglia dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief because Plaintiffs have not alleged an intent to purchase the products in the future and therefore lack standing to seek injunctive relief. To the extent Defendant's arguments regarding failure to state a claim are predicated on Defendant's assertion that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue under particular state statutes. Having thoroughly considered the allegations in the first amended complaint, the Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged fraudulent conduct under the UCL. Having thoroughly considered the allegations in the first amended complaint, the Court found Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged fraudulent conduct under the UCL. Alexander Byler, et al. are represented by: Anthony S. Bruning, Esq. Ryan L. Bruning, Esq. THE BRUNING LAW FIRM 555 Washington Ave Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel:(314)735-8100 Deluxe Corporation is represented by Eileen M. Ahern, Esq. -- eahern@willenken.com -- and Paul Jen Loh, Esq. -- ploh@willenken.com -- WILLENKEN WILSON LOH AND DELGADO LLP DIAMOND TOUCH: "Ramirez" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Bryan Ramirez and other similarly situated individuals v. Diamond Touch, Inc. d/b/a Granbury Solutions, Case No. 16-005918-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, FL to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-23744-UU to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Diamond Touch, Inc. offers data management and query software, development software, educational or reference software, industry specific software, network applications software, network management software and networking software. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Allison Gluvna Folk, Esq. Jennifer A. Schwartz, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 2 S. Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-7600 Facsimile: (305) 373-4466 E-mail: allison.folk@jacksonlewis.com Jennifer.Schwartz@jacksonlewis.com DOUBLE EAGLE: "Gordon" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- AMY GORDON, on her own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. DOUBLE EAGLE OF SARASOTA d/b/a TOMMY KNOCKERS, a Florida for Profit Corporation, and MARK ROSATO, individually, Defendants, Case 8:16-cv-02561-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., September 2, 2016), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff at least the full minimum wage for all hours worked. Defendant, Double Eagle of Sarasota d/b/a Tommy Knockers, is a restaurant establishment located in Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin Street, #700 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com E.I. DU PONT: Faces "Chance" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Gene R. Chance v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Case 1:16-cv- 00376-MAC (E.D. Tex., September 2, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com/-- is an innovator in products and services markets, manufacturing products for a variety of application. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Werner, Esq. REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P. 801 Laurel Street P.O. Box 26005 Beaumont, TX 77720-6005 Phone: (409) 838-1000) Fax: (409) 833-8236 EASTCHESTER EVENTS: Faces "Pino" Suit Seeking to Recover Tips ------------------------------------------------------------- ANA PINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EASTCHESTER EVENTS INC.; GJIETO NICAJ; LOUIS GIGANTE; LOUIS GIGANTE JR.; and any other related entities, Defendants, INDEX NO. 157436/2016 (N.Y. Super., September 6, 2016), seeks to recover alleged retained tips and gratuities owed to Plaintiff for violation of the New York Labor Law. EASTCHESTER EVENTS INC. operates catering venues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 ELITE PERSONNEL: Sued in N.J. Over Racial Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- Ileana Rodriguez v. Elite Personnel Inc. and John Does 1-5 and 6- 10, Case No. 5072-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., August 31, 2016), alleges hostile work environment on the basis of race, national origin and ancestry. Elite Personnel Inc. operates an employment agency located at 933 NJ-23, Pompton Plains, NJ 07444. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 ELIZABETH ARDEN: Litigation Related to Revlon Merger Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Arden, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that in connection with the Revlon Merger, five putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida: (1) Parker v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc. et al., Case No. CACE-16- 011781, filed on June 24, 2016, and amended on July 26, 2016 (the "Parker Complaint"); (2) Christiansen v. Rhone Capital L.L.C. et al., Case No. CACE-16-011746, filed on June 29, 2016 and amended on July 14, 2016 (the "Christiansen Complaint"); (3) Ross v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al, Case No, CACE-16- 013220, filed on July 19, 2016 (the "Ross Complaint"); (4) Hutson v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE- 16-013566, filed on July 25, 2016 (the "Hutson Complaint"); and (5) Stein v. Rhone Capital L.L.C. et al, Case No. CACE-16- 013580, filed on July 25, 2016 (the "Stein Complaint"), referred to collectively as the "Complaints." The Christiansen claim is also a derivative lawsuit. The Company said, "All of the Complaints name the members of our board of directors, Revlon, Inc., Revlon Consumer Products Corporation and RR Transaction Corp. as defendants. The Parker, Ross and Hutson Complaints name Elizabeth Arden, Inc. as a defendant. The Christiansen, Stein and Parker Complaints also name Rhone Capital L.L.C., Nightingale Onshore Holdings, L.P. and Nightingale Offshore Holdings, L.P., as defendants." "The Complaints allege that (i) the members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders with respect to the Revlon Merger, by, among other things, approving the Revlon Merger pursuant to an unfair process and at an inadequate and unfair price, and (ii) Revlon, RCPC, and Revlon Sub aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of the board. The Christiansen and Stein Complaints also allege that Rhone Capital L.L.C., Nightingale Onshore Holdings, L.P. and Nightingale Offshore Holdings, L.P. breached alleged fiduciary duties owed by such entities to the holders of our common stock and to us. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally seek, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the Revlon Merger, compensatory damages and rescissory damages in the event the Revlon Merger is consummated, an order to disclose all material information to the shareholders in advance of a shareholder vote and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. "We intend to vigorously defend these claims. Litigation costs associated with these matters may be significant and additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Revlon Merger may be filed in the future." ENVIRONMENTAL DRILLING: "Bertothy" Suit Invokes FLSA, Wage Act -------------------------------------------------------------- TRENT BERTOTHY on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V. ENVIRONMENTAL DRILLING SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-01371-CB (W.D. Penn., September 2, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Defendant Environmental Drilling Solutions, L.L.C. is an oilfield service company that specializes in removing waste byproduct from drilling fluids during the process of drilling an oil well. The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to AmSurg Corp. ------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Voth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc., William A. Sanger, Michael L. Smith, Ronald A. Williams, Carol J. Burt, Leonard M. Riggs, Jr., Richard J. Schnall, Mark V. Mactas, James D. Shelton, Amsurg Corp., and New Amethyst Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-02213 (D. Col., August 31, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Envision by AmSurg Corp., through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. is a family of healthcare companies focused on delivering high quality care to patients in their homes and in the hospital. AmSurg Corp. provides community-based healthcare transportation services, including emergency, non-emergency, managed transportation, air ambulance, and disaster response. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Kip B. Shuman, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM Post-Montgomery Ctr. One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 E-mail: denright@zlk.com EVERALBUM INC: "McLemore" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- TAMIKA MCLEMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EVERALBUM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-05133 (N.D. Cal., September 6, 2016), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of sending alleged unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Everalbum, Inc. offers an app-based photo storage and backup service. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard T. Drury, Esq. Rebecca Davis, Esq. LOZEAU DRURY LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 836-4200 Fax: (510) 836-4205 E-mail: richard@lozeaudrury.com rebecca@lozeaudrury.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0675 Fax: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: Law@stefancoleman.com FIFTH THIRD BANK: Miller Sues Over Illegal Phone Call Recording --------------------------------------------------------------- Wyatt Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fifth Third Bank, Vantiv, Inc., National Processing Company and Ironwood Financial, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08531, (N.D. Ill., August 31, 2016), seeks damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs and such other and further relief under the California Penal Code. Fifth Third is a national bank, maintaining a nationwide credit and debit card payment processing division that employs Vantiv and National Processing Company for its payment processing business. Fifth Third employs Ironwood, a sales and marketing firm, to sell these payment processing services to small businesses around the country. Plaintiff is a small business owner who alleges that that Ironwood secretly recorded telemarketing calls made by Ironwood on behalf of Fifth Third, Vantiv and National Processing Company. Plaintiff is represented by: Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Jacie C. Zolna, Esq. Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq. MYRON M. CHERRY &ASSOCIATES LLC 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 372-2100 Email: mcherry@cherry-law.com jzolna@cherry-law.com bswetland@cherry-law.com FIORENTINO RISTORANTE: Faces Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws ----------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS AURELIO LLIVICHUZHCA DOMINGUEZ, JOSE AVELAR, and LUIS IGNA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FIORENTINO RISTORANTE, INC. (d/b/a FIORENTINO'S RISTORANTE), ANTHONY FIORENTINO and HELEN DOE, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-04939 (E.D.N.Y., September 2, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of Labor. Defendants own, operate, and/or control an Italian restaurant. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: "Jewett" ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ind. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEAN L. JEWETT, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE PENSION SECURITY PLAN, Plaintiff, v. FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., an Indiana Non-profit Corporation, THE PENSION COMMITTEE FOR THE FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE PENSION SECURITY PLAN, JOHN and JANE DOES 1-20, MEMBERS OF THE PENSION COMMITTEE FOR THE FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE PENSION SECURITY PLAN, each an individual, and JOHN and JANE DOES 21-40, each an individual, Defendants, case 3:16-cv-00591-JD-JEM (April 22, 2016) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Indiana. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and Affiliates, by and through its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, operates a healthcare conglomerate in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan and provides healthcare services in the communities it serves. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 357-0370 Fax: (312) 357-0369 Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com - and - Karen L. Handorf, Esq. Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Kira L. Hettinger, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com myau@cohenmilstein.com khettinger@cohenmilstein.com - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Laura R. Gerber, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com lgerber@kellerrohrback.com - and - Ron Kilgard, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK P.L.C. 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 248-0088 Fax: (602) 248- 2822 Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com FXCM INC: Court Dismisses Chicago Cops Retirement Fund's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kimba M. Wood of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned, RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO ON BEHALF OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FXCM INC., DROR NIV, and ROBERT LANDE, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-3599(KMW) (S.D.N.Y.). At its heart, this case is about FXCM's significant losses during an unpredictable market event. In 2011, the Swiss National Bank ("SNB") pegged the Swiss Franc to the Euro at 1.2:1, meaning that 1 Euro would be worth at least 1.2 Swiss Francs. On January 15, 2015, to investors' great surprise, the SNB suddenly removed this peg; prices and liquidity changed rapidly as the value of the Swiss Franc rose in relation to the Euro. As a result of this abrupt change in the SNB's policy, FXCM lost $275 million. Plaintiff attributes FXCM's loss to its allegedly risky business model and lack of a risk management department. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' statements regarding the riskless nature of FXCM's business model and its risk management controls were materially false or misleading. Plaintiff, Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, on behalf of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, brings the putative class action against FXCM, Dror Niv, and Robert Lande. Plaintiff is an institutional investor that purchased FXCM common stock between June 11, 2013 and January 20, 2015, inclusive (the Class Period). Defendant FXCM was one of the first currency brokerage firms to serve retail customers, and during the Class Period it was one of the largest retail foreign exchange (FX) firms in the world. Plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false or misleading statements relating to FXCM's business model and risk management practices, and that these statements misled investors about the risky nature of FXCM's business, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in losses to class members. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6). Defendants attribute FXCM's large loss to the SNB's surprise decision, market dysfunction, and lack of liquidity. In the Opinion and Order dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Hm9eGg from Leagle.com, Judge Wood, among others, held that Plaintiff's allegations fail to support a strong inference that Defendants acted with scienter. At best, Plaintiff's allegations permit a weak inference of scienter -- one that is less compelling than the inference that Defendants were blindsided by the SNB's decision. The Judge also said Plaintiffs fail to allege circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness. Plaintiff is granted leave to re-plead its Complaint within 30 days of the decision. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago on Behalf of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago is represented by Beth Ann Kaswan, Esq. -- kswan@scottandscottllp.com -- SCOTT SCOTT, L.L.P FXCM Inc., et al. are represented by Paul Richard Bessette, Esq. -- pbessette@kslaw.com -- and -- Israel Dahan, Esq. -- idahan@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP GABE'S CASING: Faces "Scheriger" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Scheriger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gabe's Casing & Laydown Service, Inc., Linda K. Wallett, and Lewis Holley, Case No. 7:16-cv-00323 (W.D. Tex., August 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants have been involved in oilfield casing services to clients in at least in Texas and Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 706-0834 Facsimile: (469) 339-0204 - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 GLASSDOOR INC: Pincaro Suit Alleges Personal Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Paulo Pincaro, Melissa Nau, and Timothy L. Keiser, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Glassdoor, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06870 (S.D.N.Y., August 31, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief for violation of the Stored Communications Act. Glassdoor is a jobs and recruiting website where employees and former employees can anonymously review companies and their management. On July 22, 2016, Glassdoor sent an email out to its members updating its Terms of Use where it exposed the addresses of more than 2 percent of its members, in excess of 600,000 people. Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 GLENTEX INC: Faces "De La Rosa" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- NATHALIE DE LA ROSA, Plaintiff, vs. GLENTEX, INC. d/b/a WOODY'S, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-10070-JEM (S.D. Fla., September 6, 2016), seeks to recover compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. GLENTEX, INC. is a hotel and restaurant company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad E. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICES LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 915 Middle River Drive, #518 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304 Phone: (954) 763-5722 Fax: (954) 763-5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com GODIVA AMERICAN: Faces "Varona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yayset Varona and other similarly-situated individuals v. Godiva American, Corp. d/b/a Santa Fe News and Espresso and Alejandro Scolnik, Case No. 1:16-cv-23732-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a newsstand, magazine coffee shop and restaurant located in Bal Harbour, Miami Beach. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33157 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com GOOGLE INC: 876 Plaintiffs Severed from Corley & Amaral Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendant's motion to sever claims of individual plaintiffs, except Plaintiffs Ryan Corley, William Dormann, and Shannon Mehaffey, in the cases captioned, RYAN CORLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant. KEITH AMARAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 16-CV-00473-LHK, 16-CV-02553-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs in the cases, Corley v. Google, Inc. (Corley), and Amaral v. Google, Inc. (Amaral), are 879 individuals who had Google Apps for Education accounts from November 1, 2010 to April Google). They allege that the Defendant violated the Wiretap Act by intercepting and scanning Plaintiffs' emails. On January 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in Corley. There were four Plaintiffs in the original complaint, all of whom were current or former students of the University of California, Berkeley (Berkeley). These Plaintiffs were Ryan Corley, William Dormann, Shannon Mehaffey, and Teddey Xiao. On February 8, 2016, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Teddey Xiao. The Corley case was originally assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins, but was related to Gmail, and reassigned to Judge Koh on February 12, 2016. On March 11, 2016, Plaintiffs' counsel in Corley sought leave to file the First Amended Complaint in order to add "an additional 700 plaintiffs." Following the initial case management conference, the Court ordered the parties to file briefs addressing the propriety of mass joinder. At the April 28, 2016 case management conference, Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed that he would file a separate action with more than a hundred Plaintiffs in state court. After reviewing the parties' briefs and learning about Plaintiffs' counsel's decision to file a separate action in state court, the Court invited Google at the April 28, 2016 case management conference to file a motion to sever. Google moved to sever filed in the Corley and Amaral cases. With the Court's permission, Public Citizen, Inc. filed an amicus brief opposing Google's motion to sever. In her Order dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/mfhQYS from Leagle.com, Judge Koh held that the severance or dismissal decision does implicate the statute of limitations. Google ceased scanning GAFE emails on April 30, 2014. The Wiretap Act has a two-year statute of limitations. Both the Corley case, filed on January 27, 2016, and the Amaral case, filed on April 29, 2016, fall within this statute of limitations, which would fall on April 30, 2016. If the Court were to dismiss all but the original three Plaintiffs in Corley, the statute of limitations would likely bar the other 876 Plaintiffs from bringing suit. Given the fact that the instant case presents novel legal issues and that other courts generally caution against dismissal, the Court declines to dismiss 876 Plaintiffs. The Court directed the 876 Plaintiffs to file their individual complaints within 45 days upon issuance of the Order should they elect to proceed with their claims. Plaintiffs may not add new causes of actions or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Keith Amaral, et al. are represented by Ray Edwin Gallo, Esq. -- rgallo@gallo-law.com -- Dominic R. Valerian, Esq. -- dvalerian@gallo-law.com -- and Warren Stramiello, Esq. -- wstramiello@gallo-law.com -- GALLO LLP Google Inc. is represented by Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq. -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Amy McCowan Smith, Esq. -- amsmith@cooley.com -- Karen Lynn Burhans, Esq. -- kburhans@cooley.com -- Kyle Christopher Wong, Esq. -- kwong@cooley.com -- and Whitty Somvichian, Esq. -- wsomvichian@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Timber Ridge Suit Over Appraisal Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- Timber Ridge Housing II, LTD. v. Harris County Appraisal District, Case No. 2016-58572 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to appraise the Plaintiff's property at its market value. Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory J. Dalton, Esq. GREGORY J. DALTON, P.C. PO Box 109 Katy, TX 77492 Telephone: (281) 391-1985 Facsimile: (281) 391-1987 E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com HARVEST CHADDS: Faces "Bland" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act -------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL BLAND, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. HARVEST CHADDS FORD, LLC, Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-04773-NIQA (E.D. Pa., September 2, 2016), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Defendant owns and operates a Harvest Seasonal Grill & Wine Bar in Glen Mills, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com HOME PROPERTIES: Court Denies Motion to Deposit Funds ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Plaintiff, v. HOME PROPERTIES, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 27655 (E.D. Pa.), District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: -- denied Defendant's motion to deposit funds into court and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and -- granted a motion to strike a declaration of Francis J. Farina, Plaintiff's counsel. The case arises out of a landlord-tenant relationship that deteriorated, causing the landlord, a residential management company, to refer certain amounts purportedly owed to it by its former tenant to a debt collection agency. The former tenant, Plaintiff Mariusz Jarzyna (Plaintiff), brought the action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated former tenants against the residential management company, Home Properties, L.P. (Home), and the debt collection agency, Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc. (FCO), alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) as well as certain other state consumer protection laws. After the Court's decision on summary judgment and the motions for reconsideration, the only liability issues that remain for trial are Plaintiff's FDCPA claim that certain of FCO's standard dunning letters lacked the requisite disclosures, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(a), and Home's counterclaim for Plaintiff's alleged breach of the lease agreement. The only claims that have been decided in Plaintiff's favor are Plaintiff's FDCPA claims against FCO with respect to FCO's failure to identify as a debt collector when leaving voice messages on Plaintiff's cell phone, in violation of Sections 1692e(11) and 1692d(6), and FCO's attempts to collect a debt that Plaintiff did not owe, in violation of Sections 1692f(1), 1692e(2), and 1692e(10) (Count I). The case has reached the class certification stage. Plaintiff filed a supplemental motion for class certification on April 22, 2016 of "All persons residing in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Florida, Illinois and Washington, D.C.[,] who, during the period January 1, 2008 through the date of the filing of Plaintiff's Third Amended Class Action Complaint on April 8, 2013 (Doc. No. 205) (the Class Period):a) have been identified and/or readily identifiable by Home Properties, L.P. (Home) to have been assessed Thirty Day Notice Fees by Home -- and with the balance placed with FCO for collection, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692f(1), 1692e(2), and 1692e(10); and b) who have been subject of FCO's standard, common, and uniform policy not to identify themselves as a debt collector when leaving messages on cellular/personal phones in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e(11) and 1692d(6). " In connection with the class certification proceedings, FCO filed two motions. First, FCO filed a Motion to Deposit Funds in the amount of $1,001.00, plus the cost of $400.00 for filing fees into Court and Enter Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff. Second, FCO filed a Motion to Strike the Declaration of Frank Farina, Esquire. Mr. Farina is one of Plaintiff's attorneys; he filed the declaration at issue in support of Plaintiff's motion for class certification. In his Memorandum dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/it5NRL from Leagle.com, Judge Robreno held that FCO proposes an improper use of Rule 67; Plaintiff has a personal stake in the class claims pled in the Third Amended Complaint; and even if Plaintiff's claims were moot, he would be permitted to proceed to class certification under the relation back doctrine and picking off exception. Any one of these three reasons, standing alone, is a sufficient basis for denying FCO's motion to deposit funds and to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The Court granted the motion to strike Mr. Farina's affidavit because the presence of a lawyer for a party acting as an expert witness in a case would surely undermine the public's confidence in the legal system. Mariusz G. Jarzyna is represented by: Francis J. Farina, Esq. Jacob T. Thielen, Esq. Joseph A. O'Keefe, Esq. O'KEEFE, MILLER & THIELEN, P.C. Home Properties, L.P. is represented by Candidus K. Dougherty, Esq. -- cdougherty@swartzcambell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC Fair Collections And Outsourcing, Inc., et al. are represented by Ronald S. Canter, Esq. -- rcanter@roncanterllc.com -- THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER LLC INNOVENTIONS INTL: Plaintiff Retains Standing under Calif. Law -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, ELSA POLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INNOVENTIONS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant- Appellee, Case No. 27655 (9th Cir.), Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Innoventions International, LLC, and remanded the action to the district court. Elsa Polo sued Innoventions in California state court. She alleged several causes of action, including four class claims. The gravamen of her complaint was that Innoventions had marketed a product called DiabeStevia with "grossly misleading and exaggerated claims" concerning its use and effectiveness -- in particular, with the claim that it could be used to treat diabetes. Based upon Polo's allegation that the classes included "hundreds of customers," Innoventions removed the case to federal court pursuant to the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which provides for original jurisdiction in the federal district courts over certain class actions. Polo went through several rounds of pleading before settling on a Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The TAC alleged, among other things, that Polo had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes; that Innoventions marketed DiabeStevia as a treatment for diabetes; that relying upon Innoventions's claims, Polo stopped taking her prescribed diabetes medication, and instead began treating her diabetes with DiabeStevia; and that DiabeStevia failed to perform as advertised, causing Polo to suffer "life threatening illness." Based upon these and other allegations, Polo asserted nine different causes of action in her TAC. On summary judgment, the district court found undisputed that Polo does not have diabetes, and that she had stopped taking her diabetes medication at least five months before she purchased and used DiabeStevia. With respect to Polo's claim under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the district court found that Innoventions had undisputedly refunded Polo her entire purchase price, including tax and shipping. As a result, the district court held that Polo lacked Article III standing for all of her claims, granted summary judgment in favor of Innoventions, and dismissed the case. On appeal, Polo argues that upon making that determination, the district court was required to remand the case to state court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). In his Opinion dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/3gmcmz from Leagle.com, Judge Smith, Jr. found that although Innoventions refunded Polo's purchase price, it did not provided the notice and remedy to class members required by the CLRA. Polo retains standing under California law and remanded the case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). "At a minimum, we cannot say with 'absolute certainty' that remand would be futile. Therefore, the district court should have remanded this case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c)," the Ninth Circuit said. Elsa Polo is represented by Christopher Law Rudd, Esq. -- clrudd@c2lawgroup.com -- THE C2 LAW GROUP, P.C. Innoventions International, LLC is represented by Thomas J. Peistrup, Esq. -- tpeistrup@leechtishman.com -- TANTALO & ADLER LLP ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Federman" Suit Alleging WARN Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN FEDERMAN and STEVE RYAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-00780-UNA (D. Del., September 6, 2016), was filed on behalf of former employees of Defendant who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of the mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendant on or about September 6, 2016, and within 30 days of that date, who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the California Labor Code. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. -- http://www.ittesi.com/-- provides technology-oriented undergraduate and graduate degree programs. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES, P.A. 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 654-0248 Email: loizides@loizides.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Email: jar@outtengolden.com rsr@outtengolden.com IY KHANDII: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashley Williams, individually and other similarly situated v. IY Khandii, LLC d/b/a IY Khandii Lash Boutique and Khadijah I. Chapell, Case No. 0:16-cv-62080-WJZ (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a beauty salon located at 245 N State Rd 7, Plantation, FL 33317. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com apetisco@rgpattorneys.com rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com pn@rgpattorneys.com JOHN WEILAND: Arbitration Clause Enforceable, SC High Court Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Justice Costa M. Pleicones of the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals' decision affirming circuit court order denying petitioner's motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, Ralph Wayne Parsons, Jr., and Louise C. Parsons, Respondents, v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods of the Carolinas, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and South Carolina Bank & Trust, N.A., Defendants, Of which John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods of the Carolinas, Inc. is Petitioner, Case No. 27655 (S.C.). In 2002, JWH purchased approximately 65 acres of land for the development of a residential subdivision. The land was previously utilized as a textile-related industrial site. Following the purchase, JWH demolished and removed all visible evidence of the industrial site and removed various underground pipes, valves, and tanks remaining from the industrial operations. In 2008, the Parsons discovered PVC pipes and a metal lined concrete box buried on their Property. The PVC pipes and box contained "black sludge," which tested positive as a hazardous substance. The Parsons claim they were unaware the Property was previously an industrial site and contained hazardous substances. In 2011, the Parsons filed the present lawsuit alleging JWH breached the purchase agreement by failing to disclose defects with the Property, selling property that was contaminated, and selling property with known underground pipes. The Parsons further alleged breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, unfair trade practices, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and gross negligence, and fraud. JWH moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. The motion asserted that all of the Parsons' claims arose out of the purchase agreement, and the Parsons clearly agreed that all such disputes would be decided by arbitration. The circuit court denied the motion and found the arbitration clause was unenforceable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's finding that the scope of the arbitration clause was restricted to Warranty claims and declined to address the circuit court's application of the outrageous torts exception doctrine. The Court granted JWH's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision. In the Order dated August 17, 2016 available at https://is.gd/ypM6Hv from Leagle.com, Judge Pleicones found that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court's refusal to enforce the arbitration clause holding that the arbitration clause was located within the Warranty, its scope was limited to the terms of the Warranty and that the outrageous torts exception to arbitration enforcement is no longer viable and the Parsons' unconscionability argument is without merit. John Weiland Homes and Neighborhoods of the Carolinas, Inc. is represented by Trenholm G. Walker, Esq. -- gtw@p-tw.com -- and Ian W. Freeman, Esq. -- iwf@p-tw.com -- Pratt-Thomas Walker, PA Ralph Wayne Parsons, Jr., and Louise C. Parsons are represented by Herbert W. Hamilton, Esq. -- herb.hamilton@hamiltonmartens.com -- Hamilton Martens Ballou & Carroll, LLC KANSAS CITY LANDSMEN: 8th Cir. Affirmed $17K Attorney's Fee Award ----------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge James B. Loken of the Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in the case captioned, John T. Galloway, individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Kansas City Landsmen, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-1629 (8th Cir.) John T. Galloway, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated consumers, alleged that 21 Budget rental car businesses (defendants) willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by issuing receipts that contained more than five digits of customers' credit card numbers. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g)(1). After the suit was filed, defendants installed software to ensure their receipts complied with FACTA. The parties then mediated and agreed on a proposed class action settlement. The district court rejected the first settlement because "the compensation provided to the class is inadequate," but the court approved a revised settlement providing that plaintiffs would be offered reduced prices on car rentals and enjoining defendants to comply with FACTA. In a "clear sailing" provision, defendants agreed not to contest class counsel's request for an award of attorney's fees and costs of no more than $175,000, and a class representative incentive fee of no more than $3,000. After the certificate redemption period expired, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for an award of $147,717.75 in attorneys' fees, $5,699.01 in litigation expenses, and a $3,000 class representative incentive fee for named plaintiff Galloway. Applying Sec. 1712(a)-(c), the district court awarded $23,137.46 in attorneys' fees and costs, and a $1,000 class representative incentive fee. In ruling on plaintiffs' attorney's fee request, the district court first applied Sec. 1712(a) and determined that a reasonable fee attributable to the award of coupon certificates to class members was $2,666.67, which was 33% of $8,000, the value of the redeemed coupons. The court then used the lodestar method prescribed in Sec. 1712(b) to determine that 10% of the total fee requested, or $14,771.78, was a reasonable fee for the injunctive relief provided to the class. Applying Sec. 1712(c), the court added the two fee components together and awarded $17,438.45 as a reasonable attorney's fee, plus the costs plaintiffs requested. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that "the plain language of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1712 gives class counsel the right to elect that all of its fees be calculated under the lodestar methodology" prescribed in Sec. 1712(b) and that the district court erred in construing Sec. 1712(a) as mandating that any fee award attributable to the coupon portion of the settlement must be based solely on the value of coupons redeemed. In his Order dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/k8Unq2 from Leagle.com, Judge Loken concluded that Sec. 1712 leaves the court discretion to apply either method, with or without adjustments, or some combination of the two, subject to abuse of discretion review. The Appeals Court further held that the district court erred by following the approach in In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig., 716 F.3d 1173, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2013), in applying Sec. 1712(a)-(c) without explicitly stating that the award was based on an exercise of the court's discretion to determine a reasonable attorney's fee. According to the Appeals Court, "Our review of the record persuades us that any award greater than $17,438.45 would be unreasonable in light of class counsel's limited success in obtaining value for the class. Cf. Gumbhir v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 157 F.3d 1141, 1147 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1005 (1999). Thus, we conclude any error was harmless." KOCH FOODS: Maplevale Farms Files Antitrust Suit Over Broilers -------------------------------------------------------------- Maplevale Farms, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Koch Foods, Inc., JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC, JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC, Koch Meats Co., Inc., Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Chicken, Inc., Tyson Breeders, Inc., Tyson Poultry, Inc., Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Perdue Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division), Wayne Farms, LLC, Mountaire Farms, Inc., Mountaire Farms, LLC, Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., Peco Foods, Inc., Foster Farms, LLC, House of Raeford Farms, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., Fieldale Farms Corporation, George's, Inc., George's Farms, Inc., O.K. Foods, Inc., O.K. Farms, Inc., and O.K. Industries, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-08637 (N.D. Ill., September 2, 2016), is an antitrust suit on behalf of all persons who purchased Broilers directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates for use or delivery in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2008 until the Present. Each Defendant's corporate family sold or distributed Broilers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Hart, Esq. Brian Eldridge, Esq. Kyle Pozan, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE 121 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1050 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 955-0545 Fax: (312) 971-9243 E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com beldridge@hmelegal.com kpozan@hmelegal.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com erodette@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com - and - Bruce L. Simon, Esq. Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 433-9000 Fax: (415) 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com asheanin@pswlaw.com - and - Clifford H. Pearson, Esq. Michael H. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 92403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Fax: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com mpearson@pswlaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 854-3400 Fax: (716) 332-0336 E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com cercone@ruppbaase.com LEO EDELSBERG: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leo Edelsberg, O.D., P.A. d/b/a Optical World, Case No. 1:16-cv-23738-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Leo Edelsberg, O.D., P.A. operates an optical center in Aventura, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos R. Diaz, Esq. STEWART, MURRAY & ASSOC. LAW GROUP, LLC 437 Grant Street, Suite 600 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 765-3345 Facsimile: (412) 765-3346 E-mail: cdiaz@smalawgroup.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Reinstates Claim in "Moyle" Case --------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed in part a lower court order granting summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in the case captioned, GEOFFREY MOYLE, an individual, on behalf of themselves; PAULINE ARWOOD, an individual, on behalf of themselves; THOMAS ROLLASON, an individual, on behalf of themselves; JEANNIE SANDERS, an individual, on behalf of themselves, Plaintiffs- Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN; LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT PLAN RETIREMENT BOARD; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts company; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP INC., a Massachusetts company, Defendants- Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Case Nos. 13-56330, 13-56412 (9th Cir.). Appellants filed the class action against Liberty Mutual for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Appellants asserted four claims for relief: (1) Appellants are entitled to past service credit under the terms of the retirement plan, under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) Appellants are entitled to equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(3); (3) Liberty Mutual violated its duty to provide Appellants with documents relevant to their claim; and (4) Liberty Mutual violated its duty to disclose information about past service retirement credit in its Summary Plan Descriptions. Appellants seek the equitable remedies of reformation and surcharge for both claims (2) and (4). Appellants are former employees of Old Golden Eagle Insurance Company (Golden Eagle). Golden Eagle did not offer a retirement plan to its employees. When Liberty Mutual purchased Golden Eagle through a conservatorship sale, Appellants became employees of Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual argues that it never made any representation to Appellants that they would receive past service credit for their time with Golden Eagle. Liberty Mutual also argues that under the terms of the retirement plan, Appellants are entitled only to past service credit for purposes of eligibility, vesting, early retirement, and spousal benefits, and not for retirement benefits accrual. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual on all four claims. Appellants appealed on claims (1), (2), and (4). Liberty Mutual cross-appealed, alleging that Appellants' suit is time-barred and that class certification was improper. In his Opinion dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/H3yyK5 from Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to: -- claim (1) under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B) because Appellants are not entitled to past service credit under the terms of the Retirement Plan; and -- claim (4) under 29 C.F.R. Sections 2520.102-3(l) and 2520.102-2(a) because Appellants are unable to prove harm or detrimental reliance on Liberty Mutual's failure to disclose information about past service credit in the Summary Plan Descriptions. The Court reversed as to district court's grant of summary judgment as to claim (2) under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(3) finding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the claim because there are triable issues of fact. The case is remanded for determinations of fact and equitable relief in the form of reformation and surcharge. Geoffrey Moyle, et al. are represented by Matthew Butler, Esq. -- mbutler@butler-firm.com -- and Michael Olinik, Esq. -- molinik@butler-firm.com -- THE BUTLER FIRM -- Craig Nicholas , Esq. -- cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- and Alex Tomasevic, Esq. -- atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP Liberty Mutual Retirement Benefit Plan, et al. are represented by Ashley Abel, Esq. -- AbelA@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Gonzalez and Katie Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06567-DSF-AGR (C.D. Cal., August 31, 2016), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. Lumber is a retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON AND MASON LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com pat@wbmllp.com - and - Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851-3850 Facsimile: (818) 851-3851 E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUXURY SUITES: Nevada Judge Rejects Settlement, 40% Fee Award ------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the parties' renewed motion for an order requesting the court to grant provisional approval of the proposed settlement agreement and preliminarily certify Plaintiff's proposed class action for purposes of settlement in the case captioned, ALICE SINANYAN, an individual; JAMES KOURY, an individual and trustee of the Koury Family Trust; and SEHAK TUNA, an individual, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LUXURY SUITES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; RE/MAX PROPERTIES, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; JETLIVING HOTELS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-00225- GMN-VCF (D. Nev.). The action involves claims brought by Alice Sinanyan (Plaintiff), individually and on behalf of a putative class of approximately 110 condominium owners at the Signature at MGM Grand (The Signature), against property rental manager JetLiving Hotels, LLC (JetLiving). Plaintiff alleges that JetLiving violated its contractual, statutory, and common law duties by failing to disclose its collection of a "resort fee" from rental guests, and the parties have now reached a settlement. The Complaint alleges these causes of action against JetLiving: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) violation of Nevada Revised Statutes Sec. 41.600; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; and (8) unjust enrichment. On January 14, 2016, the parties reached a tentative settlement through mediation. The total settlement amount is $250,000, which the parties propose allocating in this manner: (1) attorney's fees not to exceed the amount of $100,000; (2) costs not to exceed $10,000; (3) an incentive payment in the amount of $10,000 for plaintiff Alice Sinanyan; (4) administrative expenses in the amount of no greater than $9,000; and (5) an allocation of the remaining $121,000 "on a pro rata basis based on the total resort fees collected by JetLiving from the rental of the individual Putative Class member's unit divided by the total resort fees collected by JetLiving from the rental of all non-opt out Putative Class members' units. On February 24, 2016, the parties filed their first joint motion for an order requesting that the Court adopt the parties' proposed order which was denied because "Plaintiff had not provided a basis for concluding that the proposed fee award was reasonable." The parties have filed a renewed joint motion for an order in which the parties repeat their initial requests. In her Order dated August 17, 2016 available at https://is.gd/IFV5Ld from Leagle.com, Judge Navarro concluded that the Plaintiff has failed to justify why Plaintiff's counsel is entitled to 40% of the Settlement Amount. "Because neither the percentage method nor the lodestar method supports a 40% fee award to Counsel, the Court must again deny the parties' Motion for an Order approving the Proposed Settlement," Judge Navarro explained. "Plaintiff has indicated that "Plaintiffs' counsel will consider reducing its request for fees to 33 percent of the common fund." In the event Counsel does so, the Court cautions Counsel that any request for fees above 25% must clearly identify the special circumstances that justify such an award." Alice Sinanyan and James Koury are represented by Don Springmeyer, Esq. -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Justin C. Jones, Esq. -- jjones@wrslawyers.com -- and Royi Moas, Esq. -- rmoas@wrslawyers.com -- WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP Luxury Suites International, LLC is represented by Amy R. Lancaster, Esq. -- arl@sinkeldamlaw.com -- and Gary Sinkeldam, Esq. -- gps@sinkeldamlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF GARY P. SINKELDAM -- John Scott Burris, Esq. -- j.scott.burris@wilsonelser.com -- and Reuben H. Cawley, Esq. -- reuben.cawley@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP Jab Affiliates, LLC dba Las Vegas Suites is represented by Steven R. Dunn, Esq. -- steven@dunnlawfirm.net -- DUNN FIRM, P.C. JetLiving Hotels, LLC is represented by Andrew M. Legolvan, Esq. -- alegolvan@gordonrees.com -- and Craig J. Mariam, Esq. -- cmariam@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES LLP MAGNA HEALTH: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Backwages ------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Johnson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, Magna Health Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00568 (N.D. Okla., August 31, 2016), seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant provides health services throughout the United States, including in Oklahoma where Plaintiff was employed as a Habilitation Training Specialist travelling to group homes or other health care institutions to train Defendant's clients in functional skills. Johnson claims to be uncompensated for off-the- clock work. Defendant is represented by: J. Vince Hightower, Esq. 19151 Sandy Creek Circle Kansas, OK 74347 Tel: (918) 232 3573 Email: Jvh255@aol.com - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 phone Fax: (214) 749-1010 fax MARIETTA MEMORIAL: Nurses' Suit Has Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and denied as moot Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and motion to stay in the case captioned, LYNNETT MYERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-2956,(S.D. Ohio.). Plaintiffs Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, and Arva Lowther are former nurses at Defendant Marietta Memorial Hospital, which is operated by Memorial Health System. Memorial Health System also operates Defendants Selby General Hospital and Marietta Health Care, Inc., and all of these entities function as joint employers of Memorial Health System's commenced this collective and class action against Defendants Marietta Memorial Hospital, Marietta Health Care, Inc., and Selby General Hospital on October 29, 2015. They have brought causes of action under the FLSA as well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' policy of automatically deducting thirty minutes for a meal break for employees who do direct patient care violates the FLSA because employees are routinely prohibited from either taking an uninterrupted meal break or canceling the automatic deduction. On January 7, 2016, Plaintiffs moved for conditional collective action certification and also asked for expedited discovery and issuance of notice to the proposed class. Defendants opposed certification. On March 10, 2016, Defendants noticed the depositions of Plaintiffs Myers, Butler, and Lowther as well as Opt-in Plaintiff Stacy Hanlon, and on March 17, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting expedited certification and a protective order to prohibit the depositions. Defendants filed a motion to compel the depositions. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion to compel in part and denied Plaintiffs' motion to expedite. Acknowledging that there was no need for discovery on the conditional certification issue and that taking depositions of Plaintiffs at the point in the litigation was inconsistent with the Court's typical procedure in a FLSA collective action, the Magistrate Judge nevertheless granted the motion to compel Plaintiffs' depositions because Plaintiffs had not argued that they would be prejudiced or that the proposed depositions were improper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b), 26(c), or 30. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's order denying the motion to expedite and granting the motion to compel; and also asked the Court to stay the depositions of Plaintiffs pending the resolution of the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs also asked the Court to certify conditionally a class "All of Defendants' current and former hourly employees who were responsible for direct patient care and were subject to Defendants' automatic meal deduction policy during the three years before this Complaint was filed up to the present." In the Opinion and Order dated August 17, 2016 available at https://is.gd/mdyDKe from Leagle.com, Judge Marbley found that Plaintiffs have made the modest factual showing that they are similarly situated to other employees at Memorial Health System who provide direct patient care. The motion for reconsideration is denied as moot because the depositions have not yet been conducted, Plaintiffs have not been prejudiced by the Magistrate Judge's order allowing discovery before the resolution of the conditional-certification motion and the motion to stay pending a resolution of the motion for motion for reconsideration. Lynnett Myers, et al. are represented by: Marcy J. Stevens, Esq. Steven Charles Babin, Jr., Esq. Lance Chapin, Esq. CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC 580 S. High Street, Suite 330 Columbus, OH 43215 Tel:(614)221-9100 Marietta Memorial Hospital, eta al. are represented by James Edward Davidson, Esq. -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- and Catherine L. Strauss, Esq. -- Catherine.Strauss@icemiller.com -- ICE MILLER LLP MEDPRO GROUP: Carrel's Breach of Contract Claim Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Theresa L. Springman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted Defendant's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, GRETCHEN B. CARREL, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDPRO GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-CV-130-TLS (N.D. Ind.). The litigation was initiated when the Plaintiff, Gretchen B. Carrel, filed a three-count Class Action Complaint for Damages in state court against her former employer, MedPro Group, Inc. Attached to the Complaint were two pages describing a Paid Time Off (PTO) policy that the Plaintiff alleges she was subject to as a MedPro employee. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not pay her the full amount of earned PTO due to her when she resigned from employment and that this failure is a violation of Indiana's Wage Payment Act, Ind. Code Sec. 22-2-5-2, et seq. (Count I), or, alternatively, was a breach of contract or unjust enrichment (Count II). In Count III of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Family Medical Leave Act's (FMLA) prohibition against illegal interference, discrimination, or retaliation for exercising her FMLA rights when it reduced her earned PTO while she was on FMLA leave. After the Defendant removed the case to the District Court and answered the Complaint, it moved for judgment on the pleading for the breach of contract claim asserted in Count II. The Defendant argues that the claim is not viable because it is premised on a provision of the MedPro Employee Handbook, and the Handbook contains a disclaimer that it is not a contract. The Defendant points out that the Employee Handbook containing the PTO policy includes a disclaimer on the first page, which states that "Nothing in this Handbook is intended to create (nor shall be construed as creating) an express or implied contract of employment or to guarantee employment for any term or to promise that any specific procedures must be followed by Medical Protective. There is no contract of employment between Medical protective and any of its employees." The Plaintiff objects to reliance on the Handbook language to support the Defendant's Motion. In her Opinion and Order dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/oU7hqx from Leagle.com, Judge Springman dismissed the breach of contract claim because the Complaint does not contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" and does not state sufficient facts to raise the Plaintiff's right to relief on a breach of contract claim above the speculative level. Gretchen B. Carrel is represented by Matthew J. Elliott, Esq. -- melliott@beckmanlawson.com -- BECKMAN LAWSON LLP MedPro Group Inc. is represented by Edward E. Hollis, Esq. -- edward.hollis@FaegreBD.com -- Rozlyn M. Fulgoni-Britton - rozlyn.fulgoni-britton@FaegreBD.com -- and Toni M. Everton, Esq. -- toni.everton@FaegreBD.com - FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS MICHAEL SMITH: Sued Over NY Religious Corporations Law Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Rachnowitz, Iris Rachnowitz, Marvin Abrams, Rose Abrams, Corinne Lewis, Barbara Bromberg, Jonathon Fessler, Windy Fessler, Zelda Gerstl, Harvey Meyer, Lois Meyer and Barbara Isralewitz, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Howard Beach Judea Center, similarly situated v. Michael Smith, Lawrence Bernstein, Gertrude Roffel, Dorie Pearlman, and John and Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 710480/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., August 31, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's implementation of a plan to consolidate with the Chabad of Howard Beach without the requisite approval of two-thirds of Howard Beach Judea Center's (HBJC's) members, to change the nature of the worship at HBJC, and to threaten to remove or demote Rabbi Hirschfeld in favor of another rabbi who will conduct services in another Judaic tradition which violates the New York Religious Corporations Law. The Defendants operate Howard Beach Judea Center, a religious corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York and maintains its principal office in Queens County, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry L. Saurbom Jr., Esq. KAISER SAURBORN & MAIR, P.C. 111 Broadway, 181h Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 338-9100 E-mail: saurborn@ksmlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, NJ Judge Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jose L. Linares of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and to compel arbitration in the case captioned, VICKEY JEFFREYS, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-8470 (JLL) (D.N.J.) The plaintiff brought the action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated to recover damages for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by the defendant, Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM). The plaintiff had a credit card account with an entity known as Credit One Bank, N.A. (COBNA). The cardholder agreement for that account contained provisions under the heading "ARBITRATION" that required that: (1)"Any controversy or dispute be resolved by binding arbitration"; and (2) "Arbitration replaces the right to go to court, including the right to a jury and the right to participate in a class action or similar proceeding". The plaintiff eventually incurred a debt on her account that COBNA determined to be uncollectable. COBNA then charged off the debt, and sold it to an entity known as Sherman Originator III, LLC (SOLLC). SOLLC, in turn, sold the debt to Midland Funding, LLC (MFLLC), which in turn referred the matter for collection to its servicer, MCM. MCM attempted to collect the debt by mailing a letter seeking payment to the plaintiff. In the motion, MCM, pursuant to the cardholder agreement, demanded that the dispute be referred to arbitration. The Plaintiff opposed, arguing that MCM lacks the standing to enforce the provisions in issue because it is a "nonsignatory" to the cardholder agreement and that the arbitration provisions and class action provisions are unconscionable, reasoning that they "are adhesive agreements" that "presented terms on a take-it-or-leave- it basis". In his Opinion dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/eUG1FF from Leagle.com, Judge Linares concluded that MCM has been assigned the debt, and thus MCM is authorized to invoke the provisions in issue from the cardholder agreement in order to address the plaintiff's claims. The Court found that Plaintiff's argument regarding conscionability is without merit because the arbitration provisions were neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. Vickey Jeffreys is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 911 Arch St. #101 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel:(855)996-6342 Midland Credit Management, Inc. is represented by Andrew Michael Schwartz, Esq. -- easchwartz@mdwcg.com -- Lawrence J. Bartel, III, Esq. -- ljbartel@mdwcg.com -- and Ronald Michael Metcho, II, Esq. -- rmmetcho@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN PC MIDLAND FUNDING: Fraudulent Judgment Victims' Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the case captioned, TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV- 2858-M (N.D. Tex.). Plaintiff filed the action against Midland Funding LLC (Midland) and several other defendants, in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, seeking equitable relief from judgments rendered in Texas courts that are allegedly void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court. In the Original Petition, Plaintiff alleged it was the "assignee" of an individual against whom Midland obtained an allegedly void judgment. Plaintiff subsequently filed a "First Amended Class Action Petition" in the state court action, purporting to represent a class of more than 1,000 individuals against whom Midland obtained an allegedly void judgment. Midland thereafter removed, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(2) & 1453, the action and eight other lawsuits filed by Plaintiff in various Dallas County courts similarly seeking equitable relief from allegedly void judgments rendered in state court. The Court consolidated the removed cases into the action. During a Rule 16 Conference, the Court sua sponte questioned whether Plaintiff had standing to bring the claims asserted. The Court ordered Plaintiff to produce all the documents that it contends establish its standing to bring this lawsuit, including: (1) all documents relating to Plaintiff's incorporation and business activities; (2) a list of Plaintiff's members and other persons with legal authority to act for Plaintiff; and (3) copies of assignments from individual judgment debtors, if any. Plaintiff failed to provide copies of the alleged assignments from the identified individuals. Nor did Plaintiff provide any documents relating to its incorporation or business activities. After noting the deficiencies in Plaintiff's response, the Court granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to submit evidence to establish its standing. In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 2, 2016 available at https://is.gd/aQkJaX from Leagle.com, Judge Lynn concluded that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring any of its claims against Midland. The Court determined that it is appropriate to sanction Plaintiff's counsel, William Ross Teter, Esq., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 finding that Mr. Teter's conduct unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the litigation by obfuscating and delaying the Court's resolution of the threshold issue of standing. Midland is directed to submit evidence of its attorney's fees incurred from October 15, 2015 to the date of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, no later than two weeks from the date of the Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mr. Teter may respond no later than two weeks after Midland submits its evidence of attorney's fees. Texas Association of Fraudulent Victims is represented by: William Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM PO Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Tel:(214)850-8095 Midland Funding LLC is represented by Aimee Guidry Szygenda, Esq. -- aszygenda@mcglinchey.com -- Gregg D. Stevens, Esq. -- gstevens@mcglinchey.com -- and Jeffrey R. Seewald, Esq. -- jseewald@mcglinchey.com -- MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD MINES MANAGEMENT: O'Rourke, Schubert and Assad Suits Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- Mines Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against class action lawsuits related to a merger agreement. Since the announcement of the merger, the Company, members of the Company's board of directors, Merger Sub and Hecla were named as defendants in three putative stockholder class actions, brought by purported stockholders of the Company, challenging the proposed merger: -- Two of the lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court in Spokane County, Washington, and are captioned O'Rourke v. Dobbs, et al., No.16202116-1 (Spokane Cnty, Wash. June 6, 2016) and Schubert v. Dobbs, et al., No. 16202667-7 (Spokane Cnty, Wash. July 14, 2016) (together, the "state lawsuits"). -- The other lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, and is captioned Assad v. Mines Management, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-00256-SMJ (E.D. Wash. July 12, 2016) (the "federal lawsuit"). The plaintiffs in the state lawsuits generally claim that (i) the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by authorizing the merger with Hecla for what the plaintiff asserts is inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process and with inadequate disclosures and (ii) Hecla and Merger Sub aided and abetted the other defendants' alleged breach of duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the merger, rescind the transaction or obtain rescissory damages if the merger is consummated, obtain other unspecified damages and recover attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff in the federal lawsuit generally claims that (i) the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors issued a proxy statement containing false and misleading statements and (ii) the members of the Company's board of directors, Hecla and Merger Sub are liable as controlling persons of the Company. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the merger, rescind the transaction or obtain rescissory damages if the merger is consummated, require the members of the Company's board of directors to disseminate a proxy statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, obtain other unspecified damages and recover attorneys' fees and costs. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation matters with certainty, each of the Company, its directors, Hecla and Merger Sub believe that each of the lawsuits are without merit, and the parties intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted. MINES MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses "Assad" Suit Over Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and granted Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, GEORGE ASSAD, Plaintiff, v. MINES MANAGEMENT, INC., GLENN DOBBS, RUSSELL C. BABCOCK, DOUGLAS D. DOBBS, ROY G. FRANKLIN, JERRY G. POGUE, ROBERT L. RUSSELL, HECLA MINING COMPANY, AND HL IDAHO CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-00256-SMJ (E.D. Wash.). Plaintiff George Assad alleges violations of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proposed acquisition of Mines Management, Inc. (Mines) by Hecla Mining Company (Hecla). Specifically, Assad alleges that the Defendants withheld certain material information from the proxy statement Defendants filed with the SEC. Assad has moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the stockholders vote scheduled for September 12. Defendants have moved to dismiss. Assad argues that the proxy statement failed to disclose four categories of material information, in violation of Section 14(a): (1) Mines' and Hecla's financial projections; (2) information concerning the analysis performed by CG in its fairness opinion; (3) confidentiality agreements entered into by Mines and potential bidders; and (4) potential conflicts of interest. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Defendants have moved to dismiss. In light of a revised proxy statement filed by Defendants, the only remaining issues in this case are whether the Defendants omitted certain "financial projections" from the proxy statement and, if so, whether the omission constituted an omission of material fact that made any portion of the proxy statement misleading. In his Order dated September 2, 2016 available at https://is.gd/SJ6luF from Leagle.com, Judge Mendoza, Jr. found that Assad failed to plead facts sufficient to show that the proxy statement contained a material and misleading omission. Because plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, he cannot show likelihood of success on the merits for the purpose of a preliminary injunction. George Assad is represented by Roger M. Townsend, Esq. -- rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC George Assad is represented by Brendan W. Donckers, Esq. -- bdonckers@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC -- Brian D. Long, Esq. -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Gina M. Serra, Esq. -- gms@rl-legal.com -- and Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. -- sdr@rl- legal.com -- RIGRODSKY & LONG PA Mines Management Inc, et al. are represented by Devon Largio, Esq. -- devon.largio@kirkland.com -- and Joshua Z. Rabinovitz, Esq. -- joshua.rabinovitz@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP -- and Todd Reuter, Esq. -- todd.reuter@foster.com -- FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Hecla Mining Company and HL Idaho Corp are represented by B. John Casey, Esq. -- john.casey@klgates.com -- Daniel-Charles V. Wolf, Esq. -- dc.wolf@klgates.com -- and Philip M. Guess, Esq. -- Philip.Guess@klgates.com -- K & L GATES LLP MODERNIZE INC: "Johansen" Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Ken Johansen on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Modernize, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00839 (S.D. Ohio, August 31, 2016), seeks injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by the Defendant; treble damages and statutory damages; and attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Modernize, Inc. -- https://modernize.com/about -- is a Delaware corporation that has its principal office at 804 Congress Avenue, Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78701. It connects home improvement contractors to homeowners who subscribe to their service. Defendant has been calling Johansen's home telephone number despite it being on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than seven years. Defendant is represented by: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. Joseph F. Murray, Esq. Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: (614) 488-0400 Fax: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com murray@mmmb.com moul@mmmb.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (508) 221-1510 Fax: (617) 830-0327 Email: ted@broderick-law.com anthony@broderick-law.com NCR CORP: Waived Right on Class Arbitration Issue, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District court for the Western District of Washington held that NCR Corp. has waived its right to object to an arbitrator's authority to decide the class arbitration issue in the case captioned, NCR CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CHRIS GOH, Defendant, Case No. C16-127- MJP (W.D. Wash.). The Court denied NCR's motion for summary judgment and granted Goh's motion for summary judgment. In or around August 2013, Plaintiff NCR Corporation (NCR) hired Defendant Chris Goh as a customer engineer in Seattle, Washington. As a condition of employment, Mr. Goh was required to undergo a background check. In connection with the hiring process, Mr. Goh and NCR also entered into a "Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate all Employment Related Claims." In May 2014, approximately eight months after he commenced employment with NCR, Mr. Goh voluntarily terminated his employment. On June 25, 2015, Mr. Goh and Douglass Jones, another former NCR employee, jointly filed a demand for arbitration against NCR in Seattle (Seattle Arbitration). The demand alleged NCR failed to provide the disclosure required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) prior to running a background check on employees and applicants. In additional to their individual claims, Mr. Goh and Mr. Jones also sought to assert claims on behalf of all other persons on whom NCR had obtained background reports. On September 8, 2015, the AAA informed the Parties that, although the Agreement between NCR and Mr. Goh provides for the appointed arbitrator to be licensed to practice law in the state where the arbitration takes place, the AAA only had one arbitrator on its Class Action Panel who was licensed in Washington. On October 1, 2015, Mr. Goh agreed to the selection of a provisional arbitrator to decide the class arbitration issue. The AAA announced selection of Arbitrator James Paulson on December 8, 2015. On December 22, 2015, Mr. Paulson established January 29, 2016 as the deadline for the Parties to submit briefing on the class arbitration issue. On January 27, 2016, two days before deadline for the Parties to submit their briefs, NCR advised the AAA and Mr. Goh that it planned to file an action in the Western District of Washington to ask the Court to determine whether the Agreement authorized class arbitration. That same day, NCR commenced the suit. On January 28, 2016, NCR sent an email to the AAA and to Mr. Goh's counsel asking the AAA to suspend administration of the arbitration so that the District Court could resolve the class arbitration issue. The AAA declined to suspend administration of the arbitration, because Rule 1 of the AAA's Employment Arbitration Rules does not allow for a stay of administration when a party seeks judicial intervention more than 30 days after the commencement of arbitration. NCR filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, asking the District Court to enjoin Mr. Goh from further pursuing a ruling from the arbitrator as to whether the Agreement authorizes class arbitration. On February 4, 2016, the Court entered an Order denying NCR's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on the grounds that NCR failed to show it was entitled to the relief requested. In his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Goh argues the Court should grant summary judgment in his favor because, among other things, NCR has not preserved its objection to the arbitrator's authority to determine the class arbitration issue. NCR argues it did not waive its objection to the arbitrator's authority to determine the class arbitration issue. NCR contends it only accepted the proposal that a provisional arbitrator be appointed to decide the class arbitration issue, because the AAA announced that if the Parties could not agree on a course of action, they would have to choose from arbitrators who were not class action certified. "NCR's conduct here demonstrates its agreement to allow the provisional arbitrator to decide the class arbitration issue, and it would be unreasonable and unjust to allow NCR to reverse course given its prior conduct," the Judge said. A copy of Judge Pechman's Order dated September 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/O6kthY from Leagle.com. NCR Corporation is represented by C. Allen Garrett, Jr., Esq. -- Agarrett@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND STOCKTON LLP NCR Corporation is represented by Cindy D. Hanson, Esq. - cindy.hanson@troutmansanders.com -- Michael J. Breslin, Esq. -- Mbreslin@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Rachel Saimons, Esq. -- RSaimons@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and Rob Roy Smith, Esq. -- RRSmith@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Chris Goh is represented by Anna P. Prakash, Esq. -- aprakash@nka.com -- and Eleanor Frisch, Esq. -- efrisch@nka.com -- Nicholas Kaster, Esq. -- kaster@nka.com - NICHOLS KASTERE, LLP -- Beth E. Terrell, Esq. -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC NEVADA CHECKER: Court Dismisses "Noble" Complaint ------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert C. Jones of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned, BRENT NOBLE et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEVADA CHECKER CAB CORP. et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-02322-RCJ- VCF (D. Nev.). Plaintiffs allege six Defendant taxi companies have violated the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act (FACTA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g) "by printing more than the last 5 digits of the card number on receipts provided to credit card and debit card cardholders transacting business with Defendants." Plaintiffs sued Defendants naming as a class all consumers receiving such receipts within the two-year period preceding the filing of the Complaint, listing six subclasses according to the six Defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, because Plaintiffs had not alleged the way in which Defendants had violated Sec. 1681c(g), but had merely recited the statute. The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) includes a relevant factual allegation that Defendants printed the first number plus the last four numbers of Plaintiffs' credit card numbers on receipts. In the motion, Defendants again moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Defendants argue that printing the first number plus the last four numbers is not a violation of Sec. 1681c(g)(1) because the first number of a card is simply a code identifying the card company -- information that it is lawful to print on receipts in word form -- and is therefore not the kind of private financial information FACTA was intended to protect. In his Order dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/mQkAPH from Leagle.com, Judge Jones ruled that Plaintiffs have no Article III standing to pursue their claims under FACTA and that, even assuming standing under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1549-50 (2016), there was no FACTA violation because Defendants' interpretation of the statute was not unreasonable under the standards of the court's interpretation of Sec. 1681n(a) in Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 69 (2007). Amanda Fowler, et al. are represented by Chant Yedalian, Esq. -- chant@chant.mobi -- CHANT & COMPANY; and Kenneth M. Roberts, Esq. -- kroberts@schiffhardin.com -- DEMPSEY, ROBERTS & SMITH, LTD. Nevada Checker Cab Corporation, et al. are represented by John George Papianou, Esq. -- jpapianou@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMER MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP; and Robert R. McCoy, Esq. -- rmccoy@kcnvlaw.com -- and Joni A. Jamison, Esq. -- jjamison@kcnvlaw.com -- KAEMPFER CROWELL Western Cab Company is represented by Joni A. Jamison, Esq. -- jjamison@kcnvlaw.com -- KAEMPFER CROWELL NGL WAREHOUSE Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Aguilar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NGL Warehouse, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-01869 (C.D. Cal., August 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. NGL Warehouse, LLC operates a cargo & freight service company in Bloomington, California. Elizabeth Aguilar is a pro se plaintiff. PATHWAY LEASING: Franklin Merrill Alleges Violation of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANKLIN MERRILL; LORA LEE; BRENT LEE; ANTHONY GLOVER; KEITH HERRING; ANTHONY DENNIS; LARRY JURCAK; SAMI NASR; JENNIFER THOMAS; and ROBERT THOMAS, all individuals, Plaintiffs, v. PATHWAY LEASING LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and MATTHEW HARRIS, an individual, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-02242 (D. Col., September 6, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit alleges that Defendants Pathway Leasing LLC and Matthew Harris billed themselves as a lessor of trucks for independent contractors, when in fact, Defendants sought to employ truckers to move goods in commerce without paying the cost of hiring and retaining employees. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Crone, Esq. ANDRUS WAGSTAFF PC 7171 West Alaska Drive Lakewood, CO 80226 Phone: (303) 376-6360 E-mail: John.Crone@andruswagstaff.com PMLRA PIZZA: Federal Circuit Appeal Lodged in "Reeves" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Tylor Reeves, Appellee v. PMLRA Pizza, Inc., Henry Askew, Appellant, Case No. 16-2586 (Fed. Cir., August 31, 2016), is an appeal from a lower court ruling in Case No. 1:16-cv-10474 (D. Mass., March 7, 2016). Reeves brought suit against Defendant PMLRA Pizza, Inc. and Henry Askew for unremitted service charge from customers due the Plaintiff under the Massachusetts "Tips Act" and "Minimum Wage Act." Tylor Reeves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brant Casavant, Esq. Stephen S. Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Tel: (617) 231-6777 Fax: (617) 488-2261 Email: brant@fairworklaw.com steve@fairworklaw.com Defendants are represented by: Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq. Todd J. Bennett, Esq. BENNETT & BELFORT, P.C. 24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300 Cambridge, MA 02141 Tel: (617) 577-8800 Fax: (617) 577-8811 Email: tbennett@bennettandbelfort.com eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com REALTIME STAFFING: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daysia Monique Dyson, Heather Elizabeth Moses, and Elvia Pacheco, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Realtime Staffing, LLC, Bocchi Laboratories Ohio, LLC, Bocchi Laboratories, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC632489 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Real Time Staffing Services, Inc., doing business as Select Staffing, offers staffing services. The company is based in Santa Barbara, California. Bocchi Laboratories Ohio, LLC and Bocchi Laboratories operates a manufacturing company that specializes in health, beauty and personal care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com davidk@yeremianlaw.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818)992-2935 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com REMX INC: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, Cal. App. Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Associate Justice Mark B. Simons of the California Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff Vanessa Young's appeal from the trial court's order compelling arbitration of her individual claims, dismissing her class claims, and bifurcating her representative claim pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The appellate case is captioned, VANESSA YOUNG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REMX, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. A143786 (Cal. App.). Plaintiff's operative first amended complaint alleges that, after her employment with defendants terminated, defendants failed to timely pay her all of her final wages. The complaint asserts, on behalf of plaintiff and a putative class, a cause of action for this failure under Labor Code sections 201 through 203. The complaint also asserts a representative PAGA claim seeking civil penalties on behalf of plaintiff and other aggrieved employees. Defendants filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, dismiss plaintiff's class claims, and bifurcate and stay the PAGA claim. In support of the motion, defendants submitted an arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff. The arbitration agreement provided any disputes "arising out of or relating to my employment or the termination of my employment" will be submitted to arbitration. Defendants conceded in their motion that under Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, the arbitration agreement cannot require plaintiff to waive her representative PAGA claim, and therefore asked the court to bifurcate and stay that claim. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing (1) the arbitration agreement only identifies a nonparty entity called RXOS, and therefore does not extend to disputes with defendants; (2) the agreement is unenforceable; and (3) the agreement is unconscionable. The trial court granted defendants' motion. The order compelled arbitration of plaintiff's individual claim, dismissed the class claims, bifurcated the representative PAGA claim, and stayed the PAGA claim pending the completion of arbitration. On appeal, Plaintiff argues the appealed-from order is nonetheless directly appealable under the so-called "death knell" doctrine. This doctrine "'provides that an order which allows a plaintiff to pursue individual claims, but prevents the plaintiff from maintaining the claims as a class action, . . . is immediately appealable because it "effectively r[ings] the death knell for the class claims."' Appealability under the death knell doctrine requires 'an order that (1) amounts to a de facto final judgment for absent plaintiffs, under circumstances where (2) the persistence of viable but perhaps de minimis individual plaintiff claims creates a risk no formal final judgment will ever be entered.'" In Franco v. Athens Disposal Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1288, the Court of Appeal concluded that an order upholding a class arbitration waiver and compelling arbitration of individual claims constitutes the death knell of the class litigation. In his Order dated August 17, 2016 available at https://is.gd/2pPQrE from Leagle.com, Judge Simons concluded that plaintiff's appeal does not fall within the death knell doctrine and that Plaintiff has also failed to explain why the arbitration would be unduly time consuming. As writ relief is available only in extraordinary circumstances, the fact that the arbitration will take time is not sufficient. The appeal is dismissed. Defendants are awarded their costs on appeal. Vanessa Young is represented by Shaun Setareh, Esq. -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- and Farrah Grant, Esq. -- farrah@setarehlaw.com -- SETAREH LAW GROUP RemX, Inc., et al. are represented by Timothy L. Hix, Esq. -- thix@seyfarth.com -- Andrew M. McNaught, Esq. -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Daniel C. Whang, Esq. -- dwhang@seyfarth.com -- and Tamara Fisher, Esq. -- tfisher@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW RENNERT MIAMI: "Luckett" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Kayla A. Luckett, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Rennert Miami LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-23735 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates as Rennert South Beach, a language school offering English classes to foreign students. It sells packages that include English classes, hotel accommodations, meals and full recreational activities. Plaintiff worked as full time Program Coordinator. Luckett is on call 24/7 but was not compensated for hour in excess of 40 per week. Defendant is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dixie Hwy, Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ROCKVILLE AUTO: Faces "Radfar" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- Farhad Radfar, 739 ElmCroft Blvd., Apt. G202, Rockville, MD 20850 Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ROCKVILLE AUTO GROUP, LLC, 17 Fedor Ave., Gaithersburg, MD 20877 and TUBA HAMEDI, 8420 Sego Lily Ct., Lorton, VA 22079 and ABDULLAH RAZAQ, 8420 Sego Lily Ct., Lorton, VA 22079, Defendants, Case 8:16-cv-03082-GJH (D. Md., September 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article. Plaintiff worked at the car dealership as an employee of the Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ali Herischi, Esq. HERISCHI & ASSOCIATES LLC 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 450 Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: 301-363-4540 Fax: 301-363-4538 SIGNET JEWELERS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Lyubomir Spasov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Signet Jewelers Limited, Mark Light, and Michele Santana, Case No. 1:16-cv-06861 (S.D.N.Y., August 31, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Signet Jewelers Limited operates thousands of diamond jewelry stores in North America, and some in the United Kingdom, through well-known brand names such as "Kay," "Jared," "Zales," and "Peoples Jewellers." The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com SKY VIEW: Meneses Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Illegal Deductions ------------------------------------------------------------- Mauro Perez Meneses and Efrain Aguilar Galicia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sky View General Contracting Inc. (d/b/a) Skyview Construction, Gerard Tanella and Joe Tanella, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04879 (E.D. N.Y., August 31, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and damages for any improper deductions or credits taken against wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a construction company located at 1976 E. 24th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11229 where Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers for brick and sheet rock layering. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 SODEXO INC: Faces "Mejia" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA LUISA MEJIA, ELVIRA MUNGIA LOPEZ, MARIA BENAVIDEZ, and MARTIN MONTER, individually and acting in the interest of other current and former employees, Plaintiffs, vs. SODEXO, INC., a Delaware corporation; SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (and wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of SODEXO, INC.), and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-02120-KJM-EFB (September 6, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California state law, including the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code. SODEXO, INC., SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, own and/or control various facilities providing commercial laundering services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric S. Trabucco, Esq. Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Marco A. Palau, Esq. Joseph D. Sutton, Esq. Eric S. Trabucco, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Phone: (510) 832-9999 Fax: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com ETrabucco@TheMMLawFirm.com SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: "Richardson" Sues over Football Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southeastern Conference and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-2342 (S.D. Ind., August 31, 2016), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to warn collegiate players of the health hazards of playing football. Southeastern Conference is a collegiate athletic conference with its principal office located 2201 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203 and with member institutions in eleven states. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. 329 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: 844.456.4823 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com - and - William Winingham, Esq. WILSON KEHOE WININGHAM LLC 2859 North Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46208 Tel: (317) 920-6400 Fax: (317) 920-6405 Email: winingham@wkw.com STARBUCKS CORPORATION: "Crittenden" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Brittany Crittenden, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-05049-EDL (N.D. Cal., August 31, 2016), was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-05049-EDL to the proceeding. Starbucks Corporation operates a coffee company and coffeehouse chain throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Sloane Weiner, Esq. Murray Friedman, Esq. IMBESI LAW P.C. 450 7th Avenue New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (646) 380-9555 Facsimile: (212) 658-9177 E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com murray@lawicb.com - and - Seth Asher Nadler, Esq. EISENBERG & BAUM 24 Union Square East, 4th Fl. New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 353-8700 E-mail: Seth@lawicb.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark Edward McGrath, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 24th Fl. New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 634-3056 Facsimile: (212) 655-1756 E-mail: mmcgrath@sheppardmullin.com STATE STREET: Faces "Abreu" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FCRA -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES ABREU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. STATE STREET CORPORATION and HMG AMERICA, LLC and HCL TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., and STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC. Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-11790-LTS (D. Mass., September 2, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Defendant State Street Corporation is a financial services company. Defendant HMG America, LLC is an IT consulting company. Defendant HCL Technologies, Ltd., is an IT & software development. The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle M. Spang, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIELLE SPANG P.O. Box 183 Somerville, MA 02143 Phone: (617) 612-5291 Fax: (855) 220-3375 E-mail: dspang@spanglawoffice.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, 19th Floor 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Phone: 215.735.8600 Fax: 215.940.8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Grants Class Certification in ERISA Case -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard W. Story of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied a motion by plaintiffs Dennis Erwin, William B. Fisch, Chrys Trau, and Donna Smothermon to strike or exclude the expert report of Lucy P. Allen, granted Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, and granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned, IN RE SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., ERISA LITIGATION, Civ. No. 1:08-CV-03384-RWS (N.D. Ga.). At the behest of Erwin et al., the Court certified a class of "All persons, other than Defendants and members of their immediate families, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the Plan) at any time between May 15, 2007 and March 30, 2011, inclusive (the Class Period) and whose accounts included investments in SunTrust common stock (SunTrust Stock) during that time period", and Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. The Court appointed Erwin, Fish, Trau, and Smothermon as class representatives and the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Stull, Stull & Brody and Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Co-lead Class Counsel and the law firm of Holzer & Holzer, LLC as Liason Class Counsel. The case was brought pursuant to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1109 and 1132(a)(2). Plaintiffs are participants in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (Plan) and bring the action on behalf of themselves, the Plan, and similarly situated Plan participants. The Plan is a defined contribution retirement plan sponsored by SunTrust, with a primary purpose of allowing participants to save for retirement. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants, who are fiduciaries of the ERISA Plan, breached their fiduciary duty in administering the Plan and the Plan's assets. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S.Ct. 2459 (2014), Plaintiffs pled alternative actions that the fiduciary could have taken consistent with securities laws. Defendants filed an Expert Report [222] prepared by Lucy P. Allen (Allen Report) which analyzes the validity of the proposed alternatives. In his Order dated August 17, 2016 available at https://is.gd/7Ju00u from Leagle.com, Judge Story concluded that the Allen Report is "helpful and illuminating as to the issues of concern in the Motion for Class Certification." The Court resolved that the certification is proper under (b)(1)(A) because it is undoubtedly proper under (b)(1)(B) and there is no reason to disagree with Movants' assertion that their chosen counsel will adequately represent the Class. William B. Fisch, et al. are represented by Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- James A. Maro, Esq. -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq. -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- and Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP; Edwin J. Mills, Esq. -- emills@ssbny.com -- Michael J. Klein, Esq. -- mklein@ssbny.com -- STULL STULL & BRODY; Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. - - DYER & BERENS, LLP -- Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. -- stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP; Alan J. Statman, Esq. -- ajstatman@statmanharris.com -- STATMAN HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC -- Marshall P. Dees, Esq. -- mdees@holzerlaw.com -- and Corey Daniel Holzer, Esq. -- cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al. are represented by David Tetrick, Jr., Esq. -- dtetrick@kslaw.com -- Danielle Chattin, Esq. -- dchattin@kslaw.com -- Darren A. Shuler, Esq. -- dshuler@kslaw.com -- Jennifer DeRelle Fease, Esq. -- jfease@kslaw.com -- and Michael Benjamin Wakefield, Esq. -- mwakefield@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING, LLP SUPERIOR SCHOOLS: Faces "Rumsey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Blaine Rumsey, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Superior Schools Corporation and Steve Christopoulos, Case No. 8:16-cv-02535-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a school campus located at 2045 Palmetto St, Clearwater, FL 33765. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 822-1111 Facsimile: (727) 898-2001 E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com shelley@theFLlawfirm.com SUPER QUALITY: Faces "Canizalez" Suit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------- HELMER CANIZALEZ, KEVIN CANIZALEZ, and ISABEL FLORES, in their individual capacities and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUPER QUALITY CLEANERS LLC, and MOHAMMADREZA AHMADIAN SR., an individual, MAHMOUD AHMADIAN, an individual, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-02246 (D. Col., September 6, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid or underpaid wages and other damages under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. SUPER QUALITY CLEANERS LLC operates approximately ten dry cleaning and laundering facilities, all located in Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Penn A. Dodson, Esq. Alexander L. Gastman, Esq. ANDERSON DODSON, P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 961-7639 Fax: (646) 998-8051 E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com alex@andersondodson.com T-N-T OF YORK: EEOC Files Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. T-N-T OF YORK COUNTY, INC., and TM TRUCKING OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC, Defendants, Case 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW (D.S.C., September 6, 2016), alleges unlawful employment practices on the basis of race. The case was filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. T-N-T of York County Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running a freight hauling business from Rock Hill, South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: P. David Lopez, Esq. James L. Lee, Esq. Gwendolyn Young Reams, Esq. Lynette A. Barnes, Esq. Kara G. Haden, Esq. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Charlotte District Office 129 W. Trade Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 954-6472 Fax: (704) 954-6412 Email: Rachael.steenbergh@eeoc.gov TJX COMPANIES: Must Defend Against Suit Over Deceptive Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, the case captioned, STACI CHESTER; DANIEL FRIEDMAN; ROBIN BERKOFF; and THERESA METOYER, individually and o/b/o those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.; TJ MAXX OF CA, LLC; MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC; HOMEGOODS, INC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-01437-ODW (DTB) (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Staci Chester and Daniel Friedman filed their original Complaint on July 17, 2015. Chester, Friedman, and the Plaintiffs in two related actions (Robin Berkoff and Theresa Metoyer), along with Defendants, then stipulated to consolidate all three actions. After the Court granted the consolidation, Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint with this Court on September 3, 2015. Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, bring suit against TJX Companies, Inc. and three off- price retailers under its umbrella: TJ Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods (Defendants). Plaintiffs raise claims under the California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200,et seq. (Unfair Competition Law, UCL), Sec. 17500, et seq. (False Advertising Law, FAL), and California Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq. (California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, CLRA). At issue is the mechanism by which Defendants advertise the price of items at each TJX Companies store. The price tags Defendants use list (1) the price the retailer is selling the item for; and (2) a higher, comparative reference price accompanied by the phrase, "Compare At." Some of Defendants' products also have a second price tag noting a purported manufacturer's suggested retail price, or "MSRP," for an item. The price tags are materially identical across all TJX Companies stores. Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on October 19, 2015 based on two, separate overarching arguments that Plaintiffs (1) lack standing to pursue their claims and (2) have failed to state a claim. In his Order dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/8j3rNu from Leagle.com, Judge Wright, II found that Plaintiffs have standing to raise claims for items purchased by unnamed class members and that Plaintiffs have properly alleged that the "Compare At" price can deceive a reasonable consumer into assuming that the price is comparing the selling prices of like items in like stores. Staci Chester, et al are represented by Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq. -- cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J MOROSOFF, Douglas Caiafa, Esq. -- dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com -- DOUGLAS CAIAFA APLC The TJX Companies, Inc., et al are represented by Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. -- Ann.Palmer@ropesgray.com -- and John P. Bueker, Esq. -- John.Bueker@ropesgray.com -- ROPES AND GRAY LLP -- Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. -- jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- and P. Craig Cardon, Esq. -- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHIER & HAMPTON LLP TOWN OF PARRISH: Faces "Criswell" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Criswell, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Town of Parrish, Alabama, Defendant, Case 6:16-cv-01451-LSC, was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Town of Parrish, Alabama is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas B. Sparks, Esq. NICHOLAS SPARKS INJURY LAW, LLC P.O. Box 729 Jasper, AL 35502-0729 Phone: (205) 387-8282 Fax: (205) 387-8212 E-mail: nicholassparkslaw@gmail.com TRANSUNION: Illinois Judge Narrows Claims in Sgouros Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James B. Zagel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part Defendants' TransUnion Corp., Trans Union LLC, and TransUnion Interactive, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in the case captioned, GARY W. SGOUROS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSUNION CORP.; TRANS UNION LLC; and TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendants, No. 14 C 1850 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Gary W. Sgouros (Sgouros) is a Missouri resident who, on or about June 10, 2013, bought a TransUnion Consumer Credit Score for $39.90. Sgouros has sued three separate entities. The first is TransUnion Corp. (TU Corp.), a Delaware limited liability holding company that is headquartered in Illinois and owns Trans Union LLC. The second is Trans Union LLC, another Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Illinois. The third is TransUnion Interactive, Inc. (TUI), a Delaware corporation that is headquartered in California. Plaintiff claims that had he known that the score he purchased from Defendants would not correspond to that obtained by the car dealer, he would not have purchased the TransUnion Consumer Credit Score. Sgouros asserts four distinct causes of action, alleging that Defendants injured him in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and state consumer protection laws of both Illinois and Missouri. Count I alleges either a willful or negligent violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681g(f)(7)(A). In Count II Plaintiff alleges a violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(e)(b). Count III alleges that Defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA). Count IV alleges that Defendants violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). On July 7, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff responded by filing an Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendants again move for dismissal, claiming that the Amended Class Action Complaint still fails to state a claim. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/lFXhdL from Leagle.com, Judge Zagel granted the Motion as to Counts II because Sgouros would not have a viable cause of action under Sec. 1681(e)(b) because he was the only recipient of the TransUnion Consumer Credit Score, III because it is unnecessary to address Defendants' secondary argument that Plaintiff's allegations of an ICFA violation do not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and IV because Defendants failed to separately identify what each defendant did to violate the MMPA. The motion to dismiss is denied as to Count I finding that Plaintiff has satisfied his pleading burden of asserting a plausible claim that TU Corp. and Trans Union LLC are consumer reporting agencies that "regularly engage in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties" in conjunction with TransUnion Interactive, Inc. (TUI). Gary W. Sgouros is represented by Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq. -- csanchez@caffertclobes.com -- CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP -- Gabriel Hopkins, Esq. -- ghopkins@publicjustice.net -- and Leslie Andrea Bailey, Esq. -- lbailey@publicjustice.net -- PUBLIC JUSTICE P.C. -- Michael Robert Reese, Esq. -- michael@reesellp.com -- REESE LLP TransUnion Corp., et al. are represented by Michael C. O'Neil, Esq. -- michael.oneil@reedsmith.com -- Dawn Michele Beery, Esq. -- dawn.beery@reedsmith.com -- and Timothy Robert Carwinski, Esq. -- timothy.carwinski@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shrem" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Shrem, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-04880 (E.D.N.Y., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Transworld Systems, Inc. operates a debt collection firm headquartered at 507 Prudential Road Horsham, PA. TAbraham Shrem is a pro se plaintiff. UNITED NATIONS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Epidemic ---------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes of the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit affirmed a January 15, 2015 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing plaintiffs' action against defendants the United Nations, the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (Ban), and former MINUSTAH Under-Secretary-General Edmond Mulet (Mulet) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate case is captioned, DELAMA GEORGES, individually and on behalf of the ESTATE OF DESILUS GEORGES and all others similarly situated; ALIUS JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of the ESTATE OF MARIE-CLAUDE LEFEUVE and all others similarly situated; LISETTE PAUL, individually and on behalf of the ESTATE OF FRITZNEL PAUL and all others similarly situated; FELICIA PAULE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JEAN RONY SILFORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED NATIONS; UNITED NATIONS STABILIZATION MISSION IN HAITI; EDMOND MULET, former Under- Secretary-General of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti; BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-455-CV (2nd Cir.). Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States or Haiti who claim that they "have been or will be sickened, or have family members who have died or will die, as a direct result of the cholera" epidemic that has ravaged the Republic of Haiti since October 2010. In the putative class action, plaintiffs seek to hold defendants responsible for their injuries, and to that end, assert various causes of action sounding in tort and contract against them. Defendants did not enter an appearance before the District Court. But on March 7, 2014, the executive branch of the United States government (the Executive Branch) submitted a statement of interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 517, in which it took the position that defendants are "immune from legal process and suit" pursuant to the UN Charter, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1031; the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (the "CPIUN"); and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (the VCDR),. On January 9, 2015, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. With respect to the UN and MINUSTAH, the District Court relied on Section 2 of the CPIUN. The District Court concluded that, because Ban and Mulet both held diplomatic positions at the time plaintiffs filed their action, they were immune as well. On appeal, plaintiffs raise three principal arguments. First, they argue that the District Court erred in holding that the UN and MINUSTAH are immune because the UN's fulfilment of its obligation under Section 29 of the CPIUN to provide for appropriate dispute- resolution mechanisms is a condition precedent to its Section 2 immunity. Second, they argue that the District Court's holding was in error because the UN materially breached the CPIUN by failing to fulfill its Section 29 obligation, such that it is no longer entitled to the benefit of immunity under Section 2. Third, they argue that the District Court's application of the CPIUN to dismiss their action violated their constitutional right of access to the federal courts. In his Order dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/r3XMAE from Leagle.com, Judge Cabranes held that the UN's fulfillment of its Section 29 obligation is not a condition precedent to its Section 2 immunity. Delama Georges, et al are represented by Beatrice Lindstrom, Esq. -- Beatrice@ijdh.com -- and -- Brian Concannon, Esq. -- brian@ijdh.org -- INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY Georges et al. are also represented by: Ira Kurzban, Esq. KURZBAN KURZBAN WEINGER TETZELI & PRATT P.A. 2650 SW 27th Ave Miami, FL 33133 Tel:(305)444-0060 -- and -- Jeffrey Brand, Esq. CENTER FOR LAW & GLOBAL JUSTICE San Francisco, CA 94117 UNITED STATES: Veterans' Suit v. Defense Dept. Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed in its entirety Plaintiffs' complaint in the case captioned, National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States Department of Defense, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. PJM 14-1749, PJM 14-1751 (D.D.C.). Four Plaintiffs -- two veterans services organizations and two Army veterans Angelo Duran and Scott Fink -- filed the action to challenge various practices of the Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR or the Board). They filed a three-count, class-action Complaint. The First Claim for Relief alleges that the ABCMR violated 5 U.S.C. Sec. 704 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Second Claim for Relief alleges that the ABCMR committed another violation of Section 704 of the APA by failing to obtain the medical records needed for Plaintiffs Angelo Duran and Scott Fink, and other similarly situated applicants, to complete their applications for correction. The Third Claim for Relief alleges that the ABCMR violated the APA yet again by failing to publish two internal guidebooks titled "Screening Team Analyst Resource" and a "Handbook for ABCMR Board Members." Plaintiffs also challenged two other Board practices. They contend that the ABCMR impermissibly requires applicants -- specifically here, the two individual plaintiffs -- to acquire the medical records needed to complete their applications. Plaintiffs argue that the Board -- rather than the applicants -- bears that responsibility, but has failed to fulfill it. Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that the ABCMR has failed to make public two internal guidance documents, known as the "Screening Team Analyst Resource" and the "Handbook for ABCMR Board Members," which set forth rules and policies concerning the approval and denial of applications. Defendants moved to dismiss the matter on two grounds. First, they contend that all Plaintiffs lack standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and therefore, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter. Second, under Rule 12(b)(6), Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/RVBd68 from Leagle.com, Judge Mehta concluded that Duran and Fink's assertion that the ABCMR failed in its duty to obtain their medical records does not state a claim for relief under the APA and that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. are represented by Catherine L. Chapple, Esq. -- cchapple@mofo.com -- John A. Trocki, III, Esq. -- jtrocki@mofo.com -- Stacey M. Sprenkel, Esq. -- ssprenkel@mofo.com -- and Richard James Vacura, Esq. -- rvacura@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP United States Department of Defense, et al. are represented by: Kieran Gavin Gostin, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Tel:(202)353-1555 UNITED STATES: 8th Cir. Revives Johnson Claims Against USDA ----------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Jane Kelly of the Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed in part, a district court's dismissal of Curtis Johnson's statutory and constitutional claims against the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Secretary of Agriculture, and various Department of Agriculture employees in the case captioned, Curtis Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Department of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, Secretary (USDA); Gary Cochran; Hendra Woodfork; Shirley Moore; Dotson Collins; James G. Culpepper; Dianna Shook; Linda Newkirk; Dennis L. Stephens; Linda Baker; Thomas Brown; M. Terry Johnson; John Doe; Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees, Civ. No. 15- 1796 (8th Cir.). As alleged in his complaint, the plaintiff, Curtis Johnson, ran a farm in Monroe and St. Francis Counties in Arkansas until 2000. In 2000, he and his former wife, Rubye Johnson, took out a loan, secured by mortgages on their property, in the amount of $142,185.47 from the USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA). Because of a drought in 2000, Johnson had to stop farming and began to miss payments on his loans. Starting in July 2001, the FSA began intercepting Johnson's income tax refunds through administrative offsets. Over the next several years, Johnson tried to settle his debts with the FSA -- offering to pay $15,500 in August and September 2003 and November 2004, $1,500 in February 2006, and $100 in December 2006 or January 2007. In October 2009, Linda Newkirk, an FSA employee and a defendant in this case, sent Johnson a letter denying his debt settlement applications. Johnson then met with Dennis Stephens, another FSA employee and defendant, in December 2009 to ask for reconsideration, which was denied. In January 2010, Johnson filed an appeal with the USDA's National Appeals Division (NAD). After conducting a hearing, Thomas Brown, an NAD Hearing Officer, upheld the FSA's denial of Johnson's settlement applications. Johnson then requested a Director's Review, and on August 2010, defendant M. Terry Johnson upheld the FSA's decision. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) issued a 15-page final agency determination on February 29, 2012. The determination began its analysis by saying that the claim was "properly analyzed under [Equal Credit Opportunity Act]." Johnson was apparently dissatisfied with OASCR's decision and filed a lawsuit on December 21, 2012, against Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and 11 USDA employees, each in their individual and official capacities. Johnson's complaint claimed that the defendants violated ECOA because they denied his debt settlement offers on the basis of his race and in retaliation for his being a member of the Pigford class-action litigation. He also alleged that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) to interfere with his civil rights, and that they violated his rights under the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments. On March 16, 2015, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all of Johnson's claims. Two of the defendants, Dotson Collins and Dianna Shook, were dismissed because Johnson had failed to timely serve them. The conspiracy claims were dismissed on the grounds that no agreement among the defendants had been alleged. Finally, and most significantly for purposes of this appeal, the ECOA claims were dismissed on the grounds that they were precluded by OASCR's administrative proceedings, and, with respect to the USDA employee defendants, on the alternative ground that Johnson had not adequately alleged that they were "creditors" for ECOA purposes. On appeal, Johnson does not challenge the dismissal of Tom Vilsack in his individual and official capacities, or the dismissal of Dotson Collins and Dianna Shook for failure of service. He also does not challenge the dismissal of his Fifth Amendment claims against the USDA employee defendants in their official capacities, or the Thirteenth Amendment claims against all defendants. He otherwise contends that the district court erred in dismissing his claims. In her Order dated August 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/0tovDl from Leagle.com, the Appeals Court agreed with the district court that the complaint does not contain sufficient allegations to state a plausible claim that Thomas Brown and M. Terry Johnson, both of whom are employed with the USDA's National Appeals Division, are creditors for ECOA purposes. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the ECOA claims with respect to Thomas Brown and M. Terry Johnson, and reversed the dismissal of these claims with respect to the remaining defendants. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Curtis Johnson is represented by: Ronald Carl Wilson, Esq. 310 Mid-Continent Plz, Ste 110 West Memphis, AR 72301-1761 Tel: (870) 735-2940 Department of Agriculture, et al. are represented by Richard M. Pence, Jr., Esq. Jane W. Duke, Esq. -- jduke@mwlaw.com -- MITCHELL WILLIAMS. USDA et al. are also represented by: Richard M. Pence, Jr., Esq. U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Tel: (202)353-1555 VGC INC: Ala. Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Min. Wage Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VGC, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01455-JEO (N.D. Ala., September 2, 2016), was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, who are current and former dancers/entertainers at VGC, Incorporated in Huntsville, Alabama, for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay a minimum wage. VGC is a night club stablished in 1988 and incorporated in Alabama. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian M. Clark, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 19th St. No. Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 314-0500 Fax: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: bclark@wigginschilds.com VILLA SERENA: "Martin" Sues Over Retalliation, Unpaid OT, Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos J. Martin, Plaintiff, v. Villa Serena II, Inc. and Roxana Solano, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23743 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid wages, failure to pay overtime, minimum wage violations, retaliatory damages, and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Villa Serena is a Florida Assisted Living Facility licensed to provide room, board and personal assistance to elder and psychiatric patients/residents where Martin worked as live-in home health aide and care-giver. Martin was allegedly terminated for complaining about his pay and has yet to claim his wages. Defendant is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dixie Hwy, Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge James S. Gwin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, ELLIOTT GRAISER, Plaintiff, v. VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-2306 (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiff Graiser represents a putative class of customers who purchased eyeglasses at Defendant Visionworks while they were offering a "Buy One Get One Free" promotion. Plaintiff sues Defendant Visionworks for violating Ohio's Consumer Sale Practice Act. In particular, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's buy- one-get-one-free eyeglasses deal violates Ohio's regulations on use of the word "free." Plaintiff maintains that the buy-one-get- one-free price is inflated, as evidenced by the 40% discount offered when a customer buys only one pair. On July 25, 2014, Defendant removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The Court remanded because Graiser did not show future injury that could support his Article III standing to seek an injunction. While back in state court, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Barker ruled on the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Barker issued an opinion concluding that Plaintiff Graiser did not have standing to seek an injunction, and that his class claims failed as a matter of law. However, Judge Barker concluded that Defendant Visionworks solicited Graiser into making a buy-one-get-one-free purchase, meaning that there was a consumer transaction sufficient to invoke Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act. Judge Barker dismissed Plaintiff's other claims and gave Plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint. In Count One of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged an Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act violation based on Defendant's use of the word "free." In particular, "the cost of the 'free' eyeglasses is passed on to the consumer by Visionworks' raising of the regular price of eyeglasses that must be purchased in order to receive the 'free' eyeglasses." In Count Two, Plaintiff alleged negligent misrepresentation under Ohio Law. Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In a two-sentence journal entry, Judge Barker granted Defendant's motion as to Count Two, dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim. In the same journal entry, Judge Barker denied the motion as to Count One. Defendant removed the case to federal court a second time under Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction. The operative complaint alleges the single cause of action: violation of Ohio's Consumer Protection Act based on Defendant's use of the word "free." In the motion, Defendant argues that the buy-one-get-one-free price is the true price. Defendant says it charges vision insurance customers the buy-one-get-one-free price and the higher price charged customers with insurance should establish the true price. Additionally, Defendants claim that Plaintiff Graiser cannot show actual or statutory damages. In his Opinion and Order dated August 17, 2016 available at https://is.gd/zYaTlq from Leagle.com, Judge Gwin found that because Graiser merely made the 40% off purchase, not the buy-one- get-one-free purchase, he has not shown a viable theory of actual damages and he cannot maintain a class claim. As an individual plaintiff, Graiser may be able to prove statutory damages for being solicited for a buy-one-get-one-free offer. But he may not prove statutory damages on the 40% off purchase, because Defendant had no prior notice that its 40% offer may violate Ohio law. Elliott Graiser is represented by: Drew T. Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. Thomas C. Merriman, Esq. Edward S. Jerse, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN 1360 W 9th St. #200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel:(216)522-9000 Visionworks of America, Inc. is represented by David H. Wallace, Esq. -- dwallace@taftlaw.com -- Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- and Ronald D. Holman, II, Esq. -- rholman@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER VIVIFY SERVICES: Faces "Davis" Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- Adrianne Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vivify Services, LLC, Michigan Avenue Real Estate Group and Unknown Owners, Case No. 2016CH11520 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide the Plaintiff and the class with a copy of a separate summary describing the respective rights, obligations and remedies of landlords and tenants with respect to security deposits that was prepared by the Chicago commissioner of the department of housing. The Defendants operates a real estate development firm located in Northbrook, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Smith, Esq. JS LAW 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 756-1330 E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com WALGREEN CO: 7th Reverses Approval of Settlement in Merger Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit reversed a trial court's approval of the settlement in the case captioned, IN RE: WALGREEN CO. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION (HAYS, et al. v. WALGREEN CO., et al.) APPEAL OF: JOHN BERLAU, Objector, Case No. 15-3799 (7th Cir.), and remanded the action to the district court. Judge Posner found that there is no indication that members of the class have an interest in challenging the reorganization that has created Walgreens Boots Alliance. On remand, the district court is directed to give serious consideration to either appointing new class counsel or dismissing the suit since the class counsel has failed to represent the class fairly and adequately, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(B) and (g)(4). In 2012 Walgreen Co. acquired a 45% equity stake in a Swiss company named Alliance Boots GmbH, plus an option to acquire the rest of Alliance's equity, beginning in February 2015, for a mixture of cash and Walgreens stock. In 2014 the two companies altered the deal to allow the option to be exercised earlier. Walgreens announced its intent to purchase the remainder of Alliance Boots and then engineer a reorganization whereby Walgreens (having swallowed Alliance Boots) would become a wholly owned subsidiary of a new Delaware corporation to be called Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. The suit sought additional disclosures to the shareholders, disclosures alleged to be likely to affect the shareholder vote. The settlement required Walgreens to issue several of the disclosures to the shareholders -- that was the entire benefit of the settlement to the class -- and released the company from liability for the other disclosure-related claims made in the suit. It also authorized class counsel to ask the district judge to award them $370,000 in attorneys' fees, without opposition from Walgreens. The district judge approved the settlement, including a narrow release of claims and the fee for the plaintiff's lawyers that the company had agreed not to oppose. A shareholder named John Berlau appealed. In his Decision dated August 10, 2016 available at https://is.gd/dN2P0P from Leagle.com, Judge Posner said the district judge was handicapped by lack of guidance for judging the significance of the disclosures to which the parties had agreed in order to settle the class action at nominal cost to the defendant (because class counsel's fees were small potatoes to the giant new company and the disclosures irrelevant to the shareholders and thus incapable of preventing the reorganization) and sweet fees for class counsel, who devoted less than a month to the litigation, a month's activity that produced no value. The district judge was handicapped by lack of guidance for judging the significance of the disclosures to which the parties had agreed in order to settle the class action at nominal cost to the defendant (because class counsel's fees were small potatoes to the giant new company and the disclosures irrelevant to the shareholders and thus incapable of preventing the reorganization) and sweet fees for class counsel, who devoted less than a month to the litigation, a month's activity that produced no value. Judge Posner said the case, In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 129 A.3d 884, 894 (Del. Ch. 2016), adopted a clearer standard for the approval of similar settlements, and is applicable in the present case. In Trulia, the Delaware's Court of Chancery adopted a clearer standard for the approval of disclosure claims settlement holding that a the misrepresentation or omission that the supplemental disclosures correct must be "plainly material," and if immaterial their correction does nothing for the shareholders. Berlau is represented by: Theodore H. Frank, Esq. Melissa Ann Holyoak, Esq. COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 1310 l. Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Tel:(202)331-1010 Walgreen Co. et al. are represented by James W. Ducayet, Esq. -- jducayet@sidley.com -- Elizabeth Yvonne Austin, Esq. -- laustin@sidley.com -- Benjamin D. Klein, Esq. -- jklein@sidley.com -- and Kristen R. Seeger, Esq. -- kseeger@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN WASHINGTON SUBURBAN: Wins Summary Judgment in "Floyd" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Peter J. Messitte of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, AVA FLOYD, pro se, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. PJM 14-1749, PJM 14-1751 (D. Md.). On May 1, 2014, Plaintiff Ava Floyd (Floyd) filed two separate complaints (Complaint I and Complaint II) in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County related to her employment at Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) and Jerry N. Johnson (Johnson) (Defendants) and her eventual termination. In Complaint I, which she originally styled as a "Class Action Complaint," Floyd brings claims against WSSC for Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Count 1); Unlawful Employment Practices (Count 2); and what she fashions as "Race, Sex, and National Origin Based Employment Discrimination" (Count 3). Specifically, Floyd alleges that WSSC did not comply with its own Equal Employment Opportunity and Employee Right Policies. She also alleges that the Interview Panel discriminated against her in connection the Scoring Sheet used in its hiring process. In Complaint II, Floyd brings claims of retaliation against WSSC (Count 1) and wrongful termination (Count 2) against both individual Defendants. These claims are based largely on the same factual predicate present in Complaint I. On July 21, 2015, the Court consolidated Floyd's lawsuits. Since Complaint I included not only purported class allegations but also Floyd's individual claims, the Court allowed the individual claims in Complaint I to proceed. In the motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' assertions fail as a matter of law. In his Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/UqkfwY from Leagle.com, Judge Messitte held that Floyd has failed to rebut WSSC's legitimate reason for not extending her interview, and she has failed to establish a dispute of material fact and that her argument is misguided. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) and Jerry N. Johnson are represented by Philip H. Lohrey, Jr., Esq. -- plohrey@aog.state.md.us -- OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL XE SERVICES: Motions to Dismiss on Hold Pending Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, C.J. MERCADANTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 11-1044 (CKK) (D.D.C.), District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held in abeyance Defendants' motion to dismiss while providing Plaintiffs one final opportunity to perfect their arbitration demands and to proceed to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. On January 15, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to "proceed to arbitration in order for an arbitrator to determine, in the first instance, whether the claims in the action are arbitrable." Subsequently, after the parties' exchanged e-mails regarding future proceedings, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal, regarding the Court's January 15, 2015, Order, which Defendants opposed. The Court denied that motion in its entirety. The Court explained that, if Plaintiffs continued to seek relief on the claims they brought in the case, they were required to proceed to arbitration as previously ordered by the Court. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiffs submitted a Demand for Arbitration to the American Arbitration Association (AAA), under its rules for employment cases. The demand encompassed class claims, as well as the individual claims of the four individual Plaintiffs in the case. The AAA acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs' demand, including a payment of $200. The AAA sent a letter to Plaintiffs stating that "to proceed with administration, we request the $3,150 balance of the filing fee be submitted at this time." The AAA sent additional follow-up correspondence on June 10, 2016, by e-mail, indicating that no payment had yet been made and on June 22, 2016 the AAA's Employment Filing Team sent the parties a letter stating that the filing deficiency has not been cured and administratively closed the file without prejudice. Defendants subsequently filed motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. Defendants aver that Plaintiffs have not moved with the speed that the Court would have expected in proceeding to arbitration. It was not until March 25, 2016, that Plaintiffs filed their demand for arbitration with the AAA, seven months after the Court resolved Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and fourteen months after the Court initially ordered arbitration in the case. In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/aUsN9b from Leagle.com, Judge Kollar- Kotelly held in abeyance because Plaintiffs indicate that they are seeking to have the individual claims reinstated in arbitration, the Court will not yet dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. Rather, the Court will provide Plaintiffs one final opportunity to comply with the requirements of the AAA and to move forward with the arbitration proceedings. The Court directed Plaintiffs to move forward expeditiously to seek reinstatement of their individual arbitration claims -- filing individual demands and paying filing fees as required by the AAA and file a status report regarding arbitration of the claims brought in the action by no later than October 19, 2016. ********* 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. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2016. 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 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *