/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170220.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 20, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 36
Headlines
A-1 EXPRESS: Faces "Williams" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Continues to Defend "Wyche" Suit in New York
ALECTO HEALTHCARE: Kelley Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
ALLY FINANCIAL: Motion to Compel Discovery Granted in "Tillman"
AMERICAN AIRLINES: AmWest Pilots Seeks Recognition of Seniority
BAL HARBOUR TOWER: "Hakli" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BIOGEN INC: Motley Rice Named as Lead Counsel
BLUE ARPON: Faces "Lopez" Class Suit Over Billing Practices
BP EXPLORATION: Misclassifies Oilfield Workers, Suit Says
BT GROUP: Faces "Hollister" Securities Class Action in N.Y.
BUTLER AREA SCHOOL: Faces "Tait" Class Suit Over Lead Crisis
CALAMOS ASSET: Faces "Foster" Suit Over Going Private Merger
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces "Shin" Suit Over Amount of Sodium in Labels
CARL KARCHER: Carl's Jr. Employees File Antitrust Class Action
CASHCALL INC: "Orozco" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL: Charles Ivy Files Suit vs. Hospital
CHINA FINANCE: Defends Securities Class Suits in New York
CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Rules on CAS Motion to Unseal
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: "Gundrum" Case Transferred to N.D. Okla.
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
COLUCID PHARMACEUTICALS: "Parshall" Sues Over Sale to Eli Lilly
CONDOR FLUGDIENST: "Ray" Suit Moved to District of Alaska
CREDIT & COLLECTION: Faces "Philips" Suit in N.D. of Alabama
DAMCO CUSTOMS: "Mendez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
DELICIAS CALENAS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
DERMA SCIENCES: Faces "Klingel" Lawsuit Over Sale to Integra
DERMA SCIENCES: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Integra Merger
DONALD J. TRUMP: Sued Over Foreign Cash Pouring into Businesses
DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Gratuities
DREAMS CABARET: "Bally" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: Short-changed in Merger Deal, "Carter" Claims
EL POLLO LOCO: "Vega" Suit Seeks Damages Under Calif. Labor Code
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Gavrialov" Suit in E.D. of New York
EP PROPANE: Faces "Dirso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ERNESLI CORP: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Martinez" Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: Must Face "Brickman" Suit over Happy Birthday Text
FORD MOTOR: Faces "Aviles" Suit Over Defective Throttle Body
FRIED STEWED: Settlement in "Williams" FLSA Suit Approved
GRIFOLS WORLDWIDE: Rivas Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
HAMPTON HALL: Dismissal of "Lightner" Class Action Upheld
HANGER INC: Alaska Pension Fund's 3rd Amended Suit Dismissed
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Senator Wants Attorney in Bail Case Removed
HARRISON GLOBAL: "Huddlestun" Suit Moved to S.D. of Calif.
HP INC: "Romero" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
I-FORTUNE COOKIE: Faces "Cauca" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Overtime Pay Sought in "Dechert" Suit
INVENTURE FOODS: "Blair" Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
ISLAS CANARIAS: "Guerrero" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
J & C OF GENEVA: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Labor Laws
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Sued Over Alleged Gender Discrimination
KELLY SERVICES: Court Vacates Dismissal of "Boergert" Claim
KENDALL IMPORTS: Arbitration Terms Valid, Appeals Court Says
LAVAZZA PREMIUM: Faces "Lowney" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Sue over Sale to CenturyLink
MAACO FRANCHISING: "Dubois" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces "Parrott" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay
MDL 1917: $75MM Settlement in Suit v. Mitsubishi Electric Okayed
MEAD JOHNSON: Faces "Kirkham" Suit Over Reckitt Benckiser Merger
MEDICAL SOCIETY: Faces "Corbett" Class Action in Arizona
METRO DINER MGMT: "Fiumano" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Azzarito" FDCPA Suit Removed to D. Conn.
MISTRAS GROUP: "Viceral" Class Suit Settlement Has Final OK
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: Kalmbach Sues Over Telemarketing
NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over FLSA Breach
NEW PENN: Faces "Williams" Suit in Middle District of Florida
OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Prepayment Penalties
ODWALLA INC: Must Defend Against Suit Over Cane Juice Label
ORACLE AMERICA: Faces "Johnson" Class Suit Over Sales Commission
PARTY CITY: Wins Dismissal of "Jones" Consolidated Complaint
PHENIX CITY, AL: Thomas Worthy Files Class Action
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Labin" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PYSCHEMEDICS CORP: "Baughman" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces "Morales" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla.
QUALCOMM INC: Faces "Hardnett" Anti-trust Suit in Calif.
RADY CHILDREN'S: Faces "Crooks" Suit in S.D. of Calif.
RENOVATE AMERICA: Faces Class Suit over Employee Data Breach
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Awaits May 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing
ROTI RESTAURANTS: Seeks to Transfer "Lindner" Suit to N.D. Ill.
RUSSO BROTHERS: Faces "Pompa" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Madrid" Suit Over Washing Machines
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Hard Drive Suit
SHAAY LLC: Faces "McFadden" Suit Under FLSA, Fla. Common Law
SLM STUDENT: Consolidated Securities Suit v. Navient Pending
SLM STUDENT: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Plaintiffs' Cal. Suit
SLM STUDENT: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Plaintiffs' N.Y. Suit
SLM STUDENT: Discovery Ongoing in Royal Park Investments Suit
SOCIAL SECURITY: E.D. Cal. Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
SOLARCITY CORP: Daugherty Seeks Leave to File Amended Complaint
SONIC NOTIFY: Court Dismissed "Satchell" Suit with Leave to Amend
SUPERVALU INC: Appeal in Data Security Breach Suit Still Pending
SUPERVALU INC: Awaits Result of February Settlement Conference
SUPERVALU INC: RICO Suit Remains Stayed Pending Criminal Case
SURVEY SAMPLING: Faces "Schnell" Suit in Central Dist. of Cal.
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: "Braswell" Seeks Damages from Share Drop
STILLWATER MINING: Being Sold to Cheaply, "Rempel" Suit Says
SUMMIT TOOL: Truck Tire Iron Shorter Than Advertised, Suit Says
SUNRUN INC: Faces Employee Suit Over Data Breach
TRIUMPH PROPERTY: Must Defend Against "Hastings" TCPA Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGY: "Gunn" Action Stayed Pending Arbitration
UNDER ARMOUR: Shareholders File Suit Over Stock Price Freefall
UNITED STATES: Bankers Assoc. Sues Over Federal Reserve Rule
UNITED STATES: FBI Spying on Donors, Class Suit Says
UNITED STATES: J.M. Fogg Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims
UNITED STATES: Border Patrol Agents Sue Homeland Security Dept.
UPTAIN GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Cholly" Complaint
US RENAL: "Whitaker" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
V&J NATIONAL: "Beebe" Suit Seeks Expense Reimbursement
VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Pratico" Suit Alleges False Claim for Supplement
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Adam" Suit Over Craft Beer
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Banfill" Suit in M. Dist. of Fla.
*********
A-1 EXPRESS: Faces "Williams" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A-1 Express Delivery
Service, Inc. The case is captioned as WILLIAMS, DEREK and
MARTINEZ, THERESA, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, the Plaintiffs, v. DOES 1
THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE; and A-1 EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.
D/B/A 1800-COURIER, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, the Defendants,
Case No. CGC 17556993 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 8, 2017).
A-1 Express is an Atlanta transportation, distribution, and
courier service company headquartered in Metro Atlanta, United
States, and incorporated in 1997.
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Continues to Defend "Wyche" Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., said in its Form 10-K/A filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that it continues to
defend itself against a stockholder class action initiated by
Christopher Wyche in New York.
On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action, Christopher
Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-
05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, naming the Company, along with
Joseph A. Chlapaty, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark B. Sturgeon, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as
defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
An amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2016. The amended
complaint alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from July 25, 2014 through March 29,
2016, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.
The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses
and will vigorously defend against these allegations, but
litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of
this matter is not predictable with assurance. While it is
reasonably possible that this matter ultimately could be decided
unfavorably to the Company, the Company is currently unable to
estimate the range of the possible losses, but they could be
material.
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of high
performance thermoplastic corrugated pipe, providing a
comprehensive suite of water management products and superior
drainage solutions for use in the underground construction and
infrastructure marketplace. The Company's products are used
across a broad range of end markets and applications, including
non-residential, residential, agriculture and infrastructure
applications.
ALECTO HEALTHCARE: Kelley Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
J. KELLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALECTO HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC,
ANTELOPE VALLEY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL and
DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. BG649793 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 7, 2017), seeks to recover wages, restitution, compensatory
and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants employ more than 1,000
employees, of which more than half are paid on an hourly basis.
The AVH website states that it serves as a major economic engine
in the community with a workforce of 2,800 employees. The
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants generate through AVH annual
revenues of more than $10 million per year.
The Plaintiff worked as a Registered Nurse or RN at AVH in
Lancaster, California for many years. In Plaintiff's capacity as a
Registered Nurse, he provided nursing care to the patients at AVH.
In 2014, Plaintiff was injured on the job while working in the
Intensive Care Unit. The Plaintiff's injury resulted from the fact
that AVH was short-staffed, without an adequate number of relief
nurses available.
Alecto Healthcare is a healthcare system and management services
organization.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
Priya Mohan, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue, 17th FI.
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: 323 962 3777
Facsimile: 323 962 3004
E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
pmohan@harrisandruble.com
ALLY FINANCIAL: Motion to Compel Discovery Granted in "Tillman"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida granted in part the motion to
compel production of discovery, granted motion for extension in
the case captioned, DONELL L. TILLMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. ALLY FINANCIAL
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-313-FtM-99CM (M.D. Fla.).
On April 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed the lawsuit against Defendant
on the ground that Defendant has violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. Defendant
allegedly is one of the largest automotive financiers in the
world. Plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of a class that
consists of people who received non-consented calls from Defendant
within four years of the filing of the Complaint.
Plaintiff claims that in or around December 2015, Defendant called
him numerous times to reach an individual named Phillip Everett.
Plaintiff asserts that he is not the person whom Defendant
attempted to reach, and has not provided his consent to receive
calls from Defendant for any purpose. Several of Defendant's calls
were artificial and pre-recorded voice messages.
On October 18, 2016, the Court entered a Case Management and
Scheduling Order (CMSO) setting the deadline for disclosure of
expert reports for Plaintiff to August 18, 2017 and for Defendant
to September 18, 2017, the discovery deadline to October 20, 2017,
and a trial term of May 7, 2018.
The matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel Defendant's Production of Discovery filed on
October 4, 2016 and Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of
Time for Plaintiff to File Motion for Class Certification filed on
January 4, 2017. Plaintiff's motion for extension seeks to extend
the deadline of January 12, 2017 to file a motion for class
certification to March 31, 2017 in light of his pending motion to
compel. Defendant filed under seal its response in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion to compel on December 19, 2016 and agrees to a
nine-day extension of the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion
for class certification.
In her Memorandum and Order dated January 6, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/oSMrTS from Leagle.com, Judge Mirando held that
although the content of Plaintiff's discovery requests are
relevant, the scope of the discovery requests is overly broad
given Plaintiff's need and Defendant's burden to produce the
requested materials. The Court denied motion to compel Defendant
to produce more documents responsive to Plaintiff's Request for
Production of Document No. 1 because what is redacted or not
produced is not relevant to the case.
Plaintiff was given up to and including January 13, 2017, to amend
his Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 6 and Request for Production of
Document No. 2.
Donell L. Tillman is represented by:
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
210 South McDill Ave.
South Tampa, FL 33609
Tel:(813)500-1500
-- and --
Timothy James Sostrin, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD
55 W. Monroe St., 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel:(866)726-1092
Ally Financial Inc. is represented by Alexandra N. Krasovec, Esq.
-- krasovec.alexandra@dorsey.com -- Divya S. Gupta, Esq. --
gupta.divya@dorsey.com -- Eric J. Troutman, Esq. --
troutman@eric@dorsey.com -- and -- Scott D. Goldsmith, Esq. --
goldsmith.scott.dorsey.com -- DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP -- Jacqueline
Simms-Petredis, Esq. -- jsimms-petredis@burr.com -- and-- Robert
Franklin Springfield, Esq. -- fspringfield@burr.com -- BURR &
FORMAN, LLP
AMERICAN AIRLINES: AmWest Pilots Seeks Recognition of Seniority
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Beckington, John Jurik, and James Van Sickle, Plaintiffs, v.
American Airlines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00328, (D.
Ariz., February 1, 2017), seeks damages to fully compensate
Plaintiffs and the putative class for all injuries caused by
American Airlines' collusion with US Airline Pilots Association;
and attorneys' fees and costs incurred for failure of the
Defendants to fairly and adequately represent the Plaintiffs with
regard to the seniority integration process affected under the
Railway Labor Act as a result the merger of America West Airlines
and US Airways, Inc.
Pilots on both sides of that merger agreed to an arbitrated merger
of their separate seniority lists in May 2007. All pilots who were
on the America West seniority list incorporated into the America
West collective bargaining agreement at the time of the seniority
integration would have had a higher seniority position on the
seniority list announced by the Arbitration Board on September 6,
2016. Plaintiffs represent a class of America West pilots.
Defendant allegedly failed to implement seniority as it was
required to do under the Transition Agreement.
American Airlines is commercial carrier airline with national and
international operations, organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Fort
Worth, Texas.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Marty Harper, Esq.
Kelly J. Flood, Esq.
ASU ALUMNI LAW GROUP
111 East Taylor Street, Suite 120
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4467
Telephone: 602-251-3620
Fax: 602-251-8055
Email: marty.harper@asualumnilawgroup.org
kelly.flood@asualumnilawgroup.org
BAL HARBOUR TOWER: "Hakli" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Berkant Hakli, Karim Laroussi, and others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff, v. Bal Harbour Tower Condominium Association, a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-20425, (S.D. Fla.,
February 1, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for willful
violations of overtime pay provisions under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendant is a condominium association that operates a restaurant
where Plaintiffs worked as servers.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
2847 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, FL 33020
Tel: (305) 308 - 5619
Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com
- and -
Isaac Mamane, Esq.
MAMANE LAW LLC
1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
Telephone (305) 773 - 6661
E-mail: mamane@gmail.com
BIOGEN INC: Motley Rice Named as Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------
District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the motion of
Metzler Asset Management GmbH and Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH to be appointed as lead plaintiff
and approved their selection of lead counsel in the case
captioned, METZLER ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH and ERSTE-SPARINVEST
KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Other Similarly Situated Parties, Plaintiffs, v. STUART "TONY" A.
KINGSLEY, GEORGE A. SCANGOS, PAUL C. CLANCY, and BIOGEN, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-12101-FDS (D. Mass.).
The Court denied, without prejudice, a motion to stay litigation.
The case is a putative class action involving alleged violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Electrical Workers
Pension Fund, Local 103, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers brought suit, on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, against Biogen, Inc., and two Biogen employees. The
complaint contends that class members were harmed when they
purchased Biogen securities at prices that were artificially
inflated by the company's false and misleading statements about
its products.
The action raises issues similar to those raised in In re Biogen
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:15-cv-13189 (D. Mass.) (Biogen
I), which the Court dismissed on June 23, 2016. See Biogen I, 2016
WL 3541538. An appeal of that action is currently pending in the
First Circuit.
Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), three putative class
members (or groups) -- Metzler; the City of Miami Fire Fighters'
and Police Officers' Retirement Trust (City of Miami); and
Frankfurt-Trust Investment GmbH and Frankfurt-Trust Investment
Luxemburg AG (Frankfurt-Trust) -- have each moved to be appointed
as lead plaintiff and to approve of their selection of lead
counsel. Frankfurt-Trust has also moved to stay this litigation
pending resolution of the appeal of Biogen I.
In his Memorandum and Opinion dated February 1, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/ajubzh from Leagle.com, Judge Saylor, IV held that
Metzler meets all statutory requirements that govern the Court's
choice of presumed lead plaintiff and Metzler selected the law
firm of Motley Rice to serve as lead counsel for the proposed
class because the firm has successfully handled a number of
shareholder and securities class actions.
Frankfurt-Trust Investment GmbH and Frankfurt-Trust Investment
Luxemburg AG's motion to stay the litigation is denied without
prejudice.
Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, IBEW is represented by
Garrett J. Bradley, Esq. -- gbradley@tenlaw.com -- THORNTON LAW
FIRM LLP
Stuart A. Kingsley, et al. are represented by James R. Carroll,
Esq. -- james.carroll@skadden.com -- Michael S. Hines, Esq. --
michael.hines@skadden.com -- and Sara J. van Vliet, Esq. --
sara.vanvliet@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP
BLUE ARPON: Faces "Lopez" Class Suit Over Billing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class in Santa Ana, Calif.
accuses Blue Apron of relying on an unconscionable arbitration
clause to resolve a dispute over the meal-delivery service's
billing practices under California's Automatic Renewal Law.
The case is captioned, MATTHEW LOPEZ, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BLUE APRON, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. Case
No.:30-2017-00902648-CU-MT-CXC (SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE February 9, 2017).
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:
A Professional Corporation
Scott J. Ferrell Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
BP EXPLORATION: Misclassifies Oilfield Workers, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that BP
Exploration & Production misclassifies oilfield workers in Alaska
as independent contractors to stiff them for overtime for their
80-hour weeks, a four-year employee claims in a federal class
action in Houston.
The case is captioned, LESLIE JUAREZ, Individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.
Case 4:17-cv-00448(S.D. Tex. February 10, 2017).
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Chase C. Alvord, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
Email: kstephens@tousley.com
Email: calvord@tousley.com
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206) 682-5600
Fax: (206) 682-2992
- and -
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
- and -
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
Adam T. Savett, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PA.
201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: Law@stefancoleman.com
adam@stefancoleman.com
BT GROUP: Faces "Hollister" Securities Class Action in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Hollister, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BT Group PLC, Ian Livingston,
Gavin E. Patterson, Tony Chanmugam, Simon Jonathan Lowth and Luis
Alvarez, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00777, (S.D. N.Y., February
1, 2017), seeks to pursue remedies under and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
BT Group provides communications services worldwide. The Company
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom with Ian
Livingston, Gavin E. Patterson, Tony Chanmugam, Simon Jonathan
Lowth and Luis Alvarez sitting on the Board of Directors.
Defendants are accused of inflating the price of BT Group
securities by publicly issuing false and misleading statements
about its business and operations and creating in the market an
unrealistically positive assessment of BT Group securities and its
business.
Investors, including the Plaintiff, lost substantially after
purchasing BT securities.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman
Mario Alba Jr.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
malba@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30338
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Fax: (770) 392-0029
Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
mdees@holzerlaw.com
BUTLER AREA SCHOOL: Faces "Tait" Class Suit Over Lead Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
Charley Himmel, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
water in a school district north of Pittsburgh is so heavily
contaminated with lead and copper that a student suffered
irreversible damage to her nervous system and the entire school is
being tested, her parents say in a federal class action in
Pittsburgh.
Lead plaintiff Jennifer Tait sued the Butler Area School District
and its former Superintendent Dale Lumley on behalf of her
daughter.
Lumley resigned on Sunday, Feb. 5. The school board accepted his
resignation, effective immediately.
Butler, pop. 14,000, the seat of Butler County, is 35 miles north
of Pittsburgh.
Tait claims officials knew the drinking water at Summit Elementary
School contained dangerously high levels of copper and lead for at
least five months before they notified families.
Documents indicate that Tait is correct.
A two-page Jan. 19 document from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, "Important Information About Lead in
Your Drinking Water," begins: "Shortly after August 15, 2016, the
Butler Area School District received test results which found
elevated levels of lead in drinking water tap samples. Lead can
cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and
young children."
The document includes lead levels recorded on tested of Aug. 15,
and 29, as high as 55 parts per billion, though levels as high as
15 ppb are "unacceptable." It says the school district maintenance
director "has been working with the DEP in an effort to address
the water quality issues identified in the testing and the
district's responsibilities".
The document does not indicate to whom it was distributed. It
states on Page 2:
"1. All drinking fountains have been shut off and 'bagged' in the
Summit Elementary School.
"2. Bottled water will continue to be provided throughout the
building.
"3. Hand sanitizer will be used in the bathroom.
"4. All students, staff and visitors will be informed of the water
quality issues and expressly told not to drink or consume in any
form Summit Elementary School's well water, only bottled water.
"5. Signs indicating that well water must not be consumed will be
posted throughout the school."
However, Superintendent Lumley said in a Jan. 20 statement on
school district letterhead: "The students and staff at Summit
Elementary School in Summit Township were given bottled water
yesterday and told not to drink the water from the well on the
property. Dr. Dale Lumley, Superintendent, said that the steps
were taken in response to elevated lead readings from the well.
"Lumley said that elevated readings were first detected last
September by our maintenance supervisor who had been working with
the DEP to address the test results of the water in the building.
'We had readings in August with significantly high levels of
lead," he said, 'but those results were not shared with me or the
board until yesterday.'"
An undated notice from the school district states that the Butler
Health System will be at Summit Elementary School on Feb. 16 "to
perform blood lead level and serum copper level testing of
students, faculty and staff," from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Parents must
make an appointment and accompany their child to the test.
At a community meeting over the weekend, school officials said
lead tests would be free for the families.
Jennifer Tait says in the 18-page lawsuit that by the time the
school district notified her, her daughter had already suffered
irreversible damage to her central nervous system.
"Scientists have linked the effects of lead on the brain with
lowered IQ in children," the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection said in its notice of Jan. 19.
Lumley said in his Jan. 20 letter that the district had taken the
steps that were recommended by the state, including disconnecting
drinking fountains, and distributing bottled drinking water and
hand sanitizer.
Tait seeks class certification, medical monitoring, and damages
for negligence, failure to warn, physical injuries, pain and
suffering, violation of the constitutional right to bodily
integrity and due process, conspiracy, recklessness and deliberate
indifference.
She is represented by Douglas Olcott with Dallas Hartman, and
Brendan Lupetin, with Meyers Evans Lupetin & Unatin, both of
Pittsburgh.
The case is captioned, JILLIAN TAIT, a minor, by and through
JENNIFER R. TAIT, her parent and natural guardian, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, vs. BUTLER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT and DALE R. LUMLEY
Ph.D. Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-00182-AJS(W.D. Pa., February 7,
2017).
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Douglas J. Olcott, Esq.
Caitlin M. Harrington, Esq.
DALLAS HARTMAN, P.C.
E-mail: dolcott@dallashartman.com
charrington@dallashartman.com
- and -
Brendan B. Lupetin, Esq.
MEYERS EVANS LUPETIN & UNATIN, LLC
The Gulf Tower, Suite 3200
707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel: (412) 281-4100
E-mail: blupetin@meyersmedmal.com
CALAMOS ASSET: Faces "Foster" Suit Over Going Private Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Ridgely Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. John P. Calamos, Sr., Thomas F. Eggers, John
Koudounis, Keith (Kim) M. Schappert, William N. Shiebler, Calamos
Asset Management, Inc., Calamos Partners LLC, and CPCM
Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 2017-0075 (Del. Ch. Ct., January 31,
2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Calamos
Asset Management, Inc. in connection with a transaction pursuant
to which the Company will be taken private through a tender offer
and second step merger by entities that are affiliated with and
controlled by the Company's founder, Chairman, and Global
Investment Officer, John P. Calamos, Sr., and CAM's Chief
Executive Officer, John S. Koudounis, for the unfair price of
$8.25 in cash for each share of CAM Class A common stock through a
conflicted and tainted evaluation process.
Calamos Asset Management, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
provides investment advisory services to institutions and
individuals.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
jjr@rl-legal.com
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces "Shin" Suit Over Amount of Sodium in Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Los Angeles, claims Campbell Soup Co.
falsely labels its products as having "25% Less Sodium," and "33%
Less Sodium," and being "98% Fat Free."
The case is captioned, SUE SHIN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated vs. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, and
DOES 1 through 10. Defendants. Case 2:17-cv-01082(C.D. Cal.,
February 10, 2017).
Attorney for Plaintiff SUE SHIN:
Juan Hong, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUAN HONG, A LAW CORP.
4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 509-6505
Fax: (949) 335-6647
Email: jhong48@gmail.com
CARL KARCHER: Carl's Jr. Employees File Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Debenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Carl Karcher Enterprises, whose CEO Andrew Puzder is
President Donald Trump's nominee as secretary of labor, illegally
restricts employment and suppresses pay for fast-food managers
through contracts that prohibit franchisees from hiring each
other's workers, Carl's Jr. employees say in an antitrust class
action in Los Angeles.
Carl's Jr. shift manager Luis Bautista and former shift manager
Margarita Guerrero say in the Superior Court lawsuit that a no-
hire provision in contracts between the company and its
franchisees prevents experienced managers from moving from one
restaurant to another in search of better pay and working
conditions.
"Together with its franchisees, CKE has colluded to suppress the
wages of the restaurant-based managers, from shift leader up, who
work at Carl's Jr. restaurants in Los Angeles and around the
world. . . . This 'no hire' agreement is a naked agreement in
restraint of trade," Bautista and Guerrero say in the Feb. 8
complaint.
Carl Karcher Enterprises, or CKE, is the parent company of Carl's
Jr. and Hardees fast-food restaurants. The class action names only
CKE and Carl's Jr. Restaurants as defendants -- not Hardee's and
not Puzder. But the 23-page lawsuit quotes Puzder frequently. He
is a prominent advocate of free market ideals and is seen as an
opponent of protections for workers.
Trump nominated Puzder to head the Department of Labor on Dec. 8.
His confirmation hearing has been postponed four times and is set
for Feb. 16 before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee.
Puzder's nomination has drawn strong opposition from labor unions,
workers' rights advocates and Democrats, for his stand against
raising the federal minimum wage, his comments about replacing
fast-food workers through automation and allegations of frequent
labor violations at CKE restaurants, among other things. Puzder
also recently admitted that at one time he hired an undocumented
worker as a housekeeper -- an admission that has torpedoed Cabinet
nominees in previous presidential administrations.
CKE general counsel Charles A. Siegel III said in a statement that
the company would not comment on specifics of the lawsuit. But he
said: "The timing of the filing of this baseless lawsuit is
obviously intended to be an attempt, albeit a feeble one, to
derail the nomination of Andy Puzder. The plaintiffs and their
backers will succeed at neither."
The antitrust class action begins by stating that Puzder "has
professed a deep faith in the 'free market.' Employees do not need
the protection of government intervention in the labor market,
Puzder says, because 'free market capitalism' is the only system
in the history of the world that produces enough economic growth
to meaningfully reduce poverty.'
"But the market for CKE employees is not free."
Lead plaintiff Bautista accepted a promotion to shift leader at a
Carl's Jr. restaurant in Los Angeles in 2015, and received a raise
of less than $2 per hour. His "hours are extraordinarily
unpredictable" and his supervisors "frequently berate him," he
says in the complaint.
Guerrero was a shift leader at a Los Angeles restaurant for about
a year, until late last year. "Her working conditions were
atrocious," the complaint states, and though she was promised a
raise, "she was never paid more than she had been paid as a crew
member."
They both earned a bit more than minimum wage, according to Nina
DiSalvo of the workers' rights nonprofit law office Towards
Justice in Denver, lead attorney for the proposed class. Bautista
and Guerrero "both believe their wages and working conditions were
depressed through the no-hire agreement," DiSalvo said.
CKE directly owns 10 percent to 20 percent of its approximately
3,500 restaurants; franchisees own the rest.
Puzder and the company have repeatedly said that franchisees
operate independently of CKE and each other, according to the
class action. It quotes Puzder telling a congressional hearing
that "franchisees independently choose the people they hire, the
wages and benefits they pay," and so forth.
But in fact, they are all bound by provisions in their franchise
agreements to "not knowingly employ or seek to employ any person
then employed by CKE or any franchisee of CKE as a shift leader or
higher," Bautista and Guerrero say, quoting the contracts. They
quote Puzder again to explain why the company insists on the
provision: "If employers are competing for the best employees,
they will pay more," he said in a speech.
"CKE and Puzder cannot have it both ways," the complaint states.
"They cannot eschew their responsibilities under the labor and
employment laws by embracing a 'free market' model constituted by
independent, competing franchises, while at the same time
restraining free competition to the detriment of the thousands of
workers employed by SKE and its franchises."
It adds: "By Puzder's own logic, this practice [the no-hire
provision] allows employers to pay their employees less."
The complaint cites another statement from Puzder, who said he is
expanding the chain in Texas and the Southeast, because of
"California's nanny state laws."
David Gurnick, a franchise law expert with Lewitt, Hackman,
Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan in Encino, said a 2007 California
appellate ruling, VL Systems v. Unisen, supports the plaintiffs'
position.
"When two parties agree not to hire each other's employees . . .
you're restraining the employees . . . and you didn't ask them,"
he said.
The complaint says that CKE general managers are paid about
$35,000 to $40,000 a year, assistant managers get $10.50 an hour,
and shift leaders about $10 an hour, or about $25,000 a year. The
federal poverty level for a family of four is $24,250.
DiSalvo said she believes no-hire agreements are widespread in the
fast-food industry. Towards Justice began investigating the
practice a while back and "began looking deeper after seeing
publicity about Puzder's statements."
Towards Justice focuses on wage-theft issues, she said. It is
pursuing two national class actions in Denver on behalf of
shepherds and foreign au pairs.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, a permanent injunction
against the no-hire provision, damages and a court order banning
the no-hire provision, and damages for violations of California's
antitrust law, the Cartwright Act, unfair competition, and illegal
covenants not to compete.
Local counsel is Jon Tostrud in Los Angeles, assisted by attorneys
with Cuneo, Miller & Laduca in Washington, D.C.
CASHCALL INC: "Orozco" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
REGINA OROZCO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CASHCALL, INC., a California
corporation; LOANME, INC., a Nevada corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. 30-2017-00902026-CU-
OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and penalties under the California Business and Professions
Code, Labor Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
Plaintiff often worked in excess of eight hours per workday and/or
forty hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime
compensation equal to one and one half times her regular rate of
pay for all overtime hours worked. Specifically, Defendants paid
Plaintiff non-discretionary bonuses based on her reaching various
collections goals, and/or other forms of pay not excludable as a
matter of law when calculating an employee's regular rate
(hereinafter the aforementioned forms of pay are collectively
referred to as "Incentive Pay"). Despite Defendants' payment of
Incentive Pay to Plaintiff, Defendants failed to properly
calculate Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, thereby causing
Plaintiff to be underpaid for all of her required overtime wages.
As a result of Defendants' failure to pay all overtime wages and
failure to pay meal and rest period premium wages, Defendants
maintained inaccurate payroll records and issued inaccurate wage
statements to Plaintiff.
CashCall provides personal and business loans. It offers unsecured
loans to borrowers who use loans for one-time purchase and debt
consolidation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2274 East Maple Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292 2350
Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL: Charles Ivy Files Suit vs. Hospital
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Florida
Regional Hospital, Inc. The case is styled as Charles Ivy, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc., and
Transworld Systems, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00221-
GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., Feb. 8, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Gregory A. Presell.
Central Florida Regional Hospital is a full-service, level II
trauma center specializing in heart care and rehabilitation in the
Orlando/Sanford area.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth D'Apice, Esq.
Law Office of Kenneth D'Apice
498 Palm Springs Dr, Ste 100
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Telephone: (407) 434 1208
Facsimile: (206) 203 2336
E-mail: kdapice.law@gmail.com
CHINA FINANCE: Defends Securities Class Suits in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
China Finance Online Co. Limited continues to defend itself
against securities class action lawsuits pending in New York,
according to the Company's January 10, 2017, Form 20-F/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2015.
The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in putative securities class actions filed in
Central District of California which was then transferred to
Southern District of New York. The complaints allege that the
Company violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by
failing to disclose certain its transactions as related party
transaction.
As the actions remain in their preliminary stages, the Company
says its management is unable to express any opinion on the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or any estimate of the amount
or range of any potential loss.
China Finance Online Co. Limited was incorporated in Hong Kong on
November 2, 1998. China Finance Online, its subsidiaries, its
variable interest entities ("VIEs") and its VIEs' subsidiaries is
a web-based financial services company in China. The Company
provides Chinese retail investors with online access to
securities, commodities and wealth management products, as well as
financial database and analytics services to institutional
customers. The Company's prominent flagship portal site
http://www.jrj.com/is ranked among the top financial websites in
China.
CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Rules on CAS Motion to Unseal
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California partially granted The
Center for Auto Safety's motion to unseal in the case captioned,
PETER VELASCO, et al., Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
Defendants, Case No. CV 13-08080 DDP (VBK) (C.D. Cal.).
The issue before the court arises out of a class action lawsuit
brought by purchasers of certain Dodge Durango and Jeep Grand
Cherokee vehicles against the Chrysler Group LLC (Chrysler). The
case, which has since settled, involved allegations that Chrysler
violated various state consumer protection statutes by failing to
disclose certain product defects in their vehicles. Specifically,
Plaintiffs alleged that there were defects in the Total Integrated
Power Module (TIPM), which controls and distributes power to a
vehicle's electrical systems.
At the outset of litigation, Magistrate Judge Kenton issued a
protective order allowing any party to designate a document in the
case "Confidential," which would protect the document from public
view. The Court granted both parties leave to file under seal
certain documents related to the motion for a preliminary
injunction authorizing them to send then-potential class members a
preliminary notice warning them of the alleged TIMP defects.
While the preliminary injunction motion was pending, nonparty CAS
filed motions to intervene in the case and unseal the sealed
portions of the record on the motion for preliminary injunction
which was denied by the court concluding that there was good cause
to keep the documents under seal and denied CAS's Motion.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit accepted the district court's
determination that the preliminary injunction motion at issue was
non-dispositive. Because the preliminary injunction motion was
more than "tangentially related" to the merits of the case, the
Ninth Circuit vacated the court's order regarding the Motion to
Unseal and remanded for consideration under the compelling reasons
standard.
CAS argues that it should be allowed to intervene for purposes of
reviewing the sealed documents in order to more fully make its
case for unsealing.
In his Order dated January 26, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/3jVrRf from Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson readopted
its decision to deny the Motion to Intervene and found that CAS
has not met the requirements for intervention. As to the motion to
unseal, Dockets 53, 54 and 66, the Court found no compelling
reason to redact citations to exhibits, given that these exhibits
have since been identified and as to Dockets 56, 65, 66 and 73 the
Court found that the redactions are appropriately limited to
properly redacted exhibits. Accordingly, the Court directed
Chrysler to refile Exhibit I removing the redactions at page
I-114.
Jacqueline Young, Plaintiff, represented by David K. Stein, Esq. -
- ds@classlawgroup.com -- and -- Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. --
smg@girardgibbs.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP -- Dylan Hughes, Esq. --
and -- Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- GIBBS LAW
GROUP LLP -- Joshua G. Konecky, Esq. --
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- and -- Todd M. Schneider, Esq. --
tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
Chrysler Group LLC is represented by Brian S. Westenberg, Esq. --
westenberg@millercanfield.com -- and -- M. Sheila Jeffrey, Esq. --
jeffrey@millercanfield.com -- MILLER CANFIELD PADDOCK AND STONE
PLC -- Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq. -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
-- Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- and -
- Rowena G. Santos, Esq. -- RSantos@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON
COBURN LLP
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: "Gundrum" Case Transferred to N.D. Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Eric Gundrum and Michael King, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00055, (W.D. Wisc., June 2, 2017), was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on Feb. 1,
2017, under Case No. 4:17-cv-00055.
The case seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
costs of litigation and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc. is a limited corporation
providing third party inspection services for the construction and
maintenance of oil and natural gas transmission, midstream and
gathering lines, facility construction, meter runs and many other
types of oil and gas construction throughout the United States.
Gundrum and King were employed as a pipeline inspector with CIS,
performing and reviewing inspections on gas pipelines in Oklahoma.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
1622 LOCUST ST.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 875-3053
Fax: (215) 875-4604
- and -
Lester A. Pines, Esq.
CULLEN WESTON PINES & BACH LLP
122 W. Washington Ave.
Madison, WI 53703
Tel: (608) 251-0101
Fax: (608) 251-2883
Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc. is represented by:
Rachel Cowen, Esq.
Brian Mead, Esq.
DLA PIPER US LLP (CHICAGO)
203 N. Lasalle St. Ste. 1900
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312) 368-7044
Fax: (312) 630-2783
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc. The case is titled as Julian Frankel, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Client Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00743
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2017).
Client Services is a full service accounts receivable management
firm offering a diverse selection of collection and recovery
solutions.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Telephone: (718) 395 3459
Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com
COLUCID PHARMACEUTICALS: "Parshall" Sues Over Sale to Eli Lilly
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 No. 1:17-cv-10197 (D.
Mass., February 3, 2017), alleges that the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement regarding a Transaction
pursuant to which CoLucid Pharmaceuticals, Inc. will be acquired
by Eli Lilly and Company through a tender is false and misleading.
It allegedly omits material information regarding CoLucid's
financial projections and the financial analyses performed by
financial advisor, MTS Health Partners, L.P. in support of its so-
called fairness opinion. Thus, the Defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act.
CoLucid Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.colucid.com/-- is a
biotech company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
18 Grove Street, Suite 5
Wellesley, MA 02482
Phone: (781) 453-0100
- and -
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Phone: (302) 295-5310
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
CONDOR FLUGDIENST: "Ray" Suit Moved to District of Alaska
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Malcom G. Ray, an Individual,
Alaska USA and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH Germany; Mr. Ralf Teckentrup;
Mr. Uwe Balser; and Ms. Verna Schreiber, Legal Counsel for Condor
Flugdienst GmbH, the Defendants, Case No. 3AN-16-10605-CI, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the State of Arkansas, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (Anchorage).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00023-TMB to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Timothy M. Burgess.
Condor Flugdienst is a German leisure airline based in Frankfurt.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Lee Colin Baxter, Esq.
Matthew Singer, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP (AK)
601 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 700
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 263 6300
Facsimile: (907) 263 6345
E-mail: lee.baxter@hklaw.com
matt.singer@hklaw.com
CREDIT & COLLECTION: Faces "Philips" Suit in N.D. of Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit & Collection
Recovery Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Bobby D Philips,
pleading on her own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Credit & Collection Recovery
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00205-SGC (N.D.
Ala., Feb. 8, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge
Staci G Cornelius.
Credit & Collection is a one-stop debt collection agency for small
businesses in or near Jasper, Alabama.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Curtis Hussey, Esq.
HUSSEY LAW FIRM LLC
10 N Section Street #122
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (251) 928 1423
Facsimile: (866) 317 2674
E-mail: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com
DAMCO CUSTOMS: "Mendez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA G. MENDEZ on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAMCO CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
(S.D. Fla., Feb. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant
to California Labor Code.
The case is a wage and hour class action lawsuit on behalf of
Plaintiff and other current and former non-exempt employees of
Defendants in California seeking unpaid wages at applicable
minimum wage or overtime rate for time which Defendants failed to
pay any wages when automatically deducting meal periods; wages for
workdays Defendants failed to provide second meal periods or third
rest periods when employees worked over ten hours; statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate and complete wage
statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay former employees all earned and
unpaid wages; applicable civil penalties; injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorney's fees.
Damco Customs is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running a freight hauling business from Madison,
New Jersey.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432 0000
Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
jbello@lelawfinn.com
DELICIAS CALENAS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CELSO RAMOS GONZALEZ, Individually and on BEHALF SUMMONS
OF ALL OTHER COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff,
v. DELICIAS CALENAS INC., DELICIAS CALENAS No. 2, INC., 98-08 35
Ave, Basement, DELICIAS CALENAS 95TH INC, DELICIAS CALENAS 73RD
INC., and INGRID MORENO, Jointly and Severally, the Defendant,
Case No. 701822/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 7, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and
have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected
to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a
willful failure and refusal to pay them minimum wage and overtime
premium at the rate of one and one halftimes the regular rate for
work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and spread of hours pay.
The claims of Plaintiff are essentially the same as those of the
other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.
Delicias Calenas offers traditional Colombian dishes & baked goods
in a compact counter-serve joint open 24 hours.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Sim, Esq.
PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP LLP
39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 445 1300
Facsimile: (718) 445 8616
DERMA SCIENCES: Faces "Klingel" Lawsuit Over Sale to Integra
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES KLINGEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DERMA SCIENCES INC., STEPHEN T.
WILLS, SRINI CONJEEVARAM, BRETT D. HEWLETT, SAMUEL E. NAVARRO,
ROBERT G. MOUSSA, INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AND
INTEGRA DERMA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00738 (D.N.J.,
February 3, 2017), alleges that Defendants solicit the tendering
of stockholder shares in connection with the sale of the Company
to Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation through a
recommendation statement that omits material facts necessary to
make the statements therein not false or misleading.
Specifically, says the complaint, Defendants failed to include
opinions and analyses of Derma's financial advisors and critical
information concerning the Company's expected future value as a
standalone entity as reflected in the Company's financial
projections. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act, according to the suit.
DERMA SCIENCES INC. is a life sciences company focused on advanced
wound and burn care through tissue regeneration.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
235 Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (973) 265-1600
Email: denright@zlk.com
- and -
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 524-4290
Fax: (202) 333-2121
Email: etripodi@zlk.com
DERMA SCIENCES: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Integra Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Derma Sciences Inc., Stephen T. Wills, Srini
Conjeevaram, Brett D. Hewlett, Samuel E. Navarro, Robert G.
Moussa, Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corporation, and Integra
Derma, Inc., Case No. 2017-0074 (Del. Ch. Ct., January 31, 2017),
is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Derma Sciences
Inc., to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on January 10,
2017, pursuant to which Derma will be acquired by Integra
LifeSciences Holdings Corporation for $7.00 per share in cash.
Derma Sciences Inc. is a tissue regeneration company focused on
advanced wound and burn care.
Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corporation develops, manufactures,
and markets surgical implants and medical instruments.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
jjr@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
E-mail: info@rmlawpc.com
DONALD J. TRUMP: Sued Over Foreign Cash Pouring into Businesses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
now that President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort appears to be
doubling as a diplomatic retreat and a reputed "open-air Situation
Room," a New York attorney has filed a new class-action lawsuit in
Manhattan, aiming to force the president to return foreign cash
flowing into his companies back to "the people."
Attorney William R. Weinstein's lawsuit attempts to enforce a vow
to avoid financial entanglements Trump made just over a week
before his inauguration.
On Jan. 11, Trump's attorneys from the Philadelphia-based global
law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP authored a six-page "white
paper" insisting that the Constitution did not ban foreign
officials from paying for Trump's hotels.
"To put to rest any concerns, however, the President-Elect is
announcing he will donate all profits from foreign governments'
patronage of his hotels and similar businesses during his
presidential term to the U.S. Treasury," Trump's lawyers wrote in
the paper.
Weinstein's class-action lawsuit against the Trump Organization's
trustees -- the president, his sons Donald J. and Eric Trump, and
his executive Allen Weisselberg -- asks a federal judge to give
the white paper's promise some teeth.
"The extraordinarily complex nature of the business holdings of
The Trump Organization require the exercise of the equitable
judicial power of this court to unravel the sources and amounts of
'all profits from foreign governments' patronage of [President
Trump's] hotels and similar businesses during his presidential
term that should be held in the constructive trust until paid to
the U.S. Treasury," Weinstein's 11-page complaint states.
In a phone interview, Weinstein said it was a coincidence that he
filed his lawsuit the day before Trump's eyebrow-raising weekend
with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in his Mar-a-Lago resort
in Palm Beach, Florida.
The New York Times reported that Mar-a-Lago doubled its membership
fees in the wake of Trump's presidency to $200,000, with annual
fees now set at $14,000 and a stay at the hotel costing up to
$2,000 a night.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters on Friday that
Trump paid Abe's tab at Mar-a-Lago, sparking another scandal to
dog the diplomatic huddle.
The Washington Post described the Mar-a-Lago Club's terrace as an
"open-air Situation Room," where club members live-streamed U.S.
and Japanese leaders reacting in real time to a national-security
crisis involving North Korea.
Club member Richard DeAgazio snapped a selfie with an armed
service member holding the nuclear "football" that would allow
Trump to launch a nuclear attack.
Experts from two non-profit anti-corruption watchdogs -- the
Sunlight Foundation and Common Cause -- denounced the Mar-a-Lago
huddle for promoting Trump's brand and raising the appearance of
currying favor with a foreign leader, The State reported.
In this instance, Trump footing Abe's bill likely avoided the need
to steer the money the Japanese prime minister would otherwise
have paid to the Treasury, but Weinstein wants the judge to shine
a light on any foreign-dignitary cash pouring into Trump
businesses.
"These profits belong in good conscience to the People, and can
clearly be traced to particular funds held in the trust under the
possession, custody and control of the trustees," the lawsuit
states.
The Trump Organization's attorney Matthew Maron predicted that the
lawsuit would be dismissed.
"This is just another politically-motivated litigation consisting
of claims which are baseless and without merit," Maron wrote in an
email.
Trump's profits off his presidency have already been labeled a
"creeping, insidious threat to the republic," in a Manhattan
Federal Court lawsuit filed three days after his inauguration.
In their Jan. 23 complaint, six of the United States' top legal
minds -- two former White House counsel, three law professors, and
a Supreme Court litigator -- asked a federal judge to declare the
Trump Organization in violation of the Constitution's emoluments
clause, which restricts U.S. presidents from receiving gifts from
foreign governments.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the
non-profit watchdog behind the original emoluments clause suit,
declined to comment on this most recent lawsuit.
Unlike CREW's case, Weinstein does not seek a declaration that
Trump's business dealings violate the Constitution, but rather a
judicially enforced mechanism to make Trump to honor his word.
"They are pursuing a noble cause, but my complaint is just highly
focused on [this one] area," Weinstein said, referring to CREW's
lawsuit.
Morgan Lewis, the firm behind the white paper, declined to
comment.
The Case is captioned, WILLIAM R. WEINSTEIN, individually and on
behalf of the People of the United States of America, Plaintiff
Pro Se, vs DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President
of the United States of America, and DONALD J. TRUMP, JR, ERIC
TRUMP and ALLEN WEISSELBERG, as Trustees of a publicly described
but not publicly named Trust, Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-01018
(S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2017).
Plaintiff Pro Se and Attorney For The People Of The United States
Of America:
William R. Weinstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. WEINSTEIN
199 Main Street, 4th Floor
White Plains, New York 10601
Tel: (914) 997-2205
E-mail: wrw@wweinsteinlaw.com
DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Gratuities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Rivas, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Downtown Restaurant Group, LLC, RSNYC, LLC, and Christopher
Reda, Case No. 701441/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 31, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid gratuities that the employees were
deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, liquidated damages,
and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 50
Gansevoort Street, New York, New York 10014.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mathew W. Beckwith, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
31-19 Newtown Avenue Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2210
Facsimile: (718) 425-9625
DREAMS CABARET: "Bally" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Bally and Courtney Maharaj, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dreams Cabaret L.L.C.
and Jose Fong, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01121, (W.D. Tex.,
February 2, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Dreams is an adult entertainment establishment in El Paso, Texas
owned by Fong. Plaintiffs Bally and Maharaj worked as dancers.
Defendants classify dancers as independent contractors, who earn
only from tips from patrons. Dancers are also required to pay a
fee for dancing in the club and give a share of their tips.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
Allison S. Hartry, Esq.
THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132
San Antonio, TX 7820
Telephone No. (210) 225-0811
Facsimile No. (210) 225-0821
Email: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
ahartry@themoralesfirm.com
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: Short-changed in Merger Deal, "Carter" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Earthlink Holdings Corp., Joseph F. Eazor,
Susan D. Bowick, Kathy S. Lane, Garry K. Mcguire, R. Gerard
Salemme, Julie A. Shimer, Marc F. Stoll and Walter L. Turek,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00433, (N.D. Ga., February 2, 2017),
seeks (i) to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with the merger with and into
Windstream, (ii) damages, (iii) costs and disbursements of this
action, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and
expenses, and (iv) such other and further relief for violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
EarthLink provides IT, network and communication services to
individual and business consumers, managed IT services including
cloud computing, data centers, virtualization, security,
applications, and support services.
The merger consideration of $5.55 fails to adequately compensate
EarthLink shareholders for their shares. The company's closing
price was $6.98 on August 5, 2016, a mere three months before the
Merger Agreement was signed.
Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Bain, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
1230 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1050
Atlanta, GA 30309
Tel: (404) 724-9990
Fax: (404) 724-9986
Email: dbain@bain-law.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 971-1341
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
EL POLLO LOCO: "Vega" Suit Seeks Damages Under Calif. Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA VEGA and JOSE CARLOS CASTILLO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EL POLLO LOCO,
INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC649719 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 7, 2017), seeks to recover compensation, damages,
penalties, and interest to the full extent permitted by the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage
Orders.
The case is a class action against the Defendants to
challenge their policies and practices of: (1) failing to
authorize and permit Plaintiffs and proposed Class members to take
meal and rest breaks to which they are entitled by law; (2)
failing to compensate Plaintiffs and proposed Class members for
all hours worked; (3) failing to pay Plaintiffs and proposed Class
members minimum wage; (4) failing to pay Plaintiffs and proposed
Class members overtime and double time wages; (5) failing to pay
Plaintiffs and proposed Class members vested vacation benefits;
(6) failing to provide Plaintiffs and proposed Class members
accurate wage statements; (7) failing to timely pay Plaintiffs and
proposed Class members all wages owed upon termination or
resignation; and (8) failing to reimburse necessary business
expenditures.
El Pollo Loco operates a chain of restaurants in Arizona,
California, Nevada, Texas, and Utah.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
Nicole N. Coon, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY
WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421 7100
Facsimile: (415) 421 7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
ncoon@schneiderwallace.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Gavrialov" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company. The case is styled as Robin Gavrialov, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Enhanced Recovery Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00712 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2017).
Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services
that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.
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
EP PROPANE: Faces "Dirso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Dirso, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. E.P. Propane Holdings, Inc.,
EDPO, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC648522
(Cal. Super. Ct., January 27, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay for all hours worked, missed meal
periods and rest breaks, and failure to pay the legally required
overtime compensation, in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Defendants are in the business of distributing residential and
commercial propane and natural gas.
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
- and -
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1820
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
ERNESLI CORP: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Martinez" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario A. Martinez and all others similarly situated v. Ernesli
Corporation d/b/a Zubi Supermarket, and Ernesto Perez, Case No.
1:17-cv-20411-RNS (S.D. Fla., January 31, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for each
hour worked above 40 in a week.
The Defendants own and operate Zubi Supermarket in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J.H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
FACEBOOK INC: Must Face "Brickman" Suit over Happy Birthday Text
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Facebook's
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC) in the case
captioned, COLIN R. BRICKMAN, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV--00751-TEH (N.D. Cal.).
Defendant Facebook, Inc. (Facebook) owns and operates the online
social networking service, www.facebook.com. Facebook employed
computer software to send Birthday Announcement Texts to users. On
December 15, 2015, Facebook, through its short code SMS number
32665033, texted Brickman's cell phone number an unsolicited
Birthday Announcement Text stating "Today is Jim Stewart's
birthday. Although Brickman supplied Facebook his cell phone
number, which is associated to his Facebook page, Brickman
indicated in the Notification Settings of his Facebook account,
prior to receiving the text message, that he did not want to
receive any text messages from Facebook, and also did not activate
text messaging for his cell phone.
On February 2, 2016, Brickman filed a putative class action suit
against Facebook, alleging that Facebook violates the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unauthorized text
messages. He seeks to represent the following class: "All
individuals who received one or more Birthday Announcement Texts
from Defendant to a cell phone through the use of an automated
telephone dialing system at any time without their consent."
In the motion, Facebook contends Brickman has not sufficiently
alleged a TCPA claim because the content of the birthday message
and the context of the alleged birthday message, along with the
absence of other messages, supports a finding that the text was
the result of direct targeting following human intervention.
In his Order dated January 27, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/mpLdpk from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson found that
Brickman has alleged enough to support a TCPA claim against
Facebook because (1) Brickman has alleged more than a conclusory
allegation that Facebook used an ATDS to send out text messages;
(2) the context of the Facebook's text message, and the existence
of similar messages do not preclude a finding that Facebook
employed an ATDS to send out the Birthday Announcement Texts.
Colin R. Brickman is represented by Frank A. Bartela, Esq. --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- and Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. --
Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq. -- ksagafi@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO &
ZAVAREEI LLP
Facebook, Inc. is represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq. --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -- Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq. --
andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Devin Scott Anderson, Esq. --
devin.anderson@kirkland.com -- and -- Susan E. Engel, Esq. --
susan.engel@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
FORD MOTOR: Faces "Aviles" Suit Over Defective Throttle Body
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Santa Ana, Calif. claims Ford's defective
Delphi Sixth Generation electronic throttle body in model years
2011 to 2015 can cause cars to spontaneously stall or decelerate.
The case is captioned, FERNANDO AVILES, BARRY KIERY, MICHAEL
KELDER, and JAMES COWEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant.
Case 8:17-cv-00281 (C.D. Cal. February 15, 2017).
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
David S. Stellings Esq.
Jason L. Lichtman Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com
jlichtman@lchb.com
Fabrice Vincent Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: fvincent@lchb.com
FRIED STEWED: Settlement in "Williams" FLSA Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
In their Second Amended Collective Action Complaint, the named
plaintiffs, Raven Williams, D'Andre Wilkerson, Tiffany Newburn,
Danielle Powe, and Jennifer Hampton brought the action seeking
unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201 et seq. (FLSA). The Named Plaintiffs are current or
former servers employed by defendants, Robert W. Omainsky and
Fried Stewed Nude, Inc., at Wintzell's Oyster House restaurant
locations in Downtown Mobile, West Mobile, and/or Saraland,
Alabama. Although they alleged various FLSA violations,
plaintiffs' primary theory of liability was that Wintzell's had
violated the FLSA by operating an invalid tip pool. The FLSA
generally establishes a minimum hourly wage of $7.25; however,
employers may claim a "tip credit" and pay tipped employees a cash
hourly wage as low as $2.13, so long as certain criteria are
satisfied. Plaintiffs also asserted that Wintzell's violated the
FLSA by claiming a tip credit for non-tipped work that comprised a
substantial part of the servers' duties.
Wintzell's disputed plaintiffs' theory of liability and denied any
defects in its tip pool or its claim of a tip credit to reduce
plaintiffs' cash wages below the statutory minimum. In particular,
Wintzell's maintained that the challenged participants in the tip
pool were, in fact, tipped employees, and that plaintiffs did not
spend substantial time performing related but non-tipped duties.
As such, defendants' position was that they had fully paid
plaintiffs for their work in conformity with the FLSA.
In December 2015, the Court entered an Order staying the claims of
opt-in plaintiffs who had executed Employment Arbitration
Agreements in March 2015. In January 2016, the Court entered an
Order conditionally certifying a class consisting of all current
and former employees, including servers, of the Wintzell's
restaurants located in Downtown Mobile, Saraland, and West Mobile
who were paid a cash wage less than minimum wage (excluding any
credit for tips retained), or for whom Wintzell's claimed a "tip
credit" while requiring employees to contribute a portion of their
tips to non-tipped employees, all for the period spanning November
5, 2012 through March 6, 2015.
Over a period of months, the parties diligently negotiated an
arm's-length settlement to resolve this action in its entirety. In
the settlement, defendant Fried Stewed Nude, Inc. (FSN) shall pay
the sum of $424,238.35 to plaintiffs in three installments over a
170-day period. That settlement amount consists of two components:
$399,238.35 as damages payments $25,000 in incentive payments. In
addition to the settlement amount described above, the Settlement
Agreement contemplates that FSN will pay the sum of $117,500 as
plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees and costs and $4,000 in
expenses.
The parties filed with the Court a joint motion for stipulated
judgment approving the proposed settlement.
In his Order dated January 27, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/oJG59q from Leagle.com, Chief District Judge William
H. Steele of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama concluded that the proposed damage payouts to
plaintiffs represent a fair and reasonable compromise of a bona
fide FLSA dispute and the modest incentive payments proposed by
the parties are appropriate. The Court is also satisfied that the
proposed attorney's fee payment to plaintiffs' counsel constitutes
adequate, reasonable compensation and that plaintiffs' recovery
was neither tainted nor otherwise adversely affected by the fee
award negotiated by their attorneys.
The case is captioned, RAVEN WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROBERT W. OMAINSKY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-0123-WS-N
(S.D. Ala.).
D'Andre Wilkerson, et al. are represented by Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
-- jgoldfarb@wigginschilds.com -- Lachlan William Smith, Esq. --
wsmith@wigginschilds.com -- and -- Rachel Lee McGinley, Esq. --
rmcginley@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN, AND
PANTAZIS, LLC
Robert W. Omainsky, and Fried, Stewed, Nude, Inc. are represented
by John Day Peake, III, Esq. -- day.peake@phelps.com -- STARNES
DAVIS FLORIE
GRIFOLS WORLDWIDE: Rivas Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------KATHY
RIVAS as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRIFOLS WORLDWIDE OPERATIONS USA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; GRIFOLS BIOLOGICALS INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No.
BC649697 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and penalties under the California Business and Professions
Code, Labor Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
The Plaintiff often worked in excess of eight hours per workday
and/or forty hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime
compensation equal to one and one half times her regular rate of
pay for all overtime hours worked. Specifically, Defendants paid
Plaintiff a performance bonus and during at least a portion of the
class period, a shift differential or premium, and/or other forms
of pay not excludable as a matter of law when calculating an
employee's regular rate. Despite Defendants' payment of Incentive
Pay to Plaintiff, Defendants failed to properly calculate
Plaintiffs regular rate of pay, thereby causing Plaintiff to be
underpaid all of her required overtime wages.
Grifols Worldwide was incorporated in 2014 and is based in City of
Industry, California. Grifols Worldwide Operations USA, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Grifols Worldwide Operations Ltd.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines (SBN 248226)
Tuvia Korobkin (SBN 268066)
Sean M. Blakely (SBN 264384)
HAINES LAW CROUP, APC
2274 East Maple Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292 2350
Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
HAMPTON HALL: Dismissal of "Lightner" Class Action Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Donald W. Beatty of the South Carolina Supreme Court
affirmed, in part, the order granting dismissal of the class
action allegations in the case captioned, Brad Lightner,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Respondent, v. Hampton Hall Club, Inc., State of South Carolina,
South Carolina Department of Revenue, Beaufort County and John
Doe, Defendants, Of whom State of South Carolina and South
Carolina Department of Revenue are, Petitioners, Case No. 27700
(S.C.).
Brad Lightner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, (Respondent) brought the action against Hampton Hall
Club, Inc., the State of South Carolina, the South Carolina
Department of Revenue (SCDOR), Beaufort County, and John Doe
(Defendants), alleging Defendants wrongfully collected and
retained admissions taxes. After Respondent filed a motion for
class certification, the State and the SCDOR (Petitioners) filed a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, or, in the
alternative, to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f), SCRCP, to dismiss
the State as a party and to stay discovery. In so moving,
Petitioners asserted, inter alia, Respondent is required to
exhaust the administrative remedies under the South Carolina
Revenue Procedures Act (Act) and is prohibited from proceeding as
a class action against the SCDOR.
The circuit court determined the Act is inapplicable to the action
because the General Assembly intended to limit the Act's
application to disputes with the SCDOR concerning property taxes,
which both parties conceded were not at issue. The court, however,
granted Petitioners' motion to dismiss the class action
allegations, finding the Act, which it determined was inapplicable
to this dispute, nevertheless prohibited Respondent from bringing
a class action lawsuit against Petitioners.
Respondent filed a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to reconsider,
arguing: (1) it is inconsistent to find the Act does not apply to
this dispute, yet apply a provision from the Act to prohibit
Respondent from proceeding as a class action; (2) Drummond does
not apply to this action; and (3) the circuit court's order does
not have the effect of dismissing a defendant. The circuit court
denied Respondent's motion to reconsider.
Respondent subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals. Shortly thereafter, Petitioners filed a petition for
extraordinary relief including a writ of certiorari in the Court,
asserting: (1) the circuit court erred in determining the Act is
limited to disputes concerning property taxes; (2) Respondent is
required to exhaust the administrative remedies under the Act; and
(3) the State should be dismissed from this action. By way of
return, Respondent argued, inter alia, the circuit court erred in
applying the class action prohibition under the Act. After this
Court granted certiorari, the Court of Appeals dismissed
Respondent's appeal on the basis that class certification orders
are not immediately appealable.
In the Opinion dated February 1, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/F17a1X from Leagle.com, Judge Beatty held that the
circuit court erred in finding the Act's application is limited to
disputes with the SCDOR concerning property taxes. Because the Act
is applicable to the case, Respondent is required to follow the
administrative remedies under the Act and is prohibited from
proceeding as a class action against Petitioners. Based on the
disposition of the issues, the court declined to reach
Petitioners' remaining argument.
South Carolina Department of Revenue is represented by Tasha B.
Thompson, Esq. -- tashat@scottandcorley.com - SCOTT & CORLEY, PA
-- and --
Alan M. Wilson, Esq.
General J. Emory Smith, Jr., Esq.
SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL
1000 Assembly St,
Columbia, SC 29201
Tel: (803)734-3970
Hampton Hall club, Inc. is represented by Ronnie L. Crosby, Esq. -
- rcrosby@pmped.com -- and -- William F. Barnes, III, Esq. --
wbarnes@pmped.com -- MURDAUGH PARKER ELTZROTH & DETRICK, PA
-- and --
Kathleen C. Barnes, Esq.
BARNES LAW FIRM, LLC
919 W 47th St,
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: (816) 221-4321
HANGER INC: Alaska Pension Fund's 3rd Amended Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sam Sparks of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss Third Amended Complaint (TAC) filed by Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund, the lead plaintiff in the case captioned, CITY OF
PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HANGER, INC.,
VINIT K. ASAR, GEORGE McHENRY, and THOMAS KIRK, Defendants, Case
No. A-14-CA-1026-SS (W.D. Tex.).
Lead Plaintiff sues on behalf of all persons who purchased common
stock of Defendant Hanger, Inc., an orthotic and prosthetic (O&P)
patient care services company, between July 27, 2011, and February
26, 2016 (the Class Period). Plaintiff alleges Hanger; CEO Vinit
Asar, former CFO George McHenry; and former CEO Thomas Kirk made a
variety of misrepresentations to shareholders during the Class
Period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants falsely stated Hanger's net sales,
net accounts receivable, inventories, pre-tax income, net income,
and diluted earnings per share at numerous points throughout the
Class Period. Plaintiff also claims Defendants misrepresented
Hanger's success in defending against Medicare audits and
implementing Janus, painting a falsely rosy picture.
In the case, the Court considers whether the lead Plaintiff in a
securities fraud class action has met the heightened pleading
standard. Plaintiff offers its Third Amended Complaint (TAC)
following the Court's dismissal of its First Amended Complaint
(FAC).
Defendants argue Plaintiff's TAC should be dismissed because it
inadequately alleges scienter, falsity, and loss causation.
In his Order dated January 26, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/pApj9J from Leagle.com, Judge Sparks found that
Plaintiff has failed to meet the required pleading standard
because Plaintiff failed to comprehensively set out the facts
underlying its claims.
City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System is
represented by Avi Josefson, Esq. -- avi@blbglaw.com -- and --
Gerald H. Silk, Esq. -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ,
BERGER & GROSSMAN -- Gerald Thomas Drought, Esq. --
gdrought@mdtlaw.com -- MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C.
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Carissa
J. Dolan, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel S. Drosman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Douglas R. Britton, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ivy T. Ngo, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Luke O. Brooks, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Thomas E.
Egler, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jamie Jean McKey, Kendall
Law Group & Joe Kendall, Kendall Law Group, LLP.
Hanger Inc., Vinit K. Asar, et al. are represented by James P.
Sullivan, Esq. -- jsullivan@kslaw.com -- Michael J. Biles, Esq.
-- mbiles@kslaw.com -- Paul R. Bessette, Esq. --
pbessette@kslaw.com -- Srimath Saliya Subasinghe, Esq. --
ssubasinghe@kslaw.com -- and -- Tyler Wayne Highful, Esq. --
thighful@kslaw.com -- KING AND SPALDING LLP
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Senator Wants Attorney in Bail Case Removed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a Texas state senator who agrees with a class action in
Houston, claiming the state's most populous county
unconstitutionally jails poor people wants an attorney
representing the county removed for his "disgraceful statements"
during a recent hearing.
Known as the "Dean of the Texas Senate," Sen. John Whitmire,
D-Houston, has held the office since 1983 and is chair of the
Senate Criminal Justice Committee.
With more than 4.3 million residents, Harris County operates the
state's biggest jail in downtown Houston that books an average of
1,400 people a week. Houston is the county seat.
Represented by the Civil Rights Corps, a Washington, D.C. firm,
the plaintiffs in the class action seek a preliminary injunction,
ordering the county to release low-level arrestees on no-fee
bonds, also called personal bonds.
Well aware the bail system is partly to blame for chronic
overcrowding in the jail, the county is implementing a "public-
safety assessment," in which all arrestees will be evaluated for
eligibility for no-fee bonds by a computer program without
pretrial service staff having to interview them.
The county's attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal at
a Feb. 8 hearing to stay the case until after the new system, set
to launch July 1, is installed, claiming in court filings "these
changes will likely moot this lawsuit."
The county hired James Munisteri with Gardere Wynne Sewell in
Houston to defend five Harris County magistrate judges who preside
over probable cause hearings and set bail for arrestees.
Munisteri told Rosenthal during the stay motion hearing that the
county has taken steps to reform its bail system.
He said that since the class action was filed in May 2016, Harris
County criminal judges have enacted rule changes that dictate
personal bonds for more low-level arrestees, and a new pretrial
services form collects more financial data about defendants
earlier in the post-arrest process, so the percentage of
defendants granted no-fee bonds has jumped from 8 percent to more
than 20 percent.
Asked by Rosenthal what percentage of Harris County inmates are in
jail only because they can't afford bail, Munisteri made some
curious arguments that caught the attention of Whitmire and Harris
County Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, who was among 30
people in the gallery.
"There are individuals, for instance, that for whatever reason,
decide they do want to go to jail and stay there. If it's a cold
week," Munisteri said.
Rosenthal tried to walk him back from the statement.
"That's a dicey argument to make. That's a difficult assumption to
make. 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.
But Munisteri pressed on: "In addition, your honor, there are
individuals who believe they have guilt and agree to plea."
Rosenthal shot back: "Or they plea just because they want to get
out of jail and can't afford to get out any other way."
Rosenthal, a George H.W. Bush nominee, denied the county's stay
motion and set a preliminary injunction hearing for March 6.
Ellis told reporters after the hearing he agrees with the
plaintiffs and is concerned about the thousands of dollars the
county has spent "to defend a system that's indefensible."
But he made his feelings about Munisteri's arguments known a few
days later in a letter co-signed by Whitmire that he sent to
Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan on Feb. 10.
"We are writing this letter to call your attention to disturbing
statements made on February 8, in federal court by James
Munisteri, an attorney your office has hired to defend Harris
County's bail system," the letter opens. "Mr. Munisteri claimed
'there are individuals, for instance, that for whatever reason,
decide they want to go to jail and stay there' and the number of
people in jail because of their inability to pay might possibly be
zero."
In the letter, Ellis reiterated his support for the class action's
goal of reforming the county's bail practices.
"It is our position that the Harris County bail system blatantly
violates the rights and freedoms protected under the U.S.
Constitution by creating one system of justice for the wealthy and
an unjust one for the poor," the letter states. "We ask that you
immediately dismiss Mr. Munisteri from representing the people of
Harris County, and join us in condemning the disgraceful
statements he made in court on February 8."
Munisteri didn't respond on February 7, morning to a request for
comment on the letter.
Robert Soard, assistant county attorney, told the Houston Press
his office is waiting to get a transcript of the hearing to see
the context of Munisteri's statements.
In September, the county had spent $170,000 defending against the
class action, paying several other private attorneys between $240
and $650 per hour, the Press reported.
At their regular Harris County Commissioners Court meeting on
February 7, the county's CEO and its top four executives,
including Ellis, are considering the county attorney's request for
payment of the latest fees Munisteri and other private attorneys
have charged for their work on the case.
Munisteri said during the Feb. 8 hearing he had been involved in
the case for less than two weeks.
HARRISON GLOBAL: "Huddlestun" Suit Moved to S.D. of Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mark Huddlestun, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Harrison Global, LLC, doing business as Boston Coach, and Does 1-
100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02016-00043127-CU-OE-
CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-00253-DMS-WVG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw.
Harrison Global specializes in corporate limo service, airport
town car service, and coach bus service.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harry W. Harrison, Esq.
HARRISON & BODELL LLP
11455 El Camino Real, Suite 480
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 461 4699
Facsimile: (858) 461 4703
E-mail: hharrison@harrisonbodell.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Heather Murray Sager, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE
275 Battery Street, Suite 2464
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 749-9500
Fax: (415) 749-9512
E-mail: hsager@vedderprice.com
HP INC: "Romero" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend in the case captioned, CARLOS ROMERO,
Plaintiff, v. HP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-05415-LHK (N.D.
Cal.).
Plaintiff Carlos Romero (Plaintiff), on behalf of himself and
individuals similarly, situated sued Defendant HP, Inc.
(Defendant) for violation of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices
Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Section 17.40, et
seq. (Texas Act). Plaintiff alleges that "on or around July 26,
2016[,] Plaintiff went online to wwww.officedepot.com and
purchased a LaserJet printer." Specifically, Plaintiff purchased
the HP LaserJet Pro P1102. After further research, "Plaintiff
discovered that the Smart Install feature had been disabled" on
the model of printer Plaintiff had purchased. Plaintiff alleges
that the representation on the website about the HP Smart Install
system was "part of a common scheme to mislead Purchasers and
incentivize them to purchase printers in spite of the difficulty
of installing the printers."
In addition to Plaintiff's individual purchase, Plaintiff makes
class action allegations. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of
"All purchasers, who, between the applicable statute of
limitations and the present, purchased one or more [of the 30
models of printers listed in the FAC] while residing in Texas, and
whose printer was advertised to include the HP Smart Install
feature when in fact this feature had been disabled."
In the motion, Defendant raises three arguments to challenge the
adequacy of the FAC. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has
insufficiently alleged facts connecting Defendant to the alleged
misrepresentation at issue in the instant case. Second, Defendant
argues that the FAC fails to establish Plaintiff's standing to
bring his Texas Act claim with respect to the "30 or so" models of
printers Plaintiff did not actually purchase. Finally, Plaintiff
argues that the FAC fails to establish that Plaintiff has standing
to seek injunctive relief. Defendant also makes a request for
judicial notice.
In her Order dated January 27, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/bUJu4I from Leagle.com, Judge Koh found that
Plaintiff has failed to establish Article III standing with
respect to the printers Plaintiff did not purchase. The Court
granted leave to amend because Plaintiff may be able to allege
facts that show that Defendant was the producing cause of
Plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff shall do so within 30 days of the
date of the Order.
Carlos Romero is represented by Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. --
abacon@toddflaw.com -- and Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
HP, Inc. is represented by Erin E. McCracken, Esq. --
erin.mccracken@dbr.com -- Marshall Lee Benjamin Baker, Esq. --
marshall.baker@dbr.com -- and Michael James Stortz, Esq. --
michael.stortz@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
I-FORTUNE COOKIE: Faces "Cauca" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I-Fortune Cookie
Food Service Inc. The case is titled as Marco Rigoberto Panza
Cauca, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. I-Fortune Cookie Food Service Inc., doing
business as I-Fortune Cookie, and Shu Heung Lee, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00690 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2017).
The Defendant is a neighborhood Chinese counter for takeout &
delivery with a long menu of choices.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Overtime Pay Sought in "Dechert" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Dechert, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Interstate Distributor Co., and Scott Dudley,
Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80128, (S.D. Fla., February 1, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Interstate Distributor Co. is a trucking company owned by
Saltchuk, Inc., a conglomeration of transportation and
distribution companies headquartered in Seattle, WA. Interstate
Distributor Co. operates a facility in West Palm Beach where Scott
Dudley is the Operations Manager of their West Palm Beach
facility. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a dispatcher.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
Jason M. Melton, Esq.
WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
One Progress Plaza
200 Central Avenue, #400
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Telephone: (727) 822-1111
Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
shelley@theFLlawfirm.com
INVENTURE FOODS: "Blair" Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------
Michelle Blair, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated current citizens of Missouri, Plaintiff, v. Inventure
Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1622-CC11275, (Mo. Cir., November
14, 2016), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on February 3, 2017, under Case No.
4:17-cv-00407.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, or alternatively,
disgorgement or restitution of Inventure's alleged unjust
enrichment from the sales of its snack foods that are overpriced
under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
8816 Manchester Rd.,No.109
St.Louis, MO 63144
- and -
Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
COCHRAN LAW PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Rd.,Ste.1045
Dallas, TX 65230
Defendant is represented by:
Troy A. Bozarth, Esq.
Matthew H. Noce, Esq.
Charles N. Insler, Esq.
HEPLER BROOM LLC
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway Suite 2700
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 241-6160
Fax: (314) 241-6116
Email: mhn@heplerbroom.com
cni@heplerbroom.com
ISLAS CANARIAS: "Guerrero" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Karla J. Guerrero, and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Islas Canarias South, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 16-030535-CA-01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-20494-UU to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro.
Isla Canarias is doing business in the restaurants industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 448 9292
Facsimile: (305) 448 9477
E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq.
Shutts & Bowen LLP
200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 347 7337
Facsimile: (305) 347 7837
E-mail: rgl@shutts.com
J & C OF GENEVA: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Ojeda, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J & C of Geneva Corporation,
d/b/a Old Towne Pub & Eatery, and Chrisopher Cellini Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00928 (N.D. Ill., February 3, 2017), alleges that
Defendants have a policy and practice of not paying Gabriel and
other similarly situated employees for overtime hours worked. The
case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Plaintiff works as a busboy for Old Towne Pub. His primary duties
were cleaning and clearing off tables. Defendant Old Towne Pub is
an Illinois corporation that owns and operates a restaurant.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM
200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: (630) 355-7590
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Sued Over Alleged Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Yoshioka, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Bobby Bains and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. RG17847573 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 31,
2017), alleges that the Defendants are engaged in a course of
conduct intentionally designed to discriminate the Plaintiff on
the basis of her sex.
Johnson Controls, Inc. is a multinational conglomerate producing
automotive parts such as batteries and electronics and HVAC
equipment for buildings.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robin G. Workman, Esq.
WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
177 Post Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415)782-3660
Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com
KELLY SERVICES: Court Vacates Dismissal of "Boergert" Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri granted, in part, a
motion to reconsider in the case captioned, SCOTT BOERGERT,
individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, v. KELLY
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-04185-NKL (W.D Mo.).
Plaintiff Scott Boergert filed the putative class action under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in state court and Defendant
Kelly Services, Inc. removed it. Boergert alleged that he applied
to work for Kelly Services. During the hiring process, he signed a
form, which Kelly Services then used to obtain his consumer report
from another company. Kelly Services hired him and assigned him to
work at Kraft. Kelly Services then fired him, telling him it was
because of information in his consumer report that made him no
longer eligible for employment.
In Count I of his complaint, Boergert alleges an Adverse Action
Claim based on Kelly Services' failure to give him a copy of his
consumer report at least three days before he was terminated. 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i). In Count II, he alleges a
Disclosure Claim, because Kelly Services did not give him a stand-
alone document that consisted solely of a disclosure that a
consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes.
On November 14, 2016, the Court granted Kelly Services' motion to
dismiss finding that Boergert had not alleged a concrete injury
sufficient to give the Court subject matter jurisdiction. While
Boergert had alleged violations of the FRCA, they were technical,
procedural requirements that were insufficient to show concrete
harm.
Boergert now asks the Court to set aside its order because it
contains errors of law and fact. He seeks relief under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b). Boergert reiterates his argument that a
violation of the FRCA's stand-alone document requirement is enough
to show concrete harm, as is a violation of the requirement of a
three-day notice and an opportunity to respond to a consumer
report being relied on to terminate an employee. He also argues
that the Court did not give his complaint all reasonable
inferences and added other pleading requirements that do not
exist. Finally, if the Court still finds that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, he requests the case be remanded to state
court rather than being dismissed.
In her Order dated February 1, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/nEwYIs from Leagle.com, Judge Laughrey vacated the
dismissal of Court II and gave Boergert 10 days from the date of
the Order to amend his complaint to clearly state what he said he
intended to plead concerning his Disclosure Claim (Count II). As
to Count I, the Court remanded the case to the state court as the
case did not originate in federal court but was removed there by
the defendants because it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.
Scott Boergert is represented by:
Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
BROWN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
2102 E. Cahaba Road, Second Floor
Birmingham, AL 35223
Tel: (334)613-9169
Kelly Services, Inc. is represented by Aaron A. Buckley, Esq. --
abuckley@paulplevin.com -- PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON
LLP -- Alex S. Drummond, Esq. -- adrummond@seyfarth.com -- Gerald
L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- and -- Rebecca
P. DeGroff, Esq. -- rdegroff@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP --
Brian E. Peterson, Esq. -- bpeterson@spencerfane.com -- and --
Francis X. Neuner, Jr., Esq. -- feuner@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER,
FANE, BRITT & BROWNE LLP
KENDALL IMPORTS: Arbitration Terms Valid, Appeals Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leslie B. Rothenberg of the Florida Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to compel
arbitration and remanded action in the case captioned, Kendall
Imports, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. Dianellys Y. Diaz, et al.,
Appellees, Case No. 3D15-1985 (Fla. App.).
Kendall Imports, LLC (Kendall) sold automobiles to Dayron Ortega
(Ortega), Erislandis Marquez (Marquez), and Dianellys Y. Diaz
(Diaz). The Buyers do not speak or read English. When the Buyers
purchased their vehicles, they each signed two documents that were
written in English -- a purchase order and a retail installment
sales contract (financing agreement). Both the purchase order and
the financing agreement contained arbitration clauses, but they
were not identical.
The Buyers filed a class action lawsuit against Kendall and its
finance director, seeking damages and alleging violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA),
violations of the Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act, and
unjust enrichment.
Kendall filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the
arbitration clauses in the purchase order and financing agreement.
The trial court entered a non-final order denying the motion that:
(1) due to the conflicts between several of the provisions within
the arbitration clauses in the purchase order and the financing
agreement, Kendall and the Buyers did not have "a meeting of the
minds" regarding an agreement to arbitrate and thus there was no
valid agreement to arbitrate as a matter of law; and (2) even if
the arbitration clauses were validly formed, they were
unconscionable.
Kendall appealed the trial court's non-final order contending that
the arbitration provisions contained in the documents are
unenforceable because the terms and conditions of the arbitration
agreements "are in direct conflict with one another" and these
conflicts "are irreconcilable."
In his Order dated February 1, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/aKh5jD from Leagle.com, Judge Rothenberg found that
the trial court erred as a matter of law by invalidating the
arbitration agreement on because the burden squarely rested on the
Buyers to seek clarification of the terms of the financial
agreement. The Buyers had a full and fair opportunity to inquire
into the terms of the documents, and they declined to do so, they
will not now be able to escape the binding effect of their
unequivocal assent to the arbitration clauses by claiming that
Kendall did not explain the term.
