/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170306.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 6, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 46 Headlines 1761 FONDA: Faces "Olivares" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMAZON: Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Prime Membership Debits AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action AQ TEXTILES: Falsely Marketed Bed Linens, "Kremmel" Suit Claims AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Indigenous Workers' Wages Ongoing BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unlawful Home Mortgage Loan Policies BOARD OF COMMERCE: JMCB Tax Suit Removed to M.D. La. BP EXPLORATION: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BRICE, OH: Sued for Illegally Collecting Traffic Ticket Fines CANADA: New Online Map May Help Boost Africville Class Action CAPITAL ONE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pickett" Suit Claims CARUSO TRUCKING: Overtime Pay Sought in "Magsby" Labor Suit CENTRA CREDIT: Illegally Obtains Credit Reports, Suit Claims CN RAIL: Class Action Mulled Over Makami River Derailment COMCAST CORP: Judge Tosses Discrimination Class Action CONWAY, AR: Court Allows Firefighters' Class Action to Proceed DAYTON, OH: Ordered to Repay Speed Camera Ticket Fines DIVERSIFIED CONTRACTORS: "Bowyer" Hits Misclassification, Seeks OT EGALET CORPORATION: Faces "Klein" Suit Over False Business Report ENCORE CAPITAL: Arbitration Clause Enforceable, 6th Cir. Says EOG RESOURCES: Royalty Claim of Little Land Removed to E.D. Okla. EVERGREEN HEALTH: "Kinsey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages FOUGERA PHARMA: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Overpriced Clobetasol GEO GROUP: Immigrant Detainees' Forced Labor Class Action OK'd GOOGLE INC: Must Face Biometric Privacy Law Class Action GRAEBEL VAN: Faces Class Action Over Driver Misclassification GRANDE PIZZA: "Maxwell" Suit Claims Business-related Expenses J&C NY RESTAURANT: "Galicia" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours JELLY BELLY: "Allen" False Advertising Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. KLOPP INVESTMENT: "Ramsay" Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA LANDMARK CREDIT: "Behrens" Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees LIGHT ME: Does Not Properly Pay Employees OT, "Levi" Suit Claims LUCILLE ROBERTS: Faces "Norton" Class Suit in E.D. New York MDL NO. 2406: Summary Judgment Bid Partly Granted MICHIGAN STATE: Mich. Court Dismisses Marijuana Users' Suit NEWCASTLE KNIGHTS: McManus Suit Not NFL-Style Concussion Case NFL ENTERPRISES: Court Denied Cheerleader's Plea to Use Alias ONEFLOW ENERGY: "Keddy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PRESSLER & PRESSLER: New York District Court Stays Class Action PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: "Chapman" Case Transferred to N.D. Fla. QUALCOMM INC: "Housenick" Files Anti-trust Suit Over Chipset QUALCOMM INC: Tada File Suit in Cali. Over Anticompetitive Conduct REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports SHAHEEN CAFE: "Bagum" Labor Suit Claims Overtime, Spread-of-Hours SLATER & GORDON: Faces Cash Woes Amid Class Action SLATER & GORDON: Shareholder Equity Wiped Out Amid Class Action STATE FARM: Dismissal of Florida Suit Reversed STATE FARM: District Court Denies Bid to Remand "LaVelle" STERLING JEWELERS: Faces Sexual Harassment, Discrimination Claims SUN PRINCESS: Passengers Mull Suit Over Norovirus Infections TAKATA: Four Automakers Aware of Defective Airbags, Suit Claims TX CONCIERGE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Llamas" Suit Claims UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Chinese Drivers Compelled to Arbitrate Claims UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Grants Bid to Arbitrate "Peng" UBIQUS REPORTING: "Lloyd" Suit Seeks Relief Under Labor Law UNITED PARCEL: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation UNITED STATES: Iowa Property Owners' $1.5MM Deal Has Prelim. OK UNITED STATES: Faces "Cohen" Class Suit in Federal Court VOLKSWAGEN AG: Boss Criticized Over Emissions Scandal * Court Orders Disclosure of Third-Party Class Action Funding * Government-Backed Fund Needed for Class Actions in Australia * New Bills May Impact Class Action Litigation in Missouri * Seyfarth Reports on 2016 Workplace Class Certification Trends ********* 1761 FONDA: Faces "Olivares" