/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170215.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 33 Headlines ABILTO INC: Faces "Sandoval" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ACT FAST: "Young" Suit Seeks Certification of Drivers Class ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Sued for Inflating Prices for Generic Ursodiol AKAL SECURITY: "Gelber" Suit Seeks to Recertify ASO Class ALDI INC: Faces "Garcia" Wage-and-Hour Suit in Rhode Island ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Securities Suit in Connecticut ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in New York Dismissed AMERICAN CHORE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees AMERIGROUP CORP: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pichardo" Suit Says APPLE INC: Intentionally Disabled FaceTime, "Grace" Suit Says APPLIED MATERIALS: Judge Tigar Certifies Settlement Classes ARCHON INC: Patel Appeals Ruling in "Saiyed" Suit to 2nd Circuit ASURION INSURANCE: Mix Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to Ninth Circuit AUDI AG: "Greenfield" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672 AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Vacates Dismissal of Securities Suit AVIS RENT: Faces "Sauberman" Suit in New Jersey BIG APPLE: Faces "Marett" Class Suit in New York BIG LOTS: Certification of Classes Sought in "Hubbs" Suit BLACK ANGUS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Sealey" Suit Says BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: McCarthy Attorney Analyzes Court Ruling BORDEAUX LLC: "Ohana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages BRAND PLUMBING: Class Certification Granted in "McFeeters" Suit BRASSELER U.S.A.: "Orrington" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes BRIAN COLLIER: "Smith" Suit Seeks Certification of Inmate Class CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Hatch" Suit in Eastern District of New York CANADIAN AIR: Court Okays Air Cargo Class Action Payout Protocol CBOE HOLDINGS: Appeal in Suit vs. Bats Global Remains Pending CBOE HOLDINGS: Bats Awaits Order on Lanier's Rehearing Petition CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Tech. Managers' OT CHEVROLET INC: Ohio App. Affirms Stay of "Seyfried" Suit CIRCLE TRANSPORT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Truck Drivers' Wages CKE RESTAURANTS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California COLUCID PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold to Cheaply, Suit Claims COUSIN VINNY'S: Brandenburg Seeks Certification of Drivers Class CRAZY HORSE: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Degidio" Suit DALLAS, TX: Retirees Sue Police Pension System for Denied Access DERMA SCIENCES: Faces "Rabadi" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Integra DETROIT, MI: Frefighters Lose Discrimination Claims DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Mustafaev" Suit in E.D.N.Y. DOLLAR TREE: Court Takes Class Certification Bid Under Submission DR. PEPPER: Graveyard Shift Workers File Class Suit EMERY FEDERAL: Palombaros Seek to Certify Class ERNST & YOUNG: Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in October FARMERS GROUP: Faces "Grigson" Suit Over Smart Plan Auto Program FINANCE SYSTEM: "Boucher" Suit Seeks Certification of Class FINTEGRA HOLDINGS: Dulhanty Appeals Ruling to Minn. Appeals Court FIRST NATIONAL: Class Certification Hearing Reset for May 17 FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Lafrenier Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid GC SERVICES: Nationwide Class Certified in "Macy" FDCPA Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Chopp" Suit Says GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Dickson" Suit GREEN BROOK: "Brooking" Suit Seeks Certification of Class GROVETOWN, GA: Implements Changes After Water Bill Class Action GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Class Certification in "Souran" Suit Granted HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Judge Refuses to Stay Suit Over Bail System HD SUPPLY: "Weisberg" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class HOMEAWAY INC: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Decision in "Arnold" Suit HUNTER INDUSTRIES: King Suit Seeks Certification of Class HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Lasri" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Powell Appeals S.D.W. Va. Ruling to 4th Cir. IMAGE LINE: "Thomas" Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification INDIANA: Lawmaker Seeks to Limit BMV Class Action Attorney Fees INLAND BANCORP: iMove Chicago Seeks Class Certification JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Beltran" Suit in S.D. of Cal. JPMORGAN CHASE: Deprives Jurors of Full Payment, Suit Claims KEYNETICS INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Silverstein" Suit LIBERTY MUTUAL: "Metrow" Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class MARKETECH: JT's Frames Files Amended Class Certification Motion MARYLAND, USA: Koenig Appeals From Ruling in "Jarboe" Class Suit METTRUM: Health Canada to Spot Check Medical Marijuana MIDLAND CREDIT: Pirkles File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid MOMOIP LLC: Faces "Marett" Class Action in New York MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "McKenna" Suit in S.D. of Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: "Martin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class MORGAN AND MORGAN: Faces "Vadnais" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey MICHIGAN: "McBride" Suit Seeks Certification of MDOC Deaf Class MUFG UNION BANK: Branch Service Manager Files Wage and Hour Suit MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: "Gadime" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes NEW ORLEANS, LA: Class Certification Sought in "Cain" Suit NEW ZEALAND: MSD May Face Class Action Over Pension Schemes NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: Faces Class Action in Illinois NOVO NORDISK: Inflated Diabetic Drug Prices, "Chaires" Suit Says PANDA RESTAURANT: Site Inaccessible to Screen Readers, Suit Says PEET'S COFFEE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Auto Renewals PIER 1 IMPORTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit PRECISION DRILLING: Faces "Haggard" Wage-and-Hour Class Suit PREMIER HEALTHCARE: FCRA and FLSA Class Certified in "Criddell" PTZ INSURANCE: "Legg" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Faces "Guldmann" Suit in E.D.N.Y. RESTAURANT.COM INC: Shelton Appeals Decision to Third Circuit RITE AID: Discovery in "Indergit" Class Suit Remains Ongoing RITE AID: "Hall" Wage-and-Hour Suit Set for Trial in January 2018 RITE AID: "Herring" Securities Suit Still Stayed in Pennsylvania ROGERS & CARTER: Aberchrombie's Class Certification Bid Denied SARASOTA COUNTY, FL: Bus Drivers Class Certified in "Leo" Suit SEPHORA USA: Faces "Marett" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y SHIVA ESTATE: Court Denied Class Certification in "Shuler" Suit SHOP VAC: Judge Requires Two Settlement Objectors to Post Bonds SHOPPERLOCAL LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Cunningham" Suit SILVER DOLLAR: Exotic Dancers Class Certified in "Murray" Suit SMITH & NEPHEW: Hip Implant Class Action Can Proceed SOUTH AFRICA: Families Shocked Over Solidarity Class Action T-MOBILE USA: Faces "Salgado" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. T-MOBILE USA: Rahmany Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to Ninth Circuit TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Cir. Revives Actos Class Suit TEXAS LAW: Crowley Files Appeal in Texas Supreme Court TIME WARNER: Says Race Discrimination Claims Too Vague to Stand TINDER: 11th Cir. Reinstates Dating App Fees Class Action TRIPOINT GLOBAL: Faces "Blank" Suit Over Hamilton Broadway Show TRS STAFFING: Williams Seeks Conditional Certification of Class UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Sends "Wilson" to Arbitration UNITED STATES: HHS Loses Bid to Dismiss Medicare Class Action UNITED STATES: Marroquin-Perez Files Suit v. Atty. General UNITY BUILDING: Faces "Segura" Suit in S.D.N.Y. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY: Certification of Settlement Class Sought US BANK: Defending Multiple Class Actions in New York US RX: MD Medical Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Mission City Appeals Order in "Golan" Suit WALGREENS BOOTS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois WALGREENS BOOTS: Shareholders Drop Consolidated Actions in Ill. WALGREENS BOOTS: M.D. Pa. Suit Over Rite Aid Merger Still Stayed WIRTZ REALTY: Bid for Class Certification Taken Under Advisement XTO ENERGY: Class Certification Bid Denied in Mobley Lumber Suit YAHOO INC: Insurance Agent Files Data Theft Class Action YAHOO INC: Faces Another Data Breach Class Action in California YOUNG SHING: Faces "Escamilla" Suit in E.D.N.Y. * Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High in 2016 * Wage-and-Hour Class Actions Down in 2016, Report Shows * Reed Smith Attorney Balks at Class Action Cy Pres Abuse * N.Y., Calif. Courts May Lead Way in Class Certifications ********* ABILTO INC: Faces "Sandoval" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Veronica Sandoval, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. AbilTo Inc., AbilTo LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC648675 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation and pay for all hours worked, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide meal, rest periods, and other protections provided to non-exempt employees under California law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a "Coach" to help deliver proprietary cognitive behavioral therapy programs. The Defendants operate a behavioral healthcare company in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.D. Henderson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF J. D. HENDERSON 215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (424) 254-8870 E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net - and - Asaf Agazanof, Esq. ASAF LAW APC 11150 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (626) 529-5891 Facsimile: (888) 254-0561 ACT FAST: "Young" Suit Seeks Certification of Drivers Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ERIC YOUNG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ACT FAST DELIVERY OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC.; ACT FAST DELIVERY, INC.; HOME CARE PHARMACY, LLC d/b/a a variety of entities including but not limited to OMNICARE OF NITRO and/or OMNICARE OF NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA; COMPASS HEALTH SERVICES, LLC d/b/a a variety of entities including but not limited to OMNICARE OF MORGANTOWN and/or OMNICARE OF MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA; OMNICARE, INC.; and other JOHN DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-09788 (S.D.W.Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of: "all current and former delivery drivers classified as independent contractors who performed work for Defendants in West Virginia during the three-year period before the filing of the original Complaint1 up to the date the court authorizes notice". The sole issue presented by the Motion is whether Plaintiffs have met their lenient showing for the Court to conditionally certify the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and authorize the dispatch of notice of the pendency of the suit to workers similarly situated to Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs do not seek a ruling on the merits. The Plaintiffs sued Defendants to collect unpaid wages and overtime owed to them and the class of similarly situated workers. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y0obdB1f The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Kirby III, Esq. Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq. James A. Kirby II, Esq. GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP 300 Summers Street, Suite 1500 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-7000 Facsimile: 304) 344 9692 E-mail: cgf@goodwingoodwin.com jak@goodwingoodwin.com Counsel for Act Fast Delivery of WV and Act Fast Delivery, Inc.: Eric E. Kinder, Esq. John B. Hardison, Esq. SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC 300 Kanawha Boulevard, E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 340 3800 Facsimile: (304) 340 3801 E-mail: jhardison@spilmanlaw.com ekinder@spilmanlaw.com Counsel for Home Care Pharmacy, LLC; Compass Health Services, LLC; and Omnicare, Inc.: Mariah H. McGrogan, Esq. Marla N. Presley, Esq. Mariah H. McGrogan, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000 Pittsburg, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 232 0404 Facsimile: (412) 232 3441 E-mail: Marla.Presley@jacksonlewis.com Mariah.McGrogan@Jacksonlewis.com ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Sued for Inflating Prices for Generic Ursodiol -------------------------------------------------------------- NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Lannett Company, Inc. and Epic Pharma, LLC, Case No. 2:17- cv-00629 (D.N.J., January 30, 2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants and co-conspirators' overarching anticompetitive scheme in the market for generic ursodiol or ursodeoxycholic acid to artificially inflate prices through unlawful agreements between and among would-be competitors. The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. David R. Buchanan, Esq. Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 550 Broad Street, Suite 920 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 639-9393 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com jscullion@seegerweiss.com - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com AKAL SECURITY: "Gelber" Suit Seeks to Recertify ASO Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ELLIOT GELBER, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AKAL SECURITY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-23170-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court re-certify case as a Nationwide Collective Action. On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff Gelber filed his motion to certify a nationwide collective action consisting of all: "Air Security Officers (ASOs) employed by Akal. At the time, there were over a dozen opt-ins, all based at Akal's Miami facility". On October 27, 2016, the Court granted the motion and certified the collective action but limited its scope to Miami-based ASOs because "the complaint fails to establish a reasonable basis to believe that there are other employees, outside of the state of Florida, who desire to opt in to this litigation. There are currently approximately 20 plaintiffs and opt-ins to this collective action, all based in Miami. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YuqNka5Y The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Sarelson, Esq. KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRON 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330 6090 E-mail: msarelson@kymplaw.com ALDI INC: Faces "Garcia" Wage-and-Hour Suit in Rhode Island ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a Rhode Islander claims in a federal class action in Providence, R.I., that the ALDI supermarket giant violates U.S. labor laws on overtime by making employees work through their breaks. The case is captioned, Julio C. Garcia, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI, Inc., ALDI Inc. (Connecticut), and John Doe Companies, 1 through 40, inclusive, Defendants Case No. 1:17-cv-00047 (D. R.I., February 2, 2017). Plaintiff's attorneys: V. Edward Formisano, Esq. Michael D. Pushee, Esq. FORMISANO & COMPANY P.C. 100 Midway Place, Suite 1 Cranston, RI 02920-5707 Tel: 401-944-9691 Fax: 401-944-9695 E-mail: edf@formisanoandcompany.com mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Securities Suit in Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is defending a securities class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut, according to the Company's January 4, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. Soliris(R) (eculizumab) is the first and only therapeutic approved for patients with either paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a life-threatening and ultra-rare genetic blood disorder, or atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), a life-threatening and ultra-rare genetic disease. PNH and aHUS are two disorders resulting from chronic uncontrolled activation of the complement component of the immune system. Several securities class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and former officers in federal district court alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, alleging that defendants made misstatements and/or omissions concerning the Company's sales of Soliris. On December 29, 2016, a second shareholder filed a putative class action against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris between February 10, 2014 and December 9, 2016. The litigation is in the early stages, and defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. Given the early stages of this litigation, management does not currently believe that a loss related to this matter is probable or that the potential magnitude of such loss or range of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused on serving patients with devastating and ultra-rare disorders through the innovation, development and commercialization of life-transforming therapeutic products. ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in New York Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2017, for the quarter period ended September 30, 2016, that a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in New York was voluntarily dismissed. Soliris(R) (eculizumab) is the first and only therapeutic approved for patients with either paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a life-threatening and ultra-rare genetic blood disorder, or atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), a life-threatening and ultra-rare genetic disease. PNH and aHUS are two disorders resulting from chronic uncontrolled activation of the complement component of the immune system. Several securities class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and former officers in federal district court alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, alleging that defendants made misstatements and/or omissions concerning the Company's sales of Soliris. On November 17, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. While the litigation was in the early stages, and before defendants had responded to the complaint, on December 30, 2016 plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and dismissed all claims without prejudice. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused on serving patients with devastating and ultra-rare disorders through the innovation, development and commercialization of life-transforming therapeutic products. AMERICAN CHORE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees ----------------------------------------------------------- Ahmad Kholbekov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Chore Services d/b/a City Choice Home Care Services, Case No. 501883/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay employees for all hours worked, time and one half the minimum wage rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week, spread of hours pay for the days in which Plaintiff and the Class Members worked in excess of 10 hours, and for failure to provide pay stubs and other wage notices that conform with the requirements of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and applicable regulations. Ahmad Kholbekov worked as a Home Health Aide and a Home Attendant for the Defendant. American Chore Services provides home health care to frail elderly individuals who live in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC 1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com AMERIGROUP CORP: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pichardo" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Ronni Pichardo, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. Amerigroup Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-00276 (S.D. Nev., January 30, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Amerigroup Corporation provides insurance coverage for millions of seniors, people with disabilities, low-income families and other state and federally sponsored beneficiaries, and federal employees, making it the nation's largest provider of health care for public programs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Wood, Esq. Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Kas Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: alexis@consumersadvocates.com ron@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com APPLE INC: Intentionally Disabled FaceTime, "Grace" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a new class action in San Jose, Calif., claims Apple intentionally disabled its FaceTime video-calling service for millions of early-model iPhone users as part of a scheme to save the company money. Lead plaintiff Christina Grace sued the iPhone maker in federal court on February 2, claiming the tech giant manufactured a "FaceTime break" in April 2014 that made the service inoperable for those not running the newer iOS 7 operating system. Apple had found a cheaper way to relay video calls on iOS 7 after it lost a patent suit in 2012, which had forced it to spend millions of dollars each month relaying FaceTime calls through a costlier method, according to the lawsuit. "Rather than revealing the truth about the cause and impetus of the FaceTime break, Apple claimed that FaceTime had suffered a 'bug,' and that to regain the ability to use FaceTime, users needed to transition their device to iOS 7," the 36-page complaint states. Grace says internal Apple emails "eliminate any doubt" that the company intentionally "broke" the service as part of a scheme to save money. Prior to November 2012, nearly all FaceTime calls were connected through a peer-to-peer method. But that changed on Nov. 7, 2012, when a jury found Apple's peer-to-peer method infringed on patents held by Virnet X Inc., according to Grace's complaint. Shifting all FaceTime calls to the relay method was costing Apple millions of dollars each month in server costs. That's why it devised a new peer-to-peer method that could only work on its new iOS 7 operating system, according to the suit. Grace claims Apple engineers caused a digital certificate needed to run FaceTime on iOS 6 to prematurely expire on April 16, 2014, effectively disabling the video calling service for iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S users not running the new operating system. Installing iOS 7 was problematic for millions of iPhone users, Grace says, because the new system was essentially incompatible with older devices. "For iPhone4 and iPhone 4S users, for example, the coerced move to iOS 7 subjected their devices to slowness, system crashes, erratic behavior and/or the elimination of their ability to use critical functions on their iPhone," the complaint states. Grace says Apple ignored the warnings of a former Apple manager, who sent emails voicing concerns about the move and its implications. His warnings "fell on deaf ears," the plaintiff says. The iPhone 4, launched in June 2010, was the first model to offer the FaceTime video calling feature, and the new capability was heavily emphasized in Apple's marketing and advertising campaigns, according to the lawsuit. The complaint features screenshots from ads of people communicating via FaceTime, and cites Apple's advertising slogan of "FaceTime -- just one more thing that makes an iPhone an iPhone." "In a disturbing juxtaposition to Apple's marketing campaigns that highlighted the life-changing importance of FaceTime to separated families, deployed soldiers, hearing-impaired individuals and countless others, Apple advanced its financial interests by intentionally breaking FaceTime for millions of its users," Grace says in her complaint. After a "swift and substantial" negative public response to the "FaceTime break," Grace says Apple lied about its motives for disabling FaceTime and blamed the problem on a "bug." The lawsuit claims Apple's scheme essentially forced millions of iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S users to stop using Facetime or transition to a new operating system and "accept the significant reduction in functionality" that would result. Grace accuses Apple of trespass to chattels, which holds parties liable for interfering with one's lawful possession of property, and violating California's unfair competition law. She seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement and punitive damages. She is represented by Allan Steyer of Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith of San Francisco. Apple's press team did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on February 3, morning. The case is captioned, CHRISTINA GRACE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case 5:17-cv-00551-NC (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2017). Attorneys for Christina Grace and Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class: Allan Steyer Esq. Jill M. Manning Esq. D. Scott Macrae Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 421-3400 Facsimile: (415) 421-2234 E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com jmanning@steyerlaw.com smacrae@bamlawlj.com - and - Bruce L. Simon Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw Esq. Alexander L. Simon Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com dwarshaw@pswlaw.com asimon@pswlaw.com APPLIED MATERIALS: Judge Tigar Certifies Settlement Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MARIA STEWART, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv- 02632-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon, Jon S. Tigar entered an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of a settlement; 2. conditionally certifying a proposed settlement classes consisting of all individuals who: (1) (a) have been participants or beneficiaries in the Plan at any time during the Class Period; (b). . . while enrolled in the Plan received Speech Therapy to treat ASD during the Class Period and had an Autism diagnosis at the time of that Speech Therapy; and (c) were either age six or older at the time of receipt of that Speech Therapy or were age five or younger and had exceeded 60 Speech Therapy visits in a calendar year; and either (i) submitted claims for reimbursement of Speech Therapy to the Plan and the Claims Processor denied those claims ("Class One"); or (ii) did not submit a claim to the Plan and were not otherwise reimbursed for the therapy (Class Two"); or, (2) are the parents and guardians of the individuals (3) are the Successors-in-Interest of the individuals; 3. approving a proposed notice program, and the content of the notices; 4. approving that the proposed opt-out and objection procedures be undertaken; 5. appointing Maria Stewart as class representative and Kantor & Kantor, LLP as class counsel; 6. appointing Nickerson & Associates LLC as the Class Administrator. 7. setting the final approval hearing for July 13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Within thirty days of the date of the order, the Defendant shall provide Nickerson & Associates LLC the names and contact information of class members. Within ten days of Nickerson's receipt of this information, Nickerson shall mail notice packets to all class members. Class members shall have sixty days from the date of this mailing to file a claim form, request exclusion, or object to the settlement. Plaintiff shall file her motion for final approval of the settlement, and the application for attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and service awards, no later than May 26, 2017. As described by Plaintiff, "[t]his case concerns Defendant Applied Materials Welfare Benefit Plan's ("defendant" or "the Plan") unreasonable and unlawful denials of coverage for plan participants and beneficiaries with a need for medically necessary speech therapy." ("Second Amended Complaint"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA, to "fairly and properly construe and interpret its plans' language for the 'exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and beneficiaries' when it denied coverage for speech therapy to individuals with Autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASD)." Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant employed "unlawful plan exclusions" to deny "health care claims totaling many thousands of dollars as well as [to dissuade] parents from seeking treatment for their children." The policies in question: "violate the Federal Mental Health Policy and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAE) provisions of ERISA because they constitute separate treatment limitations applicable only with respect to mental health treatment." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rrHQjEj9 ARCHON INC: Patel Appeals Ruling in "Saiyed" Suit to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Rashid Patel filed an appeal from the District Court's electronic order dated December 27, 2016, entered in the lawsuit titled Saiyed v. Archon, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-6862, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 16, 2017, the case asserts labor-related claims and is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants offer engineering, commercial construction, and residential building services. The appellate case is captioned as Saiyed v. Archon, Inc., Case No. 17-278, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellee Amjad Saiyed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Farhi, Esq. KATES NUSSMAN RAPONE ELLIS & FARHI, LLP 190 Moore Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 488-7211 ASURION INSURANCE: Mix Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to Ninth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Amanda Mix filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Amanda Mix v. Asurion Insurance Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02357-GMS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. G. Murray Snow denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff brought the purported class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Mix v. Asurion Insurance Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-70264, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff-Petitioner AMANDA MIX, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Neal McDevitt, Esq. Russell S. Thompson, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., Suite D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 845-5969 E-mail: dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com Defendant-Respondent ASURION INSURANCE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, is represented by: Robert Shawn Oller, Esq. Peter Prynkiewicz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 2425 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 474-3600 Facsimile: (602) 957-1801 E-mail: soller@littler.com pprynkiewicz@littler.com Defendant-Respondent STERLING INFOSYSTEMS INCORPORATED is represented by: David Dickson Garner, Esq. LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP 201 E. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595 Telephone: (602) 262-5335 Facsimile: (602) 734-3891 E-mail: dgarner@lrrc.com - and - Albert E. Hartmann, Esq. Michael C. ONeil, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606-7507 Telephone: (312) 207-2821 Facsimile: (312) 207-6400 E-mail: ahartmann@reedsmith.com michael.oneil@reedsmith.com AUDI AG: "Greenfield" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672 --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Keith Greenfield and Paul Sherry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Audi AG and Audi of America, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv- 12304, was transferred from the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv- 00477-CRB to the proceeding. The Greenfield suit is being consolidated in MDL No. 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB. Audi of America and its network of U.S dealers offer a full line of highly engineered vehicles, including the newest premium- engineered compact sedans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Pkwy, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew R. Levin, Esq. David A. Barry, Esq. SUGARMAN ROGERS BARSHAK & COHEN, PC 101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 227-3030 Facsimile: (617) 523-4001 E-mail: levin@srbc.com barry@srbc.com AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Vacates Dismissal of Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 3, 2017, vacated the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit brought against the Company and certain of its former officers and members of its board of directors (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, and William Slichenmyer) in the lawsuit entitled In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, AVEO said in its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2017. The operative complaint in the action purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, and generally alleged that the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for the Company's TIVO-1 study in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. The Company denies any allegation of wrongdoing and intends to continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted therapeutics for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need. AVIS RENT: Faces "Sauberman" Suit in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, L.L.C. The case is styled as JOSHUA SAUBERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, L.L.C., a New Jersey Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00756-WJM-MF (D.N.J., Feb. 3, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge William J. Martini. Avis is an American car rental company headquartered in Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey, United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com BIG APPLE: Faces "Marett" Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Apple Style Furniture, Inc. The case is titled as Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Big Apple Style Furniture, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00835 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017). Big Apple is a contemporary and traditional furniture store. The Plaintiff appears pro se. BIG LOTS: Certification of Classes Sought in "Hubbs" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled VIOLA HUBBS, BRANDON COLEMAN, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BIG LOTS STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation; PNS STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants. Case No. 2:15-cv-01601-JAK-ASx (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on May 15, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. before the Hon. John A. Kronstadt for an Order certifying these classes: Closing Shift Class: "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots Stores, Inc. and PNS Stores, Inc. (together "Big Lots") who worked one or more closing shift at any Big Lots store in California between February 7, 2010 and date of class certification and where Big Lots' recordkeeping systems reflect a gap between the Closing Shift Class Members' end of shift time and the time the store's alarm was set"; Security Inspection Class: "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots who were subjected to security checks at Big Lots stores in California at any time between February 7, 2010 and January 1, 2015"; UCL Rest Break Premiums Class: "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots in California who worked shifts longer than 3.5 hours at any time between February 7, 2010 and the date of class certification. Overnight Shift Class: "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots who worked one or more overnight shifts in California between February 7, 2010 and the date of class certification"; UCL Meal Period Premiums Class: "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots who worked one or more overnight shifts in California between February 7, 2010 and date of class certification"; Regular Rate Class: "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots who earned quarterly bonuses and worked overtime in California between February 7, 2010 and the date of class certification"; The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an Order: 1. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, the Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich, as counsel to the class; 2. appointing one or more of the named Plaintiffs as class representatives; and 3. authorizing notice to Class Members pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c). The Plaintiffs allege they were not compensated for all work performed during closing shifts. At closing, they complied with Big Lots' timekeeping policy by punching out at the conclusion of their duties. However, they were not free to leave because the closing procedures required closers to remain in the store until the store's alarm was set for the night. Indeed, because the doors were locked when the stores were closed for business, they were locked in regardless of the policy. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=456YIFnG The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508 Telephone: (310) 286 0246 Facsimile: (310) 407 5391 E-mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com BLACK ANGUS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Sealey" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nigeria Sealey, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Black Angus Steakhouses, LLC and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 17847519 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to compensate employees for all hours worked, missed meal periods and rest breaks. Black Angus Steakhouses, LLC owns and operates a chain of steak and seafood restaurant based in Los Altos, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Daniel J. Park, Esq. Joy D. Llaguno, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com dpark@justicelawcorp.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: McCarthy Attorney Analyzes Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Dorothy Charach, Esq. -- dcharach@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that in recent years, many pharmaceutical class actions in Canada that have proceeded to a motion for certification have been certified. However, the recent case Batten v. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. [Batten] is another welcome example of a Canadian court denying certification of a proposed pharmaceutical class action. The case involves the novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC), Pradaxa(R). Despite pleading many causes of action, the plaintiffs pursued only their "failure to warn" claim for certification. The allegation centred around the fact that, for the majority of the relevant time period, Pradaxa(R) (unlike the pre-existing commonly used anticoagulant, warfarin) did not have a specific antidote that could reverse its anticoagulant effect. The plaintiffs requested that Perell J. find that the following key issues (among others) existed and were certifiable as common issues: 1. Did any of the Defendants have a duty to warn the Class Members of the risks of harm, namely from the lack of an antidote for Pradaxa(R)? 2. Can the lack of an antidote for Pradaxa(R) give rise to or exacerbate dangerous or life-threatening events for persons who have ingested Pradaxa(R)? Justice Perell ultimately found that there was no basis in fact to support the existence of either as common issues. A Reminder that Plaintiffs Must Show "Some Basis in Fact" Justice Perell reminds readers in his decision that, despite a lowered evidentiary bar at certification, it is still the plaintiff's burden to show that there is some basis in fact that the proposed common issues exist: [160] The representative plaintiff must come forward with sufficient evidence to support certification, and the opposing party may respond with evidence of its own to challenge certification: Hollick v. Toronto (City), supra at para. 22. [161] The purpose of a certification motion is to determine how the litigation is to proceed and not to address the merits of the plaintiff's claim . . . However, the plaintiff must show "some-basis-in-fact" for each of the certification criteria other than the requirement that the pleadings disclose a cause of action: Hollick v. Toronto (City), supra at paras. 16-26. Certification will be denied if there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for the facts on which the claims of the class members depend [citations omitted]. [162] In particular, there must be a basis in the evidence before the court to establish the existence of common issues [citations omitted]. No Basis in Fact to Support a Duty to Warn In relation to the first question, Perell J. found that there was no basis in fact to conclude that a common issue about a duty to warn about the absence of an antidote exists. He noted that there was a lack of evidence that a patient on Pradaxa(R) who experiences a bleeding event is at a greater risk of unstoppable bleeding due to the lack of an antidote than a patient on warfarin who experiences a bleeding event. Perell J. further concluded that the evidence showed the lack of an antidote was not an "undisclosed hazard", as it was not a hazard at all, based on the following evidence: There is no increased risk for developing life-threatening injuries for patients who are prescribed Pradaxa(R) rather than warfarin; and Regardless of the prescribed anticoagulant, the physician treating a patient for excessive bleeding would use conventional methods to abate the bleeding and would resort to an antidote or reversal agent as a last resort, because a reversal agent to an anticoagulant carries the very serious risk of precipitating a devastating and perhaps life-ending stroke. No Basis in Fact to Support Commonality Justice Perell also found that there was no basis in fact to conclude that the question of whether the defendants had a duty to warn about the absence of an antidote could be answered in common across the class of persons who ingested Pradaxa(R) because: A patient's risk of experiencing a stroke and his or her risk of experiencing a bleeding event, of which there is a wide range of variance in nature and intensity, are patient-specific; The need for an antidote to treat bleeding would depend on patient-specific factors; The nature of a patient's specific bleeding event would depend upon patient-specific factors; The need for a patient to be told about reversal agents or the absence of them is patient-specific and very much a matter of physician judgment on a case-by-case basis. Justice Perell explained that, since the alternative for a patient to taking a NOAC like Pradaxa(R) would be to take warfarin, knowing about the lack of antidote for Pradaxa(R) ought not to affect a patient's decision to take it, as warfarin has a longer half-life and, therefore, takes longer to reverse itself. Justice Perell concluded that the absence of commonality is inherent in the nature of this case. He noted that most duty to warn cases involve an alleged failure by the defendant to warn about a hidden defect or potential risk of harm caused by the use of the product; however, in this case, the absence of commonality arises from the particular nature of the duty to warn problem: an alleged failure to warn a learned intermediary about the absence of an antidote when there is no basis in fact for concluding that the absence of an antidote was a hidden defect or that the absence of an antidote posed a common and material risk across the class. A Lack of Methodology to Prove General Causation for the Class The second common issue that the plaintiffs requested be certified was classified by Perell J. as their general causation question. Justice Perell found that it failed as a common issue for the same reasons as the first question and for two additional reasons: There is nothing generalized, i.e., common across the class, about the circumstances of a life-threatening bleeding event and the absence of an antidote, and whether the patient on Pradaxa(R) (or warfarin) needs a reversal agent is a patient-specific circumstance; and Where a plaintiff seeks to address questions of causation on a class-wide basis as the foundation for his or her class action, there must be some evidence of a methodology that will enable the plaintiff to prove causation on a class-wide basis and the plaintiffs provided no such evidence. Practical Takeaways Batten provides an excellent precedent for defendants of future pharmaceutical class actions. A few key takeaways are: While the evidentiary burden on a certification motion of "some basis in fact" is low, it exists for a reason. In order for a class action to be certified, plaintiffs must be able to satisfy a judge that there is a sufficient evidentiary basis for the facts on which the claims of the class members depend, i.e. that the common issues exist and are, in fact, common. There are some cases where commonality will be impossible to prove. Where a plaintiff alleges that a defendant failed to warn a learned intermediary about something that is neither a hidden defect of the product nor a material risk across the class, defendants should seriously consider resisting certification on that issue. The general causation principle in Pro-Sys Consultants v Microsoft4 holds true for pharmaceutical class actions: where a plaintiff seeks to certify questions of causation, there must be some evidence of a methodology that will enable the plaintiff to prove causation on a class-wide basis. BORDEAUX LLC: "Ohana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Matan Michael Ohana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bordeaux LLC, Shai Guetta, and Isaac Simon, Case No. 1:17-cv-00513 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a waiter from March 2015 through the present. The Defendants operate a kosher steak house in Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC 1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com BRAND PLUMBING: Class Certification Granted in "McFeeters" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Eric F. Melgren entered an order in the lawsuit styled DUANE MCFEETERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRAND PLUMBING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01122-EFM-KGS (D. Kan.), granting Plaintiff's motion to certify class of: "all current and former employees of Defendant Brand Plumbing, Inc. who held the position of plumber, licensed plumber, or plumber's helper who were not paid any overtime premium for hours over 40 in any work week, from February 10, 2014 to the present, as a consequence of not being credited or compensated for (a) the time it takes to drive from the Wichita last job location back to Brand Plumbing's office; and (b) the time spent driving to and from job locations outside of Wichita." The Court further entered an order: 1. authorizing Plaintiff to send out notice to each potential member of the class; 2. direct6ing Defendant to provide Plaintiff with the names, addresses, phone numbers, and dates of employment of putative class members in an electronic and importable format, such as Microsoft Excel, within ten days of this Order; 3. directing Defendant to post Notice of the lawsuit in a conspicuous location where it employs its employees; and 4. appointing Duane McFeeters as class representative, and his counsel, are designated class counsel. The Court said, "Plaintiff defined his FLSA claim in his Complaint as one for Defendant failing to pay proper compensation to nonexempt employees for (a) shaving time from employees' timecards; (b) refusing to compensate for the time it takes to drive company work trucks from the last job of the day back to the shop; and (c) refusing to pay overtime premium with respect to travel time that occurs during the ordinary workday. In Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, he states that he seeks conditional class certification for plumbers, similarly situated to him, who were not properly compensated with overtime premium for all hours worked due to drive time at the end of the day and drive time for travel outside of Wichita. Thus, Defendant's proposal appears consistent with Plaintiff's contentions. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to include Defendant's limiting language in the class definition". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TW9FYPCS BRASSELER U.S.A.: "Orrington" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JAMES L ORRINGTON, II, D.D.S., P.C., on behalf of plaintiff and the class member, the Plaintiff, v. BRASSELER U.S.A. DENTAL, LLC, and J. MORITA, U.S.A., INC., and ENDODONTIC EDUCATION SEMINARS, LLC, d/b/a REAL WORLD ENDO, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00956 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify classes: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act: "(a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants Brasseler U.S.A., Dental, LLC, J. Morita, U.S.A., Inc., or Endodontic Education Seminars, LLC, d/b/a Real World Endo, promoting their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. By "compliant opt out notice" is meant one (i) on the first page of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to be made at any time on any day of the week; For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act: "(a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants Brasseler U.S.A., Dental, LLC, J. Morita, U.S.A., Inc., or Endodontic Education Seminars, LLC, d/b/a Real World Endo, promoting their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice"; and For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion and Count IV, alleging trespass to chattels: "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Brasseler U.S.A., Dental, LLC, J. Morita, U.S.A., Inc., or Endodontic Education Seminars, LLC, d/b/a Real World Endo, promoting their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. The Plaintiff further Asks that it be appointed class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XHGbEOg8 The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Dulijaza Clark, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 BRIAN COLLIER: "Smith" Suit Seeks Certification of Inmate Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Timothy John Smith, the Plaintiff, v. Bryan Collier, Director of TDCJ-CID, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17- cv-00073-RWS-KNM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all Muslim men that are inmates in the TDCJ-CID who are sincere in their Islamic religious belief". The Plaintiff request the Court for an Indegant razor to shave the following places upon their bodies. The shaving of the Mustache, the shaving of the neck under the jaw line, and the shaving of hair above the penis and testicles hair. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's grooming policy are a violation of his religious right under the RLUIPA Act. The Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant's from enforcing the grooming policy and the innamed class [UMMAH- MUSLIMS]. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aJW1ctnn CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Hatch" Suit in Eastern District of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAC Financial Corp. The case is entitled as Gregory Hatch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAC Financial Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00648 (E.D.N.Y. Fla., Feb. 3, 2017). CAC Financial provides financial services and accounts receivable solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com CANADIAN AIR: Court Okays Air Cargo Class Action Payout Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------------- AirCargo Asia-Pacific reports that Siskinds lawyers have issued the following advice regarding the Canadian Air Cargo Shipping Services Class Action: Siskinds (Toronto, Canada), Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman (Vancouver, Canada) and Liebman Legal (Montreal, Canada) have advised the court approval of a protocol for the distribution of settlement funds in the Canadian Air Cargo Shipping Services class action. The class action alleges price-fixing in the market for air cargo shipping services on shipments to/from Canada (excluding to/from the United States) between January 2000 and September 2006. Settlements totalling C$29.6 million have been reached in the litigation. The Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec courts approved the settlements and the protocol for distribution of settlement funds. The class action is continuing against Air Canada and British Airways. Persons who purchased air cargo shipping services on shipments to/from Canada (excluding to/from the United States) between January 2000 and September 2006 now can apply to receive settlement monies on line at www.aircargosettlement2.com no later than May 11, 2017. CBOE HOLDINGS: Appeal in Suit vs. Bats Global Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in the consolidated securities lawsuit against Bats Global Markets, Inc., remains pending, CBOE Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2017. CBOE Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, filed the Current Report on Form 8-K to provide certain financial information with respect to Bats Global Markets, Inc., and certain financial information with respect to the combined company. CBOE entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 25, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among CBOE, Bats Global Markets, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Bats"), CBOE Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE ("Merger Sub"), and CBOE V, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE ("Merger LLC"). The Merger Agreement provides, among other things, that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, (i) Merger Sub will merge with and into Bats, with Bats surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE (the "Merger"), and (ii) following the completion of the Merger, the surviving corporation from the Merger will merge with and into Merger LLC (the "Subsequent Merger"), with Merger LLC surviving the Subsequent Merger and continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE. Class Suit Against Bats On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Bats and Direct Edge, as well as 14 other securities exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States between April 18, 2009 and the present on a registered public stock exchange (Exchange Defendants) or a United States-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of the misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes allegations that the defendants committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading. On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2015, Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the Complaint in full. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on Sept. 24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on August 24, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, Bats says it is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, Bats believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. CBOE Holdings, Inc. is the holding company for Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated and other subsidiaries. The primary business of the Company is the operation of markets for the trading of listed, or exchange-traded, derivatives contracts on four broad product categories: 1) options on various market indexes (index options), 2) futures on the VIX Index and other products, 3) options on the stocks of individual corporations (equity options) and 4) options on other exchange-traded products (ETP options), such as exchange-traded funds (ETF options) and exchange-traded notes (ETN options). CBOE HOLDINGS: Bats Awaits Order on Lanier's Rehearing Petition --------------------------------------------------------------- Bats Global Markets, Inc., awaits a court ruling on a petition for rehearing filed by Harold R. Lanier, according to CBOE Holdings, Inc.'s January 3, 2017, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. CBOE Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, filed the Current Report on Form 8-K to provide certain financial information with respect to Bats Global Markets, Inc., and certain financial information with respect to the combined company. CBOE entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 25, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among CBOE, Bats Global Markets, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Bats"), CBOE Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE ("Merger Sub"), and CBOE V, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE ("Merger LLC"). The Merger Agreement provides, among other things, that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, (i) Merger Sub will merge with and into Bats, with Bats surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE (the "Merger"), and (ii) following the completion of the Merger, the surviving corporation from the Merger will merge with and into Merger LLC (the "Subsequent Merger"), with Merger LLC surviving the Subsequent Merger and continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE. Class Suit Against Bats On May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014, Harold R. Lanier filed three class action lawsuits in the Southern District of New York against Bats and other securities exchanges. The complaints were identical in all substantive respects, but each related to the dissemination of market data under a different market system -- (i) the NASDAQ UTP Plan Market System; (ii) the OPRA Market System; and (iii) the Consolidated Quotation System and the Consolidated Tape System. Each of the actions purported to be brought on behalf of all subscribers who entered into contracts with the exchanges for the receipt of market data and were injured as a result of the misconduct detailed in the complaints, which includes allegations that the defendants did not provide market data services in a non- discriminatory manner or provide subscribers with "valid" data (i.e., data that is accurate and not stale). On January 16, 2015, Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on April 28, 2015, the Court filed an Opinion and Order granting the exchange defendants' Motion to Dismiss, terminating all three class action lawsuits with prejudice. On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal and on September 1, 2015, Appellant filed its appeal brief. Respondent's brief was filed on November 24, 2015 and Appellant's reply brief was filed on December 8, 2015. Oral argument was held on March 3, 2016. On September 23, 2016, the Court filed a Judgment affirming the District Court's dismissal of all three class action lawsuits. Appellant thereafter filed a petition for a rehearing before the panel or the entire appellate court on October 7, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, Bats is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, Bats believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. CBOE Holdings, Inc. is the holding company for Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated and other subsidiaries. The primary business of the Company is the operation of markets for the trading of listed, or exchange-traded, derivatives contracts on four broad product categories: 1) options on various market indexes (index options), 2) futures on the VIX Index and other products, 3) options on the stocks of individual corporations (equity options) and 4) options on other exchange-traded products (ETP options), such as exchange-traded funds (ETF options) and exchange-traded notes (ETN options). CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Tech. Managers' OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin French, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:17-cv-00479-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Technical Managers' overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Headquartered at 1707 Market Place Boulevard, Suite 200, Irving, Texas 75063, CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates family entertainment centers and restaurants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Malk, Esq. MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 302 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 203-0016 Facsimile: (310) 499-5210 E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com CHEVROLET INC: Ohio App. Affirms Stay of "Seyfried" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JAMES SEYFRIED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATRICK O'BRIEN, JR., CHEVROLET, INC., ET AL., Defendants- Appellees, No. 104212 (Ohio App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that granted a motion to stay pending arbitration in a consumer complaint. On April 13, 2011, Seyfried filed a class action complaint, naming as defendants four Patrick O'Brien Chevrolet entities (Patrick O'Brien Jr. Chevrolet, Inc., Patrick O'Brien, Jr. Chevrolet II, Inc., Patrick O'Brien, Jr. Chevrolet III, Inc., Patrick O'Brien, Jr. Chevrolet IV, Inc.), Patrick O'Brien, Jr., and Patrick O'Brien Sr. (collectively as "Chevrolet" hereafter), and First Merit (who was subsequently dismissed from the lawsuit). The complaint alleged the defendants failed to disclose to buyers of a used vehicle that the vehicle had been used as a rental vehicle, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02. Seyfried passed away in 2012, and his estate was substituted as plaintiff. Chevrolet moved to stay the proceeding pending arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.02. The appellant submitted a brief opposing the motion to stay, advancing two arguments: (1) the purchase contract was fully integrated and it did not incorporate the arbitration agreement, and (2) the arbitration agreement was substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The trial court found, as a factual matter, that Seyfried signed a binding arbitration agreement and it granted Chevrolet's motion to stay pending arbitration. On appeal, the appellant argued that because the purchase contract had a merger clause, it was a fully integrated document and it superseded the separately executed arbitration agreement. However, by all accounts, the two documents were executed moments apart, not separated by any meaningful lapse of time. The appellate court held that the contemporaneous nature of Seyfried's execution on June 12, 2009, of the arbitration agreement and the purchase contract reflects they were documents executed in the same transaction. The appellate court found that when the two documents are read together, the purchase contract did not supersede the contemporaneously executed arbitration agreement despite the merger clause. The appellant also argued the arbitration agreement signed in conjunction with the purchase contract on June 12, 2009, did not bind Seyfried to arbitration because the earlier purchase contract had "expired" and Seyfried entered into a new transaction on June 26, 2009, without executing another arbitration agreement on that occasion. The appellate court found that the June 12 and June 26 purchase contracts concerned the same vehicle transaction -- they were substantially similar except for the higher trade-in value of Seyfried's old vehicle and higher "GAP" care fees in the latter contract. The appellate court concluded that by the clear terms of the arbitration agreement Seyfried executed on June 12, 2009, Seyfried consented to arbitration for all claims arising out of his purchase of the Cobalt. Seyfried also claimed that the arbitration agreement was both substantively and procedurally unconscionable, but the appellate court found Chevrolet's arbitration agreement distinguishable from those in the cases cited by the appellant, and concluded that the appellant's claim is without merit. A full-text copy of the appellate court's January 26, 2017 journal entry and opinion is available at https://is.gd/WpTGAo from Leagle.com. Appellant is represented by: Rosemary Taft-Milby, Esq. Michael Berler, Esq. Ronald I. Frederick, Esq. James Wertheim, Esq. FREDERICK & BERLER L.L.C. 767 East 185th Street Cleveland, OH 44119 Tel: (216)502-1055 Fax: (216)566-9400 Appellee is represented by: Christopher A. Tipping, Esq. Harry A. Tipping, Esq. Harold M. Schwarz, III, Esq. STARK & KNOLL CO. L.P.A. 3475 Ridgewood Road Akron, OH 44333 Tel: (330)376-3300 Fax: (330)376-6237 Email: ctipping@stark-knoll.com htipping@stark-knoll.com hschwarz@stark-knoll.com CIRCLE TRANSPORT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Truck Drivers' Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Contreras, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. Circle Transport Inc., Sierra Chemical Co., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC648674 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 30, 2017), arises out the Defendants' unlawful practice of not paying truck drivers' wages for all hours worked, including failure to pay all wages due and failure to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof. Circle Transport Inc. operates a freight shipping and trucking company headquartered in Peru, Illinois. Sierra Chemical Co. manufactures and distributes environmental chemicals. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.D. Henderson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF J. D. HENDERSON 215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (424) 254-8870 E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net - and - Asaf Agazanof, Esq. ASAF LAW APC 11150 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (626) 529-5891 Facsimile: (888) 254-0561 CKE RESTAURANTS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that managers at CKE Restaurants Group, the fast food chain headed by Trump labor secretary nominee Andy Puzder, filed an antitrust class action in California state court on Feb. 8 alleging the company and flagship burger brand Carl's Jr. illegally suppress wages by preventing franchisees from hiring each other's workers. Though they don't name him as a defendant, the workers slammed Mr. Puzder for publicly touting the value of a free market where businesses compete for labor while at the same time leading a company that artificially -- and illegally -- stifles that competition among its franchisees. "As Puzder has himself explained, 'if employers are competing for the best employees, they will pay more,'" the workers said. "And yet, CKE has participated in an illegal scheme not to compete for the best employees." The suit centers on a portion of CKE's contracts with franchisees barring them from "employ[ing] or seek[ing] to employ" supervisors who work at other CKE-branded restaurant franchises or have worked at one in the prior two years. This so-called "no hire" agreement covers shift leaders, assistant managers and general managers, whom the workers allege work grueling, often unpredictable shifts for annual salaries ranging from about $25,000 for shift leaders to between $35,000 and $40,000 per year for general managers. All franchisees must sign these agreements before opening a CKE- branded restaurant, the workers claim. While CKE encourages its franchisees to compete among each other by choosing their location, choosing how much they invest in their facilities and equipment and setting the prices they charge, it suppresses competition for labor, the workers said. This in turn keeps wages low for management staff and impedes their mobility, according to the workers. The workers also criticized the seeming contradiction of Mr. Puzder claiming CKE is not a joint employer under federal labor law while the company restricts franchisees' hiring autonomy through its no hire policy. "CKE and Puzder cannot have it both ways," the workers said. "They cannot eschew their responsibilities under the labor and employment laws by embracing a 'free market' model constituted by independent, competing franchisees, while at the same time restraining free competition to the detriment of thousands of workers employed by CKE and its franchisees." The suit was filed by named plaintiffs Luis Bautista, a current Carl's Jr. shift leader, and Margarita Guerrero, who was a shift leader until late 2016. Mr. Bautista and Ms. Guerrero are asking to represent a class of all current and former shift leaders, assistant managers and general managers at corporate and franchisee-owned CKE restaurants in California. The CKE brand operates Carl's Jr. Hardee's, Green Burrito and Red Burrito. The workers are backed by nonprofit workers' rights group Towards Justice, which connects workers with attorneys and files and backs impact litigation. "While CKE and its franchisees secretly collude to hold down wages and maintain poor working conditions, our clients struggle to get by," Towards Justice Executive Director Nina DiSalvo said in a statement. "That is not the result of free market capitalism, but the result of illegal restrictions on the market that undermine wages." Mr. Puzder has faced a torrent of opposition from progressive groups, Democratic Party leaders and labor advocates since Donald Trump nominated him to head the Department of Labor in December, with many critics claiming CKE brands have poor track records for labor violations that make Mr. Puzder a poor fit for the job. Mr. Puzder's nomination has also prompted worker's advocacy group the Fight for $15 to back dozens of worker suits against Carl's Jr. and Hardee's franchises across the country. A representative for CKE did not immediately respond on Feb. 8 to a request for comment. The workers are represented by Jon Tostrud -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- of Tostrud Law Group PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo -- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- and Matthew E. Miller -- mmiller@cuneolaw.com --of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP and Nina DiSalvo, Alexander Hood and David Seligman of Towards Justice. Attorney information for CKE was not available on Feb. 8. The case is Luis Bautista et al v. Carl Karcher Enterprises LLC et al, case number BC649777, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. COLUCID PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold to Cheaply, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that directors are selling CoLucid Pharmaceuticals too cheaply through an unfair process to Eli Lilly, for $46.50 a share or $897 million, shareholders say in a federal class action in Boston. The case is captioned, PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. COLUCID PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., THOMAS P. MATHERS, ART PAPPAS, MARTIN EDWARDS, ALISON LAWTON, MARK CORRIGAN, LUC MARENGERE, MARVIN WHITE, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and PROCAR ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-10197-DLC (D. Mass., February 3, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 - and - Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Tel: (781) 453-0100 COUSIN VINNY'S: Brandenburg Seeks Certification of Drivers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Thomas Brandenburg, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cousin Vinny's Pizza, LLC, et al, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00516-WHR (D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to: 1. conditionally certify a class of: "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked for Defendants at any Cousin Vinny's Pizza location from February 10, 2014 to present, and who, in one or more workweeks, were paid less than the full nontipped minimum wage that was applicable at the time of their employment"; 2. approve the Plaintiff's proposed notice of the action; 3. order Defendants to provide name and contact information for all potential Collective members; 4. authorize Plaintiff to send the notices via first class mail, email, and text message; 5. require Defendants to post the notice in their work location; and 6. authorize putative Collective members to opt in by using an electronic signature. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xhqOCasg The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Kimble, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Eric Kmetz, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651 3700 Facsimile: (513) 665 0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com ekmetz@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com CRAZY HORSE: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Degidio" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant Inc., doing business as Thee New Dollhouse, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Alexis Degidio v. CRAZY HORSE SALOON AND RESTAURANT INC., Case No. 4:13-cv-02136-BHH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Florence. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Alexis Degidio v. CRAZY HORSE SALOON AND RESTAURANT INC., Case No. 17-1145, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellee ALEXIS DEGIDIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPEA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com - and - Thomas Christopher Tuck, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC P. O. Box 1007 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465-0000 Telephone: (843) 727-6500 Facsimile: (843) 216-6509 E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com Defendant-Appellant CRAZY HORSE SALOON AND RESTAURANT INC., d/b/a Thee New Dollhouse, is represented by: James Leon Holt, Jr., Esq. Timothy A. Perkins, Esq. Stephen L. Shields, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, & HOLT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 262 German Oak Drive Cordova, TN 38018-0000 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: jholt@jsyc.com tperkins@jsyc.com sshields@jsyc.com - and - William Paul Young, Esq. P. O. Box 4213 N. Myrtle Beach, SC 29597 Telephone: (843) 249-9999 DALLAS, TX: Retirees Sue Police Pension System for Denied Access ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ladonna Degan, Ric Terrones, John McGuire, Reed Higgins, Mike Gurley, and Larry Eddington, individually and collectively on behalf those similarly situated v. The Board of Trustees of the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System, Samuel Friar, Ken Haben, Joe Schutz, Gerald Brown, Clint Conway, Jennifer Staubach Gates, Scott Griggs, Brian Hass, Tho Tang Ho, Philip T. Kingston, Ken Spencher,and Erik Wilson, Case No. 4:17-cv-00066-ALM (E.D. Tex., January 30, 2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of denying Plaintiffs access to their full Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) accounts. The Board of Trustees of the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System is the governing body of the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System, a public retirement system. The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN & FELDMAN, PC 3355 West Alabama Street, Suite 1220 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 986-9471 Facsimile: (713) 986-9472 E-mail: David.Feldman@feldman.law DERMA SCIENCES: Faces "Rabadi" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Integra ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mathew Rabadi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Derma Sciences, Inc., Stephen T. Wills, Srini Conjeevaram, Brett D. Hewlett, Sam Navarro, Robert G. Moussa, Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corporation, and Integra Derma, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00628 (D.N.J., January 30, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholder of Derma Sciences, Inc., seeking equitable relief for the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act, and for their breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the attempt to sell the Company to Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corporation and Integra Derma, Inc., by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. The Proposed Acquisition, which is structured as a tender offer, has a total approximate value of $204 million and is expected to complete the transaction in the first quarter of 2017. Derma Sciences, Inc. operates as a medical device company in the wound care market with its principal executive offices located at 214 Carnegie Center, Suite 300, Princeton, NJ 08540. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 1040 Kings Highway N., Ste. 650 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 795-725 Facsimile: (856) 795-1799 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com mackerman@brodskysmith.com DETROIT, MI: Frefighters Lose Discrimination Claims --------------------------------------------------- Judge Sean F. Cox granted the motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants in the case captioned Erick Peeples, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Detroit, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-13858 (E.D. Mich.), but denied the defendants' requests for sanctions. The plaintiffs are 11 firefighters who were laid off by the City of Detroit during a reduction in force. The plaintiffs were recalled to work 80 days after being laid off and their union, the Detroit Fire Fighters Association, Local 344, IAFF, AFL-CIO ("the Union"), successfully grieved their layoffs, securing a settlement under which the City agreed to a "make-whole" award of backpay for each plaintiff. On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a one-count First Amended Complaint asserting a Title VII race discrimination claim against the City, and against the Union. The 11 individual plaintiffs in the action are: 1) Erick Peeples 2) Perry Anderson 3) Vincent Fields 4) Arnold Freeman 5) Ralph Glenn, Jr. 6) Jamal Jennings 7) Lee Jones 8) Anthony McCloud 9) Exander Poe 10) David Rivera 11) Samuel Shack Rivera is Hispanic and the remaining plaintiffs are black. The plaintiffs sought the following relief: 1) back pay and benefits lost due to the layoff; 2) compensatory damages; 3) punitive damages; and 4) attorney fees, and interest. Following the close of discovery, the City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Union filed its own Motion for Summary Judgment. As to the City's Motion, Judge Cox concluded that the only plaintiff who has exhausted his administrative remedies such that he can pursue a Title VII claim against the City in the action is Rivera. Judge Cox also concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to present direct evidence to support their claims, and that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case, under the circumstantial evidence approach, which includes a heightened burden in the reduction-in-force case. As to the Union's Motion, Judge Cox found that the plaintiffs cannot establish that the Union breached its duty of fair representation to the plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs must do in order to proceed with a Title VII claim against a union in the Sixth Circuit. Judge Cox also granted the Union's motion because the plaintiffs have been reinstated and made whole, and other types of damages claimed by the plaintiffs are unavailable as to the Union. Judge Cox however denied both the City's and the Union's requests for sanctions. As a threshold matter, the judge found that neither the City nor the Union fully complied with Rule 11's "safe harbor" provision. Moreover, even if they had, Judge Cox held that he would not impose sanctions under the facts and circumstances presented in the case. A full-text copy of Judge Cox's January 26, 2017 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/aQ1L2B from Leagle.com. Erick Peeples, Perry Anderson, Vincent Fields, Arnold Freeman, Ralph Glenn, Jr., Jamal Jennings, Lee Jones, Anthony McCloud, Exander Poe, David Rivera, Samuel Shack, Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis R. Thompson, Thompson & Bishop Law Offices & Bruce B. Elfvin -- bruce@ekrtlaw.com -- Elfvin, Klingshirn, Royer & Torch, LLC. City of Detroit, Law Department, Defendant, represented by Heidi J. Junttila, City of Detroit & Jason McFarlane, City of Detroit Law Department. International Association of Firefighters Local 344, Defendant, represented by Alidz Oshagan -- aoshagan@wwdlaw.com -- Legghio and Israel, P.C., Christopher P. Legghio -- cpl@legghioisrael.com -- Legghio & Israel, P.C. & Megan B. Boelstler -- mbb@legghioisrael.com -- Legghio and Israel, P. C.. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Mustafaev" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Consultants Inc. The case is captioned as Marlen Mustafaev, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Diversified Consultants Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00654 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017). Diversified Consultants is a telecom-specific collection agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Igor B Litvak, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (646) 796 4905 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com DOLLAR TREE: Court Takes Class Certification Bid Under Submission ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Curtis Patton, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-03813-MWF- PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Court takes Plaintiff's motion to certify class under submission. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ckZ9I6bh The Plaintiff is represented by: Mikhael H. Stahle, Esq. Arias Sanguinetti Stahle & Torrijos LLP Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (310) 844-9696 E-mail: mikael@asstlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Dominic J. Messiha, Esq. Amy M. Turk, Esq. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor L.A. - Century City Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712 7343 E-mail: dmessiha@littler.com DR. PEPPER: Graveyard Shift Workers File Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Dr. Pepper Snapple Group stiffed graveyard shift workers for their 25-cent-an hour shift differential pay, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. EMERY FEDERAL: Palombaros Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned FRANK A. AND SHELLY PALOMBARO, JR., et al., the Plaintiffs, v. EMERY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00792-SJD-KLL (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class of: "all individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. par. 2602) originated or brokered by Emery Federal Credit Union for which Genuine Title provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014. Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2014, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of Defendant Emery Federal Credit Union, Genuine Title, LLC, Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Competitive Advantage Media Group LLC, and/or Dog Days Marketing, LLC. The Emery Class are victims of the same illegal kickback scheme, suffered the same injuries, have identical claims against Emery and are entitled to the same statutory measure of damages. As such, the Emery Class satisfies the four elements of Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation -- and Rule 23(b)(3), as the common class issues related to Emery's liability predominate over any individual issues and a class action is the superior means of adjudicating the Emery Class' claims. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NamKgp8j The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Utter, Esq. KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL One East 4th Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 579 6540 Facsimile: (513) 579 6457 E-mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com - and - Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220 2200 Facsimile: (301) 220 1214 E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com - and - Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Melissa L. English, Esq. SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 821 0070 Facsimile: (410) 821 0071 E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com ERNST & YOUNG: Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in October -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Hurley and Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, report that the U.S. Supreme Court will not act until at least the fall on a major business dispute on whether companies can head off costly class action lawsuits, meaning President Donald Trump's nominee to the bench will almost certainly be in place to cast a possible pivotal vote. The court notified lawyers in the case on Feb. 8 that the three consolidated cases "will be scheduled for oral argument in the 2017 term," which starts in October, rather than the current term that ends in June. The cases, including one involving global professional services giant Ernst & Young, concern whether companies can force employees to give up their right to pursue work-related legal claims in court as a group. At stake is the future of so-called class-action waivers, which employers have increasingly required employees to sign as part of their arbitration agreements to guard against the rising tide of worker lawsuits seeking unpaid wages. Putting restraints on class action litigation is a major goal of the business community. Such lawsuits can result in large jury awards, while individual lawsuits are easier to defend against by companies. Trump nominated conservative appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch to fill a vacant seat on the court. The high court is ideologically deadlocked pending Gorsuch's Senate confirmation fight, with four liberal justices and four conservatives. The class action waiver dispute, one of the biggest business cases before the high court, could potentially divide the court, meaning Gorsuch could cast the decisive vote. FARMERS GROUP: Faces "Grigson" Suit Over Smart Plan Auto Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action in Austin, Texas claims Farmers Group's Smart Plan Auto program for new subscribers, with sizable discounts, is unfair to current subscribers and violates the Texas Insurance Code. The case is captioned, CHARLES GRIGSON and ROBERT VALE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Defendant, Case 1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex., February 8, 2017). Counsel for Plaintiff: Michael L. Slack, Esq. John R. Davis, Esq. Paula Knippa, Esq. SLACK & DAVIS, LLP 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78746 Tel.: 512-795-8686 Fax: 512-795-8787 E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com jdavis@slackdavis.com pknippa@slackdavis.com - and - Joe K. Longley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOE K. LONGLEY 3305 Northland Dr. Suite 500 Austin, Texas 78731 Tel: 512-477-4444 Fax: 512-477-4470 E-mail: joe@joelongley.com - and - Roger N. Heller, Esq. Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415-956-1000 Fax: 415-956-1008 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com jselbin@lchb.com FINANCE SYSTEM: "Boucher" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RYAN BOUCHER, HEATHER BOUCHER, CHRISTOPHER DETTLOFF, and ADAM DUCH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCE SYSTEM OF GREEN BAY, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00132-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining that the lawsuit brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, may proceed as a class action. The class is defined as: "(a) all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin (b) to whom FSGB mailed a collection letter in an attempt to collect a defaulted medical debt; (c) which was not returned as undelivered by the United States Postal Service; (d) and which letter stated, "because of interest, late charges and other charges that may be assessed by your creditor that vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay, may be greater" and the amount did not increase in the next collection letter; (e) and which letter was sent on or after January 30, 2016 and on or before February 20, 2017". Excluded from the Class are FSGB and all officers, members, partners, managers, directors, and employees of FSGB and their respective immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to the action and all members of their immediate families. The Plaintiffs further ask that Stern Thomasson LLP and the Law Office of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. The Bouchers are alleged to have incurred and defaulted on a financial obligation to Barker Physical Therapy for medical services ("Barker Debt"). Dettloff is alleged to have incurred and defaulted on a financial obligation to Hand to Shoulder Center of Wisconsin for medical services ("Hand Debt"). Duch is alleged to have incurred and defaulted on a financial obligation to Fox Valley Emergency Medicine for medical services ("Fox Debt"). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XG3AgOnx The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 917 4500 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com fgreene@edcombs.com - and - Heather B. Jones, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1329 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 Facsimile: (973) 532 5868 E-Mail: heather@sternthomasson.com FINTEGRA HOLDINGS: Dulhanty Appeals Ruling to Minn. Appeals Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Carmen A. Dulhanty filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Carmen A. Dulhanty, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Fintegra Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 27-CV-15-14487, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action is brought for damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged gross mismanagement, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, self- dealing, undisclosed conflicts, and fraudulent concealment in connection with the MiaSole investments. Fintegra Holdings, LLC is a business established for the solicitation and sale of securities. The appellate case is captioned as Carmen A. Dulhanty, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Appellant; Fintegra Holdings, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, Plaintiff v. Daniel Conner, et al., Respondents, Doreen Lea Weber, et al., Respondents, Frank Charles "Chet" Taylor, III, Respondent, Fintegra Holdings, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. A17-0172, in the Court of Appeals for the state of Minnesota. FIRST NATIONAL: Class Certification Hearing Reset for May 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Andrea R. Wood entered an order in the lawsuit titled Agnes Stolinski, the Plaintiff, v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00192 (N.D. Ill.), continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify class to the next status hearing. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 9, 2017, the Court sets the following briefing schedule on Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Plaintiff shall respond by March 9, 2017 and Defendants shall reply by March 30, 2017. Initial disclosures shall be made by February 23, 2017. Additional discovery in this matter is stayed until further order of court. Status hearing set for March 14, 2017 is stricken and reset for May 17, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ow4sl6Ro FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Lafrenier Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned TANYA LAFRENIER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17- cv-00174-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=thhCtP1z The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com GC SERVICES: Nationwide Class Certified in "Macy" FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled WILBUR MACY and PAMELA J. STOWE, the Plaintiffs, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 3:15-cv- 00819-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ken.), the Hon David J. Hale certified the following class of: "(1) all persons with a Kentucky or Nevada address, (2) to whom GC Services Limited Partnership mailed an initial communication that stated: (a) "if you do dispute all or any portion of this debt within 30 days of receiving this letter, we will obtain verification of the debt from our client and send it to you," and/or (b) "if within 30 days of receiving this letter you request the name and address of the original creditor, we will provide it to you in the event it differs from our client," (3) between November 5, 2014 and November 5, 2015, (4) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (5) that was not returned as undeliverable to GC Services Limited Partnership." Macy and Stowe each received a letter from GC Services notifying them that their Synchrony Bank credit-card accounts had been referred to GC Services for collection. According to the Plaintiffs, the notice was deficient because it failed to inform them that GC Services was only obligated to provide the additional debt and creditor information if they disputed their debts in writing. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Macy and Stowe assert violations of the two subsections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that impose the in-writing requirement. They seek statutory damages and injunctive relief. The Court said, "GC Services briefly argues that if the Court is inclined to grant certification, it should either certify a nationwide class or define the class to "encompass all the proposed class members across all the pending lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs' counsel against GC Services involving the letters at issue here." It notes the existence of Dickens (which, as discussed above, was dismissed by the district court and is now on appeal) and quotes the FDCPA's damages provision, 15 U.S.C. section 1692k(a), asserting that "Plaintiffs' counsel should not be permitted to bring serial, piecemeal litigation against GC Services for the same[] alleged course of conduct in the various federal districts across the country." The statute does not limit the number of class actions that may be brought against a defendant, however, and GC Services cites no precedent in support of its request to redefine the class. As Macy and Stowe observe, similar attempts have been rejected on the ground that plaintiffs are "masters of their complaint"." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qBvcSPDo GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Chopp" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that directors are selling Genworth Financial too cheaply through an unfair process to China Oceanwide Holdings Group, for $5.43 a share or $2.7 billion, shareholders say in a federal class action in Wilmington, Del. The case is captioned, ESTHER CHOPP, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., WILLIAM H. BOLINDER, G. KENT CONRAD, MELINA E. HIGGINS, THOMAS J. MCINERNEY, DAVID M. MOFFETT, THOMAS E. MOLONEY, JAMES A. PARKE, and JAMES S. RIEPE, Defendants., Case 1:17-cv- 00125-UNA (D. Del). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 983-1300 - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Fax: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Dickson" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Gospel for ASIA, Inc., David Carroll, Pat Emerick, Gospel for ASIA - International, Daniel Punnose, Gisela Punnose and K. P. Yohannan filed an appeal from an opinion & order dated January 18, 2017, in the lawsuit styled Matthew Dickson, et al. v. Gospel for ASIA, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-05027-PKH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Gospel for Asia, Inc. is a Christian missionary focused on spreading the Gospel to India and Asian countries through the use of national missionaries. The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Dickson, et al. v. Gospel for ASIA, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1191, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case: -- Transcript is due on or before March 8, 2017; -- Appendix is due on March 20, 2017; -- Brief of Appellants David Carroll, Pat Emerick, Gospel for ASIA - International, Gospel for ASIA, Inc., Daniel Punnose, Gisela Punnose and K. P. Yohannan is due on March 20, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. Plaintiffs-Appellees Matthew Dickson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Jennifer Dickson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Woodson William Bassett, III, Esq. James M. Graves, Esq. BASSETT LAW FIRM 221 N. College P.O. Box 3618 Fayetteville, AR 72702-3618 Telephone: (479) 521-9996 Facsimile: (479) 521-9600 E-mail: wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com jgraves@bassettlawfirm.com - and - Thomas W. Mills, Jr., Esq. MILLS & WILLIAMS L.L.P. 5910 North Central Expressway, Suite 980 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 265-9265 Facsimile: (214) 363-3167 E-mail: tmills@millsandwilliams.com - and - Marc R. Stanley, Esq. Martin Woodward, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75206-0000 Telephone: (214) 443-4300 Facsimile: (214) 443-0358 E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com Defendants-Appellants Gospel for ASIA, Inc., Gospel for ASIA - International, K. P. Yohannan, Gisela Punnose, Daniel Punnose, David Carroll and Pat Emerick are represented by: Debra Brown, Esq. Steven Shults, Esq. SHULTS & BROWN LLP 200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1600 Little Rock, AR 72201-3637 Telephone: (501) 375-2301 Facsimile: (501) 375-6861 E-mail: dbrown@shultslaw.com sshults@shultslaw.com - and - Harriet E. Miers, Esq. Robert T. Mowrey, Esq. Jason Levi Sanders, Esq. Paul Featherstone Schuster, Esq. LOCKE & LORD LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 Telephone: (214) 740-8000 Facsimile: (214) 740-8800 E-mail: hmiers@lockelord.com rmowrey@lockelord.com jsanders@lockelord.com pschuster@lockelord.com GREEN BROOK: "Brooking" Suit Seeks Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY BROKING on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREEN BROOK BUICK GMC SUZUKI, and BLUE BONNET TECHNOLOGY, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01847-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move before the Hon. Brian R. Martinotti, on March 7, 2017 for an order to certify a class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, The Sultzer Law Group, and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC as co-lead Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QAaaD4Pe The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Telephone: (973) 623 3000 Facsimile: (973) 623 0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Innessa S. Melamed, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 983 9330 Facsimile: (212) 983 9331 E-mail: imelamed@faruqilaw.com - and - Adam Gonnelli, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Telephone: (845) 483 7100 Facsimile: (888) 749 7747 E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com GROVETOWN, GA: Implements Changes After Water Bill Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- WRDW/WAGT reports that the City of Grovetown is making some staffing changes as problems continue for the city's water department. For better or for worse, the city of Grovetown is going through a lot of changes. "In general, I have found that most of the way things are done have not been the right way as far as I'm concerned," said Mayor Gary Jones. Mayor Gary Jones himself is part of that change, in office for just over one year. During that time, the city handled lawsuits and a federal investigation into missing city funds. "With this embezzlement, you never know, and I was always checking my bill," explained Antonia Palmer, "I would always look at it and compare it from the last month to this month." Ending with City Clerk, Vicky Capetillo being fired. "Moving forward, once this investigation plays out, that that will correct itself," said Mr. Jones. Flash forward to today, more changes including letting two longtime employees go. One of them, City Attorney, Brendan Fleming. And now, longtime Utility Billing Supervisor, Renee Beard who, according to a performance plan, was leaving bank bags unsecured and sending water bills out late, among other things. "I have no doubt I'm headed in the right direction," said Mr. Jones. The city also changed from postcard invoices to water bills sealed in envelopes. They also installed new water meters, so mistakes from the past don't repeat themselves. "Making sure that this doesn't happen again because that's the biggest part for citizens to make sure that this doesn't ever happen again with us," said Ms. Palmer. In the next year, the one thing Mayor Jones hopes the city can get back is trust. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Class Certification in "Souran" Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Charles R. Norgle entered an order in the lawsuit captioned THOMAS SOURAN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS, INC. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06720 (N.D. Ill. ), granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. The Court said, "Plaintiffs have satisfied the threshold requirement of making a minimal showing of similarity among the potential claimants. In light of the recent Seventh Circuit decision in Lewis, the arbitration provisions are unenforceable and therefore do not preclude certification. The Court notes that Plaintiffs will have to develop their factual support through discovery and that Defendants' may motion the Court to decertify the class at step two of the certification inquiry. Finally, Defendants must submit their version of the collective action notice on or before February 17, 2017". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bQFBdZWP HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Judge Refuses to Stay Suit Over Bail System -------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that facing a class action in Houston accusing it of running an unconstitutional bail system that needlessly jails poor misdemeanor arrestees, Harris County could not persuade a federal judge on February 9, to stay the case until it implements long- overdue reforms. The Harris County Jail in downtown Houston is the biggest in Texas, booking an average of 1,400 people a week. It's been a headache and embarrassment for county officials in recent years, due to overcrowding that critics say caused the death of four people who were beaten by fellow inmates there in 2015 and 2016, leading the Department of Justice to open an investigation. A bail system in which as late as spring 2016 only 8 percent of misdemeanor arrestees were released on no-fee bonds has fueled the overcrowding. Even newly elected Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, a defendant in the class action, has conceded in a brief to the court that he believes the system is unconstitutional. Other top officials agree. After a hearing on February 9, afternoon before U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal on the county's motion to stay, Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis, a former state senator, said he's confident a settlement will be reached before trial, but acknowledged the legal wrangling has been costly for taxpayers. Commissioners are the executives of Texas counties, led by CEOs who are called county judges, but are not judicial officers. "I do think it was a mistake on the county's part to lawyer up. God knows how much money has been spent already, in my judgment, to defend a system that's indefensible. . . . It's a real simple proposition: Are you for simple justice or not?" Ellis, an African-American, said. Lead plaintiff Maranda Lynn ODonnell, a 23-year-old mother of a young daughter, was arrested May 18, 2016 on a charge of driving on a suspended license and booked into Harris County Jail. ODonnell says she couldn't afford the $2,500 bail set by Harris County's bail schedule, which sets predetermined amounts based on the charges. Asserting civil rights and equal protection claims, ODonnell's original complaint named only the county, its sheriff, and five magistrate judges as defendants. She added the county's 16 misdemeanor court judges as defendants in an amended version. Magistrates do not consider a person's ability to pay a preset bond after an arrest for a minor crime, according to the lawsuit. The county told Rosenthal in a Feb. 2 emergency motion to stay that it's confident its reformed bail system, set to launch July 1, will moot ODonnell's claims. The county's attorneys also bragged in the motion that the "public-safety assessment," still under construction, in which all arrestees will be evaluated for bond eligibility by a computer program without pretrial service staff having to interview them, will make Harris County "a model for the rest of the nation." "A stay is warranted because plaintiffs' proposed relief unnecessarily intrudes into areas that should be left to the local government. In reality, this case is not about the Constitution or the law. Rather, this case is about plaintiffs' attempt to force policy changes -- changes that should be made by elected officials, not a federal court," the motion states. One of the county's hired guns, James Munisteri with Gardere Wynne Sewell in Houston, told Rosenthal on February 9, that the percentage of defendants granted no-fee bonds has jumped from 8 percent to more than 20 percent since the litigation began in May 2016. He credited rule changes the county's 16 criminal court judges made in August 2016 that made no-fee bonds preferred for 12 misdemeanor charges, plus the hiring of two new magistrates and a new pretrial services form that collects more financial data about defendants earlier in the post-arrest process. Unimpressed with Munisteri's statistics, Rosenthal cut to the heart of the case: "What percentage of those who cannot pay and who are subject to no other constraints are still in jail?" she asked. Rosenthal, a George H.W. Bush nominee, is the chief judge of the Southern District of Texas. She presides over the most imposing courtroom in the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse in downtown Houston, its focal point a huge marble slab that looms behind the bench, nearly filling the wall, framing the petite but fiery Rosenthal. She was unfazed during the 90-minute hearing when Munisteri suggested that perhaps the only people being illegally detained in Harris County Jail as alleged in the lawsuit choose to be there. "There are individuals, for instance, that for whatever reason, decide they do want to go the jail and stay there. If it's a cold week," he said. Rosenthal gently backed Munisteri back from what she called his "dicey" argument. "It's uncomfortably reminiscent of the historical argument that used to be made that people enjoyed slavery because they were afraid of the alternative," she said. "There may have been individual cases in which that fear was tremendously powerful and real. But you didn't see a lot of people running towards enslavement. You don't see a lot of people volunteering for jail in order to get warm." ODonnell's attorney Alec Karakatsanis, with the Civil Rights Corps, a Washington, D.C. firm that does pro bono work, urged Rosenthal to see past Harris County's claims that its new risk- assessment tool "will be magic." "They've had a validated risk-assessment tool since 1992 that's been ignored by every defendant in this case," he said. In a Feb. 3 brief opposing the county's motion to stay, Karakatsanis and his co-counsel wrote that the parties have been on the verge of settling the case more than once, but "certain defendants have blown up the deal." He declined to elaborate on the holdouts during the hearing. In refusing to stay the case, Rosenthal said the county had not given her enough data. She said there were too many "open questions" about when the county's new system will be implemented, what changes will be made and how the bail payment schedule will be revised. She set a Feb. 22 hearing for the parties to hash out their expert witnesses and a preliminary injunction hearing for March 6. Ellis, the county commissioner, told reporters after the hearing that the county still has time to settle. "I think they can still get there. But when you get vested interests involved who want to protect that turf, and some people who want to protect their pocketbooks, that adds to the complexity of it," he said, adding that bail bondsmen are part of the problem. The case is captioned, MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL, et al. Plaintiffs, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al. Defendants. Case 4:16-cv-01414 (S.D. Tex. February 2, 2017). Counsel for Harris County, Texas, Eric Stewart Hagstette, Joseph Licata III, Ronald Nicholas, Blanca Estela Villagomez, and Jill Wallace: Mike Stafford, Esq. Katharine D. David, Esq. Philip J. Morgan, Esq. Ben Stephens, Esq. GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP 2000 Wells Fargo Plaza 1000 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002-5011 Tel: 713-276-5500 Fax: 713-276-5555 E-mail: mstafford@gardere.com kdavid@gardere.com pmorgan@gardere.com bstephens@gardere.com - and - John Odam Assistant County Attorney OFFICE OF THE HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY 1019 Congress, 15th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Tel: 713-274-5101 Fax: 713-755-8924 E-mail: john.odam@cao.hctx.net Attorneys For The Harris County Criminal Courts At Law 1-15 Judges: John. E. O'Neill, Esq. John R. Keville, Esq. Sheryl A. Falk, Esq. Robert L. Green, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP 1111 Louisiana, 25th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Tel: (713) 651-2600 Fax: (713) 651-2700 E-mail: joneill@winston.com jkeville@winston.com sfalk@winston.com rgreen@winston.com Attorney For Sheriff Ed Gonzalez: Victoria Jimenez, Esq. Assistant County Attorney 1019 Congress, 15th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Tel: (713) 274-5140 Fax: (713) 755-8924 E-mail: Victoria.jimenez@cao.hctx.net HD SUPPLY: "Weisberg" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled Jonathan Weisberg, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HD Supply, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-08248-FMO-MRW (C.D. Cal.), Mr. Jonathan Weisberg will move the Court for an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement and certification of the settlement class. The Settlement Class consists of: "individuals who are the record subscribers of 13,298 unique United States cell phone numbers that were sent text messages by Defendant between October 21, 2011 and October 21, 2015." The Plaintiff will receive an incentive payment of $7,500.00 (subject to Court approval) for bringing and litigating this action. Class Counsel will request an attorneys' fee reimbursement award of $306,250 (i.e., 25% of the total settlement amount) and litigation costs (not to exceed $50,000), subject to Court approval, to be paid out of the Settlement Fund. Any unclaimed funds from uncashed settlement checks, including settlement checks to Class Members who submit valid claim forms but whose current valid address could not be determined shall be delivered to a cy pres recipient selected by the parties and approved by the Court. This cy pres payment from the Settlement Fund is after all settlement costs and direct payments to the Settlement Class are paid. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zZp0X2L3 The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com HOMEAWAY INC: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Decision in "Arnold" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant HomeAway, Incorporated, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Ivan Arnold v. HomeAway, Incorporated, Case No. 1:16-CV-374, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that HomeAway breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to the Plaintiff by materially changing its rates and fees during the term of the contract, including by imposing a new "service fee" on travelers, who rent the Plaintiff's vacation home through HomeAway's Web sites. HomeAway, Inc., operates an online market for the vacation and rental industry. The appellate case is captioned as Ivan Arnold v. HomeAway, Incorporated, Case No. 17-50088, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellee IVAN ARNOLD, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel Henry Byrne, Esq. FRITZ, BYRNE, HEAD & FITZPATRICK, P.L.L.C. 98 San Jacinto Boulevard Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 476-2020 Facsimile: (512) 477-5267 E-mail: dbyrne@fbhf.com - and - Keith J. Wesley, Esq. BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: kwesley@bgrfirm.com Defendant-Appellant HOMEAWAY, INCORPORATED, is represented by: Jane Webre, Esq. SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, L.L.P. 303 Colorado Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 495-6300 Facsimile: (512) 474-0731 E-mail: jwebre@scottdoug.com HUNTER INDUSTRIES: King Suit Seeks Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled ANTHONY KING, JOHN RAMIREZ, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. Hunter Industries, Ltd., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00038 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a conditional class of: "all current and former earthworks laborers and equipment operators employed by Defendant Hunter Industries by the Texas Department of Transportation as being principally located in Bexar County, Texas and/or Victoria County, Texas, during the period from June 24, 2013, to the present. The Plaintiffs contend that they were not paid for all of their hours worked, including overtime hours. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed the collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M8sUOw3C The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Siurek, Esq. Patricia Haylon, Esq. WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P. 3334 Richmond, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 522 0066 Facsimile: (713) 522 9977 E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com thaylon@warrensiurek.com - and - Gennaro Du Terroil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GENNARO DU TERRIOL 18756 Stone Oak Pkwy, Suite 200 Telephone: (210) 998 5645 Facsimile: (210) 495 4670 E-mail: cibelliterroil@outlook.com The Defendant is represented by: Ramon D. Bissmeyer, Esq. Rea Ferandez, Esq. Elizabeth Voss, Esq. Dykema Cox Smith 112 East Pecan St., Suite 1800 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Facsimile: (210) 226 8395 E-mail: rbissmeyer@dykema.com rferandez@dykema.com evoss@dykema.com HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Lasri" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield, Inc. The case is styled as Tali Lasri, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00623 (E.D.N.Y. Fla., Feb. 3, 2017). Hunter Warfield provides revenue recovery and risk mitigating services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Alan J Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339 0856 Facsimile: (347) 244 7178 E-mail: jmizrahi@sassonlaw.com alan@sassonlaw.com HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Powell Appeals S.D.W. Va. Ruling to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jeremy A. Powell and Tina Powell filed an appeal from a court ruling arising from their lawsuit entitled Jeremy Powell v. The Huntington National Bank, Case No. 2:13-cv-32179, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Judge Thomas E. Johnston granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment against the Powells. The Powells brought the action against Huntington, alleging causes of action arising out of a home loan that the Powells acquired through the bank. According to the complaint, Huntington illegally assessed late fees in violation of the terms of the Powells' mortgage loan contract and in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, and misrepresented the amount of a claim in violation of the WVCCPA. It was not in dispute that Huntington charged the Powells multiple late fees. The appellate case is captioned as Jeremy Powell v. The Huntington National Bank, Case No. 17-1118, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on March 8, 2017; and -- Response Brief is due on April 7, 2017. The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: John William Barrett, Esq. Michael Brian Hissam, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-0000 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com mhissam@baileyglasser.com jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8219 E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com - and - Scott G. Stapleton, Esq. STAPLETON & STAPLETON 400 5th Avenue Huntington, WV 25701-0000 Telephone: (304) 529-1130 E-mail: stapletonlawoffices@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK is represented by: Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq. GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP 300 Summers Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-7000 E-mail: cgf@goodwingoodwin.com - and - Robert Allen Long, Jr., Esq. Andrew James Soukup, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 1 City Center 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: (202) 662-5612 E-mail: rlong@cov.com asoukup@cov.com - and - John Curtis Lynch, Esq. Jason E. Manning, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP 222 Central Park Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23462-0000 Telephone: (757) 687-7765 E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com jason.manning@troutmansanders.com IMAGE LINE: "Thomas" Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOSHUA THOMAS, the Plaintiff, v. IMAGE LINE, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00845-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Dustin B. Pead entered an order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for conditional certification. The Court authorized Plaintiff to disseminate by first class U.S. mail and by email the notice and consent forms, in accordance with this schedule: 1. 10 Days From Order Approving Notice to Potential Class Members Wind River to provide to Plaintiff's counsel in an Excel spreadsheet the following information (to the extent such information is in the possession of Wind River) regarding all Truck Pushers that were employed by Wind River from three years prior to the date the Court's order granting conditional certification is entered to the present: Last Name, First Name, Last Known Address, City, State, Zip Code, Last Known E-Mail Address, Last Known Telephone Number, Beginning Date of Employment, and Ending Date of Employment (if any). 2. 20 Days From Order Approving Notice to Potential Class Members Plaintiff's Counsel shall send a copy of the Court approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email. 3. 60 Days From Date Notice is Mailed to Potential Class Members The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to return their signed Consent forms to Plaintiff's counsel for filing with the Court. 4. 30 Days from Date Notice is Mailed to Potential Class Members Plaintiff's Counsel is authorized to mail a post-card reminder of the notice/consent form to the Putative Class Members reminding them of the deadline for the submission of the Consent forms A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=V2V5Xr7g INDIANA: Lawmaker Seeks to Limit BMV Class Action Attorney Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Cook, writing for IndyStar, reports that the chairman of a legislative committee that deals with the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is seeking to limit the fees class-action attorneys receive when they sue the state. The move comes after a pair of class-action lawsuits that exposed massive overcharges at the BMV, resulting in nearly $60 million in refunds to millions of Hoosiers and more than $15 million in attorneys fees for the Downtown law firm that represented motorists. Now, House Road and Transportation Committee Chairman Ed Soliday wants to restrict how such attorneys fees are calculated -- a move critics say could come across as revenge. "We feel we need some protections when the government finds an error and they are fixing it and this becomes a class-action suit," Mr. Soliday, a Valparaiso Republican, said during a hearing on the bill on Feb. 8. "All you're doing is canonizing what is good practice." He emphasized that the new restrictions on attorney fees would only apply to future cases, not pending ones. But opponents worry that the measure could make cases such as the BMV lawsuit less appealing for lawyers. That could undermine one of the few mechanisms to hold the government accountable when it wrongfully overcharges or withholds small amounts of money from a large number of citizens. "If you want to curtail attorneys fees in cases like this, why don't you curb the greed and avarice of those taking from Hoosiers without the right to do so," said attorney John P. Young, president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association. Rep. Dan Forestal, the ranking Democrat on the committee, also raised concerns about the message Mr. Soliday's legislation sends. "What law firm will ever get involved in a suit if they think the state will seek revenge?" the Indianapolis Democrat said. Ultimately, the committee voted 9-4 along party lines to advance the measure to the full House. House Bill 1491 contains a laundry list of minor tweaks and technical corrections to the laws governing the BMV. In fact, the bill is titled "Title 9 revisions," a reference to the section of Indiana code that deals with motor vehicle laws. But tacked onto the end of the 64-page bill is a provision that has nothing to do with motor vehicles. Instead, it would change Title 34, which governs civil law and procedure. The provision would require that the maximum recovery for attorney's fees in a class-action lawsuit against the government be based on hours worked and a reasonable hourly rate. That differs from another common method for calculating fees, which is based on a percentage -- often about 33 percent -- of the money awarded to an attorney's clients. Cohen Malad, the law firm handling the BMV cases, received about $6 million in fees as part of its first lawsuit against the BMV. That equaled about 21 percent of the $30 million settlement. In November, the court awarded the firm another $9.6 million in fees as part of an ongoing second lawsuit that the judge said prompted the BMV to refund another $28.75 million to customers. Those fees represent 33 percent of the refund. The two sides are still awaiting a decision on how much additional money the state owes motorists for unauthorized BMV fees. Mr. Soliday has railed against the attorneys fees, which he says come at the taxpayer's expense. "When the government is cleaning up its own house, let's not provide an incentive to pile on," Mr. Soliday said. But Marion County Superior Court Judge Richard Hanley found in November that the BMV had concealed the overcharges for years, as IndyStar reported in 2015. He also found that Cohen Malad's efforts were largely responsible for the BMV's decision to refund money to customers. INLAND BANCORP: iMove Chicago Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled iMOVE CHICAGO, INC., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INLAND BANCORP, INC., INLAND HOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, INLAND BANK AND TRUST, and GIL KERKBASHIAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10106 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all persons with Illinois fax numbers who were sent facsimile messages by or on behalf of Defendants promoting Defendants' goods or services, since September 30, 2012". Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants' agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest, and those entities' current and former employees, officers, and directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge's immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded person. The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C. be appointed counsel for the Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YZqN7H8v The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Amelia S. Newton, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440 0020 Facsimile: (312) 440 4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com amy@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com www.attorneyzim.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Beltran" Suit in S.D. of Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The case is captioned as Maria Isabel Beltran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00221- WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, is a national bank that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the multinational banking corporation JPMorgan Chase. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J O'Connor, Esq. O'CONNOR LAW, APC 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 398 4764 Facsimile: (619) 756 6991 E-mail: matt@oconnorlawsd.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Deprives Jurors of Full Payment, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Brandi Buchman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that as part of its deal with the District of Columbia to put juror fees on debit cards, JPMorgan Chase claims that free ATM withdrawals ensure juror payment in full. Balking at this scheme in a federal class action, one juror asks Chase to please identify the ATMs that dispense amounts in dollar increments. "Any jurors with balances in odd dollar increments -- including all jurors receiving the statutory $4 travel allowance only -- are unable to obtain their full balance for 'free,' as Chase claims," the complaint states, filed by D.C. resident William Scott. Having just served on a jury in July 2016, Scott urges a federal judge to crack down on Chase's unconscionable practices and return "the ill-gotten funds Chase siphoned off to those who duly fulfilled their civic duty to serve as jurors and are entitled to their full statutory compensation accordingly." In addition to the $4 daily travel allowance for all potential jurors in D.C. Superior Court, any juror who is selected for a trial and is not getting paid by his employer is supposed to take home $30 a day. For those only receiving $4 because they were not picked, according to the complaint, "Chase makes it practically impossible for these jurors to retrieve their money off of the debit cards." Scott notes that the debit cards come with monthly charges of $1.50 for "non-use" of the card, $5 for "out-of-network" ATM use, $7 for "simply entering a Chase branch to ask for debit card funds to be converted to cash;" and even charges of 45 cents and 25 cents, respectively, for checking bank balances or for not having enough money in the account to pay for a declined purchase. Jurors can opt out of the debit card option, but they have to forfeit $15 to get a check, the 40-page complaint states. "In other words," Scott says, "Chase has intentionally designed the debit card system such that the fees it charges prevent jurors from actually being able to access the funds to which they are entitled by statute." The class seeks punitive damages, alleging unjust enrichment, conversion and violations of a host of laws, including the federal Consumer Protection Act and the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Scott is represented by Anna Haac of the firm Tycko and Zavareei JPMorgan Chase did not return a call for comment. The case is captioned, WILLIAM MARK SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 2406 44th St NW Washington, D.C. 20007-1103 Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., 270 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Defendant, Case 1:17-cv-00249 (D.D.C., February 7, 2017). Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes: Anna C. Haac, Esq. Sophia J. Goren, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com sgoren@tzlegal.com jkaliel@tzlegal.com KEYNETICS INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Silverstein" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff William Silverstein filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled William Silverstein v. Keynetics, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00684-DMR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu dismissed the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Mr. Silverstein brings the putative class action alleging violations of California's restrictions on unsolicited commercial e-mail. The Plaintiff is a member of the group "C, Linux and Networking Group" on LinkedIn, a professional networking website. Through his membership in that group, he received unlawful commercial e-mails (spam e-mails) that came from fictitiously named senders through the LinkedIn group e-mail system. The e- mails originated from the domain "linkedin.com," even though non- party LinkedIn did not authorize the use of its domain and was not the actual initiator of the e-mails. The appellate case is captioned as William Silverstein v. Keynetics, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-15176, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case: -- Mediation Questionnaire was due February 6, 2017; -- Transcript must be ordered by February 27, 2017; -- Transcript is due on March 28, 2017; -- Appellant William Silverstein's opening brief is due on May 8, 2017; -- Answering brief of Appellees 418 Media, LLC., Click Sales, Inc., Lewis Howes and Keynetics, Inc., is due on June 6, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all other California residents similarly situated, is represented by: William M. Audet, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com - and - Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Esq. HERSH & HERSH LLP 601 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 441-5544 E-mail: mburton@audetlaw.com - and - Timothy J. Walton, Esq. WALTON TWU LLP 9515 Soquel Drive Aptos, CA 95003 Telephone: (831) 685-9800 E-mail: walton@waltontwu.com Defendants-Appellees KEYNETICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and CLICK SALES, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Rodger Ryan Cole, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Telephone: (650) 988-8500 E-mail: rcole@fenwick.com - and - Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 E-mail: tnewby@fenwick.com Defendant-Appellee, 418 MEDIA, LLC., an Ohio limited liability company, is represented by: Seth Wiener, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SETH W. WIENER 609 Karina Court San Ramon, CA 94582 Telephone: (925) 487-5607 E-mail: sethwiener@yahoo.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: "Metrow" Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned LYNN METROW, LINDA MASTIN, SHANAN WALI, and ROSE ANN GAINOR, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL MANAGED CARE LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01133-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 6, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. for an order: 1. certifying a class of employees defined as: "all individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant Liberty Mutual Managed Care, LLC as Telephonic Nurse Case Managers in California between February 24, 2012 to the present." 2. appointing of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as class counsel; and 3. approving the designation of Plaintiff Rose Ann Gainor as class representative. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uoJLWHyK The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Piya Mukherjee, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551 1223 Facsimile: (858) 551 1232 MARKETECH: JT's Frames Files Amended Class Certification Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JT'S FRAMES, INC., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly- situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. JESSE CASARES, JOE CASARES, PATRICIA BEZABALETA a/k/a PATRICIA ZABELETA, DAVID A. OZUNA, JOHN MEDINA, MARKETECH, a Texas corporation d/b/a INTERFAX.NET and 7915 WESTGLEN LLC, AVIGDOR TESSLER, JAY M. KAMENETSKY, ORIE RECHTMAN and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02504 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice". The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint itself as the class representative, and its attorneys as class counsel. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aHIr3QvK The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com The Defendant is represented by: Jesse Casares, Esq. Joe Casares, Esq. Patricia Bezabaleta, Esq. 10900 Northwest Freeway, Suites 218 & 219 Houston, TX 77092 MARYLAND, USA: Koenig Appeals From Ruling in "Jarboe" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Wayne Koenig filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Jarboe v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00572-ELH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Bruce W. Koenig, Case No. 17-1131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Informal Opening Brief is due on February 23, 2017; and -- Informal response brief, if any, is due 14 days after informal opening brief is filed. Appellant Bruce Wayne Koenig represents himself: Bruce Wayne Koenig MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - JESSUP P. O. Box 549 Jessup, MD 20794-0000 Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER JARBOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Deborah M. Golden, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS 11 Dupont Circle, NW Washington, DC 20036-0000 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 E-mail: Deborah_Golden@washlaw.org Plaintiffs CHRISTOPHER JARBOE, CARROLL CONNELLY, VANDER DAVIS, GARY DENMARK, and GARFIELD REDD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lauren Ashley Champaign, Esq. Joseph Dowell Edmondson, Jr., Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP 3000 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20007-5143 Telephone: (202) 295-4719 E-mail: lchampaign@foley.com jedmondson@foley.com Defendants MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL ENTERPRISES; MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, JESSUP (MCIJ); WESTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; and J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Maryland Commissioner of Corrections; STEPHEN M. SHILOH, Chief Executive Officer Maryland Correctional Enterprises; DAYENA CORCORAN, Warden Maryland Correctional Institution, Jessup; and J. PHILIP MORGAN, Warden Western Correctional Institution, are represented by: Nichole Cherie Gatewood, Esq. Rex Schultz Gordon, Esq. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Esq. Dorianne Avery Meloy, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 576-6598 Facsimile: (410) 576-6880 E-mail: ngatewood@oag.state.md.us rgordon@oag.state.md.us slaneweber@oag.state.md.us dmeloy@oag.state.md.us Defendants MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND ADULT LEARNING (CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION); and PAULETTE FRANCOIS, Assistant Secretary, Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation Division of Workforce Development and Adult Learning, are represented by: M. Willis Gunther, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR LICENSING & REGULATION 500 North Calvert Street Baltimore, MD 21202-2272 Telephone: (410) 230-6268 Facsimile: (410) 333-6503 E-mail: willis.gunther@maryland.gov Defendant MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND ADULT LEARNING (CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION) is represented by: Christopher Bowie Lord, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 576-6450 Facsimile: (410) 333-6503 E-mail: christopher.lord@maryland.gov METTRUM: Health Canada to Spot Check Medical Marijuana ------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Chiu, writing for CBC News, reports that Health Canada says it will begin random testing of medical marijuana products to check for the presence of banned pesticides after product recalls affecting nearly 25,000 customers led to reports of illnesses and the possibility of a class action lawsuit. Late last year, licensed medical marijuana producers Organigram of Moncton, N.B., and Toronto-based Mettrum voluntarily recalled products due to the presence of low levels of the prohibited chemicals myclobutanil, bifenazate and pyrethrins, all of which are prohibited in tobacco and marijuana. In January, nearly all of Organigram's products sold in 2016 were pulled in a higher-level voluntary recall. On Health Canada's Jan. 9 recall notice, the department said it had "not received any adverse reaction reports for products sold by Organigram Inc." However, CBC News has confirmed that a Halifax woman, Dawn Rae Downton, who had received one of the Health Canada notices, had earlier complained to Health Canada about non-stop nausea and vomiting. 'I am living proof' of adverse effects Downton, 60, had a medical marijuana licence for her inflammatory arthritis. She said she's upset she received nothing more than a form letter in November. "I am living proof there have been very adverse effects. I lost eight months of my life," she said. "I'm living proof that Health Canada is not protecting medical marijuana patients." She also said she reported her side-effects to Organigram, one of 38 licensed producers in Canada, but did not receive a response. A spokeswoman for Organigram said the company president was unavailable for an interview, but the company was working with Health Canada throughout the recall and hopes "to close this chapter very soon." Health Canada 'regrets this error' In response to CBC inquiries, Health Canada said on Feb. 7 it had received a report of side-effects prior to issuing the recall and "regrets this error." In addition, as of Jan. 31, the department said it had received one adverse reaction report -- related to the recall -- from among Organigram's 3,895 medical marijuana customers. Reported symptoms include "weight loss; nausea; vomiting; throat irritation; and respiratory tract irritation," according to an email from a Health Canada spokesperson. The spokesperson also said 10 adverse reaction reports specific to the recall had been received from among the 21,054 Mettrum customers. Health Canada says there were 119,709 people with a medical marijuana licence as of Nov. 30, 2016. That means about 20 per cent of all medical marijuana licence holders in Canada are affected by the recalls. Random testing announced On Feb. 7, Health Canada released an additional statement announcing a new measure beyond the recall. The department said "it will begin random testing of medical cannabis products produced by licensed producers, to provide added assurance to Canadians that they are receiving safe, quality-controlled product." The statement said the testing will be done to ensure only authorized pest control products are used during the production of medical cannabis. "The expanded product testing program will further enhance the department's existing regime of regular unannounced inspections of licensed producer facilities, as well as the controls in place by licensed producers," reads the statement. 