Kendall Imports, LLC, et al. are represented by Christopher S.
Carver, Esq. -- christopher.carver@akerman.com -- Lawrence D.
Silverman, Esq. -- lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- and --
Lorayne Perez, Esq. -- lorayne.perez@akerman.com -- AKERMAN LLP
Dianellys Y. Diaz, et al. are represented by Gonzalo R. Dorta,
Esq. -- grd@dortalaw.com -- Matias R. Dorta, Esq. -- and --
mrd@tewlaw.com -- DORTA LAW
LAVAZZA PREMIUM: Faces "Lowney" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonor Lowney, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp., Case No.
1:17-cv-00726 (S.D.N.Y., January 31, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants operate a coffee and tea manufacturing business
located in Wall Street, Floor, New York, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
Broadway, Suite
New York, NY
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
bsherr@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Sue over Sale to CenturyLink
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors of Level 3 Communications face a federal class action in
Denver accusing them of keeping shareholders in the dark about the
$19.4 billion sale to CenturyLink, for $26.50 in cash plus 1.43
shares of CenturyLink stock for each share of Level 3 stock.
The case is captioned, JAMES MURRAY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LEVEL 3
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JAMES O. ELLIS, JR., JEFF K. STOREY, KEVIN
P. CHILTON, STEVEN T. CLONTZ, IRENE M. ESTEVES, T. MICHAEL GLENN,
SPENCER B. HAYS, MICHAEL J. MAHONEY, KEVIN W. MOONEY; PETER SEAH
LIM HUAT, and PETER VAN OPPEN, Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-00389-PAB
(D. Colo., February 14, 2017).
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 861-3003
Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com
- and -
Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
Post-Montgomery Ctr.
One Montgomery
Street, Ste. 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (303) 861-3003
Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.com
- and -
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Cell (305) 205-8284 or (646) 522-4840
Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
MAACO FRANCHISING: "Dubois" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cleve Dubois, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAACO Franchising, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00260 (M.D. Fla., February 1, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate an automotive repair shop in Pasco Couny,
Florida, where Dubois worked as a paint line technician. Plaintiff
claims that the Defendant failed to maintain mandatory time-
keeping records and thus did not compute his overtime pay.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
Tampa, FL 33602-3343
Tel: (813) 224-0431
Fax: (813) 229-8712
Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces "Parrott" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANE PARROTT and KEVIN WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-10359-VAR-RSW
(E.D. Mich., February 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for Plaintiffs and other current and former Food and Beverage
Managers, as well as those in similar positions but operating
under different titles, who worked more than 40 hours in any
workweek at any hotel operating as a Courtyard by Marriott hotel
in the United States.
Defendant Marriott owns and operates a chain of over 3,000 hotels
in North America, including in all 50 states. Plaintiff Stephane
Parrott worked as a Food Manager.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
Christopher Timmel, Esq.
KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Phone: (914) 934-9200
Fax: (914) 934-9220
E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
fran@klafterolsen.com
MDL 1917: $75MM Settlement in Suit v. Mitsubishi Electric Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, preliminarily approved a $75
million settlement on February 13, for direct purchasers who
brought a class action against Mitsubishi Electric Corp., in
cathode ray tube antitrust litigation that has included $133
million in settlements against eight co-conspirators.
The case is captioned, IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MDL No. 1917, Master Case No. C-07-5944 JST; This
Order Relates To: Crago, d/b/a Dash Computers, Inc., et al. v.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, et al., Case No. 14-cv-2058
JST(N.D. Cal. February 13, 2017).
MEAD JOHNSON: Faces "Kirkham" Suit Over Reckitt Benckiser Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Chicago
Cook County court that Mead Johnson Nutrition's $16.6 billion
merger with Reckitt Benckiser undervalues stock and will cost
shareholders $812 million.
The case is, CHRISTOPHER KIRKHAM, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN M. ALTSCHULER,
HOWARD B. BERNICK, KIMBERLY A. CASIANO, ANNA C. CATALANO, CELESTE
A. CLARK, JAMES M. CORNELIUS, STEPHEN W. GOLSBY, MICHAEL
GROBSTEIN, KASPER JAKOBSEN, PETER G. RATCLIFFE, ELLIOTT SIGAL,
ROBERT S. SINGER, MICHAEL SHERMAN, MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY,
RECKITT BENCKISER GROUP PLC, and MARIGOLD MERGER SUB, INC.,
Defendants, 2017-CH-02109, Circuit Court Of Cook County, Illinois
Chancery Division, February 14, 2017.
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/231-1058
Facsimile: 619/231-7423
- and -
James E. Barz, Esq.
Frank Richter, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP
200 S. Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312/674-4674
Facsimile: 312/674-4676
- and -
W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212/802-1486
Facsimile: 212/602-1592
MEDICAL SOCIETY: Faces "Corbett" Class Action in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Society
Business Services Incorporated. The case is captioned as Brandon H
Corbett, individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Medical Society Business Services
Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00394-DGC (D. Ariz.,
Feb. 7, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge David G
Campbell.
Medical Society, doing business as Bureau of Medical Economics,
provides medical collection services. It provides bad debt
collection, early out-self-pay, early out-insurance claim follow
up, early out-clean out, electronic skip tracing, credit card
processing and check by phone, and online debtor payment options
by phone solutions.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Leslie Prather, Esq.
5864 N 83rd St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Telephone: (480) 296 1507
E-mail: johnlprather@hushmail.com
METRO DINER MGMT: "Fiumano" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Fiumano, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Metro Diner Management LLC, Metro Services LLC,
Consul Hospitality Group LLC, John Davoli Sr., John Davoli Jr. and
Mark Davoli, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10169, (E.D. Pa.,
February 1, 2017), seeks overtime wages, compensatory damages, all
available liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
reimbursement of all costs and expenses incurred in litigating
this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.
Metro Diner Management LLC is a corporation incorporated in the
State of Florida that owns and operates Metro Diner restaurants in
Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, Indiana and North Carolina.
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server in their
restaurants in Orlando, FL.
Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: (215) 873-4836
- and -
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312) 233-1550
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Azzarito" FDCPA Suit Removed to D. Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Azzarito, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management Inc.,
Defendant, was removed from the Superior Court of Connecticut to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on
February 2, 2017, under Case No. 3:17-cv-00161.
The action alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector,
assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations
through various education and payment plans.
Defendant is represented by:
Patrick J. Sweeney, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
31 W. 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212) 513-3200
Fax: (212) 385-9010
Email: patrick.sweeney@hklaw.com
Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter M. Van Dyke, Esq.
EAGAN DONOHUE, VAN DYKE & FALSEY, LLP
24 Arapahoe Road
West Hartford, CT 06107
Tel: (860) 232-7200
Fax: (860) 232-0214
Email: pvd@eddf-law.com
MISTRAS GROUP: "Viceral" Class Suit Settlement Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated case, Viceral v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No.
15-02198 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M Chen entered an order on Feb.
17 granting Plaintiffs' Motions for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and for Attorneys' Fees.
According to the Company's January 11, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2016, the Company is a defendant in a consolidated
purported class and collective action, Edgar Viceral and David
Kruger v Mistras Group, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. This matter results from
the consolidation of two cases originally filed in California
state court in April 2015. The consolidated case alleges
violations of California statutes, primarily the California Labor
Code, and seeks to proceed as a collective action under the U.S.
Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is predicated on claims for
allegedly missed rest and meal periods, inaccurate wage
statements, and failure to pay all wages due, as well as related
unfair business practices, and is requesting payment of all
damages, including unpaid wages, and various fines and penalties
available under California and Federal law.
The parties have reached a settlement of the case, whereby the
Company agreed to pay $6 million to resolve the allegations and
avoid further distraction that would result if the litigation
continued. The settlement received preliminary approval by the
court in October 2016.
The Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $6.3 million in the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2016 for the settlement and payment of
payroll taxes and other costs related to the settlement. Upon
final approval, the settlement will cover claims dating back to
April 2011 in some cases and involves approximately 4,900 current
and former employees.
Mistras Group, Inc. is a leading "one source" global provider of
technology-enabled asset protection solutions used to evaluate the
structural integrity and reliability of critical energy,
industrial and public infrastructure. The Company combines
industry-leading products and technologies, expertise in
mechanical integrity (MI) and non-destructive testing (NDT)
services and proprietary data analysis software to deliver a
comprehensive portfolio of customized solutions, ranging from
routine inspections to complex, plant-wide asset integrity
assessments and management.
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: Kalmbach Sues Over Telemarketing
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action accuses the National Rifle Association and InfoCision
of telemarketing violations, in King County Court, Seattle.
Kalmbach seeks to: (1) stop Defendants' practice of placing
telemarketing calls using an "automatic telephone dialing system"
and/or using "a pre-recorded voice" to call the cellular and
landline telephones of consumers in Washington without their prior
express consent, (2) stop their practice of calling Washington
residents who have asked to be placed on a do not call list, (3)
enjoin Defendants from continuing to place such calls to
consumers, and (4) obtain redress for all persons injured by their
conduct.
The case is captioned, KATHARYN KALMBACH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL
RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, a New York corporation, and
INFOCISION, INC. d/b/a InfoCision Management Corporation, a
Delaware corporation Defendants. CASE NUMBER: 17-2-03381-2 SEA
(Superior Court Of Washington, King County, February 10, 2017).
NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over FLSA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSMAN MALDONADO, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS, LLC and SCOTT
TARANTO, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01015 (E.D. La., February 3,
2017), alleges that while working for Defendants, Plaintiff was
not paid one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all
hours worked in excess of forty hours a workweek, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS, LLC is in the business of manufacturing and
installing custom shutters, doors, windows, and other millwork for
historically correct reproductions and renovations. Plaintiff was
employed as a painter.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Phone: (504) 534-5005
Fax: (504) 272-2956
E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com
- and -
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Phone: (504) 483-8008
E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
- and -
Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Phone: (504) 534-5005
E-mail: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
NEW PENN: Faces "Williams" Suit in Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Penn Financial,
LLC. The case is titled as Joyce Fudge Williams, Individually and
on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. New Penn Financial, LLC, doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage
Servicing, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00157-HLA-JRK
(M.D. Fla., Feb. 8, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Senior
Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr.
New Penn Financial offers mortgage lending products and services
in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
P.O. Box 1870
Lady Lake, FL 32158
Telephone: (352) 753 8600
Facsimile: (352) 753 8606
E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
- and -
Max H. Story, Esq.
STORY LAW GROUP
328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
Telephone: (904) 372 4109
Facsimile: (904) 758 5333
E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com
OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Prepayment Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Robinson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Ocwen Loan Services faces a federal class action in Atlanta,
accusing it of masking illegal prepayment penalties as post-
payment interest on federally insured loans.
Lead plaintiffs Leo and Jessica Ramirez took on the West Palm
Beach, Fla.-based lender in Feb. 14 complaint filed in Atlanta. A
representative at Ocwen's call center was unable to provide
comment.
Under regulations by the Federal Housing Administration, the
complaint says, lenders can charge post-payment interest only if
the borrower makes the full payment after the first of the month,
and even then only if the lender has provided the borrower with
the FHA disclosure form.
The FHA disclosure form explains borrowers' rights, including the
terms under which a lender can collect post-payment interest and
directions about how borrowers can avoid this penalty. This form
is required, according to the complaint, because it alerts
borrowers at the time of payment to the fact that the Housing
Urban Development Handbook states the lender is asserting the
right to collect the payment.
"All of the relevant government agencies now agree that collecting
postpayment interest is an unfair prepayment penalty and is
against public policy," the complaint states.
On February 14 class action accuses Ocwen Loan Services of reaping
hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal interest from countless
borrowers in this fashion. In each case, the class claims, Ocwen
failed to provide consumers with the FHA disclosure form and
instead gave them one that used its own unauthorized language that
does not explain to borrowers how to avoid this penalty.
The lead plaintiffs say this is what happened to them. "Because
Ocwen required Leo and Jessica Ramirez to pay interest for the
entire month of March and April -- even though the Ramirezes paid
the full unpaid principal on April 4, 2013, Ocwen collected post-
payment interest," the complaint states.
Seeking punitive damages and an injunction, the class alleges
breach of contract. They are represented by Archie Grubb II of
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles of Montgomery,
Alabama.
The case is captioned, LEO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, and JESSICA RAMIREZ,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant.
Case 1:17-mi-99999-UNA (N.D. Ga., February 14, 2017).
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
Archie I. Grubb, Ii, Esq.
Andrew E. Brashier, Esq.
Rachel E. Boyd, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Tel: 334-269-2343
E-mail: Archie.Grubb@BeasleyAllen.com
Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
Andrew.Brashier@BeasleyAllen.com
Rachel.Boyd@BeasleyAllen.com
- and -
Michael L. Werner, Esq.
Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq.
THE WERNER LAW FIRM
2860 Piedmont Road
Atlanta, GA 30305
Tel: (404) 793-1693
E-mail: mike@wernerlaw.com
matt@wernerlaw.com
ODWALLA INC: Must Defend Against Suit Over Cane Juice Label
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. has refused to dismiss a
class action accusing Odwalla and its parent Coca-Cola of
misleading consumers about the sugar in Odwalla's drinks and
energy bars.
In an order issued Feb. 13, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers demolished all three arguments the companies made in their
attempt to dismiss the lawsuit over the embattled term "evaporated
cane juice" on some of Odwalla's product labels, and set a case
management conference to keep the case moving.
Named plaintiff Robin Reese claims in a 2013 lawsuit that use of
"evaporated cane juice" on ingredient labels violates the federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act as applied by the California Sherman
Law, and that Odwalla and Coke fool consumers into thinking that
the ingredient is a juice and not ordinary sugar.
In making her argument, Reese cites federal regulations requiring
that any ingredients that fall within the definition for "sucrose"
must be labeled as sugar. For example, "cane sugar" rather than
"evaporated cane juice." She says that the term evaporated cane
juice falls under the government's definition of sucrose and not
juice, citing one regulation stating that sucrose is obtained from
sugar cane or sugar beets and another that defines juice as a
liquid or puree extracted from fruits and vegetables.
In their motion to dismiss, Odwalla and Coke had argued the Food,
Drug and Cosmetics Act preempts Reese's claims.
They said that there were no laws barring the term evaporated cane
juice from appearing on food labels before the FDA issued its 2016
Final Guidance on the issue, and that retroactively applying the
prohibition would apply non-identical labeling requirements that
would be preempted.
In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration published a Draft
Guidance confirming that use of evaporated cane juice on labels
violates the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act because it leads
consumers to believe that the ingredient is a juice rather than
dried sugar cane syrup.
The agency released its final, binding guidance in 2016, affirming
its previous conclusion that evaporated cane juice should be
stricken from labels "because that term does not accurately
describe the basic nature of the food and its characterizing
properties."
In a brief, Reese countered that existing federal laws and
regulations had already made it illegal for companies to label
sugar as evaporated cane juice, and that neither the 2009 nor the
2016 guidance had changed those laws.
Gonzalez Rogers agreed, writing in a 12-page order that Reese's
claims aren't preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. The
2016 guidance "merely confirmed that [evaporated cane juice] met
the definition for sucrose already in the federal regulations, and
thus, had to abide by the labeling requirements set forth for
sucrose," she said.
"It would produce perverse results if, any time the FDA issues
statements or guidance, such would erase liability for
corporations which violated the regulations prior to the issuance
of the same," she added.
The judge similarly rebuffed Odwalla and Coke's argument that the
California Sherman Law incorporates only binding FDA labeling
regulations, and that Reese's claims should be tossed because she
had based them on the non-binding 2009 guidance.
"Defendants' argument is based upon a mischaracterization of
plaintiff's position," she wrote. "While plaintiff believes that
the 2009 Draft Guidance is probative of such position, plaintiff's
claims are not based on the same."
Finally, Gonzalez Rogers rejected the companies' argument that
Reese's claims for injunctive relief should be dismissed as moot
because they have already replaced evaporated cane juice on their
labels with "cane sugar," finding that the record must be further
developed to determine whether injunctive relief is warranted.
Although Reese makes state claims for violations of California's
unfair competition, false advertising and consumer laws, she was
able to bring them under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act because
federal law displaces non-identical requirements in areas covered
by federal requirements.
Reese is represented by Keith Fleischman of The Fleischman Law
Firm in New York. Odwalla and Coke by is represented by Steven
Zalesin of Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler, also in New York.
Neither the attorneys nor representatives for Odwalla and Coke
could be reached for comment on February 15.
The case is captioned, ROBIN REESE, Plaintiff, v. ODWALLA, INC.,
ET AL., Defendants. Case 4:13-cv-00947-YGR(N.D. Cal. February 13,
2017).
ORACLE AMERICA: Faces "Johnson" Class Suit Over Sales Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that
a former sales representative for Oracle brought a class action in
San Francisco against the technology giant saying it rigged
commission formulas to depress employee compensation and increase
its own profits.
Marcella Johnson, a former saleswoman at the company, sued Oracle
in federal court on February 14, saying Oracle reneged on a
contractually agreed compensation formula, pressured sales staff
to agree to formulas against their economic interest and would
then change those formulas even if the staff did not agree to
changes.
Johnson seeks $150 million in damages.
"Oracle has systematically stiffed its salesforce of earned
commission wages for many years, by scrapping contractual
compensation plans when they yield commission earnings that are
higher than Oracle would prefer to pay and retroactively imposing
inferior -- i.e. less remunerative -- numeric terms," Johnson says
in her 17-page complaint.
Johnson says what makes Oracle's practice particularly egregious
is that the company would alter the compensation formulas after a
particular salesperson sold enough to merit payment of a certain
amount.
The company also forces salespeople to accept the change in
formulas through coercion, Johnson says, adding that even
employees bold enough to decline the formula changes find the
changes made anyway.
"Led by the finance department and supported by sales operations
and compensation department employees, Oracle reduces commissions
through systematic processes designed to align commissions with
financial forecasts and bottom line goals," Johnson says. "Over
the years, Oracle has taken millions of dollars from commission
wages to add to its bottom line."
Oracle spokeswoman Deborah Hellinger denied the class claims in an
email on February 14.
"Oracle categorically denies the allegations and we will
vigorously defend against them," Hellinger wrote.
Johnson says she joined the company in the fall of 2013 and made a
certain number of sales, after which she was "re-planned" under a
different compensation plan -- meaning she suddenly owed Oracle
nearly $20,000. Oracle told her she had no choice but to make up
the difference and would sue her if she failed to pay, essentially
meaning she had no choice but to work for the company for months
without making commissions.
The practice was standard at the company and affected many
salespeople in late 2013 to early 2014, Johnson says.
Oracle, headquartered in Redwood Shores, California, is a Fortune
100 company that specializes in selling computer technology,
including cloud-based systems and its own database management
systems.
The company also devises and sells various software platforms that
manage supply chains, customer relations and other aspects of
business.
Its founder and current CEO Larry Ellison ranks as one of the
richest men in the world.
The latest lawsuit is not the first time Oracle's sales practice
have come under scrutiny. In 1990, the company landed in hot water
for overreporting its earnings because its salespeople engaged in
an up-front marketing strategy to encourage clients to purchase
all of their software needs at once.
When salespeople began to count the value of future license sales
to their accounts, it created an accounting snafu that Ellison
called "an incredible business mistake."
Along with the $150 million in damages, Johnson seeks an
injunction that barring Oracle from continuing to manipulate
commissions.
She is represented by Xinying Valerian of Sanford Heisler in San
Francisco.
The case is captioned, MARCELLA JOHNSON, On Behalf of Herself and
All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
DEFENDANT. Case 3:17-cv-00725(N.D. Cal. February 14, 2017).
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:
David Sanford Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 499-5201
Facsimile: (202) 499-5119
E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
- and -
Felicia Medina Esq.
Xinying Valerian, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 795-2020
Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
E-mail: fmedina@sanfordheisler.com
xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com
- and -
Eric C. Kastner Esq.
Daniel H. Qualls Esq.
KASTNER | KIM LLP
1451 Grant Road, Suite 104
Mountain View, CA 94040
Telephone: (650) 967-7854
Facsimile: (650) 386-1885
E-mail: eck@kastnerkim.com
dhq@kastnerkim.com
PARTY CITY: Wins Dismissal of "Jones" Consolidated Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motions
to dismiss the Consolidated Amended complaint (CAC) in the case
captioned, ROY JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PARTY CITY HOLDCO,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-9080 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.).
The putative class action arises out of statements made in
connection with Party City's initial public offering on April 16,
2015. The Consolidated Amended Complaint (the CAC) alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. Plaintiffs sue also two beneficial owners of Party City
common stock -- Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. (THL) and Advent
International Corporation -- and Party City's underwriters:
Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, and Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC
Defendant Party City Holdco Inc. is a global party goods retailer
and supplier. During the relevant period, defendant Michael A.
Correale was the Company's chief financial officer, and defendant
James M. Harrison was the chief executive officer.
In the motions, Defendants move to dismiss the CAC for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
In his Memorandum Opinion dated February 1, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/PueNup from Leagle.com, Judge Kaplan found that
plaintiffs have failed to allege an actionable omission and failed
to plead a primary violation under Section 11 or 12(a)(2),
plaintiffs' Section 15 claims.
M. Erik Meinholz is represented by Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. --
namjed@ktmc.com -- Ryan Thomas Degnan, Esq. -- rdegnan@ktmc.com --
Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. -- azivitz@ktmc.com -- Johnston de Forest
Whitman, Jr., Esq. -- jwhitman@ktmc.com -- and -- Meredith L.
Lambert, Esq. -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &
CHECK, LLP
Roy Jones is represented by Phillip C. Kim, Esq. --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
Party City Holdco, Inc., et al. are represented by David L.
Schwarz, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Joshua D. Branson, Esq.
-- jbranson@khhte.com -- and Mark Charles Hansen, Esq. --
mhansen@khhte.com -- KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL,
PLLP
PHENIX CITY, AL: Thomas Worthy Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of Phenix
City, Alabama. The case is captioned as Thomas F. Worthy, James D.
Adams, and Willcox-Lumpkin Co., Inc., individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. The City of Phenix
City, Alabama, and Redflex Traffic Systems, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00073-GMB (M.D. Ala., Feb. 8, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Gray M. Borden.
Phenix City is a city in Lee and Russell counties in the State of
Alabama, and the county seat of Russell County. As of the 2010
census, the population of the city was 32,822.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George Walton Walker, III, Esq.
James Benjamin Finley, Esq.
Robert Walker Garrett, Esq.
Travis Carlisle Hargrove, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
PO Box 3596
Auburn, AL 36831
Telephone: (334) 209 6371
Facsimile: (334) 209 6373
E-mail: gwwalker@thefinleyfirm.com
bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com
thargrove@thefinleyfirm.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Labin" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates. The case is entitled as Yoel Labin, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, the Defendant, Case No 1:17-cv-
00744 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2017).
PRA is a publicly traded debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
PYSCHEMEDICS CORP: "Baughman" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Baughman, on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Pyschemedics Corporation, Raymond C. Kubacki, James
Dyke, And Neil Lerner, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10191, (D.
Mass., February 3, 2017), seeks compensatory damages including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Psychemedics is a provider of hair testing for the detection of
drugs of abuse, such as marijuana, cocaine, and opiates. The
Company's patented process is used by thousands of U.S. and
international clients, including over 10% of the Fortune 500
companies, for pre-employment and random drug testing. The Company
completes the laboratory testing and analysis of all samples at
two facilities in Culver City, California.
On January 31, 2017, a press release was published reporting that
a Brazilian court had found Psychemedics Brasil, a long-time
business partner of the Company, in violation of Brazilian anti-
competition laws and, as a result, it owes a competitor millions
for losses caused by the anticompetitive practices. Upon the news,
on January 31, 2017, the Company's stock price dropped from $25.62
per share on January 30, 2017 to close at $18.87 per share on
January 31, 2017, or 26% with a more than 5,000% increase in
trading volume as compared to the previous day.
Daly purchased Psychemedics common stock and lost substantially.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
HUTCHINGS BARSMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
Telephone: (781) 431-2231
Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
Email: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Hui M. Chang, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
hchang@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces "Morales" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Publix Super
Markets, Inc. The case is styled as Mario Morales, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
0:17-cv-60300-WPD (S.D. Fla., Feb. 8, 2017). The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.
Publix Super Markets, commonly known as Publix, is an employee-
owned, American supermarket chain based in Lakeland, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Brandon J Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224 0431
Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
QUALCOMM INC: Faces "Hardnett" Anti-trust Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Hadnett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00197, (S.D. Cal., February 1, 2017), seeks to recover
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and
violation of various state consumer protection statutes, state
antitrust and restraint of trade laws, unfair competition law and
of the Cartwright Act and Sherman Act.
Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers
rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds
the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA
technology and it incorporated into virtually every relevant
cellular standard in the last several years.
Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead taken
advantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintain
monopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing to
license and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of its
patents to competing chipset makers.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
Fatima G. Brizuela, Esq.
KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 398-4340
- and -
Daniel Hume, Esq.
KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
- and -
Michael E. Jacobs, Esq.
HINKLE SHANOR LLP
218 Montezuma Avenue
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Telephone: (505) 982-4554
RADY CHILDREN'S: Faces "Crooks" Suit in S.D. of Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rady Children's
Hospital - San Diego. The case is titled as Taneesha Crooks and
Anthony Brown, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rady Children's Hospital - San Diego,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00246-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal., Feb. 8,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes.
The Defendant is a full-service pediatric health center.
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
RENOVATE AMERICA: Faces Class Suit over Employee Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Renovate America, a home-finance company, allowed cybercriminals
to steal employees' W-2s in a phishing attack, a class action in
San Diego Superior Court claims.
The case is captioned, MICHAEL MEANS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENOVATE AMERICA,
INC., an unknown corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No.: 37-2017-00005317-CU-BC-CTL (COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, February 10, 2017).
Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Means:
Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
Brian G. Lee, Esq.
YOONLAW, APC
One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-0988
Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Daniel J. Park, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Awaits May 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Revance Therapeutics, Inc., awaits the May 19, 2017 fairness
hearing for the approval of its settlement to resolve the
securities class action commence by the City of Warren Police and
Fire Retirement System, according to the Company's January 12,
2017, 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company") entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement on October 31, 2016 (the "Stipulation")
to resolve the securities class action entitled City of Warren
Police and Fire Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1-15-CV-287794 (the "Action").
On January 6, 2017, the Superior Court for the County of Santa
Clara (the "Court") issued an order (the "Order") preliminarily
approving the settlement proposed in the Stipulation by and among
the plaintiff class and all named defendants in the Action,
including the Company (the "Settlement"), and directing that
notice of the Settlement be given to all members of the plaintiff
class (the "Class Members"). Under the stipulation, in exchange
for a release of all claims by the plaintiff class, the Company
has agreed to settle the litigation for $6.4 million in cash, of
which the Company expects $5.9 million to be covered by its
insurance policies.
The Court scheduled a hearing ("Settlement Fairness Hearing") on
May 19, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time at the Court, located at
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, among other things, to
make a final determination whether the Settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and should be approved by the Court. The
Order provides that Class Members may opt out of the Settlement
and that they may object to the Settlement in advance of and/or at
the Settlement Fairness Hearing.
The Company says it is anticipated that the Settlement, if
approved, would not have a material impact on its business.
ROTI RESTAURANTS: Seeks to Transfer "Lindner" Suit to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roti Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Roti Modern Mediterranean and d/b/a
Roti Mediterranean Grill filed on February 3, 2017 a Notice of
Removal of the action captioned Cooper Lindner and Kim Smith v.
Roti Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Roti Modern Mediterranean and d/b/a
Roti Mediterranean Grill, Case No. 2016-CH-16281, from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery
Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges a willful violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act, based on Roti's alleged printing
of the first six and last four digits of Plaintiffs' credit card
numbers on their receipts.
Roti Restaurants, LLC operates restaurants. It also offers
catering services.
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
Felicia R. Williams, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: 314-552-6000
Fax: 314-552-7000
E-mail: chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
fwilliams@thompsoncoburn.com
- and -
Todd A. Rowden, Esq.
Aleksandra M. S. Vold, Esq.
55 East Monroe Street
37th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-346-7500
Fax: 312-580-2201
E-mail: trowden@thompsoncoburn.com
avold@thompsoncoburn.com
RUSSO BROTHERS: Faces "Pompa" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Russo Brothers
Transport Inc. The case is captioned as Pompa, Richard, on a
representative basis, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Does 1 through 10, and Russo Brothers Transport
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 34-2017-00207703-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 8, 2017).
Russo Brothers Transport is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company a running freight hauling business from
Rancho Cordova, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter J Carlson
FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP
Riverside, CA 92501
Telephone: 951 320 1444
Facsimile: 951 320 1445
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Madrid" Suit Over Washing Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE MADRID, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, THE HOME DEPOT, INC., LOWE'S COMPANIES,
INC., BEST BUY CO., INC., SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00203 (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2017),
seeks relief in the form of (1) an injunction against
Defendants from any further sales of its Recalled Washing Machines
and to take such other remedial action as may otherwise be
requested herein; and (2) money damages to adequately and
reasonably compensate owners of the Recalled Washing Machines who
have, through no fault of their own, purchased defective and
dangerous Samsung washing machines. The washing machines is said
to "explode," or suffer catastrophic failure.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics
and digital products in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Noblin, Esq.
GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
4500 East Pacific Coast Highway
Fourth Floor
Long Beach, CA 90804
Phone: (562) 391-2487
Fax: (415) 477-6710
Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com
- and -
Robert S. Green, Esq.
GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
2200 Larkspur Landing Circuit, Suite 101
Larksput, CA 94939
Phone: (415) 477-6700
Fax: (415) 477-6710
Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Hard Drive Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, dismissed with leave to amend just
six of 16 class action claims accusing Seagate Technology of
misrepresenting and selling defective hard drives, but refused to
dismiss the others.
Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendant,
alleging that Seagate misrepresented certain hard drives and
delivered defective drives to consumers. Seagate moves to dismiss
for failure to state a claim. The Court, the Hon. Ronald Whyte
presiding, heard argument on October 7, 2016. Following Judge
Whyte's retirement, this case was reassigned to the undersigned
magistrate judge for all purposes upon consent of the parties
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c).
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero said Seagate's motion to
dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Seagate's motion
to dismiss is granted as to:
(1) Plaintiffs' express warranty claims (including to the
extent such claims are based on the essential purpose doctrine or
the Song-Beverly Act);
(2) Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims under the California
Commercial Code;
(3) Plaintiffs' affirmative misrepresentation claims based on
Seagate's statements about the drives' read error rate, NAS
capabilities, AcuTrac technology, and general reliability and
performance;
(4) Plaintiffs' omissions claims based on NAS capabilities
and read error rates;
(5) all CLRA claims by Plaintiff John Smith; and
(6) Plaintiffs' claims under the "unlawful" and "unfair"
prongs of the UCL to the extent that they depend on theories
dismissed in the context of other claims.
Seagate's motion is denied as to Plaintiffs' remaining claims.
Plaintiffs may amend their complaint to address the deficiencies
no later than March 3, 2017.
The case is captioned, IN RE SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC LITIGATION
CONSOLIDATED ACTION Case 3:16-cv-00523-JCS (N.D. Cal., February 9,
2017).
SHAAY LLC: Faces "McFadden" Suit Under FLSA, Fla. Common Law
------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR McFADDEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated Plaintiff, vs. SHAAY LLC, d/b/a MARCOS PIZZA and AMAN
PATEL, individually, Defendants, Case 8:17-cv-00277-MSS-JSS (M.D.
Fla., February 3, 2017), seeks damages and declaratory relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, to recover alleged unpaid
minimum wages and an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, and to obtain declaratory relief and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs as available under Florida common law.
Defendants operate a pizza restaurant and delivery business in and
around Pasco County and surrounding counties. Defendants employed
delivery drivers, including Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, #600
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone 813-223-5505
Fax: 813-257-0572
Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com
SLM STUDENT: Consolidated Securities Suit v. Navient Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities lawsuit involving Navient Corporation,
the parent of SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-5's sponsor, remains
pending in Delaware, according to the Trust's January 12, 2017,
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings (including the remarketing agent)
have been sued in several putative securities class action
lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or
Navient unsecured debt. These cases, which were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, are: Menold v.
Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 11, 2016); Jagrelius
v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 16, 2016); and
Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Navient
Corporation, et al. (filed February 26, 2016). On April 11, 2016,
various plaintiffs filed Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel in the
lawsuits. On June 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the three
pending cases and appointed Lord Abbett Funds as Lead Plaintiff.
The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations in this lawsuit. At this stage in the proceedings, the
Defendants are unable to anticipate the timing of resolution or
the ultimate impact, if any, that the legal proceedings may have
on the consolidated financial position, liquidity, results of
operations or cash-flows of Navient and its affiliates.
SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-5 is a Delaware statutory trust
created under a trust agreement dated as of June 9, 2005. Navient
Funding, LLC (formerly known as SLM Funding LLC), as depositor,
after acquiring the student loans from one of VG Funding LLC or
Navient Credit Finance Corporation (formerly known as SLM
Education Credit Finance Corporation") under separate purchase
agreements, sold them to the Trust on the closing date under a
sale agreement. The depositor is a limited liability company of
which Navient CFC is the sole member. Navient Solutions, Inc.
serves as Sponsor, Servicer and Administrator. Chase Bank USA,
National Association served as interim eligible lender trustee.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas now serves as successor
interim eligible lender trustee. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is serving
as the remarketing agent for the class A-5 notes.
SLM STUDENT: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Plaintiffs' Cal. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-5 said in its Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 12, 2017, that
discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit initiated by the
Blackrock plaintiffs in California.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") and Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") have been sued by investors in
civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain
residential mortgage-backed security ("RMBS") trusts.
On March 25, 2016, a group of investors, including funds managed
by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others (the
"Blackrock plaintiffs"), plaintiffs filed a state court action
against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County
with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, the Blackrock
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts,
and included DBNTC as an additional defendant. The amended
complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract;
breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid
conflicts of interest. The Blackrock plaintiffs purport to bring
the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of
certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges
that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral
losses of U.S.$75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for
money damages in a sum certain.
On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to
Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of
the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion
to strike as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action.
On September 12, 2016 the Blackrock plaintiffs filed oppositions
to the demurrer and motion to strike of DBNTC and DBTCA. On
October 3, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed replies in further support
of their demurrer and motion to strike. On October 18, 2016, the
court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer, providing Plaintiffs
with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's
motion to strike.
On December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the
amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing.
SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-5 is a Delaware statutory trust
created under a trust agreement dated as of June 9, 2005. Navient
Funding, LLC (formerly known as SLM Funding LLC), as depositor,
after acquiring the student loans from one of VG Funding LLC or
Navient Credit Finance Corporation (formerly known as SLM
Education Credit Finance Corporation") under separate purchase
agreements, sold them to the Trust on the closing date under a
sale agreement. The depositor is a limited liability company of
which Navient CFC is the sole member. Navient Solutions, Inc.
serves as Sponsor, Servicer and Administrator. Chase Bank USA,
National Association served as interim eligible lender trustee.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas now serves as successor
interim eligible lender trustee. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is serving
as the remarketing agent for the class A-5 notes.
SLM STUDENT: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Plaintiffs' N.Y. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit initiated by the
Blackrock plaintiffs in New York, SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-5
said in its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 12, 2017.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") and Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") have been sued by investors in
civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain
residential mortgage-backed security ("RMBS") trusts.
On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others (the
"Blackrock plaintiffs"), filed a derivative action against DBNTC
and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of
and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting
claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of
1939 ("TIA"), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform
their duties as trustees for the trusts.
The Blackrock plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court
complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts,
which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the
state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue
have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4
billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money
damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to
dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the
motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are
governed by pooling and servicing agreements, the court declined
to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive
defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss.
On March 22, 2016, Blackrock plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
in federal court. In the amended complaint, Blackrock plaintiffs
assert claims in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture
agreements. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at
issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S.$9.8
billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money
damages in a sum certain.
DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 15, 2016. On August 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss. On September 2, 2016, DBNTC
and DBTCA filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.
Discovery is ongoing.
SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-5 is a Delaware statutory trust
created under a trust agreement dated as of June 9, 2005. Navient
Funding, LLC (formerly known as SLM Funding LLC), as depositor,
after acquiring the student loans from one of VG Funding LLC or
Navient Credit Finance Corporation (formerly known as SLM
Education Credit Finance Corporation") under separate purchase
agreements, sold them to the Trust on the closing date under a
sale agreement. The depositor is a limited liability company of
which Navient CFC is the sole member. Navient Solutions, Inc.
serves as Sponsor, Servicer and Administrator. Chase Bank USA,
National Association served as interim eligible lender trustee.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas now serves as successor
interim eligible lender trustee. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is serving
as the remarketing agent for the class A-5 notes.
SLM STUDENT: Discovery Ongoing in Royal Park Investments Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by Royal
Park Investments SA/NV, according to SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-
5's January 12, 2017, 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") and Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") have been sued by investors in
civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain
residential mortgage-backed security ("RMBS") trusts.
On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV ("Royal Park")
filed a class and derivative action complaint on behalf of
investors in ten RMBS trusts against DBNTC in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims for
alleged violations of the TIA, breach of contract and breach of
trust based on DBNTC's alleged failure to perform its duties as
trustee for the trusts. Royal Park's complaint alleges that the
total realized losses of the ten trusts amount to over U.S. $3.1
billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain.
On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in
part plaintiffs' claims: the court dismissed plaintiff's TIA claim
and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC's motion to dismiss the
breach of contract and breach of trust claims. On March 18, 2016,
DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint.
On May 26, 2016, Royal Park filed a motion for class
certification. On September 23, 2016, DBNTC filed an opposition
to Royal Park's motion for class certification. On October 24,
2016, Royal Park filed a reply in support of its motion for class
certification. Discovery is ongoing.
SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-5 is a Delaware statutory trust
created under a trust agreement dated as of June 9, 2005. Navient
Funding, LLC (formerly known as SLM Funding LLC), as depositor,
after acquiring the student loans from one of VG Funding LLC or
Navient Credit Finance Corporation (formerly known as SLM
Education Credit Finance Corporation") under separate purchase
agreements, sold them to the Trust on the closing date under a
sale agreement. The depositor is a limited liability company of
which Navient CFC is the sole member. Navient Solutions, Inc.
serves as Sponsor, Servicer and Administrator. Chase Bank USA,
National Association served as interim eligible lender trustee.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas now serves as successor
interim eligible lender trustee. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is serving
as the remarketing agent for the class A-5 notes.
SOCIAL SECURITY: E.D. Cal. Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner's cross
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, TINA L.
MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-0911-CKD (E.D Cal.).
In a decision dated January 19, 2005, an administrative law judge
(ALJ) determined that plaintiff was disabled for purposes of the
Social Security Act as of January 1, 2002, because she met the
applicable listing for the impairment of visual acuity and, as of
March 2003, peripheral vision. In a decision dated September 25,
2013, the ALJ found plaintiff was overpaid $6,817.75 due to work
activity; plaintiff was not "without fault" in causing or
accepting the overpayment; and recovery of the overpayment shall
not be waived.
Plaintiff contests the proof of overpayment, contends she was
without fault in the overpayment, and provides additional
arguments that she was discriminated against and was subject to
bias by the ALJ and Administration due to her status as a blind
individual.
In the motion, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying
plaintiff's application for waiver of an overpayment of
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act (Act). First, Plaintiff contends the Commissioner's
proof of overpayment was inadequate. Second, plaintiff argues that
the ALJ erred in finding that plaintiff was at fault in causing
the overpayment.
In the cross motion, the Commissioner argues that the letter
submitted to establish the fact and amount of overpayment in the
case is distinguishable from the letter that was found
insufficient in McCarthy.
In her Order dated January 26, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/rHQcVc from Leagle.com, Judge Delaney found that the
ALJ's overpayment decision is fully supported by substantial
evidence in the record and based on the proper legal standards
holding that the ALJ did not err (1) in relying on that evidence
to support his determination that the Commissioner met her burden
in establishing the fact and amount of overpayment during the
relevant period; (2) in not finding that plaintiff's blindness
precluded her from being found at fault for the overpayment.
Tina L. Mitchell is represented by Robert Weems, Esq. --
rcweems@weemslawoffices.com -- WEEMS LAW OFFICES
Commissioner of Social Security is represented by:
Bobbie J. Montoya
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
501 I St Ste 10 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: (916)554-2775
-- and --
Armand D. Roth, Esq.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of Regional Counsel
160 Spear St 8th Fl
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 977-8924
SOLARCITY CORP: Daugherty Seeks Leave to File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, BREANA DAUGHERTY, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v.
SOLARCITY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. C 16-05155 WHA (N.D. Cal.),
Plaintiff on Feb. 9, 2017, filed a Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint.
In January, District Judge William Alsup of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted in
part Defendant's motion to dismiss and denied motion to stay
action.
Plaintiff worked in sales for SolarCity from June 2015 to October
2015 with the title "Inside Energy Specialist." She worked
approximately 50 hours per week. In June 2016, SolarCity brought
an action against Daugherty in federal court in the Eastern
District of California, seeking to enforce a class-action waiver
that she signed upon joining the company and to compel arbitration
of claims SolarCity learned Daugherty planned to file. Daugherty
brought a special motion to strike under California's Anti-SLAPP
law in August 2016.
SolarCity then moved to dismiss Daugherty's complaint, contending
that federal subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act was lacking, inasmuch as Daugherty had failed to
allege her citizenship or that of any putative class member. In
lieu of responding to that motion, Daugherty filed an amended
complaint, adding a claim for failure to pay for all hours worked
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and a claim for
declaratory judgment that an individual arbitration agreement that
she signed as a condition of employment is unlawful and invalid.
After Daugherty amended her complaint, SolarCity withdrew its
motion to dismiss Daugherty's original complaint and moves to
dismiss her amended complaint. SolarCity also moved to compel
arbitration of Daugherty's individual claims. Alternatively,
SolarCity moved to stay the action pending the Supreme Court's
decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir.
2016).
In his Order dated January 26, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/6wZtxf from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup denied motion to
dismiss as to Daugherty's wage-statement claim because she has
sufficiently establishes that SolarCity failed to provide accurate
and complete information about Daugherty's wages, in violation of
Section 226; Daugherty's claim under Section 17200 of the
California Businesses and Professionals Code and under PAGA
because both claims are wholly derivative of the foregoing claims,
and the only basis for SolarCity's motion is its expectation that
its motion would otherwise be granted, and Daugherty's class
allegations because she lacks standing to assert her individual
claims. The motion is granted as to Daugherty's meal-period, rest-
break, and waiting-period claims because the Plaintiff failed to
allege that the wages paid were inadequate.
SolarCity's motion to compel arbitration or stay the action is
denied because much of the discovery in the action would be useful
both in the present case and in any eventual arbitration.
The Court said Daugherty seek leave to amend the dismissed claims
by a formal motion.
Breana Daugherty is represented by Howard Scott Leviant, Esq. --
scott@setarehlaw.com -- Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq. --
thomas@setarehlaw.com -- and Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- SETAREH LAW GROUP
SolarCity Corporation is represented by Andrew Ralston Livingston,
Esq. -- alivingston@orrick.com -- and -- Zachary Blaine Scott,
Esq. -- zscott@orrick.com -- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
SONIC NOTIFY: Court Dismissed "Satchell" Suit with Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco on February 13, dismissed with leave to amend a class
action claiming a Golden State Warriors smartphone app secretly
records users' conversations, finding the class failed to show the
app actually used the recordings to send them marketing messages.
Plaintiff's amended complaint is due no later than March 13, 2017.
The Court continues the case management conference scheduled for
Feb. 24 to April 7 at 11:00 a.m.
The case is captioned, LATISHA SATCHELL, Plaintiff, v. SONIC
NOTIFY, INC., et al., Defendants. Case 4:16-cv-04961-JSW(N.D. Cal.
February 13, 2017).
SUPERVALU INC: Appeal in Data Security Breach Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal remains pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the lawsuit titled In Re:
SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, according
to the Company's January 11, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
3, 2016.
In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into
its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the
"Criminal Intrusion"). The cases were centralized in the Federal
District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In
Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On
June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3,
2015.
On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their
burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's
dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct
discovery and file an amended complaint, and the Company filed its
response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the
District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the District
Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint.
On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May
31, 2016, the Company filed a cross-appeal to preserve its
additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.
To date, no hearing date has been set for the 8th Circuit
argument.
Based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, SUPERVALU INC., together with
its subsidiaries, operates as a grocery wholesaler and retailer in
the United States. The Company operates through three segments:
Wholesale, Save-A-Lot, and Retail.
SUPERVALU INC: Awaits Result of February Settlement Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. awaits the result of the court-ordered mandatory
settlement conference set in February in the class action lawsuit
related to a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S
Wholesale Grocers, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2017,
for the quarter period ended December 3, 2016.
In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S that were located in New
England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding
in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints
allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the
use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing
down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S
purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On July 5, 2011,
the District Court granted the Company's Motion to Compel
Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and
plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on January 11,
2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-arbitration
plaintiffs.
On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and remanded to the District Court. On October 30, 2013,
the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation,
which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014,
a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court's
decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company, and
(2) affirmed the District Court's decision denying class
certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in
the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio
and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the
Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but
remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to
certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company's
Champaign, Illinois distribution center and potentially other
distribution centers.
On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an
order that decided a number of matters including granting
plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain
Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to
add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs'
request to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers. On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the
Magistrate Judge's order.
In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit the
denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff
and to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on May
17, 2016. On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class
certification motion seeking to certify five District Court
classes of retailers in the Midwest and the Company filed its
response on May 6, 2016.
On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to certify five Midwest distribution center classes, only
one of which is suing the Company (the non-arbitration Champaign
distribution center class). On September 21, 2016, the Company
filed a petition with the 8th Circuit seeking permission to file
an interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision, which
was denied by the 8th Circuit on November 17, 2016.
The District Court has ordered a mandatory settlement conference
for February 14-15, 2017.
The Company says it continues to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
Due to the mandatory settlement conference, it is probable that
the parties will engage in settlement negotiations as required by
the District Court, which may result in a settlement of the
matter. However, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range
of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the
procedural status of the case and the lack of a formal demand on
the Company by the plaintiffs.
Based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, SUPERVALU INC., together with
its subsidiaries, operates as a grocery wholesaler and retailer in
the United States. The Company operates through three segments:
Wholesale, Save-A-Lot, and Retail.
SUPERVALU INC: RICO Suit Remains Stayed Pending Criminal Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 11, 2017, for the quarter period
ended December 3, 2016, that all proceedings have been stayed in a
class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin pending the result of the
criminal prosecution of certain former officers of International
Outsourcing Services, LLC.
In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.;
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The
plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company
that allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and
the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for
coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were
part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.
The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit;
however, all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the
result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of
IOS.
Based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, SUPERVALU INC., together with
its subsidiaries, operates as a grocery wholesaler and retailer in
the United States. The Company operates through three segments:
Wholesale, Save-A-Lot, and Retail.
SURVEY SAMPLING: Faces "Schnell" Suit in Central Dist. of Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Survey Sampling
International, LLC. The case is styled as Stuart Schnell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Survey Sampling International, LLC, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00974 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2017).
Survey Sampling is a global provider of data solutions and
technology for consumer and business-to-business survey research.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M Friedman, Esq.
Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
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
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: "Braswell" Seeks Damages from Share Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Braswell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stemline Therapeutics, Inc.,
Ivan Bergstein and David Gionco, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00853, (S.D. N.Y., February 3, 2017), seeks compensatory damages
including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this
action, counsel fees and expert fees, equitable and/or injunctive
relief, and such other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Stemline Therapeutics is clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
focused on discovering, acquiring, developing and commercializing
proprietary oncology therapeutics. The company is currently
developing three clinical stage product candidates. Its lead
product is SL-401, a targeted therapy directed to the interleukin-
3 receptor, or IL-3R (CD123). CD123 is present on a wide range of
hematologic cancers, multiple myeloma, blastic plasmacytoid
dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) and chronic myeloid leukemia.
The complaint says the Company failed to disclose that a patient
had died in the BPDCN Trial from capillary leak syndrome
immediately prior to the company's stock offering. News about the
death in the BPDCN Trial resulted in the stock price declining
from $9.75 per share of Stemline Therapeutics stock on February 1,
2017, to close at $5.60 per share on February 2, 2017, a drop of
approximately 43%.
Plaintiff purchased Stemline Therapeutics securities at
artificially inflated prices and suffered significant losses and
damages.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Email: nporritt@zlk.com
aapton@zlk.com
ckupka@zlk.com
STILLWATER MINING: Being Sold to Cheaply, "Rempel" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling Stillwater Mining Co. too cheaply through an
unfair process to Sibanye Gold Ltd., for $18 a share or $2.2
billion, shareholders say in a federal class action in Denver.
The case is captioned, JOHN REMPEL, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STILLWATER MINING
COMPANY, BRIAN D. SCHWEITZER, MICHAEL J. MCMULLEN, MICHAEL S.
PARRETT, GARY A. SUGAR, GEORGE M. BEE, PATRICIA E. MERRIN, and
LAWRENCE PETER O'HAGAN, Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-00400 (D. Colo.,
February 15, 2017).
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 971-1341
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
206 Covington Street
Madisonville, LA 70447
Tel: (504) 455-1400
Fax: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com
SUMMIT TOOL: Truck Tire Iron Shorter Than Advertised, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Chicago
Cook County court that Summit Tool Company and Ken-Tool Company's
T45HD truck tire iron is an inch and a half shorter than
advertised, depriving consumers of the amount of torque they think
they're getting.
The case is captioned as Alejandro Reyes, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Summit Tool
Company, and Ken-Tool Company, Defendants, Case No. 2017CH02025,
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, February 9, 2017.
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, RC.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 440-0020
Fax: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: Tom@attorneyzim.com
amy@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
nick@attorneyzim.com
maebetty@attorneyzim.com
SUNRUN INC: Faces Employee Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Sunrun employees whose W-2 tax forms were sent to hackers posing
as its CEO brought a class action in San Francisco, over the
rooftop solar company's failure to protect employee information
and inform them of the data breach.
Lead plaintiff Russell Ashlock says he found out about the Jan. 20
from the internet long before he received a letter from Sunrun on
Feb. 6, 2017, saying his W-2 had been exposed. Someone also filed
a false tax return on Jan. 29 using Ashlock's information,
according to the complaint filed on Feb. 9 in San Francisco County
Superior Court.
A hacker impersonating CEO Lynn Jurich had sent an email to the
company's payroll department requesting employee W-2s, which
contain personal information like addresses, Social Security
numbers and salary amounts. Such an email is generally referred to
as "phishing," and Sunrun readily responded to the request before
realizing it was a scam, the class claims.
"Plaintiff and class members are now and will be at risk of
identify theft for the rest of their lives, requiring constant
diligence and monitoring," Ashlock's complaint states.
The class says Sunrun also failed to adequately compensate
employees for the data exposure, offering employees just two years
of identify theft protection through Experian's ProtectMyID
service.
"Even if an employee accepts the ProtectMyID service, it will not
provide employees any compensation for the costs and burdens
associated with the fraudulent tax returns that were filed prior
to an employee signing up for ProtectMyID," the complaint says.
"Sunrun has not offered employees any assistance in dealing with
the IRS or state tax agencies. Nor has Sunrun offered to reimburse
employees for the costs -- current and future -- incurred as a
result of falsely filed tax returns."
It also notes that the Experian service doesn't protect against
identify theft, but only provides some assistance after an
identify is stolen.
The class seeks punitive and statutory damages for Sunrun's
failure to maintain proper security measures, policies and
procedures, and training," and for failing to timely notify their
employees of their error.
They are represented by Eric Grover with Keller and Grover LLP in
San Francisco.
Sunrun did not immediately respond to an email request for
comment.
The case is captioned, Russell Ashlock, on behalf of himself, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunrun Inc.; Sunrun
Installation Services Inc.; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC-17-557027, Superior Court of the State of
California, February 9, 2017.
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Eric A. Grover, Esq.
Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Tel: 415-543-1305
Fax: 415-543-7861
E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
rspencer@kellergrover.com
TRIUMPH PROPERTY: Must Defend Against "Hastings" TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada denied Triumph's dismissal motion
and motion to strike, granted the Hastingses' motion for leave to
amend, and denied Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in the case
captioned, John Hastings, et al., Plaintiffs. v. Triumph Property
Management Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00213-JAD-PAL
(D. Nev.).
John and Jill Hastings brought the class-action complaint under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, claiming they did not
consent to receiving a text message and that the text was sent to
their cell phone via an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS).
They also allege that they are members of the class "consisting of
all persons within the United States who received any unsolicited
text messages from Defendant without prior express consent." They
plead claims for negligent and willful violations of the TCPA and
seek monetary and injunctive relief.
Triumph Property Management Corporation moves to dismiss and to
strike the class allegations, arguing that the Hastingses' claims
fail a matter of law. The Hastingses oppose Triumph's motions,
seek leave to amend their complaint, and move for sanctions under
28 U.S.C. Section 1927.
In the proposed amended complaint, they assert that they called
Triumph on January 20, 2015, and Triumph "trapped" their cell-
phone number via caller ID, and provided the number to Kixie, and
then Kixie sent them the offending text message at 1:30 p.m. that
day via its ATDS system. They define their proposed class as "all
persons within the state of Nevada who received any text message
from Defendants or their agent/s and/or employee/s, not sent for
emergency purposes, to the person's cellular telephone made
through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system within
the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint in the case."
Triumph moves to dismiss the initial complaint and opposes the
Hastingses' motion for leave to amend, arguing that dismissal is
proper and the proposed amendments are futile because the text did
not violate the TCPA: it was not sent from an ATDS and "was a
responsive communication intended for quality assurance and/or
customer service purposes," not a solicitation. Triumph also
argues that the Hastingses fail to adequately allege that Triumph
knowingly or willfully violated the TCPA. The Hastingses respond
that the TCPA applies regardless of the content of the text, so
the proposed amendments are not futile, and that they sufficiently
allege that Triumph sent the message using an ATDS system and
knowingly and willfully violated the Act.
In his Order dated January 26, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/z4Toig from Leagle.com, Judge Dorsey declined to
grant Triumph's motion to dismiss because the Hastingses
sufficiently allege that the text was sent by an ATDS, and
plausibly be inferred from the general and impersonal nature of
the message.
The Court denied motion for sanctions filed by the Hastingses
because the court did not find that Defendant's counsel acted in
subjective bad faith.
Jill Hastings and John Hastings are represented by Sara
Khosroabadi, Esq. -- sara@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE &
SWIGART -- Michael Kind, Esq. -- michael.kind@klg.com -- KAZEROUNI
LAW GROUP, APC
Triumph Property Management Corporation is represented by:
Jacob L. Hafter, Esq.
HAFTER LAW
7201 W. Lake Mead Boulevard, Suite 210,
Las Vegas, NV 89128
Tel:(702)405-6700
UBER TECHNOLOGY: "Gunn" Action Stayed Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark J. Dinsmore of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana stayed Plaintiff's
claims against Defendants in the case captioned, ANGELA GUNN,
Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TRAVIS KALANICK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-01668-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind.).
Plaintiff, Angela Gunn, is an Indiana resident who worked as an
Uber driver. At the heart of this case is Plaintiff's contention
that Uber misclassifies its drivers as independent contractors
rather than employees resulting in the violation of wage payment
laws. Plaintiff brings the diversity action on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated persons working as drivers in the
district for Uber.
Prior to using Uber's software to generate leads for riders,
potential drivers must enter into the Raiser Software Sublicense &
Online Services Agreement which contains an Arbitration Provision.
Once a driver accepts the Agreement, she may still opt out of the
Arbitration Provision. Plaintiff did not opt out of the
Arbitration Provision.
Uber moves to compel the arbitration of Plaintiff's claims strike
class allegations and dismiss the action. Plaintiff does not
dispute that she accepted the Agreement and did not opt out of the
Arbitration Provision but she argues that the Federal Arbitration
Act does not apply, the Arbitration Provision is void as
unconscionable, and that the Agreement's prohibition on collective
arbitration is invalid because it violates the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA).
In his Order dated January 27, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/0J6lZT from Leagle.com, Judge Dinsmore found that
Defendants' motion is properly considered under the FAA and that
enforceability and arbitrarily of the Agreement should be resolved
by the arbitrator since the parties entered into a valid
agreement.
The motion to dismiss as to Uber is denied, 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."
Angela Gunn is represented by John Bruster Loyd, Esq. --
bruse@jgl-law.com -- JONES GILLASPIA LOYD LLP
Uber Technologies, Inc. and Travis Kalanick are represented by
Alan L. McLaughlin, Esq. -- amclaughlin@littler.com -- Andrew M.
Spurchise, Esq. -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Edward H. Chyun, Esq.
-- echyun@littler.com -- and -- Emily L. Connor, Esq. --
econnor@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
UNDER ARMOUR: Shareholders File Suit Over Stock Price Freefall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that days after Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank praised President
Donald Trump, a class of shareholders took the spiraling
sportswear company to court, saying Plank's massive divestment of
personal stock belies the glowing forecasts that just unraveled.
Plank spoke well of the new president in a Feb. 7 interview with
CNBC. He said Trump, who recently pegged Plank to serve on his
manufacturing advisory panel, was "a real asset for the county."
Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris, Dell Technologies CEO Michael
Dell and Tesla founder Elon Musk will serve on the same panel.
Though these companies have seen shares go up, Under Armour's
stock price has been in freefall for weeks.
Compounding the bad news of weaker-than-expected fourth-quarter
earnings, Under Armour also announced on Jan. 31 the impending
departure of Chief Financial Officer Lawrence "Chip" Molloy,
despite having served in the position for just 13 months.
Shares dropped 28 percent that day, from $28.94 to $21.49, and are
still sinking.
As laid out in a Feb. 10 federal class action in Baltimore,
against the clothier, "that very day, approximately $2.7 billion,
or one fifth of Under Armour's market capitalization, vanished."
Brian Breece, a resident of Georgia, filed the complaint in
Baltimore, where Under Armour is based.
He says a review of Under Armour's securities filings, media
reports and other materials show that Plank in particular knew
that the company was in trouble but intentionally misled
shareholders about Under Armour's financial well being.
"Despite outward votes of confidence and assurances to plaintiff
and the rest of the investing public that Under Armour would
continue as a force in the sports retail market, defendants, and
Plank in particular, were aware of the decreasing growth margins
and over surplus of unsold inventory, and knew that would be the
last of twenty-six consecutive quarters with greater than 20%
revenue growth," the complaint states. "This is precisely why
Plank implemented the prearranged stock trading plan, as well as
selling off 1.05 million shares in April 2016, to effectively
shield his losses but to keep his voting power. Defendants were
preaching of Under Armour's strong guidance and outlook, but Plank
was doing everything he could to sell his shares and stave off
personal losses."
Under Armour disputed the allegations, saying in a statement that
the complaint lacks merit. "Under Armour will vigorously defend
the case," a company spokesman added.
As laid out in Breece's complaint, however, Plank saw the writing
on the wall for Under Armour after one of its largest retail
partners, Sports Authority, filed for bankruptcy last year.
"Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that Under Armour's revenue and profit margins would not
be able to withstanding (sic) the heavy promotions, high inventory
levels and ripple effects of numerous department store closures
and bankruptcy of The Sports Authority, but nevertheless purported
itself as a growth company that would continue to develop and
market game-changing products," the complaint states.
Around the same time that Plank and Molloy were touting the
company's ability to maintain growth rates of at least 20 percent,
according to the complaint, Plank was selling off his personal
stock holdings in the company while still holding on to his
controlling voting rights.
One of Plank's stock sales, conceived in August 20116 but not
announced until September, was valued at more than $81 million,
Breece says.
Breece wants to represent a class of investors who bought shares
of Under Armour between April 21, 2016, and Jan. 30, 2017.
Under Armour did not immediately respond to a request for comment
on the litigation.
The company did, however, release amid fallout over Plank's role
in the Trump administration. Though Under Armour criticized
Trump's recent ban against certain Muslim immigrants, it said
Plank will proudly help the president work on job creation. "Under
Armour and Kevin Plank are for job creation and American
manufacturing capability," the company said. "We believe building
should be focused on much needed education, transportation,
technology and urban infrastructure investment. We are against a
travel ban and believe that immigration is a source of strength,
diversity and innovation for global companies based in America
like Under Armour."
Plank's praise of Trump drew swift condemnation from several
athletes whom Under Armour looks to for endorsements, chief among
them Stephen Curry of the Golden State Warriors.
As to Plank's hailing of Trump as an asset, the two-time NBA MVP
told the Mercury News: "I agree with that description if you
remove the 'et' from asset."
Late last year, Under Armour lost nearly $600 million of its value
when it announced poor sales of Curry 3, a shoe named for the
player.
Plank's remarks also earned rebuke from wrestling star Dwane "The
Rock" Johnson and Misty Copeland, the American Ballet Theatre's
first black female principal dancer.
The class suing Under Armour is represented by Charles Piven of
Browers Piven in Stevenson, Maryland.
The case is captioned, BRIAN BREECE, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC.
SERVE ON: The Corporation Trust Incorporated 351 West Camden
Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201, KEVIN A. PLANK 1020 Hull Street
3rd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21230 and LAWRENCE P. MOLLOY 1020
Hull Street 3rd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Defendants. Case
1:17-cv-00388-RDB (D. Md., February 10, 2017).
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Charles J. Piven, Esq.
Yelena Trepetin, Esq.
BROWER PIVEN
1925 Old Valley Road
Stevenson, Maryland 21153
Tel: 410-332-0030
Fax: 410-685-1300
E-mail: piven@browerpiven.com
trepetin@browerpiven.com
- and -
Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
James S. Notis, Esq.
Jacob E. Lewin, Esq.
GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
Tower 56
126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: 212-905-0509
Fax: 212-905-0508
UNITED STATES: Bankers Assoc. Sues Over Federal Reserve Rule
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Buchman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a banking trade organization and one of its members claim the
federal government pulled a classic bait and switch when it
diverted their dividend payments to a federal highway trust fund.
The class action filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in
Washington, on Feb. 9, targets a Federal Reserve rule which the
plaintiffs claim made the diversion possible.
Since 1913, the Federal Reserve has provided member banks with a
six percent annual dividend on stock purchased in any one of the
12 Federal Reserve banks. The purpose of the rule is to
incentivize and retain membership within the Federal Reserve.
The plaintiffs, the American Bankers Association and Washington
Federal -- a massive Federal Reserve-backed bank with assets of
nearly $15 billion -- say the aging rule was broken when former
President Barack Obama signed the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act into law. The act is commonly known as the
FAST Act.
"The FAST Act set a troubling precedent to target specific
segments of the business community to meet broad public
obligations like a highway infrastructure. Every industry in this
country is vulnerable if this is allowed to stand," said Rob
Nichols, CEO of the American Bankers Association. Nichols issued
the statement last week.
The legislation authorized spending $305 billion over the next
four years on a variety of transportation maintenance programs.
Funds go toward the upkeep of national highways, promoting highway
motor vehicle safety and maintaining public transportation. Money
is also allocated for the study of hazardous materials safety and
rail, research and transportation technology and statistics
programs.
But to keep funds rolling in, the plaintiffs claim the rule
unfairly targeted financial institutions with more than $10
billion in assets and allowed for the slashing of the guaranteed
six percent dividend promised to those institutions by the Federal
Reserve Banks.
They claim that as a result of the what they call a bait-and-
switch, $1.1 billion in anticipated dividends were transferred
from stockholders to the United States Treasury.
"The FAST Act has resulted quite literally in highway robbery,
albeit by another name," the complaint said.
The changes were made under Congressional direction but the
plaintiffs allege that the rules were nonetheless deceptive.
"None of the contract documents exchanged between the parties
includes a provision stating that the six percent dividend would
be subject to change or that the contract would be subject to
legislative changes to the Federal Reserve Act," the 25-page
complaint states.
The plaintiffs also claim that the defendant violated its Fifth
Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution which bars the
government from taking private property without just compensation.
Representatives from the American Bank Association and Washington
Federal did not return a call for comment.
"While legal action against the government is always a last
resort, it's one that we must turn to when alternatives are
unavailable and matters of principle are at stake," Nichols said.
Representatives from the Washington Federal did not return a call
for comment.
The plaintiffs are represented by Brett Shumate of the K Street
firm of Wiley Rein.
UNITED STATES: FBI Spying on Donors, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a man who started a crowd-funding campaign for jailed
journalist Barrett Brown's legal defense claims in a federal class
action in San Francisco that the FBI is unconstitutionally spying
on donors.
Brown was arrested in September 2012 after he shared an online
link to files stolen in the 2011 hack of a security and
intelligence contractor, Strategic Forecasting, or Stratfor.
Brown faced up to 100 years in prison on charges of making
internet threats, retaliation against a federal law enforcement
officer and aggravated identity theft, among other things. After
some charges were dropped, he was tried and then sentenced in
January 2015 to 63 months in prison and ordered to pay nearly
$900,000 in damages to Stratfor.
Hundreds of people have raised more than $40,000 for Brown's legal
defense, through an online crowd-sourcing campaign started by San
Francisco-based computer systems administrator Kevin Gallagher.
Gallagher and anonymous Donor No. 1 sued the United States,
Dallas-based FBI Agent Robert Smith, and Assistant U.S. Attorney
for the Northern District of Texas Candina Heath. The Feb. 6
lawsuit claims the defendants used a subpoena to "unlawfully
identify, target and surveil" anonymous supporters of Brown.
After FBI agents raided the home of Brown's mother in early 2012,
Brown allegedly threatened Agent Smith, who was involved in the
raid, in YouTube videos and Twitter posts.
Gallagher says he learned from an email tip that Heath subpoenaed
WePay Inc., the company that hosted the crowd-funding campaign.
An attorney for WePay confirmed that the company responded to a
request for records, revealing donors' identities and amounts
donated by each.
The subpoena directed WePay to send the records directly to Agent
Smith, indicating that the information was to be used in Brown's
trial.
Gallagher claims that sending the records directly to the FBI
proves that the "claimed purpose" of using the information for
Brown's trial was "purely pretextual."
"The true goal of the WePay subpoena, rather, was to facilitate
the unlawful surveillance of the anonymous donors to the crowd-
funding campaign," the complaint states.
Gallagher claims that the FBI "cracked down hard" on Brown because
it wanted to conceal its own involvement in the 2011 hack of
Stratfor.
The complaint cites media reports indicating that the FBI was
aware that the hack would take place, and let it occur so it could
take down Jeremy Hammond, a prominent member of the hacking
collective Anonymous.
Hammond was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2013 for carrying
out the Stratfor hack, which produced millions of emails and
thousands of credit card numbers and cyber security secrets.
Gallagher and the donor believe the FBI continues to monitor the
online activity of people who gave money to support Brown, which
has "a chilling effect on protected First Amendment activity."
"Donor No. 1 believes this scheme was initiated to harass the
donors and retaliate against them for the donors' exercise of
protected conduct -- making anonymous donations in support of Mr.
Brown's legal defense," the complaint states.
Gallagher and his donor seek class certification and damages for
violations of the First Amendment, violations of the Stored
Communications Act and privacy violations. They also want Heath
and Smith disciplined, and an injunction prohibiting the FBI and
Department of Justice from engaging in "similar unlawful
surveillance in the future."
They are represented by Eric DiIulio with Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton in San Francisco.
Lisa Slimak, spokeswoman for the Northern District of Texas U.S.
Attorney's Office, and FBI spokeswoman Susan McKee declined to
comment.
The case is captioned, Kevin Gallagher, on behalf of himself; and
Donor No. 1, individually and on behalf of all anonymous donors to
Free Barrett Brown, Plaintiffs, v. United States; Candina Heath;
Robert Smith; Does 1-10, Defendants. Case 3:17-cv-00586-MEJ (N.D.
Cal., February 6, 2017).
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Charles S. Donovan, Esq.
Guylyn R. Cummins, Esq.
Eric J. DiIulio, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: 415.434.9100
Facsimile: 415.434.3947
Email: cdonovan@sheppardmullin.com
gcummins@sheppardmullin.com
ediiulio@sheppardmullin.com
UNITED STATES: J.M. Fogg Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. government.
The case is captioned as J.M. FOGG FARMS, INC., RICHARD SCHOOLS,
JR., and TIMOTHY SELF, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. USA, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00188-TCW (Court of Federal Claims, Feb. 8, 2017). The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Thomas C. Wheeler.
The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan I. Saltman, Esq.
SMITH, CURRIE & HANCOCK LLP (DC)
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 452 2140
Facsimile: (202) 775 8217
E-mail: aisaltman@smithcurrie.com
UNITED STATES: Border Patrol Agents Sue Homeland Security Dept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Border Patrol Agents, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00163, (U.S. C.F.C.,
February 2, 2017), seeks monetary liquidated damages equal to
their unpaid compensation, plus interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs of disbursements of this action and such other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Class in this action represents 1,469 border patrol agents
assigned by Customs and Border Protection at various stations
within Border Patrol sectors across the United States,
apprehending individuals attempting to enter the county illegally,
processing apprehended individuals, making arrests, defending
against terrorist threats, gathering intelligence, tracking
smugglers, testifying in court, and before grand juries and
administrative tribunals, and performing various additional job
duties and responsibilities related to law enforcement and
immigration policies of the United States.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees are entitled to receive "administratively
uncontrollable overtime pay" at a rate of between 10 percent and
25 percent of their basic pay, which recently has been
unilaterally reduced. They also claim overtime pay for pre-shift
duties such as vehicle/equipment inspection and administrative
work.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Lescht, Esq.
August Johannsen, Esq.
Jack Jarrett, Esq.
ALAN LESCHT AND ASSOCIATES, PC
1050 17th St., NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 463-6036
Fax: (202) 463-6067
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Ben Branda, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
Washington, DC 20016
- and -
Neil Landeen, Esq.
YEN PILCH & LANDEEN, P.C.
6017 N. 15th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Tel: (602) 241-0474
UPTAIN GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Cholly" Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to
dismiss and granted a motion to strike in the case captioned,
JULIE CHOLLY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UPTAIN GROUP, INC., and ALERE HEALTH, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 15 C 5030 (N.D. Ill.).
Plaintiff Julie Cholly, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, has brought a one count third amended putative
class action complaint (complaint) against defendants Uptain
Group, Inc. (Uptain) and Alere Health, LLC (Alere), alleging that
defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),
47 U.S.C. Section 227 et. seq.
Plaintiff incurred a debt to Alere, a medical services provider.
Alere subsequently hired Uptain, a debt collection service, to
collect the Debt from plaintiff. According to the complaint, on
December 16, 2013, Uptain contacted plaintiff on her cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. During that
telephone call, plaintiff allegedly told Uptain to stop calling
her and informed Uptain that she would be filing for bankruptcy.
The complaint further alleges that "despite Plaintiff's clear and
unambiguous instruction to Uptain to stop calling her, Uptain told
Plaintiff that she must provide the bankruptcy case number in
order for Uptain to stop calling."
On July 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a Voluntary Petition for Chapter
7 Bankruptcy, listing Alere as one of her Schedule F creditors.
The Petition did not list her claims against Uptain or Alere on
her schedule of assets. The complaint alleges that on August 6,
2014, the bankruptcy court sent Alere, via first class mail,
notice of plaintiff's bankruptcy petition, stating that an
automatic stay was in place for all collection actions against
plaintiff. Despite the stay, which plaintiff alleges barred Alere
from contacting her, Uptain allegedly contacted plaintiff for non-
emergency reasons, "with a pre-recorded or artificial voice on
plaintiff's cellular telephone on behalf of Alere on numerous
occasions between September 2014 and May 2015." The complaint
alleges that neither defendant had consent to contact plaintiff.
In the motions, Defendant first argues that plaintiff lacks
standing under Article III of the Constitution and in the motion
to strike, defendant moved to strike the proposed class.
In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 1, 2017
available at https://is.gd/UX2JGO from Leagle.com, Judge Gettleman
denied the motion to dismiss concluding that the allegations of
receipt of the allegedly unlawful telephone calls are sufficient
to allege a concrete injury. The court granted the motion to
strike the proposed class because the Plaintiff had apparently
originally given consent, she cannot represent a class of persons
who received calls from Uptain where Uptain did not have express
consent. Her claims would not be typical to those persons.
Defendants are directed to answer the third amended complaint on
or before February 21, 2017 and the matter is set for a report on
status on February 28, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
Julie Cholly is represented by:
David J. Philipps, Esq.
Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
Mary Elizabeth Philipps, Esq.
PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
9760 S. Roberts Rd. Suite 1,
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Tel:(708)974-2907
-- and --
Keith James Keogh, Esq.
Amy L. Wells, Esq.
Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD
55 W. Monroe St. #3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (866)726-1092
The Uptain Group, Inc. is represented by David M. Schultz, Esq.
-- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- John Paul Ryan, Esq. --
jryan@hinshawlaw.com -- and -- Lindsey A.L. Conley, Esq. --
lconley@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
Alere Health, LLC is represented by Mitchell E. Zamoff, Esq. --
mitch.zamoff@hoganlovells.com -- Adam K. Levin, Esq. --
adam.levin@hoganlovells.com -- and -- Carolyn Anne DeLone, Esq.
-- carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP --
Athanasios Papadopoulos, Esq. -- tpapadopoulos@nge.com -- and --
Jason A. Frye, Esq. -- jfrye@nge.com -- NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG
US RENAL: "Whitaker" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WHITAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.649682 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 7, 2017), seeks to recover monetary relief against
Defendants to recover, among other things, unpaid wages and
benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and
penalties pursuant to the Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic
pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor
Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (TWC) Wage Orders, all of
which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition.
Specifically, the Defendants intentionally avoided paying
Plaintiff's and class members' wages and monies, thereby creating
for Defendants an artificially lower cost of doing business in
order to undercut their competitors and establish and gain a
greater foothold in the marketplace.
U.S. Renal Care, Inc. operates a network of outpatient, home, and
specialty dialysis centers for serving patients suffering from
chronic kidney failures in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kaship Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
Ali S. Carlsen, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379 6250
Facsimile: (949) 379 6251
V&J NATIONAL: "Beebe" Suit Seeks Expense Reimbursement
------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Beebe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. V&J National Enterprises, LLC,
V&J United Enterprises, LLC, V&J Employment Services, Inc. and V&J
Holding Companies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-06075 (W.D,
N.Y., February 1, 2017), seeks minimum wages, all available
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of all costs and expenses incurred in
litigating this action, as well as all available equitable and
injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Laws.
Defendants operate more than 60 Pizza Hut franchise stores in New
York and Massachusetts where Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver
for Defendants' store located at 3920 Dewey Avenue, in Greece, New
York. Defendants failed to consider Plaintiffs' out-of-pockets
expenses for using her personal vehicle in delivering pizzas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Pratico" Suit Alleges False Claim for Supplement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEFFANI PRATICO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VITAMIN SHOPPE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00899 (N.D. Ill.,
February 3, 2017), seeks actual damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys'
fees resulting from Defendant's alleged unlawful and deceptive
conduct of falsely claiming that its dietary supplement St. John's
Wort Extract contain consistent amounts of the sole active
ingredient standardized extract hypericin listed on its label.
Vitamin Shoppe is a retailer of nutritional products and sports
supplements as well as herbs, homeopathic remedies, and beauty
aids.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
THE BRUNO FIRM
900 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 4E
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone: 773.969.6160
E-mail: kb@brunolawus.com
msilverman@brunolawus.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
1644 Bracken Road
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Phone: 313.303.3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Adam" Suit Over Craft Beer
--------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class of beer drinkers claims in Cincinnati court that a
line of craft brew produced and sold by Wal-Mart is "wholesale
fiction" designed to deceive customers and inflate prices.
The beer -- which comes in four varieties -- is actually mass-
produced and meets none of the criteria set forth for craft beer
by the Brewers Association, according to a class-action lawsuit
filed on February 10, in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common
Pleas.
Put on store shelves in 2016, Wal-Mart's collaborative effort with
Trouble Brewing includes the Cat's Away IPA, After Party Pale Ale,
Round Midnight Belgian White and Red Flag Amber varieties of
beers.
According to the complaint, the beer is now sold in over 3,000
stores across 45 states.
"The trouble is, 'Trouble Brewing' doesn't really exist," the
complaint states. "The applicant listed on filings with the
Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB) is 'Winery Exchange Inc.', which has since turned into WX
Brands. WX Brands 'develops exclusive brands of wine, beer and
spirits for retailers around the world' according to its website.
But under the 'brewery address' section of the TTB filings,
Genesee Brewing's business office in Rochester, NY is listed
instead. Genesee is owed [sic] by another company that brews Costa
Rican lager among other industrial brands. Upon information and
belief, Genesee produces well over the prescribe amount that would
be considered 'small.'"
According to the complaint, the Brewers Association defines a
craft brewer as "small, independent and traditional."
Additionally, to qualify, a craft brewer must "(a) produce less
than 6 million barrels of beer annually; (b) be less than 25
percent owned or controlled by a non-craft brewer; and (c) make
beer using only traditional or innovative brewing ingredients."
The class claims Wal-Mart's lineup "is a wholesale fiction created
by the defendant . . . designed to deceive customers into
purchasing the craft beer at a higher, inflated price."
"Defendant stocks its craft beer next to other 'craft beers' for
sale in its stores, rather than with other mass produced beers,
such as Budweiser, Miller or Coors products," the lawsuit states.
"Again, by placing the craft beer on its shelves with other 'craft
beers', defendant is further perpetuating the myth that it's a
craft beer."
Lead plaintiff Matthew Adam seeks to represent a class of Ohio
residents who have bought the beer at issue. The lawsuit seeks
compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment, as
well as an injunction preventing further false and misleading
advertisements regarding the beer.
The class is represented by Brian Giles of Giles Lenox in
Cincinnati, who said discovery in the case has not yet begun but
he believes more than 6 million barrels of the beer has been
produced.
A Wal-Mart spokesperson said in a statement, "We have not yet been
served, but we take these claims seriously and will respond
appropriately with the court."
The case is captioned, Matthew Adam and all others similarly
situated vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. A1700827, Court of
Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, February 10, 2017.
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
GILES LENOX
Brian T. Giles, Esq.
Bryce Lenox, Esq.
1018 Delta Ave., Suite 202
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Tel: (513) 621-2666
E-mail: Brian@gileslenox.com
Bryce@gileslenox.com
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Banfill" Suit in M. Dist. of Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. The case is captioned as Shirley Banfill, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff. v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and John G. Aldridge, Jr., P.C.
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00317-VMC-AAS (M.D.
Fla., Feb. 8, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Virginia
M. Hernandez Covington.
Wells Fargo provides personal, small business, and commercial
banking services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
Tampa, FL 33602-3343
Telephone: (813) 224 0431
Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
*********
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 * * *