'I never want to be that sick again' In October, Downton went to a gastroenterologist. She had been sick to her stomach for eight months, a period when she had been smoking and eating medical marijuana. The medical specialist diagnosed her as having an atypical case of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, and told her to stop consuming marijuana. The doctor had never seen this type of illness in someone who wasn't a longtime pot user. Downton had become so sick that she had lost 30 pounds and was bedridden. "I never want to be that sick again," she said. The diagnosis of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome was made before the recall. It wasn't publicly known at that point that the marijuana, believed to be organically grown, contained trace amounts of myclobutanil and bifenazate. Large concentrations may have health effects Myclobutanil is a fungicide permitted on food crops. But when burned, it produces hydrogen cyanide. According to Health Canada, hydrogen cyanide interferes with how oxygen is used in the body and may cause headaches, dizziness, nausea and vomiting. Larger concentrations may cause gasping, irregular heartbeats, seizures, fainting and even death. Now, Downton suspects it was the joints she smoked -- tainted with myclobutanil -- that caused her eight-month illness. Since she stopped using the marijuana, she said, she hasn't had constant nausea and vomiting. Studying hydrogen cyanide signs Frank Conrad, the lab director at Colorado Green Lab who has studied the question of pesticides and medical marijuana, agreed Downton's symptoms are signs of possible hydrogen cyanide exposure. "Nausea and vomiting are two things that can be a byproduct of this," he said from his Denver-based office. Conrad, who has a masters in biomedical sciences from the University of Colorado, said the body can clear hydrogen cyanide in small levels within hours, but in severe cases, it can cause increased blood pressure and heart rates. In rare cases, it's fatal, although Conrad said there are no documented cases of death caused by hydrogen cyanide poisoning from marijuana produced with myclobutanil. He said Colorado Green Lab is developing a test for cannabis strains to determine whether they are susceptible or resistant to powdery mildew. The idea is that growers can watch for early signs of disease, and apply organic preventative treatments so they "never have to resort to myclobutanil." Possible class action lawsuit Patients affected by the recalls are banding together. So far, more than 90 medical marijuana patients have contacted Wagners, a class action and medical malpractice law firm in Halifax. "That is an awful lot in a short period of time," said Ray Wagner, the founder of the firm. "It's shocking to a number of people who have compromised immune systems and are ill from other disease processes to find out that the product they thought was organic is not." He's still assessing the potential for a class action, and said a health claim may be challenging because of the different underlying medical problems among the patients. None of the allegations have been proven in court. A judge would have to approve the class action for it to proceed. Wagner also believes he's got a good shot at another type of claim -- disgorgement -- which is a refund of amounts paid, plus a portion of profits. Wagner said many people who have contacted him have autoimmune disorders. "They're more vulnerable to these types of circumstances and that is why, in most cases, why they seek out a particular product that is organic." Downton plans to follow up with her doctor to determine if there's medical proof her illness was caused by pesticides and hydrogen cyanide. She plans to ship the remainder of her dried cannabis from Organigram to a testing lab to see what else is in the product. As well, she has volunteered to front a potential class action lawsuit as the representative plaintiff. MIDLAND CREDIT: Pirkles File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned GAIL PIRKLE, DAVID PIRKLE and THERESA VYTLACIL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00173-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes, appointing Plaintiffs as their respective representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as their Counsel. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ze101kKm The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com MOMOIP LLC: Faces "Marett" Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MomoIP LLC. The case is titled as Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MomoIP LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00829 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017). MomoIP offers restaurant services, including sit-down service of food and take-out restaurant services. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "McKenna" Suit in S.D. of Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Margaret A. McKenna, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00223-JM-BLM (S.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. Monarch Recovery, an accounts receivable management company, provides financial recovery solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Martin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled ELISABETH MARTIN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02168-JFW-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 13, 2017, before the Hon. John F. Walter for an order certifying, with respect to her claims for breach of express warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), a class of: "all persons who, on or after October 13, 2012, purchased in California, for personal or household use and not for resale or distribution, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus ("Concentrate Plus") or Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate ("Super Concentrate") in packaging stating that the product "Makes up to" a specified number of gallons as follows: Product Label Statement Super Concentrate 35.2 fl. oz. "Makes up to 23 Gallons" Super Concentrate 53.7 oz. "Makes up to 35 Gallons" Super Concentrate 64 fl. oz. "Makes up to 42 Gallons" Super Concentrate 128 fl. oz. "Makes up to 85 Gallons" Concentrate Plus 32 oz. "Makes up to 10 Gallons" Concentrate Plus 36.8 oz. "Makes up to 12 Gallons" Concentrate Plus 40 oz. "Makes up to 13 Gallons" Concentrate Plus 64 oz. "Makes up to 21 gallons" Concentrate Plus 128 oz. "Makes up to 42 gallons" A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WKOT09Zz The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692 3840 Facsimile: (619) 362 9555 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - and - JACKSON & FOSTER, LLC Sidney W. Jackson, Iii, Esq. 75 St. Michael Street Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433 6699 Facsimile: (251) 433 6127 MORGAN AND MORGAN: Faces "Vadnais" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgan and Morgan, P.C. The case is entitled as JUSTIN VADNAIS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.C. doing business as: MORGAN, BORNSTEIN & MORGAN AND CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, the Defendant, v. Case No. 1:17-cv- 00748-RBK-KMW (D.N.J., Feb. 3, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler. Morgan and Morgan is a law firm providing legal representation to clients including individuals and their families. The Plaintiff is represented by: LAWRENCE C. HERSH, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507 6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com MICHIGAN: "McBride" Suit Seeks Certification of MDOC Deaf Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARY ANN MCBRIDE, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class of: "all deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the custody of Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) (whether now or in the future), who require hearing-related accommodations, including but not limited to interpreters, hearing devices, or other auxiliary aids or services, to communicate effectively and/or to access or participate in programs, services, or activities available to individuals in the custody of MDOC". According to the lawsuit, the record developed by Plaintiffs demonstrates that MDOC does not provide reasonable accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners. Until Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, MDOC did not even know on a system-wide basis which of the prisoners in its custody were deaf and hard of hearing because MDOC had no system-wide process for identifying such prisoners. Once MDOC started trying to identify deaf and hard of hearing prisoners, MDOC discovered that it was housing dozens of such prisoners at facilities that MDOC itself had not designated as facilities designed to house deaf and hard of hearing prisoners. And most importantly, none of MDOC's facilities have the types of services, programs, policies, or training that Plaintiffs' two nationally-renowned experts in this area show in their expert reports are necessary to provide reasonable accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners. Indeed, MDOC's failure to provide such accommodations on a system-wide basis is so clear that MDOC did not even attempt to rebut Plaintiffs' experts with an expert of its own. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Cl87LO1i The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abraham Singer, Esq. Kitch Drutchas Wagner, Esq. VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK One Woodward Avenue, Ste 2400 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965 7445 E-mail: abraham.singer@kitch.com - and - Deborah M. Golden, Esq. Elliot M. Mincberg, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 319 1000 E-mail: deborah_golden@washlaw.org elliot_mincberg@washlaw.org - and - Andrew D. Lazerow, Esq. Stephen C. Bartenstein, Esq. Philip J. Levitz, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662 6000 E-mail: alazerow@cov.com sbartenstein@cov.com plevitz@cov.com - and - Chris E. Davis, Esq. Mark A. Cody, Esq. MICHIGAN PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC. 4095 Legacy Parkway, Ste 500 Lansing, MI 48911 Telephone: (517) 487 1755 E-mail: cdavis@mpas.org mcody@mpas.org - and - Phoebe Yu, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662 6000 E-mail: pyu@cov.com The Defendants are represented by: Allan J. Soros, Esq. James E. Long, Esq. Jeanmarie Miller, Esq. MI DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL LITIGATION, EMPLOYMENT & ELECTIONS DIVISION P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 E-mail: sorosa@michigan.gov longj@michigan.gov MillerJ51@michigan.gov MUFG UNION BANK: Branch Service Manager Files Wage and Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a branch service manager of 32 years at MUFG Union Bank has brought a class action in Ventura, Calif. saying she was systematically denied meal and rest breaks as well as overtime. MUFG Union is an American full-service bank with 398 branches in California, Washington and Oregon which is wholly owned by The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ. The case is captioned, Cynthia Garcia-Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MUFG Union Bank N.A., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 56-2017-00492522-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura County, Feb. 3, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: James Hawkins APLC James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: 949-387-7200 Fax: 949-387-6676 E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: "Gadime" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned NILGUN GADIME, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, the Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN, LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00777 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify classes: "(a) all individuals in New York (b) to whom defendant sent a letter including two or more accounts as a single account (c) on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 20 days after the filing of this action"; and "(a) all individuals in New York (b) to whom defendants sent a letter (c) on or after a date one year prior to the filling of this action and on or before a date 20 days after the filing of this action, (d) seeking to collect the debt of an adult child". The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Kleinman LLC and Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed as class counsel. The Defendant has been attempted to collect a medical debt from Plaintiff that was incurred for personal, family purposes. In an attempt to collect the alleged debt, on March 17, 2016, Defendant sent Plaintiff the collection letter on behalf of North Shore University Hospital at Plainview. The letter is intended for use by Defendant as the initial letter it sends to a putative debtor. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5NE03mfh The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-35 3 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com - and - Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN, LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, New York 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522 2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 NEW ORLEANS, LA: Class Certification Sought in "Cain" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Alana Cain and Ashton Brown, the Plaintiffs, v. City Of New Orleans; Orleans Parish Criminal District Court; Marlin Gusman, Orleans Parish Sheriff; Robert Kazik, Judicial Administrator; Section "A" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Laurie A. White; Section "B" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Tracey Flemings- Davillier; Section "C" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Benedict Willard; Section "E" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Keva Landrum-Johnson; Section "F" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Robin Pittman; Section "G" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Byron C. Williams; Section "H" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Udge Camille Buras; Section "I" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Karen K. Herman; Section "J" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Darryl Derbigny; Section "K" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Arthur Hunter; Section "L" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Franz Zibilich; Magistrate Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, and Judge Harry Cantrell, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04479-SSV-JCW (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all persons who currently owe or who will incur court debts arising from cases adjudicated in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court". The Plaintiffs file the motion at this juncture solely to ensure that their important goal of permanently ending unconstitutional practices that have devastating systemic consequences cannot be evaded through procedural maneuvering. The Plaintiffs have no objection to staying the consideration of this motion until this Court deems appropriate. Indeed, Defendants still have not produced basic discovery relating to Plaintiffs' class claims. Once Plaintiffs have received the discovery to which they are entitled, they may supplement this motion with additional evidence supporting class certification. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6KQDu0Tb The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 916 G Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 681 2409 E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org - and - Bill Quigley, Esq. William P. Quigley, Esq. 7214 St. Charles Ave. Campus Box 902 New Orleans, LA 70118 Telephone: (504) 710 3074 E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com - and - Anna Lellelid, Esq. ANNA LELLELID-DOUFFET PO Box 19388 New Orleans, LA 70179 Telephone: (504) 224 9670 E-mail: alellelid.law@gmail.com - and - Jon Greenbaum, Esq. Mateya Kelley, Esq. Hallie Ryan, Esq. Jon Greenbaum, Esq. Mateya Kelley, Esq. Hallie Ryan, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 New York Ave NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 662 8315 E-mail: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org mkelley@lawyerscommittee.org hryan@lawyerscommittee.org - and - Jonathan P. Guy, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 1152 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-1706 Telephone: (202) 339 8516 E-mail: jguy@orrick.com NEW ZEALAND: MSD May Face Class Action Over Pension Schemes ----------------------------------------------------------- NZ Seniors Party on Feb. 9 disclosed that a class action has been proposed and is being worked on against the Ministry of Social Development, (MSD) in respect to the pension schemes run by them for the NZ Govt under Section 70. Section 70, (S70) which the MSD has in place is being used surreptitiously to deduct pensions and savings schemes from Kiwis who've worked overseas and immigrants relocating to New Zealand to spend their final years in this country. In 2004 the High Court of New Zealand ruled, (because of the case in front of them) that what MSD were doing was ILLEGAL. (Refer: Sant Raj Rai High Court case 2004). MSD has disregarded this ruling and continued to take over $500M per annum from returning kiwis and immigrant pensioners to subsidise the NZ pension's scheme. After this ruling, the CEO of MSD attempted to have the wording in the Judges findings changed so he could continue to illegally remove overseas pension. That too was rejected by the High Court. More recently he has attempted to change the wording in S70 to read, "Overseas pensions are a tax imposed by overseas Governments". That too is incorrect and can be confirmed by talking with other overseas Governments and letters sent to the NZSP by overseas governments. Both sets of individuals, (totalling 160000+) have overseas pensions which are not contributed to by that country's government and therefore do not fall under S70 direct deduction policy, but still MSD remove these pensions. MSD has, when challenged had to repay deductions to certain individuals from overseas. Recently MSD had to repay $88000 to an Asian couple after being found in breach of this deduction process. Many pensions/savings schemes from other countries do not have any Government contributions, these pensions are paid for from individual's personal wages with a top up from the company they worked for and therefore are exempt the direct deduction policy. MSD states that returning kiwis and immigrants relocating to NZ must relinquish their overseas pensions and savings schemes, and that goes for any/all individuals from any/all countries MSD have also stated that it is a level playing field for all immigrants and returning kiwis. No one in NZ can have two pensions!! You have to ask yourself then. . . WHY are Chinese and Islanders able to retain their savings/pensions from their own country, and obtain a full NZ pension, when those funds are deducted from immigrants from 33 other countries, totalling $350m+ per annum. There is no level playing field here. S70 direct deduction policy also affects returning kiwis (77000, $150m pa) who have paid into financial schemes overseas. The current massive influx of immigrants into NZ is placing undue pressure on our infrastructures, housing, the reduction of job opportunities for kiwis, purchase of land and farms and the taking over of small and medium sized businesses. The strain on funding by allowing the repatriation of parents of these immigrants is placing a further strain on the current over-burdened NZ pension scheme. THIS HAS TO STOP!!!!!!!. New Zealand Seniors Party believe a pro rata pension scheme based on a timeframe of residency (say 20-30 years) would have a positive impact on NZ pensions scheme, without having to disadvantage the current 160000 kiwis and immigrants having their overseas pensions illegally deducted. Consider all this information and work with us to make a change, because if it's not affecting you now . . . it will be in the future . . . we will all be old one day!!!!. There are likely to be more changes affecting all future pensioners . . . To conclude one has to question what the Government is going to do in the future with the funds in the Kiwi Saver after all they contribute to them??? Release ends Refer below for more information. For your information . . . OTHER REMOVAL NOTIFICATIONS. Check how super schemes and benefits MP's are allowed when departing their government posts, and when they receive them . . . they don't have to wait for pension age!! We have learned of an islander continuing to receive her dead husband's pension together with a full NZ pension, and who has never worked a day in her life either in the islands or in NZ? A kiwi who married an American! The American pension was greater than the sum of his NZ pension, the kiwi can't claim a NZ pension!! Why? Why do they have to live solely on the US pension? The answer is self-explanatory. How can anyone who has never worked in the UK and never paid into the UK pension fund, be forced by MSD to apply for a UK pension, which when approved by the UK (Impossible to work out why?) has that amount of money paid into a Westpac bank account they are forced to open, but have no access to, then deducted by MSD. Singaporeans have their Singapore CPF fund removed by MSD, when a senior member of the NZ government was allowed to retain his CPF Fund after working in Singapore, bring it back to NZ and deposit it in his Kiwi savings account . . . why, what's the difference . . . a decision by MSD to add additional funds to their illegal actions. MSD are using and retaining the same conversion rates for long periods to access even more funds form converting pensions from around the world. Conversion rates operate within a dynamic market with rates changing every minute . . . so why retain the same rate for a month or more at a time? The answer is simple!!! . . . . MORE MONEY IN MSD's illegal fund!!! If anyone can find a level playing field from all the inequities demanded by MSD then we would like to hear from them?? We are in possession of many more instances that demonstrate how MSD are stealing funds from both Kiwis and immigrants!! THIS HAS TO STOP!!!! . . . . . NOW!!! Join the NZSP NOW and have your rights restored and your illegally removed funds returned from MSD. Collectively we can make this happen!!!!!!! NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: Faces Class Action in Illinois ------------------------------------------------- Ann Maher, writing for Madison Record, reports that the first private company to run Illinois Lottery is being sued in St. Clair County for allegedly not paying out all -- and in some cases any - - grand prizes to ticket purchasers. Chicago-based Northstar Lottery Group, whose 10-year contract with the state was not due to expire until 2021, was fired by the Rauner administration in 2015 after a report showed that Illinois Lottery lost money in 2014. A termination agreement canceled its contract at the end of last year. Northstar not only was the first private company to manage the state's lottery system, it was also the first private company in the nation to manage a state lottery system, the suit says. The proposed class action was filed Feb. 6 by attorneys Robert Sprague of Belleville, attorneys at TorHoerman Law and Brandt Law in Edwardsville and Timothy Hoerman in Westmont It includes retailer and purchaser groups of plaintiffs. Raqqa Food Mart in Fairview Heights, also known as Fairview Lounge, will seek to represent retailers' interests; Michael Cairo and Jason Van Lente of Cook County and John Bean of St. Clair County will represent purchasers. "Purchasers were induced to purchase tickets for these games and retailers were induced to perform work to sell those tickets," the complaint states. "But before all (or sometimes any) grand prizes were awarded, Northstart discontinued games." The suit claims Northstar's scheme allowed it to lock in profits for itself and eliminate risk of paying out winnings to ticket buyers as well as bonuses and commissions to retailers. It further claims the company committed fraud on consumers by misrepresenting the actual odds of winning and reaped unjust profits from retailers by interfering with retailers' contracts and their expectations of commissions and bonuses. According to the complaint, Northstar was paid operating expenses and incentive compensation. In 2013 and 2014, the company was awarded $130 million per year for operating expenses, paid out on a regular monthly basis. For incentive compensation, the company would get a percentage of net income based on exceeding certain thresholds. At the highest level, it would receive 30 percent of net income exceeding $754 million. Net income includes all revenue derived from the lottery, less paid prizes, commissions to retailers and operating expenses. "To maximize Net Income, Northstar had an incentive to maximize the Lottery's revenues and minimize its payouts of prizes (to purchasers) and commissions (to retailers)," the suit says. Plaintiffs claim that in order to win the contract with the state, Northstar had an incentive to make a relatively low bid for operating expenses as that would also benefit the state. The company also was subject to having its compensation adjusted downward in case of net income shortfall. Northstar is alleged to have also had an incentive to make a relatively high bid on net income targets, because it would incentivize the state to pick the bidder who had a greater likelihood of not reaching net income goals. The suit says that net income shortfalls did in fact occur for fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014. "In light of its motivation to bid low for Operating Expenses, but high for Net Income Targets, Northstar had a strong financial motivation to cover its risk on both of these fronts by increasing the Net Income of the Lottery," the suit states. Northstar sought to increase income and revenue while it reduced prize payouts and commissions and bonuses to retailers, the suit says. It also successfully boosted ticket sales by hundreds of millions in its first three years as private manager. The suit describes instances in which special games were created, but before all or any grand prizes were claimed, the games were discontinued. In 2012, "Birthday Surprise" was one of the games in which Northstar ordered a print of 10 million tickets -- more than three and a half times the number of tickets the state would normally sell for $5 games, the suit claims. The game offered a $150,000 immediate pay out along with a $150,000 prize on the winner's birthday for 20 years. According to the complaint, the first Birthday Surprise grand prize was awarded in March 2013, but the same month the company planned to discontinue it despite internally calling it a popular game. The suit says that the game ended with only 64 perent of its tickets sold and a second grand prize never awarded. For the six years preceding Northstar's management of the Lottery, Illinois awarded 87.5 percent of the grand prizes that its big prize games were designed to pay out, but under Northstar management, the award rate dropped to 59.6 percent, the complaint states. "An award rate decrease of this magnitude is not explainable as happenstance or attributable to a lack of interest in the Lottery -- indeed, ticket sales were up under Northstar," the complaint states. "Rather, it reflects Northstar's implementation of a practice of discontinuing games early when the profitability of the game was statistically maximized. "Because Northstar knew with a reasonable degree of certainty how many tickets had been sold for a game at any given time, how many prizes (and grand prizes) had been claimed for the game, and what the commensurate profitability of the remaining unsold tickets was, Northstar was in a position to, and did, discontinue games before winning tickets could be sold." St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-51 NOVO NORDISK: Inflated Diabetic Drug Prices, "Chaires" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that diabetes patients filed a class-action RICO suit against the three major manufacturers of insulin, claiming they schemed to inflate the cost of the life-saving medication for their own profit. Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Co., and Sanofi U.S. are the three primary makers of insulin, a drug that diabetic patients need on a daily basis to survive. Patients filed a 171-page lawsuit against the pharmaceutical companies on February 2, in New Jersey federal court on the heels of another action filed in Boston. Insulin was first synthesized for human use in 1922, and the first synthetic insulin was produced in the early 1960s. Little has changed about the drug since. However, despite little to no costs for research and development, the price of insulin has skyrocketed over 150 percent in the last five years, and tripled in price from 2002 to 2013, patients claim. Drugs that used to cost $25 now cost between $300 and $450. Some patients pay almost $900 per month for their medicine, according to the complaint. Price-gouging by pharmaceutical companies frequently made headlines in 2016, and President Donald Trump pledged to address increasing drug prices in his campaign, saying the industry was "getting away with murder." Public outrage followed Martin Shkreli's decision to increase the price of a drug to treat toxoplasmosis 5,000 percent from $13.50 to $750 a pill, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals CEO Heather Bresch was likewise called before Congress to explain the sixfold increase in the price of the Epipen used to treat severe allergic reactions. The alleged price-gouging of insulin has a far wider impact than these prior scandals, as an estimated 29 million people in the U.S. suffer from the disease. "Increased benchmark prices [for insulin] are the result of a scheme and enterprise among each defendant and several bulk drug distributors," the complaint says. "In this scheme, the defendant drug companies set two different prices for their insulin treatments: a publicly-reported benchmark price -- also known as the 'sticker' price -- and a lower, real price that they offer to certain bulk drug distributors." The three biggest pharmacy benefits managers, or PBMs -- Express Scripts, CVS Health, and OptumRx -- are the biggest of these bulk distributors, controlling more than 80 percent of the market with $200 billion in annual revenue. As compensation for their role in negotiating the drug prices paid by insurance companies, PBMs pocket a percentage of the difference between the reported benchmark price, and the real price they secure -- a price that is protected from public disclosure as a trade secret. "Taking advantage of these realities, drug manufacturers competing with the same therapeutic class have begun to offer the PBMs higher benchmark prices instead of lower real prices," the complaint states. "In other words, instead of marketing lower real prices to PBMs, they market the spread between prices. The drug manufacturer with the largest spread between benchmark and real price is more likely to secure a PBM's preferred formulary position, and, as a result, the business of that PBM's clients." A Bloomberg analysis shows Sanofi and Novo Nordisk increased their benchmark prices in 2014 in lockstep, strongly suggesting to diabetes patients that the companies acted in concert to inflate insulin prices. Patients claim the impact of the drug companies' conduct has been financially devastating. "Patients' out-of-pocket payments for their medications are typically based on their drugs' reported benchmark prices, not their concealed real prices. As a result, defendants' benchmark price arms race has saddled individuals living with diabetes with crushing out-of-pocket expenses," they say. Some class members claim they are forced to go without insulin and directly threaten their health because they cannot afford the drug's steep price increases. "I often cry, and I think, have I done something wrong that I can't afford to take care of myself?" one unidentified diabetes patient was quoted as saying in the complaint. Another expressed anger, saying, "I feel so taken advantage of; now, I can't afford my medications, and for what? All so some drug company can profit from my sickness?" In Europe, insulin costs about one-sixth of what it does in the U.S. because the government is directly involved in negotiating drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies, according to the New York Times. Patients are not the only class alleging the drug makers engaged in an illegal scheme to inflate prices. Novo Nordisk shareholders filed a securities class action against the company two weeks ago, claiming it colluded with Sanofi and Eli Lilly to set the prices for insulin, thereby falsely inflating its share price. The patients' class action seeks damages for violations of the federal RICO Act, and makes claims under all 50 states' consumer fraud statutes. They are represented by James E. Cecchi with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agenello in Roseland, N.J., and Steve Berman with Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro in Seattle. Gregory Kueterman, an Eli Lilly spokesperson, said in a statement, "Lilly disagrees with the allegations reported to be in the lawsuit. We conduct business in a manner that ensures compliance with all applicable laws, and we adhere to the highest ethical standards." Novo Nordisk and Sanofi also issued statements denying the allegations. The case is captioned, DONALD CHAIRES, GEORGE DENAULT, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, BRITTANY GILLELAND, GERALD GIRARD, SARA HASSELBACH, LINDSEY KINHAN, JOSEPH MCLAUGHLIN, MARILYN PERSON, MATTHEW TEACHMAN, and KARYN WOFFORD, Plaintiffs, v. NOVO NORDISK INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and SANOFI U.S. Defendants. Case 3:17-cv-00699- BRM-LHG (D.N.J., February 2, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 623-7292 - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Hannah Brennan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Tel: (617) 482-3700 PANDA RESTAURANT: Site Inaccessible to Screen Readers, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a blind woman claims in a class action in San Bernardino, Calif. that the parent company behind Panda Express, the Chinese fast-food chain, has not made its website accessible to screen readers, in violation of California civil rights law. The case is captioned, CHERYL THURSTON an individual, Plaintiff, V. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP INC., a California ccrporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CIVDS 1701664 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino County, January 31, 2017). Attorney for Plaintiff: Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA92660 Telephone: (949)706 6464 PEET'S COFFEE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Auto Renewals ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that, hoping to represent a class in San Francisco, a California man says Peet's Coffee and Tea offers a subscription service that fails to make required disclosures about automatic renewals. The case is captioned, Eduardo Leon Castillo, on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals and himself individually, Plaintiffs, v. Peet's Coffee & Tea LLC, a Washington limited liability company, dba Peet's Coffee & Tea, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-17-556926 (Cal. Super., San Francisco County, February 3, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. Crystal L. Matter, Esq. Stonebarger Law APC 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145 Folsom, CA 956310 Tel: 916-235-7140 Fax: 916-235-7141 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com - and - Tony M. Soliman, Esq. Soliman Law Group, PC 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: 310-230-5255 Fax: 888-400-0833 E-mail: tms@solimanlawgroup.com PIER 1 IMPORTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pier 1 Imports, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in Texas, according to the Company's January 4, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 26, 2016. Putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner in August and October 2015 alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a single action captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner, Defendants, were filed on behalf of a purported putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. between December 19, 2013 and December 17, 2015. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages purportedly caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., is the original global importer of home decor and furniture. The Company directly imports merchandise from many countries, and sells a wide variety of decorative accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts and seasonal products in its stores and through the Company's Web site, http://www.pier1.com/. PRECISION DRILLING: Faces "Haggard" Wage-and-Hour Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that a California man who worked as an hourly employee on Precision Drilling's public works projects wants to represent a class in Oakland, Calif., saying Precision failed to pay a prevailing wage, keep accurate records or provide adequate pay stubs. The case is captioned, Justin Haggard, an individual on behalf of himself and other similarly situated California employees, Plaintiff, v. Precision Drilling, Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG17848582 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, February 7, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mark L. Venardi, Esq. Martin Zurada, Esq. Mark Freeman, Esq. VENARDI ZURADA LLP 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: 925-937-3900 Fax: 925-937-3905 PREMIER HEALTHCARE: FCRA and FLSA Class Certified in "Criddell" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MYLINDA CRIDDELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. PREMIER HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-05842-R- KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Manuel L. Real entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion to certify FCRA Class and FLSA Class; and 2. denying California Statutory Claims Class. The Court said, "Plaintiff has met the lenient standard for preliminary certification. For support of her claim that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages, Plaintiff cites deposition testimony of Defendant's corporate representative that the overtime pay policy was not enacted until in November. Plaintiff alleges that overtime pay should have begun in mid- October of the same year. This testimony indicates that potential plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy that violated the law by failing to pay overtime wages when legally required to do so. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1SeKGrQh PTZ INSURANCE: "Legg" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER LEGG and PAGE LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PTZ INSURANCE AGENCY, LTD. an Illinois Corporation, and PETHEALTH, INC., a Canadian Corporation, and FAIRFAX FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LTD., a Canadian Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-10043 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant Plaintiffs' second amended motion for class certification of: Class - for Defendants Sending Advertising Robocalls: "(1) all persons in the United States (2) who Defendants or some person on Defendants' behalf (3) called on their cell phone using an artificial or prerecorded voice message to play Defendants' Day 2 or Day 6 message (4) where the person did not provide signed express written consent to receive automated prerecorded calls (5) in the period between October 16, 2013 to the present"; and Class - for Defendants Sending Robocalls: "(1) all persons in the United States (2) who Defendants or some person on Defendants' behalf (3) called on their cell phone using an artificial or prerecorded voice message to play Defendants' Day 2 or Day 6 message (4) where the recipient did not give prior express consent to Defendants to receive automated calls (5) in the period between October 16, 2013 to the present". The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives and appoint Plaintiffs' counsel to be counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p4lLgQuJ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Michael R. Karnuth, Esq. Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. Michael Hilicki, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312 726 1092 Facsimile: 312 726 1093 E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. Patrick C. Crotty, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Ste. 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589 0588 Facsimile: (954) 337 0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com patrick@scottdowens.com RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Faces "Guldmann" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raymours Furniture Company, Inc. The case is captioned as Rony Guldmann, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly- situated, the Plaintiff, v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00614 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017). Raymours Furniture, doing business as Raymour & Flanigan Furniture, retails furniture and mattresses in the United States. The Plaintiff appears pro se. RESTAURANT.COM INC: Shelton Appeals Decision to Third Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Larissa Shelton and Gregory Bohus filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit titled Larissa Shelton, et al. v. Restaurant.Com Inc., Case No. 3-10-cv-00824, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The appellate case is captioned as Larissa Shelton, et al. v. Restaurant.Com Inc., Case No. 17-1172, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 6, 2017, Defendant Restaurant.Com Inc. filed an appeal to the Third Circuit from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is captioned as Larissa Shelton, et al. v. Restaurant.Com Inc., Case No. 17-1078. The Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they purchased gift certificates from Restaurant.com that allegedly violated several New Jersey statutes. Restaurant.com sold gift certificates online that provided a credit for the holder for purchases of food and beverages at the restaurant named on the certificate. The amount paid did not always coincide with the face amount of the certificate with standard terms and conditions that the certificate expired one (1) year from date of issue, except in California and where otherwise provided by law and the certificate was void to the extent prohibited by law. The Plaintiffs filed a purported class action against Restaurant.com in New Jersey state court, and the case was later removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs-Appellees LARISSA SHELTON and GREGORY BOHUS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com - and - Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Christopher J. McGinn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN 79 Paterson Street New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Telephone: (732) 937-9400 Facsimile: (800) 931-2408 E-mail: mcginn.chris@gmail.com - and - Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. Henry P. Wolfe, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 Facsimile: (732) 545-1030 E-mail: awolf@wolflawfirm.net hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net Defendant-Appellee RESTAURANT.COM INC. is represented by: Michael R. McDonald, Esq. Caroline E. Oks, Esq. Jennifer M. Thibodaux, Esq. GIBBONS PC One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4827 Facsimile: (973) 639-6295 E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com coks@gibbonslaw.com jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com RITE AID: Discovery in "Indergit" Class Suit Remains Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery related to the merits of the claims in the lawsuit titled Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation is still ongoing, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2017, for the quarter period ended November 26, 2016. The Company has been named in a collective and class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al. pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store managers working in the Company's stores at various locations around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay. On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014. The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied in September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York. Discovery related to the merits of the claims is ongoing. At this time, the Company says it is not able to either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes, however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. Rite Aid Corporation is a full service pharmacy retail healthcare company, providing its customers and communities with the highest level of care and service through various programs it offers through its two reportable business segments: Retail Pharmacy segment and Pharmacy Services segment. The Company delivers comprehensive care to its customers through its 4,547 retail drugstores, 92 RediClinic walk-in retail health clinics and transparent and traditional EnvisionRx and MedTrak pharmacy benefit managers with over 4.0 million plan members. The Company also offers fully integrated mail-order and specialty pharmacy services through EnvisionPharmacies. RITE AID: "Hall" Wage-and-Hour Suit Set for Trial in January 2018 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation is defending itself against several lawsuits alleging violations of wage-and-hour laws in California, according to the Company's January 5, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 26, 2016. The Company is currently a defendant in several lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging violations of California wage- and-hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). The class actions pertaining to failure to reimburse business expenses and provide employee seating purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. The single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff lawsuits regarding failure to pay overtime and failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods, in the aggregate, seek substantial damages. The Company says it has aggressively challenged the merits of the lawsuits and, where applicable, the allegations that the cases should be certified as class or representative actions. In the business expense class action (Fenley v. Rite Aid Corporation, Santa Clara Superior Court), the parties have reached a settlement under which the Company will pay an immaterial amount to settle the class claims. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on September 8, 2016. The parties currently are involved with the notice process which will lead to a motion for final court approval being filed in calendar year 2017. In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed its motion for decertification, which motion was granted in November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition for review of the appellate court's decision with the California Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014. Proceedings in the Hall case were stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That decision was rendered on April 4, 2016. A status conference in the case was held on November 18, 2016, at which time the court lifted the stay and scheduled the case for trial on January 26, 2018. With respect to the California Cases, the Company, at this time, is not able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits. Rite Aid Corporation is a full service pharmacy retail healthcare company, providing its customers and communities with the highest level of care and service through various programs it offers through its two reportable business segments: Retail Pharmacy segment and Pharmacy Services segment. The Company delivers comprehensive care to its customers through its 4,547 retail drugstores, 92 RediClinic walk-in retail health clinics and transparent and traditional EnvisionRx and MedTrak pharmacy benefit managers with over 4.0 million plan members. The Company also offers fully integrated mail-order and specialty pharmacy services through EnvisionPharmacies. RITE AID: "Herring" Securities Suit Still Stayed in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- The securities lawsuit styled Herring v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., remains stayed in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's January 5, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 26, 2016. As of November 26, 2016, the Company was aware of ten (10) putative class action lawsuits that were filed by purported Company stockholders, against the Company, its directors (the Individual Defendants, together with the Company, the Rite Aid Defendants), Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (WBA) and Victoria Merger Sub Inc., (Victoria) challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger agreement between the Company and WBA, Eight (8) of these actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Smukler v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Hirschler v. Standley, et al., Catelli v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Orr v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., DePietro v. Standley, et al., Abadi v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Mortman v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). One (1) action was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Sachs Investment Grp., et al. v. Standley, et al.). The complaints in these nine (9) actions alleged primarily that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly prevented the directors from obtaining higher offers from other interested buyers for the Company and allegedly failing to protect against certain purported conflicts of interest in connection with the Merger. The Complaints further allege that the Company, WBA and/or Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the closing of the Merger as well as money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees. On December 23, 2015, the eight (8) Delaware actions were consolidated in an action captioned In re Rite Aid Corporation Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11663-CB (the Consolidated Action). In addition to the claims asserted in the nine (9) complaints discussed above, the operative pleading in the Consolidated Action also included allegations that the preliminary proxy statement contained material omissions, including with respect to the process that resulted in the Merger agreement and the fairness opinion rendered by the Company's banker. On December 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a motion for expedited proceedings, which the Court orally denied at a hearing held on January 5, 2016. On March 11, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiffs' notice and proposed order voluntarily dismissing the Consolidated Action as moot, while retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On April 15, 2016, the Company reached a settlement in principle related to this matter for an immaterial amount. On May 11, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order regarding notice of payment thereof and final dismissal of this matter. A tenth action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania District Court), asserting a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants and WBA (Herring v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). The Herring complaint alleges, among other things, that Rite Aid and its Board of Directors disseminated an allegedly false and materially misleading proxy. The complaint sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the proxy was materially false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws, and an award of money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the plaintiff in the Herring action filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion for expedited discovery. On January 21, 2016, the Rite Aid Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Herring complaint. At a hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on January 28, 2016. On March 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court appointed Jerry Herring, Don Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead plaintiffs for the putative class and approved their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. On April 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the Herring action for all purposes pending consummation of the Merger. Rite Aid Corporation is a full service pharmacy retail healthcare company, providing its customers and communities with the highest level of care and service through various programs it offers through its two reportable business segments: Retail Pharmacy segment and Pharmacy Services segment. The Company delivers comprehensive care to its customers through its 4,547 retail drugstores, 92 RediClinic walk-in retail health clinics and transparent and traditional EnvisionRx and MedTrak pharmacy benefit managers with over 4.0 million plan members. The Company also offers fully integrated mail-order and specialty pharmacy services through EnvisionPharmacies. ROGERS & CARTER: Aberchrombie's Class Certification Bid Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Elizabeth Erny Foote entered an order in the lawsuit entitled BENNIE E. ABERCHROMBIE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROGERS, CARTER & PAYNE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-02214-EEF-KLH (W.D. La.), dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for lack of standing and denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EvPBFQV0 SARASOTA COUNTY, FL: Bus Drivers Class Certified in "Leo" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SUSAN LEO, ROBERT BIEGEL, THERESA JONES, LUIS MORALES, BONNIE CHRISTIE, ANDREW GAMMILL, PAUL NAUGLE, RONALD SEEKFORD, and SHEILA SEEKFORD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03190-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. James S. Moody Jr. entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for an order permitting court supervised notice to employees of their opt-in rights; 2. certifying a class of: "all current and former school bus drivers employed by Sarasota County School Board during the period of time from three years prior to the date that the notice is sent who were not paid overtime for any hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek"; 3. directing parties to confer with respect to any remaining objections to certain provisions of the notice (to the extent not already addressed by the Court), and to file a joint proposed notice within 14 days of the Order. If the parties are unable to agree on the details of the notice, they shall individually file a proposed notice for the Court's review during that same period of time. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nVmv5bTP SEPHORA USA: Faces "Marett" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sephora USA, Inc. The case is captioned as Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sephora USA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00834 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017). Sephora USA owns and operates a chain of perfume and cosmetics stores worldwide. The company offers makeup products, skin care products, and fragrances. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com SHIVA ESTATE: Court Denied Class Certification in "Shuler" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Elizabeth A. Kovachevich entered an order in the lawsuit entitled DELORES SHULER, the Plaintiff, v. SHIVA ESTATE, INC., AJAY GUPTA, and NORAMA RESORTS LLC, as successor in interest, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-02248-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla.), denying motion for conditional class certification without prejudice. Ms. Shuler is granted leave to refile the motion in Ms. Shuler's name on or before March 9, 2017. In the renewed motion for conditional class certification, Ms. Shuler is directed to specifically delineate any and all allegations, affidavits, and other proffered evidence tending to show that the proposed class of Plaintiffs are similarly situated to Ms. Shuler. Ms. Shuler is additionally directed to refile the notices of consent to join under Ms. Shuler's name. Additionally, Ms. Shuler will brief the merits of the arguments in Section 11 of the Defendant's Response in Opposition in a separate filing to be filed with the Court on or before March 9, 2017. Defendants shall respond to the renewed motion for class certification and any other argument advanced by Ms. Shuler on or before March 31, 2017. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GAbEDq2o SHOP VAC: Judge Requires Two Settlement Objectors to Post Bonds --------------------------------------------------------------- John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that a federal judge is requiring two objectors to post bonds if they want to continue to appeal the settlement of federal class action lawsuits that claimed Shop Vac Corp wet-dry vacuums do not live up to their advertised specifications. But U.S. Middle District Judge Yvette Kane on Feb. 8 set the amount of the bonds at $5,000 each, rather than the $32,000 sought by the class plaintiffs. The judge, who noted neither Michelle Vullings nor Shirley Morales attended a settlement fairness hearing, gave each 14 days to post the bonds. The two women, who the class plaintiffs called "serial objectors," claimed they would be unable to post $32,000 if that was required. Bonds were sought from Ms. Vullings of Collegeville and Ms. Morales of Oregon to ensure the class would be reimbursed the cost of defending the appeals. They are appealing Judge Kane's December decision giving final approval to the settlement and denying their objections. The settlement awarded $5,000 to each of four named plaintiffs in Florida, Missouri, California and Illinois and $4.25 million in legal fees. Judge Kane estimated the value of the settlement, in which Shop Vac, headquartered in Williamsport, did not admit any liability, at nearly $175 million. Besides the cash payments and attorney fees, Shop Vac agreed to a two-year extension of the warranty on the motors of the vacuums purchased or acquired since Jan. 1, 2006. It also agreed to change how it refers to peak horsepower on marketing materials and alter what the plaintiffs claimed is misleading information about the canister size measurement. Ms. Vullings in her objection contended all class members should receive a cash payment for their waiver of consumer fraud and warranty claims and she disputed the amount of the attorney fees. Ms. Morales also objected to the attorney fees and claimed the settlement is over inclusive. Of the 1,164,149 individuals who received notice of the settlement, only three filed an objection. Ms. Vullings and Ms. Morales were the only two to appeal Kane's order rejecting them. SHOPPERLOCAL LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Cunningham" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHOPPERLOCAL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00024-UA-LPA (M.D.N.C.), Mr. Craig Cunningham moves the Court for an order certifying these two classes: Class A: "all persons in the United States, from four years prior to the filing of the instant Complaint through the date of the filing of the instant Complaint, to whom, without obtaining the persons' prior express consent, Defendant, using an automatic telephone dialing system as defined in the TCPA, initiated and/or caused to be initiated calls to the persons' cellular telephones"; and Class B: "all persons in the United States, from October 16, 2013, through the date of the filing of the instant Complaint, to whom, without obtaining the person's prior express written consent, Defendant, using an automatic telephone dialing system as defined in the TCPA, made, initiated and/or caused to be initiated any calls to the persons' cellular telephones or residential telephones whose subject matter was identical or substantially similar to the subject matter of the call Defendant made to Plaintiff". Cunningham also seeks appointment as class representative of the two proposed classes. Cunningham further requests that the Court appoint his counsel to serve as class counsel pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xfMGkkg6 The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Matthew Norris, Esq. NORRIS LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 1318 Wake Forest, NC 27588 Telephone: (919) 981 4475 Facsimile: (919) 926 1676 E-mail: jmn@ncconsumerlaw.com - and - Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358 5345 Facsimile: (212) 571 0284 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Eilender, Esq. Seth D. Allen, Esq. SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP 26 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 344 5400 Facsimile: (212) 344 7677 E-mail: jeilender@schlamstone.com sallen@schlamstone.com SILVER DOLLAR: Exotic Dancers Class Certified in "Murray" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MARIAH MURRAY and AMBER EVANS, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS, the Plaintiffs, v. SILVER DOLLAR CABARET, INC.; PLATINUM CABARET, LLC; ANTHONY F. CATROPPA; and ANTHONY K. CATROPPA, each individually and as officers and/or directors of Silver Dollar Cabaret, Inc. and/or Platinum Cabaret, LLC, Case No5:15-cv-05177-PKH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. P.K. Holmes, III entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' second motion for conditional certification of a collective action, disclosure of contact information for potential opt-in plaintiffs, and to send court-approved notice. The Court conditionally certifies an opt-in class of: "all exotic dancers who worked for Defendants Silver Dollar Cabaret, Inc., Platinum Cabaret, LLC, Anthony F. Catroppa, and Anthony K. Catroppa (Defendants) in the State of Arkansas at any time since February 15, 2013. Upon receiving the information described below, Plaintiffs will have 90 days by which to distribute notice and file opt-in plaintiffs' signed consent to join forms with the Court. The 90-day opt-in period will begin on March 1, 2017". The Court will toll the statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs from February 15, 2013 to February 8, 2017. The Defendants are directed to provide the names, mailing addresses, email addresses and phone numbers for all individuals who worked for Defendants as exotic dancers at any time since February 15, 2013. The use of phone numbers to contact putative class members is conditioned on notice by mail being returned as undeliverable. Defendants may provide this information ordered disclosed in any reasonable format. Defendants have until February 22, 2017 to deliver the contact information to Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' proposed notice, consent to join, and follow-up postcard are approved. The Defendants are directed to post the notice in a conspicuous location at their facilities where putative class members would be most likely to see it, to maintain an adequate number of copies of the consent to join at all times, and to distribute a copy of the notice and consent to join to any dancer or former dancer who requests one. In all other respects, the second motion for conditional certification of a collective action is denied. The Plaintiffs' second motion for Rule 23 class certification is denied. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fAPBWijp SMITH & NEPHEW: Hip Implant Class Action Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------- Canadian Underwriter reports that the Supreme Court of Canada will not hear an appeal from medical equipment firm Smith & Nephew plc, paving the way for a class action lawsuit to proceed in Alberta. In 2015, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied an application, from Milana Warner, to certify a lawsuit against London, England- based Smith & Nephew as a class proceeding. The ruling was overturned on appeal. On Feb. 3, the Supreme Court of Canada announced it dismissed Smith & Nephew's application for leave to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal decision, released July 27, 2016. In 2005, Ms. Warner had the Birmingham hip resurfacing system, made by Smith & Nephew, implanted by an orthopaedic surgeon. "Unfortunately, problems developed which led to removal of the system and a total hip replacement," Mr. Justice Glen Poelman of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench wrote in 2015. About three months after her surgery, Ms. Warner "noticed the system beginning to "pop and click'" Justice Poelman added. "A blood test showed elevated metal ion levels." Court records indicate Ms. Warner was told the levels of cobalt in her system were considered toxic. She filed a lawsuit against Smith & Nephew and applied for certification of her action as a class proceeding. "Members of the class would be all persons in Canada who have had the defendant's system implanted," Justice Poelman wrote. Justice Poelman found that Warner "failed to establish that there is an identifiable class of two or more persons" though he ruled that Warner could pursue an individual action against Smith & Nephew. In overturning Justice Poelman's ruling, the province's appeal court noted, in a divided ruling, that a "a consideration of the merits of the claim itself is neither necessary nor warranted at the certification stage, nor is the certification judge to enter into a weighing of conflicting evidence with respect to the merits of the claim." The Alberta Court of Appeal cited case history, including the Supreme Court of Canada ruling, released in 2001, against John Hollick, who wanted to sue the City of Toronto over noise and pollution from the Keele Valley landfill north of the city. Mr. Hollick sought to represent 30,000 people living in the area. A motions judge allowed him to pursue the claim in 1997, but that ruling was overturned on appeal. It was likely, in the complaint involving the Keele Valley landfill, "that some areas were affected more seriously than others, and that some areas were affected at one time while other areas were affected at other times," Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin wrote in Hollick. In determining whether there are common issues among class members, "the representative need not show that everyone in the class shares the same interest in the resolution of the asserted common issue," Chief Justice McLachlin wrote in Hollick. "There must be some showing, however, that the class is not unnecessarily broad -- that is, that the class could not be defined more narrowly without arbitrarily excluding some people who share the same interest in the resolution of the common issue. Where the class could be defined more narrowly, the court should either disallow certification or allow certification on condition that the definition of the class be amended." The Hollick ruling established that "any definition of the class may well exclude some potential claimants, and include some who will eventually be shown to have no claim," the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal wrote in Warner v Smith & Nephew. SOUTH AFRICA: Families Shocked Over Solidarity Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- "Who the hell are they?" asked family member Christine Nxumalo when told of Solidarity's decision to launch a class action suit on behalf of the families of 94 mentally ill patients who died in Gauteng after being transferred to NGOs, Katharine Child, writing for Times Live, reports. Ms. Nxumalo lost her sister Virginia Machpelah on August 15th after she was transferred from Life Esidimeni in June to so-called NGO Precious Angels. She is yet to receive Ms. Machpelah's autopsy report to determine the cause of death. On Feb. 8, Solidarity's charity arm Helpende Hand announced it was representing the families of the 94 patients who died so that they could launch a class action lawsuit to sue for compensation for trauma they suffered. It confirmed it did not yet have the names of the victims. Ms. Nxumalo said she had not been consulted by Solidarity Helpende Hand. "I don't know them. They don't represent me. Nobody has called me. Where were they when they were needed?" "After the [health] ombudsman's press briefing many lawyers have been calling. They realised there was this gold mine. "It is about them and what they can get, not us. I am surprised by people like this. After what we have gone through, we need some compassion." Ms. Nxumalo said the SA Depression and Anxiety Group and Section 27 had been representing the families since November 2015 soon after the move of patients from Life Esidimeni had been announced. The SA Depression and Anxiety group was not invited to the media briefing. Its spokesman Cassey Chambers was mystified at the announcement of the lawsuit. "It seems odd that the family members that we have been dealing with since the beginning know nothing about this lawsuit. Surely a class action would want to represent the majority of family members affected," she said. Solidarity Helpende Hand CEO Dirk Hermann said: "We are willing to work with everyone. After a case goes to court, everyone comes to together and the different legal teams meet each other." Their advocate Jacques Basson said the legal action had only been decided on Feb. 6. "There are different organisations involved with relatives. But no one as yet has said they are prepared to go for court for these people." He said the organisation was using the media conference to call for the families of loved ones to come forward and join in the class action. "The point is someone needs to go to court. We're willing to go to court." The second court action Solidarity Helpende Hand wants to start is to ask that the court order the department of health to act on the ombudsman's recommendations. This would enable Solidarity to approach the courts if the Gauteng department of health did not follow the ombudsman's recommendations to move patients out of NGOs or discipline officials involved, he said. T-MOBILE USA: Faces "Salgado" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc. The case is styled as EMMANUEL SALGADO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-17- 100243 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 3, 2017). T-Mobile is a major wireless network operator in the United States. The German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom is its majority shareholder. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes 5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5614 Telephone: (323) 302 9675 Facsimile: (323) 549 0101 T-MOBILE USA: Rahmany Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs David Moshe Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled David Rahmany, et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01416-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was filed on September 6, 2016, and assigned to Judge John C Coughenour. The Plaintiffs accuse T-Mobile, a major wireless network operator in the United States, of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is captioned as David Rahmany, et al. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-35094, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by March 2, 2017; -- Transcript is due on April 3, 2017; -- Appellants David Moshe Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany's opening brief is due on May 11, 2017; -- Appellee Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc.'s answering brief is due on June 12, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID MOSHE RAHMANY and YEHUDA RAHMANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason Ibey, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Personal: 619-233-7770 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com Defendant-Appellee SUBWAY SANDWICH SHOPS, INC., is represented by: Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq. Derin B. Dickerson, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 E-mail: kristy.brown@alston.com derin.dickerson@alston.com - and - Michael A. Moore, Esq. CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE, LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98154 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 Facsimile: (206) 625-0900 E-mail: mmoore@corrcronin.com TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Cir. Revives Actos Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived claims in Manhattan on February 8, that Takeda Pharmaceuticals delayed a competitor from releasing a generic version of its diabetes drug Actos. Unions and municipalities that purchase drugs for their employees brought the underlying class action in Manhattan. They claimed in a federal complaint that Takeda's monopolization of the market for Actos forced them to pay inflated prices from at least January 2011, when Takeda's patent on the active ingredient in Actos expired, to at least February 2013, when generic competitors began to flood the market. The case hinged on a claim that Takeda used false patent descriptions to force generic competitors into an approval process by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that gives first filers a 180-day exclusivity periods and bottlenecks subsequent filers. Of the 10 drugmakers that wanted to market generic versions of Actos, nine took the bottlenecked route and faced patent- infringement suits from Takeda. Though the first three reached settlements that allowed them to begin marketing their versions on August 17, 2012, the latter six had to wait until February 2013. Teva was the only generic drugmaker that sought approval of its drug through another regulatory scheme, but it wound up in the bottlenecked route anyway because of an FDA announcement. Though a federal judge dismissed the class action, the Second Circuit reversed in part on February 8, saying the claims regarding Teva's market entry may have merit since they do not require any knowledge of Takeda's allegedly false patent descriptions. "Teva's application received preliminary approval from the FDA in 2006, and if Teva had been granted final approval, then it would not have been subject to the first-filers' 180-day exclusivity period, and could have begun marketing generic Actos for non- patented uses," the 18-page ruling states. Sitting by designation from the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff wrote the opinion for a three- person panel. The class's unsuccessful theory "posits a delay in the marketing of generic alternatives to ACTOS by all the generic applicants other than Teva," according to the ruling. "Plaintiffs claim that but for the false patent descriptions, applicants would not have been forced to make Paragraph IV certifications, no bottleneck would have arisen, and one or more generics would have entered the market as early as January 2011," Rakoff wrote. The court called this theory implausible on February 8, however, because it "presupposes that the generic manufacturers knew that Takeda had described them as drug product patents when they filed their ANDAs [abbreviated new drug applications]." Rakoff said it was "incumbent upon plaintiffs to allege that the generic applicants were aware of the descriptions when they filed their ANDAs in 2003 and 2004." "The complaint is bereft of any such allegations," he added. Seeing the claims involving Teva in a different light, however, Rakoff noted that "this second theory does not depend on Teva's knowledge of Takeda's description of its patents as drug product patents, because the FDA's 2010 announcement was itself expressly based on Takeda's repeated and allegedly false patent descriptions." Rakoff said the FDA made no attempt to evaluate whether the descriptions of the patents were true. "While Teva thereafter sought to challenge the truthfulness of these descriptions in its litigation with Takeda (but settled before the issue was resolved), the damage had been done," Rakoff wrote (parentheses in original). "A plaintiff could hardly ask for a clearer causal connection." U.S. Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs and Debra Ann Livingston joined the opinion. The plaintiffs are represented by Steve Shadowden with Hilliard & Shadowden of Austin,Texas. Teva is represented by Rohit Singla of Munger, Tolles & Olson in San Francisco. Neither firm has returned emails seeking comment sent outside business hours. TEXAS LAW: Crowley Files Appeal in Texas Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------ BRAD CROWLEY AND TERRILYN CROWLEY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Petitioner v. TEXAS LAW SHIELD, LLP, DARREN R. RICE, T. EDWIN WALKER, WALKER & RICE, PC, AND WALKER & BYINGTON, PLLC, the Respondents, Case No. 17-0096 16- 55228 (Tex. Sup. Ct., Feb. 3, 2017), is an appeal filed before the Texas Supreme Court from a lower court decision in a class action with Case No. 14-15-00705-CV (14th Court of Appeals). Texas Law Shield's site claims that it's not a law firm, but a "legal services provider." TLS refers its members directly to attorneys who handle their legal problems, purportedly at no extra cost. The Petitioners are represented by: D. Todd Smith, Esq. Maitreya Tomlinson, Esq. SMITH LAW GROUP LLLP 1250 Capital of Texas Highway South Three Cielo Center, Suite 601 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: 512-439-3230 Facsimile: 512-439-3232 Website: http://www.appealsplus.com The Respondents are represented by: Roger D. Townsend, Esq. Marcy Hogan Greer, Esq. Patrick Kevin Leyendecker, Esq. ALEXANDER DUBOSE JONES & TOWNSEND LLP 1844 Harvard St., Ste. 2350 Houston, TX 78701-3562 TIME WARNER: Says Race Discrimination Claims Too Vague to Stand --------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Greene and Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, report that Time Warner Inc. on Feb. 7 struck back at a proposed class action alleging its hiring and performance review systems keep minorities from being promoted, telling a Georgia federal court the claims in the race discrimination suit are too vague to stand. TBS senior manager Ernest Colbert Jr. and ex-CNN executive administrative assistant Celeslie Henley, both of whom are black, told the Northern District of Georgia in their December complaint that Time Warner's promotion and review policies all but block minority employees from rising through the ranks, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The employee rating system, the workers said, was biased enough to let white leadership handpick internal candidates for promotion, leaving out minorities. But the claims in the suit are so unclear that Time Warner is uncertain which of its four units is being accused of which activity, and which policies are even in question, because no specific policy was drawn into the spotlight in the complaint, the company argued in its motion to dismiss. "Plaintiffs' claims are merely conclusory, failing to put defendants on reasonable notice of the specific allegations being asserted against them or upon which a plausible claim for relief is based," Time Warner said. The proposed class, too, is laid out in a sweeping definition that doesn't explain which workers would be included, and features claims for discrimination over a two-decade period, despite the longest statute of limitations closing out at four years, Time Warner said in its filing. Mr. Colbert and Ms. Henley had held up an internal Time Warner human resources analytics document, a "diversity trends" report spanning from 2010 through the first quarter of 2013, that the two claim shows bias against minorities. According to the complaint, Time Warner's manager-run performance evaluation system consistently results in significantly worse ratings for minorities, especially minority males, than for whites. Mr. Colbert and Ms. Henley further claim that minorities are promoted and paid less than whites in the same or similar positions, and that minorities hold next to no leadership roles, even in divisions where they comprise the majority of employees. Ms. Henley also said that she was discriminated against shortly after returning from maternity leave, and that she was fired five days after lodging a complaint with human resources about her treatment, court records show. Mr. Colbert, meanwhile, said that in his nearly 20 years at the company, he's long been paid below his grade level and receives thousands of dollars less per year than white employees who have comparable roles in the company. Mr. Colbert and Ms. Henley aim to represent a class of black salaried and mid-level managerial employees who worked at Time Warner between April 1997 and now. In its motion to dismiss on Feb. 7, Time Warner zeroed in on the size of the class, saying the description of potential class members was unclear and that the claims, both for the individual workers and the class, ran back too far in time to be covered by law. Daniel R. Meachum, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Law360 on Feb. 8 he's not concerned about overcoming Time Warner's challenge to the suit. "These kinds of motions to dismiss are customary responses by most defendants in cases of this nature and we will address their arguments in our response," Mr. Meachum said. "We see no problem presently in overcoming their argument in our responses and now have more than 130 potential members of the putative class." An attorney for Time Warner didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Feb. 8. Mr. Colbert and Ms. Henley are represented by Daniel R. Meachum of Daniel R. Meachum & Associates and Mario Williams of Williams Oinonen LLC. Time Warner is represented by Leslie A. Dent -- ldent@littler.com -- Dionysia Johnson-Massie -- djmassie@littler.com -- and Amy M. Palesch -- apalesch@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC and James A. Lamberth -- james.lamberth@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman Sanders LLP. The case is Celeslie Henley et al v. Turner Broadcasting System Inc. et al, case number 1:16-cv-04506, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. TINDER: 11th Cir. Reinstates Dating App Fees Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Geske, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Florida man's second lawsuit over the additional charges he incurred to have more "likes" for use on the dating app Tinder was recently reinstated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Billy Warner filed the suit on Oct. 9 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, claiming Tinder violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trades Practices Act, Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and the California Business and Professions Code. The violations allegedly came when Warner was charged additional fees to gain more "likes" to use with the app. The Florida court dismissed the lawsuit as a sanction because Mr. Warner had previously filed essentially the same lawsuit in California federal court in 2015. That court dismissed, without prejudice, the case, allowing him to amend. Instead of amending his complaint, he voluntarily dismissed it and basically refiled it in the Florida court, which ruled he had engaged in judge-shopping. Tinder allows users to swipe right and "like" profiles of persons they are interested in. When both users "like" and swipe right, a match is made and communication between the two users can ensue through Tinder. Tinder changed its use policy and began charging its users additional fees to garner more "likes," but the company claims it notified its users of the change. Mr. Warner claims he was never notified of the policy change by Tinder until he ran out of "likes" and decided to purchase more at the nominal fee of $2.99, which he believed would give him an unlimited amount of likes. Mr. Warner was again allegedly prompted for more money from the app for more "likes," which he paid in the amount of $19.99. He also claimed that his bank account continued to be charged the $2.99 fee despite paying the $19.99 for the new service. He had assumed he ended his $2.99 service. He claims the two services he is paying for with Tinder are identical and filed a class action suit on behalf of all others affected by the dating app. While his initial suit was dismissed by the district court, he filed an appeal Jan. 17 in the 11th Circuit, which reversed the dismissal. "The 11th Circuit found that the record developed in the trial court did not appear to support the imposition of a sanction as harsh as dismissal with prejudice, so it remanded for reconsideration of whether a lesser, if any, sanction against was indeed warranted against Warner," Jeremy Gilman, a partner with Benesch, told Legal Newsline. Mr. Warner is determined to have the case certified as a class- action suit, where anyone that downloaded the app prior to March 2, 2015, which Tinder says it began notifying its users of the use changes. "The two subclasses he also seeks to have certified are nationwide classes, including one consisting of 'all persons in the United States whose bank accounts were debited on a reoccurring basis by defendants without defendants obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers within the one year prior to the filing of the complaint,' and another consisting of 'all persons in the United States that purchased a subscription from defendant via the defendant's app, and who were charged a rate that exceeded the rate available for a comparable purchase by an individual who was offered a discount based on their reported age,'" said Mr. Gilman. TRIPOINT GLOBAL: Faces "Blank" Suit Over Hamilton Broadway Show --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that on the heels of securities charges over a ticket-resale scheme involving the Broadway megahit "Hamilton," a class of shareholders in Manhattan, blames due- diligence failures by Tripoint Global Equities for buoying a Ponzi scheme that has quickly become known as "Hamilcon." The case is captioned, ADAM BLANK, individually and as trustee of the ADAM BLANK 2012 GRAT, ACKER FAMILY 2012 GIFT TRUST and ACKER FAMILY 2013 GIFT TRUST, Plaintiffs, v. TRIPOINT GLOBAL EQUITIES, LLC, TRIPOINT CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, MARK H. ELENOWITZ and MICHAEL BOSWELL, Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-00876-ALC (S.D.N.Y. February 6, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: David Pfeffer, Esq. Richard Schoenstein, Esq. Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP 1350 Broadway New York, New York 10018 Tel: (212) 216-8075 TRS STAFFING: Williams Seeks Conditional Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JAY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. TRS STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., and FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00119 (S.D. Tex.), Mr. Williams asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action; 2. directing Defendants to furnish Plaintiff's counsel with a complete and accurate list of the names, social security numbers, and last known addresses and telephone numbers of the potential class members within 14 days from the date of the Court's order; 3. approving the issuance of notice and consent to join forms; and 4. granting all other relief to which Plaintiff may show himself justly entitled. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xnZ16FCF The Defendants have allegedly violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay properly their HSE Sr. Specialists the appropriate overtime pay due to them. As a result of Defendants' illegal pay scheme, each HSE SR. SPECIALISTS did not receive time and one half of his/her regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in one or more workweeks during his/her employment with Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq. THOMAS H. PADGETT, JR. ROSS LAW GROUP 4809 Pine St. Bellaire, TX 77401 Telephone: (800) 634 8042 Facsimile: (512) 474 7677 E-mail: tpadgett@rosslawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by Dennis P. Duffy, Esq. Kelline R. Linton, Esq. 811 Main Street, Suite 1100 Houston, TX 77002-4995 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Sends "Wilson" to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned WILLIAM SCROGGINS, RICHARD WILSON, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-01419-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind.), Judge Mark J. Dinsmore granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion to compel putative opt-in plaintiff Richard Wilson to arbitration and to dismiss him from the action. Wilson is an Indiana resident who worked as an Uber driver. At the heart of the case is the plaintiffs' contention that Uber misclassifies its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees resulting in the violation of wage payment laws. William Scroggins brought the diversity action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons working as drivers in the district for Uber Technologies, Inc. Wilson did not dispute that he accepted the Technology Services Agreement with Uber and did not opt out of the Arbitration Provision. Rather, he argued that the class action waiver included in the Arbitration Provision violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA) and therefore renders the Arbitration Provision unenforceable. Wilson first asserted the Arbitration Provision is unenforceable because it contains a class action waiver that violates Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA. However, Judge Dinsmore found that Wilson could have opted-out of the Arbitration Provision -- including the class action waiver -- even after he began driving for Uber, in order to preserve his right to pursue a collective action, as plaintiff Scroggins did. But Wilson did not do so. Wilson also argued that the NLGA prohibits the enforcement of class action waivers. The NLGA prohibits two types of agreements: (1) one in which a person promises not to join a labor union; and (2) one in which a person promises to withdraw from a labor union. Judge Dinsmore pointed out that an agreement to arbitrate is not covered by the NLGA and concluded that the NLGA does not render the class action waiver, or the Arbitration Provision, unenforceable. In summary, Judge Dinsmore granted the defendants' motion to compel individual arbitration and the matter is stayed as to Wilson only pending resolution of the arbitration proceeding. The judge denied the motion to dismiss, as the Seventh Circuit has held repeatedly, "the proper course of action when a party seeks to invoke an arbitration clause is to stay the proceedings rather than to dismiss outright." A full-text copy of Judge Dinsmore's January 26, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/hhPlaQ from Leagle.com. WILLIAM SCROGGINS, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Dressel, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, Brittany Weiner -- brittany@lawicm.com -- IMBESI LAW PC, pro hac vice, Irwin B. Levin -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Paul B. Maslo, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, Richard E. Shevitz -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP & Vess Allen Miller -- vmiller@cohenandalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, Defendants, represented by Alan L. McLaughlin -- amclaughlin@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Andrew M. Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., pro hac vice, Edward H. Chyun -- echyun@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., pro hac vice & Emily L. Connor -- econnor@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.. UNITED STATES: HHS Loses Bid to Dismiss Medicare Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that a Connecticut federal judge declined on Feb. 8 to dismiss class allegations against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, finding that Medicare patients claiming an agency policy forced them to overpay for hospital care sufficiently showed they were denied their constitutional right to due process. U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea dealt with a trio of motions in his 38-page order, denying summary judgment motions on both sides and partially denying HHS' motion to dismiss the case. Specifically, he found that HHS, through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, plausibly encouraged hospitals to place patients on "observation status" rather than admitting them as inpatients, thus causing the patients to pay more for their care without providing any way for the patients to appeal that decision. Judge Shea did dismiss the claim that patients did not receive enough notice about their status, finding it moot because no administrative appeal option existed for them to be notified of. Seven Medicare patients had filed the proposed class action in November 2011, claiming that certain services identical to those provided to inpatients are covered under Medicare Part B, not Part A, when provided to patients under observation, and are thus reimbursed at a lower rate. As such, the patients lost thousands of dollars in coverage when they were placed under observation. Although official Medicare policy leaves the status decision up to individual doctors, the patients argued that in practice, CMS pressures hospitals to list patients as under observation. The case was dismissed almost two years later. On appeal, the patients challenged the dismissal of their claims that the agency had violated the Medicare Act and the constitutional due process clause by not providing sufficient notice or a chance to appeal the observational status decision. In January 2015, the Second Circuit upheld the lower court's dismissal of the patients' Medicare Act claims, but revived the due process claims. Currently, the case has 14 plaintiffs, but they have not refiled a class certification motion after the original one was denied as moot. To sufficiently allege their Fifth Amendment rights were violated, the patients had to show that state action deprived them of liberty or property without due processes. To help answer this question, the Second Circuit ordered the lower court to oversee a limited discovery period on whether being admitted as inpatients was a "property interest," and address it in summary judgment, the judge said on Feb. 8. He then denied both sides' summary judgment motions because important factual disputes remain. HHS had attempted to argue that the patients did not plausibly show that any state action led to their being listed as under observation. Judge Shea disagreed Wednesday, finding that the decision to list patients as under observation was plausibly the result of "significant encouragement" by the agency through CMS. Neither side could be reached for comment on Feb. 8. The patients are represented by Alice Bers, Gill Deford, Judith A. Stein and Toby S. Edelman of the Center for Medicare Advocacy Inc., Anna Rich, Kevin Prindiville and Eric Carlson of Justice in Aging, and Luke A. Liss, Dylan G. Savage, Jason B. Mollick and Whitney Costin of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. The government is represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Joel McElvain and Kieran G. Gostin of the U.S. Department of Justice. The case is Alexander et al. v. Cochran, case number 3:11-cv- 01703, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. UNITED STATES: Marroquin-Perez Files Suit v. Atty. General ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against acting U.S. Attorney General Dana Boente. The case is captioned as Monica Marroquin- Perez, On Behalf of Herself and Those Similarly Situated, the Petitioner, v. Dana Boente, Acting U.S. Attorney General; John F Kelly, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (named as DHS); Juan Osuna, Acting Director, EOIR; Michael Zackowski, Assistant ICE Field Office Director, Arizona District; Unknown Party, named as John Doe 1, Officer-in-Charge, Eloy Detention Facility; and Michael J Donahue, Warden, Eloy Detention Facility, the Respondents, Case No. 2:17-cv-00366-JJT--JFM (D. Ariz., Feb. 5, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge John J Tuchi. The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice, concerned with legal affairs, and is usually assumed to be the chief law enforcement officer and chief lawyer of the United States government. The office is currently held by Dana J. Boente, who assumed the office on January 30, 2017 after the firing of acting Attorney General Sally Yates. The Petitioner is represented by: Joseph Kenneth Lacome, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH LACOME 1 E Washington St., Ste. 500 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (415) 847 1944 E-mail: lacomelaw@gmail.com UNITY BUILDING: Faces "Segura" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unity Building Services, Inc. The case is titled as Francisco Segura, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Unity Building Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00826 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017). Unity Building Services provides unarmed licensed guard services and commercial cleaning, support and maintenance services. The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY: Certification of Settlement Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Karen Rodriguez, et al., individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-60442-JIC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of the following proposed nationwide settlement class for settlement purposes only: "all current and former customers of defendant Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company who insured real property with defendant between September 1, 2013 and March 31, 2016". Excluded from the proposed class are defendant, its past or current officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns and entities in which any of them have a controlling interest. Also excluded is defendant's indirect ultimate parent entity, and any entity in which any of them have a controlling interest, directly or indirectly. The proposed class also excludes all judicial officers assigned to this case as defined by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b), and their immediate families. Subject to Court approval, defendant has agreed to pay awards of up to (but no more than) $7,500 individually to Karen Rodriguez, $7,500 individually to Antonio Rodriguez, and $7,500 jointly to Boris and Yelena Shaykevich. The Agreement is not conditioned on defendant's agreement to support (or the Court's award of) any attorney's fee application. However, defendant has agreed not oppose any fee application to the extent Class Counsel request up to (but not more than) $850,000 in fees and expenses. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=biWxSyYZ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc A. Wites, Esq. WITES & KAPETAN P.A. 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 570 8989 Facsimile: (954) 354 0205 E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. David A. Straite, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687 1980 Facsimile: (212) 687 7714 E-mail: dstraite@kaplanfox.com - and - E-mail: dstraite@kaplanfox.com Laurence D. King, Esq. Mario M. Choi, Esq. 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772 4700 Facsimile: (415) 772 4707 The Defendant is represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Bryan T. West, Esq. ACKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh St., Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 982 5600 E-mail: Marcy.aldrich@ackerman.com Bryan.west@ackerman.com - and - Edward R. McNicholas, Esq. Clayton G. Northouse, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 736 8010 E-mail: emcnicholas@sidley.com cnorthouse@sidley.com US BANK: Defending Multiple Class Actions in New York ----------------------------------------------------- U.S. Bank National Association, in its capacity as trustee, defends multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts, according to Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC's January 3, 2017, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the semi-annual distribution period from July 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The plaintiffs or plaintiff groups have filed substantially similar complaints against other RMBS trustees, including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo. The complaints against U.S. Bank allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and assert causes of action based upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default. Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts with the most substantial case being: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action alleging claims with respect to approximately 794 trusts) and its companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S Bank National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.). Some of the trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock cases, as well as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case. U.S. Bank cannot assure as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously. US RX: MD Medical Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MD MEDICAL, LLC and MICHELLE DEES, M.D., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. US RX CARE, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11154 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify these classes: TCPA Class (Count I): "(1) all persons, (2) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C Sec. 1658) were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant, US RX, promoting its goods or services for sale, and (3) with respect to whom defendant cannot provide evidence of express consent or an established business relationship prior to the faxing"; ICFA Class (Count II): "(1) all persons and entities with Illinois fax numbers, (2) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant, US RX, promoting its goods or services for sale, and (3) with respect to whom Defendant cannot provide evidence of express consent or an established business relationship prior to the faxing"; and Illinois Common Law Class (Count III, Conversion; Count IV, Private Nuisance; and Count V, Trespass to Chattel): "(1) all persons and entities with Illinois fax numbers who, (2) on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant, US RX, promoting its goods or services for sale, and (3) with respect to whom Defendant cannot provide evidence of express consent or an established business relationship prior to the faxing". The Plaintiffs brought the action to secure redress for the actions of Defendant US RX CARE, LLC ("US RX"), in sending or causing the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and the common law (conversion, trespass to chattels and nuisance). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mi6zb10x The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Sobek., Esq. JS LAW 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone (312) 756 1330 E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Mission City Appeals Order in "Golan" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Mission City Management, Inc., Courage 2012, LLC, and James R. Leininger filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled RON GOLAN, et al. v. VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00069-ERW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 2, 2017, the District Court certified a class on January 18, 2017, to sue the telemarketers behind a robocall scheme that used the voice of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to promote a movie. Using a recording of Mr. Huckabee's voice, the survey asked consumers how they felt about "traditional American values." Mr. Huckabee was previously dismissed as a defendant to the Golans' lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On January 18, Judge E. Richard Webber certified the Golans to represent a class of Americans, who received the Huckabee-movie calls within four years of Oct. 3, 2012. The Defendants include Veritas Entertainment, LLC; Veritas Marketing Group, LLC; FreeEats.com, Inc., doing business as CC Advertising; AIC Communications, LLC, doing business as CC Advertising; Gabriel S. Joseph, III; Stephen Wayne Griffin; SixDi, Inc., doing business as SixDi; Bob Brewer; and Michael Dale Huckabee, also known as Mike Huckabee. The appellate case is captioned as Ron Golan, et al. v. Mission City Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8006, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Respondents Ron Golan and Dorit Golan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kevin M. Carnie, Jr., Esq. John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: kcarnie@simonlawpc.com - and - Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq. Robert Schultz, Esq. SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES LLP 640 Cepi Drive, Suite A Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221 Telephone: (636) 537-4645 Facsimile: (636) 537-2599 E-mail: reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com rschultz@sl-lawyers.com Petitioners Mission City Management, Inc., Courage 2012, LLC, and James R. Leininger are represented by: Ronald Michael Jacobs, Esq. Ari Nicholas Rothman, Esq. VENABLE LLP 575 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-0000 Telephone: (202) 344-8215 Facsimile: (202) 344-8300 E-mail: rmjacobs@Venable.com anrothman@Venable.com - and - Cicely I. Lubben, Esq. Jaclyn Niccole Warr, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-0800 E-mail: cicely.lubben@stinson.com nicci.warr@stinson.com WALGREENS BOOTS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit filed in Illinois, according to the Company's January 5, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2016. On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co. The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on February 5, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Walgreen Co.'s motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on November 4, 2016. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company which operates the second largest chain in the United States. WALGREENS BOOTS: Shareholders Drop Consolidated Actions in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2017, for the quarter period ended November 30, 2016, that the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their consolidated shareholder actions without prejudice. On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company's definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on December 29, 2014. The actions asserted claims that the definitive proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various respects. On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The proposed settlement was subject to, among other things, court approval. On July 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement, and on November 20, 2015, the Court entered an order of final approval of the settlement. On December 17, 2015, a purported class member who had objected to the settlement appealed the Court's order. The appeal was docketed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Oral argument was held on June 2, 2016. On August 10, 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued an order reversing the district court's judgment approving the settlement and remanding the case for further proceedings. On December 8, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the consolidated actions without prejudice. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company which operates the second largest chain in the United States. WALGREENS BOOTS: M.D. Pa. Suit Over Rite Aid Merger Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania over the proposed merger with Rite Aid Corporation remains stayed, according to Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.'s January 5, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2016. In the event that the merger contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of October 27, 2015 among the Company, Rite Aid Corporation ("Rite Aid") and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger Agreement") is not consummated on or prior to June 1, 2017 (the first anniversary of the issuance date of the notes) or if the Merger Agreement is terminated at any time on or prior to June 1, 2017, then Walgreens Boots Alliance will be required to redeem the notes due 2018, the notes due 2021 and the notes due 2023 (but not the notes due 2026 or notes due 2046) on the date described in the applicable note at a redemption price equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest from and including the date of initial issuance, or the most recent date to which interest has been paid, whichever is later, to, but excluding, the date of redemption. As of November 30, 2016, the Company was aware of ten putative class action lawsuits (the "Rite Aid actions") filed by purported Rite Aid stockholders against Rite Aid and its board of directors, Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims arising out of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the "Rite Aid Transactions"). Eight of the Rite Aid actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware actions"), one Rite Aid action was filed in the State of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (the "Pennsylvania action"), and one Rite Aid action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "federal action"). The Delaware actions and the Pennsylvania action primarily alleged that the Rite Aid board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Rite Aid Transactions by, among other things, agreeing to an unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making successful competing offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose all allegedly material information concerning the proposed merger; and also allege that Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The federal action alleges, among other things, that Rite Aid and its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid Transactions. The Delaware actions were consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder vote on the Rite Aid Transactions. The plaintiffs in the federal action also filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the same Rite Aid shareholder vote. All such motions were denied, and the Rite Aid shareholders approved the Rite Aid Transactions at a special meeting on February 4, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions agreed to a settlement in principle related to this matter for an immaterial amount. In the federal action, plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation until after the Rite Aid Transactions have closed. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company which operates the second largest chain in the United States. WIRTZ REALTY: Bid for Class Certification Taken Under Advisement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Andrea R. Wood entered an order in the lawsuit captioned EDUARDO CAZAREZ, the Plaintiff, v. WIRTZ REALTY CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06814 (N.D. Ill.), taking under advisement the Parties' joint motion for certification and for approval of collective action settlement agreement and notice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hu35aISj XTO ENERGY: Class Certification Bid Denied in Mobley Lumber Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Billy Roy Wilson entered an order in the lawsuit styled Mobley Lumber Company, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. XTO Energy, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00012-BRW (E.D. Ark.), denying Plaintiffs' motions for class certification. The Court said, "This case is comprised of Plaintiffs from two consolidated cases -- Mobley and Hutchinson. Plaintiffs propose five classes, all of whom assert that XTO defrauded Plaintiffs by selling gas to a subsidiary (Cross Timbers) at below-market price, which resulted in Plaintiffs receiving lower royalty payments. When combined, the proposed classes appear to cover everyone who received royalty payments from XTO after October 2006. In 2009, the Honorable G. Thomas Eisele denied certification of a class of royalty owners who alleged that XTO had underpaid royalties by deducting certain expenses that were hidden through an improper relationship between XTO and Cross Timbers. According to Plaintiffs, this case is different than Riedel [v. XTO Energy, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 494 (E.D. Ark. 2009)] because this is not a deductions case. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs are trying to "artfully cast their claim as a pricing claim." Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are trying "to confuse the Court and distract from the real contention." In fine, the parties disagree about what they disagree about. The question that resolves Plaintiffs' claims as pled in the Complaint and Motions for Class Certification is the same question posed in Riedel -- that is, whether Defendants paid lower royalty payments than each lease allowed. As Judge Eisele held in Riedel, certification is not appropriate here because individualized questions about what each lease allowed predominate over the common questions." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xSO3jMle YAHOO INC: Insurance Agent Files Data Theft Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Ethan Baron, writing for Silicon Beat, reports that in a claim that appears to contradict Yahoo's public statements on two record-setting breaches of users' personal data, a Texas insurance agent is alleging in a just-filed class-action lawsuit that his credit card data was stolen in the hacks, leading to fraudulent charges. Brian Neff, who owns an online insurance company based in Little Elm, Texas, said in the suit he paid Yahoo for web hosting and small-business email services. "In addition to paying Yahoo thousands of dollars for services that subjected him to a security breach, Mr. Neff was also a victim of actual identity theft following the data breaches," said the lawsuit filed Feb. 8 in U.S. District Court in San Jose. "He incurred fraudulent charges on his Capital One credit card and his Chase debit card, both of which were on file with Yahoo to pay for services connected with two of his websites, with Yahoo being the only company to which Mr. Neff had provided information about both accounts." The suit further alleged that an unauthorized credit card account in Mr. Neff's name was opened at Credit One Bank in 2015, with fraudulent charges made in May and June of that year. "The probability that separate criminals stole card information from separate sources, stole the information necessary to open a new credit card account from a separate source, and made fraudulent charges on all three cards in the same month is staggeringly remote," the lawsuit said. Yahoo said Feb. 8 it did not comment on litigation. Whether the claimed theft of Mr. Neff's credit and debit card information and fraudulent creation of a credit card account resulted from the firm's data breaches remains unproven. In the latter part of last year, Yahoo announced two record- setting hacks, of at least 500 million accounts in 2014 and of more than a billion accounts in 2013. The company also said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it knew of the 2014 hack for nearly two years before revealing it. Yahoo has issued two statements, one for each breach, concerning what might have been stolen. Both statements said email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, scrambled passwords, and security questions and answers may have been taken. Both statements said that Yahoo's investigation indicated no payment-card data or bank account information was taken. Regarding the 2014 hack, "payment card data and bank account information are not stored in the system that the investigation has found to be affected," Yahoo said. The firm's statement on the 2013 breach is slightly less conclusive: "Payment card data and bank account information are not stored in the system the company believes was affected," Yahoo said. Mr. Neff's suit accused Yahoo of negligently failing to take reasonable measures to protect users' data, failing to prevent the data breaches, failing to notify users that Yahoo's data-security measures were inadequate, and failing to promptly disclose it had been hacked. The firm's actions amounted to fraudulent and deceptive business practices, according to the suit. Mr. Neff is seeking unspecified damages, and certification of a plaintiff class made up of small-business customers of Yahoo. The Sunnyvale tech giant is in the midst of a sale to Verizon that has been delayed, and could be scrapped, as a result of the breaches. Yahoo has said it remains committed to the sale, but Verizon said in January it's still evaluating the larger of the two hacks. Yahoo said in January that the sale, supposed to close in the first quarter of this year, would be delayed until the second quarter. Analysts have predicted that if Verizon does buy Yahoo, it will be at a significant discount from the initial $4.8 billion price. Yahoo faces at least two dozen lawsuits related to the hacks, several of which have been wrapped into one. YAHOO INC: Faces Another Data Breach Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Trader, Cara Bayles and Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, report that Yahoo Inc. has been slapped with yet another proposed class action over two massive data breaches announced in late 2016 affecting more than one billion users, this time by a New Jersey couple who claim Yahoo's negligence has led to their information being used fraudulently by criminals. Matthew and Deana Ridolfo launched their suit in California federal court on Feb. 7 claiming that, since they became users in 2000 and turned over substantial personal information in the process, Yahoo has continuously represented that it had their privacy and security interests at heart. But wasn't actually the case, the couple said, because hackers were able to steal that information in two of the largest data breaches in U.S. history, which Yahoo revealed back in September and December. On Sept. 22, Yahoo announced that information related to 500 million accounts was stolen in late 2014. That breach was deemed the largest in history, until the company revealed on Dec. 14 that hackers had stolen one billion users' account data in 2013. Those breaches have taken a significant toll, the Ridolfos said, because just this past January they learned that their personal information was fraudulently accessed and used to open several credit cards and alter the information for various accounts, including their phone company account, which criminals allegedly accessed in order to reroute their home phone number to a different location. The couple said no doubt the stolen personal information was obtained through their Yahoo accounts, as each of them had used those accounts for financial and other confidential correspondence. "At no point prior to Yahoo's announcement on Sept. 22, 2016, were plaintiffs informed by Yahoo of a potential security breach exposing their personal data or provided any instructions regarding additional security measures to minimize their risk of identity theft," the couple wrote. As a result of the theft, the couple has enrolled in Life Lock, a privacy protection service, for roughly $30 a month in order to monitor and freeze their credit, and they also had to exert time changing their passwords and security questions for all of their accounts, all of which equates to real damage. According to the Ridolfos, Yahoo knew as early as July that hackers may have stolen the first trove of user data, but was unable to substantiate the hackers' claims. Therefore, rather than step up its own security measures or potentially warn the public of the hack, it did nothing, leaving all users vulnerable, the couple said. What's more, when the couple signed up for accounts with the company in 2000, they turned over substantial amounts of personal information after relying on Yahoo's assurances that it "takes your privacy seriously" and that "protecting our systems and our users' information is paramount to ensuring Yahoo users enjoy a secure user experience and maintaining our users' trust," the Ridolfos said. "The insufficient security policies and procedures implemented by Yahoo is a material fact that a reasonable consumer would consider when deciding whether to create an online account and provide personal information," the couple wrote. "Had plaintiffs and other class members known that Yahoo failed to employ necessary and adequate protection of their personal information, they would not have created a Yahoo account." A representative for Yahoo did not immediately return a request for comment, and counsel information wasn't immediately available. A stream of proposed class actions poured in after Yahoo revealed the initial breach in September, eventually leading the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize the cases in California's Northern District federal court in early December, which is where the Ridolfos filed their suit. Ridolfo is represented by Lee A. Cirsch, Robert K. Friedl and Trisha K. Monesi of Capstone Law APC. The case is Matthew and Deana Ridolfo v. Yahoo Inc., case number 3:17-cv-00619, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. YOUNG SHING: Faces "Escamilla" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Shing Trading Co., Inc. The case is entitled as Francisco Montenegro Escamilla, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Young Shing Trading Co., Inc., doing business as: Young Shing Trading Co.; Ki Tai Yeung; Wendy Yeung; and Ping Yeung, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00652 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017). Young Shing Trading is doing business in the food service wholesale industry. The Plaintiff appears pro se. * Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High in 2016 --------------------------------------------------------- Angela Madden, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that securities class actions in the United States rose to their highest level in 20 years and filings targeting European issuers reached record numbers. Securities class actions in the United States rose to their highest level in 20 years and filings targeting European issuers reached record numbers. In 2016, the 15 filings against European issuers were more than double the 1997-2015 historical average of seven. Securities Class Action Filings-2016 Year in Review issued by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse also revealed that for the first time since 2009, European filings outnumbered filings against Chinese issuers, who were the most common targets in 2015. Filings against firms headquartered in the United Kingdom (six), Germany (four), and Ireland (four) were the highest on record. "The majority of the European filings were in the Second Circuit, the federal district for New York," commented Mr Jamie Meehan, senior vice president and head of Cornerstone Research's European finance practice. "The pharmaceutical industry was the most heavily targeted with six filings, the only sector that had more than one in 2016." Overall, the record 270 federal filings in 2016 -- 82 more than in 2015 -- was 44 per cent above the historical average. The increase was largely due to 80 filings related to merger and acquisition transactions. Filings against foreign issuers totaled 42 in 2016, second only to 2011, according to the report. The report can be downloaded from Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. * Wage-and-Hour Class Actions Down in 2016, Report Shows -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Teachout, writing for Society for Human Resource Management, reports that although the number of wage and hour class-action lawsuit filings decreased last year, the settlement valuation has more than tripled over the last two years. An annual report by law firm Seyfarth Shaw that tracks class- action litigation data shows that the trend for wage and hour cases ran counter to other employment law class actions, which decreased in settlement value by nearly 30 percent overall. The report, issued Jan. 11, looked at class-action cases involving wage and hour law, employment discrimination, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and government enforcement. Employment class-action lawsuits can cost millions of dollars to defend and adversely impact a company's operations. In some cases they can even jeopardize or end senior management careers. The report showed that businesses face accelerating and rapidly changing litigation issues. Plaintiffs' class-action attorneys and governmental enforcement litigators are developing new theories to successfully prosecute complex employment litigation, said Gerald Maatman Jr., an attorney in Seyfarth Shaw's Chicago office and author of the report. Wage and Hour Case Filings Remain Prevalent In 2016, for the first time in 15 years, the number of wage and hour case filings decreased compared to the previous year. However, Mr. Maatman cautioned that this probably was just "an aberration." He noted that although wage and hour case filings decreased last year, 2016 still had the second-highest number of wage and hour cases ever filed. He expects an increase in wage and hour cases for the trend to return to the norm 2017. "To the extent that government wage and hour law enforcement is ratcheted down, the private plaintiffs' bar likely will 'fill the void' and again increase the number of wage and hour lawsuit filings," Mr. Maatman said. Such cases are particularly well-suited to the plaintiff's bar, he said, given the low investment needed to pass the threshold for class certification -- permitting individuals bringing different claims against a company to consolidate their claims. Expert opinion and documentation to bring a class action under other areas of employment law, such as employment discrimination, can cost upwards of $250,000, he said, and the data shows that only about half of the classes in other areas are certified. Wage and hour class cases, on the other hand, can be prepared for only a few thousand dollars and have a 76 percent certification rate. Once certification is granted, an employer is under great pressure to settle. Recent news reports on the overtime regulations may also spark more filings. "Historically," said Mr. Maatman, "when the FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act] and related wage and hour laws have received active media attention, the number of lawsuits filed under those laws has spiked," even though a court barred the overtime rule from taking effect as scheduled on Dec. 1, 2016. Regardless, the media attention surrounding the overtime rule makes wage and hour compliance a top priority, according to Mr. Maatman: "If [as a business owner] I have $100 to spend on compliance efforts, $95 to $99 would be focused on wage and hour compliance because that is where the most risk is these days." Value of Wage and Hour Settlements Rose The monetary value of the top employment-related class-action settlements declined significantly in 2016, Seyfarth Shaw found, after reaching all-time highs in 2014 and 2015. The top 10 settlements in the various employment categories totaled $1.75 billion in 2016, which declined from $2.48 billion in 2015 and $1.87 billion in 2014. In contrast, the value of wage and hour settlements increased significantly. The value of the top 10 settlements hit $695.5 million in 2016, a 50 percent increase over 2015's $463.6 million valuation, and more than triple the $215.3 million valuation in 2014. Decisions certifying wage and hour class-action lawsuits increased 11 percent over the previous year. But at the same time, employers won decertification motions at a slightly higher rate than in 2015. That both rates could increase reflects the 28 percent increase in certification cases overall, from 175 in 2015 to 224 in 2016. Impact of Supreme Court Rulings Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings increasingly have shaped and influenced class-action dynamics, according to Maatman. Cases last year, such as Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) and Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), were more favorable to plaintiffs and made it easier for class actions to advance. In Tyson, the court ruled that statistical sampling can be used to establish class-action claims in which large numbers of employees each assert small-dollar claims. In Spokeo, the court held that "standing" -- the ability to sue because one has a stake in the matter -- requires a showing of a "concrete injury" but not necessarily a "tangible injury." As a result, certain intangible harms may be sufficient to satisfy standing requirements. "The court decided several cases in 2016 that favored workers bringing class actions, which in turn portend significant challenges for employers facing these exposures in 2017," Mr. Maatman said. By declining several opportunities to impose more restraints on class actions and often deciding cases on narrow grounds, he said the Supreme Court left many gaps to be filled in by lower federal courts. Effect of Political Change The U.S. Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission continued their aggressive regulatory enforcement litigation programs last year. But Mr. Maatman said that their enforcement activities were limited in their effectiveness when measured by lawsuit filings and recoveries compared to previous years. However, he expects the agencies to continue their focus on systemic investigations and collective actions. Employment law class-action lawsuits are becoming more sophisticated, Mr. Maatman said, and will continue to be a source of significant risk for financial exposure to employers well into the future. The one sure bet in 2017, he said, is that "change is inevitable, and corporate America will encounter new litigation challenges." Employers can expect class-action lawsuits increasingly to combine claims under multiple statutes. "With the changeover from a Democratic White House to a Republican one and the second-most filings of wage and hour litigation [in 2016] over the past decade, 2017 is sure to present twists and turns for employers in dealing with these types of litigation issues," Mr. Maatman said. Robert Teachout, SHRM-SCP, is a writer in Washington, D.C., who covers employment law and HR issues. * Reed Smith Attorney Balks at Class Action Cy Pres Abuse --------------------------------------------------------- James Beck, Esq., of Reed Smith, in an article for JDSupra, states "We can't stand 'cy pres' distributions of class action settlement funds to non-litigants. We've blogged about this benighted doctrine many times. We fought against cy pres at in the ALI, and we've been fighting against it through Lawyers for Civil Justice in the context of federal rules amendments." "Sure, cy pres can be useful in resolving this or that class action once our clients are unfortunate enough to have become embroiled. But we firmly believe in the 'build it and they will come' theory -- that making class actions easier to settle make them easier to bring, because 99% of all class actions (at least those seeking $$$) are brought as strike suits to settle, rather than to litigate. A cy pres award is a sure-fire indicator of litigation that should never have been brought -- because even after settlement, without any opposition from the defendant(s), a cy pres request is an admission that the plaintiffs still can't prove damages and causation with respect to the absent class members. They can't even win a walkover. Outside the class action area, that would mean 'case dismissed' (and maybe sanctions). As a class action, it means 'write a check'." "There is no basis for cy pres in substantive law (outside of a couple oddball statutes), and there's nothing more "substantive" than taking money supposedly owed to absent class members and giving it to non-litigant charities. Since it's substantive, there's also no possible basis for it in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, since court rules can't change substantive law. Cy pres a racket -- designed primarily to inflate attorney fee awards -- and while the charities might do good work, call us the Grinch, because we don't think the litigation industry should be funding charities with other people's money extorted through litigation threats. "Here's the latest example of cy pres abuse occurring in the context of bogus litigation that should never have been brought, Koby v. ARS National Services, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2017 WL 359670 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2017). This isn't a drug/device case. Thankfully, between the FDCA no private right of action rule (which, regrettably has a food loophole) and the rejection of personal injury class actions, we don't encounter all that many of them anymore against drug/device clients. Instead, Koby is a Fair Debt Collection Practices ("FDCP") action, and as you might expect from the introduction, a bottom-feeding FDCP action at that. "Supposedly the defendant violated the FDCP at some point a decade or so ago when its employees left messages that did not fully identify themselves. This issue was later fixed, but the class action supposedly includes "some four million people nationwide." Koby, 2017 WL 359670, at *1. Predictably, nobody in the class was actually harmed by what appears to have been a technical FDCP violation (quickly fixed), so only statutory damages were sought. Theoretically that could have been a lot (4M x $1000), but because ARS was a small company, the 1% of net worth statutory cap limited recovery to $35,000. Id. at *1-2. You do the math. "No, the court did. That's 3,500,000 in pennies, to be shared between 4 million or so class members -- none of whom were actually injured. Id. at *2 ("less than a penny to each member of the class"). No actual damages. Less than a penny in statutory damages per person. Koby was [insert barnyard expletive of your choice] litigation in every sense of the word. "But lawyers cost money, and litigation consumes time and effort that could be better directed to business pursuits, so the plaintiff class was able to extort a settlement. Here's what they got: "[Defendant] agreed to pay each of the three named plaintiffs $1,000, the maximum they could hope to recover under the FDCPA as none of them had suffered any actual damages . . . . Given the impossibility of distributing less than a penny to each member of the class, [defendant] agreed to make a $35,000 cy pres award to a local San Diego charity instead. . . . The four million unnamed class members receive no monetary compensation under the settlement. Koby, 2017 WL 359670, at *2. And of course, the most important thing, "[defendant] also agreed to pay class counsel the negotiated sum of $67,500 in attorney's fees." Id. Before getting to the merits, the Ninth Circuit had to sort through a procedural dispute about whether the case could properly be assigned to a magistrate (what district judges often do with [insert same expletive] cases). Koby upheld the assignment. Id. at *3-5 (ruling that all 4 million absent class members don't have to consent to assignment to a magistrate). The Ninth Circuit then hammered the cy pres settlement. The purported "injunctive relief" was meaningless, since: (1) it was a "mismatch" with the class definition, which looked backward, and (2) it did "not obligate [defendant] to do anything it was not already doing" (as already mentioned, the violation had been corrected). Id. at *5-6. Thus the only supposed "value to the class" was the $35,000 in statutory damages that the settlement took from the class and gave to a charity. That didn't pass muster either. [The settling parties] likewise presented no evidence that the absent class members would derive any benefit from the settlement's cy pres award. Indeed, it is doubtful that the award could be approved under our precedents, which require that cy pres awards be tethered to the objectives of the underlying statutes or the interests of the class members. Here, the award consists of a $35,000 donation to a San Diego veterans' organization. The San Diego location of the chosen charity has no geographic nexus to the class, which includes four million individuals scattered throughout the United States. Nor was there any evidence that the settlement class is disproportionately composed of veterans. And there was no showing that the work performed by the designated charity would protect consumers from unfair debt collection practices, the objective of the FDCPA. Thus, even putting aside the relatively small size of the cy pres award, we cannot say that this aspect of the settlement provided any material benefit to the class members. Id. at *6 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). But the named plaintiffs would get $1000 each and class counsel would get fees almost twice the settlement amount. So the fig leaf cy pres award was rejected. Reversed and remanded. Id. at *7. What next? With total FDCP damages capped at an amount that the defendant was already willing to pay, this sounds like a good candidate for interpleader. Pay the $35,000 into the court and let plaintiffs' counsel - who claim to be "adequate representatives" for this [same expletive] litigation sort out distribution on their own dime. If one wants to stop class action abuse, it has to become uneconomic for the lawyers to bring them. There is no other way. Getting rid of cy pres would do that in the Koby case and hundreds of similarly meritless strike suits. * N.Y., Calif. Courts May Lead Way in Class Certifications ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Forbes, reports that one of the nation's top employment and labor law firms found, in its most recent study, that New York and California courts lead the way in the number of class action certifications. Two jurisdictions in particular, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, are "magnets" for workplace litigation, said Gerald Maatman, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Mr. Maatman, who works out of the firm's Chicago and New York offices, primarily defends employers sued in employment discrimination class actions and wage and hour collective actions, among others. According to his bio, he has pioneered the process of conducting employment practices audits to assist employers in structuring effective and practical personnel policies and protocols. These audits are designed to minimize the incidence of employment- related class action litigation and to maximize management discretion and workplace productivity. The two jurisdictions, as Mr. Maatman explained in a recent interview with Legal Newsline, are in urban areas and the most "worker-friendly" of all jurisdictions in terms of case law. He said plaintiffs lawyers are well aware of this. "Most Fortune 1000 companies do business in New York and California, so they have an inordinate number of class actions filed there," he pointed out. According to Seyfarth Shaw's statistical study of class certification rulings in 2016, within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit -- which includes the Southern District of New York -- 29 conditional certification motions were granted in Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, certification decisions. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- which includes the Northern District of California -- 33 conditional certification motions were granted, also in FLSA certification decisions. The numbers are telling, said Mr. Maatman, who is co-chair of the Seyfarth Shaw's class action litigation practice group and served as general editor of the firm's study. They substantiate that the district courts within the two circuits are the "epicenters" of wage and hour class actions and collective actions, he said. Seyfarth Shaw's 13th Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, which also looked at employment discrimination and Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, certification trends, was compiled from case filings and rulings the firm tracks on a daily basis, from Jan. 1, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2016. The information, Mr. Maatman explained, was collected through PACER, the online resource center of the federal court system. Mr. Maatman, in evaluating the data and trends, said he is especially concerned with the increased filings of wage and hour lawsuits. Complex workplace litigation, in particular wage and hour class actions, drives corporate legal budget expenditures and is the type of legal dispute that causes the most concern for companies, he said. "Wage and hour class actions are the most frequent and expensive type of class action to defend and lose," he said. "The certification standards are the easiest for workers." According to the firm's study, the number of wage and hour lawsuit filings in federal court decreased in 2016; however, while the number of filings decreased for the first time in 15 years, 2016's filings were the second highest total ever, Mr. Maatman pointed out. He said the number of filings may be attributed to the low-cost investment in prosecuting such lawsuits. "Plaintiffs do not need to hire an expert to secure a certification order or go through discovery; unlike employment discrimination cases where the cash outlay on an expert could be $250,00 and discovery can last up to 18 months, a plaintiff in a wage and hour class action can secure a certification order with several affidavits," he explained. The area of the law also has attracted more plaintiffs class action lawyers, he said. "In terms of their 'rate of return,' the plaintiffs' bar can convert their case filings more readily into certification orders, and create the conditions for opportunistic settlements over shorter periods of time," the report states. "The certification statistics for 2016 confirm these factors." According to the study, worker awareness also has contributed to the growth of wage and hour litigation. "Wage and hour laws are usually the domain of specialists, but in 2016 wage and hour issues made front-page news," the report states. "The widespread public attention to how employees are paid almost certainly contributed to the sheer number of suits. "Big verdicts and record settlements also played a part, as success typically begets copy-cats and litigation is no exception." Technology, in particular the Internet and social media, also have helped fuel the litigation trend, the study found. "Technology has opened the doors for unprecedented levels of marketing and advertising by the plaintiffs' bar -- either through direct soliciting of putative class members or in advancing the overall cause of lawsuits," the report states. Mr. Maatman, who often defends employers, expects the plaintiffs bar and government enforcement attorneys to be equally, if not more, aggressive in 2017 in bringing such class actions against employees. Employers, he said, need to evaluate their strategy. "[My advice would be to] focus compliance efforts on the manner in which employees are paid -- that is the area where most of the lawsuits are coming from," he said. ********* 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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2017. 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 * * *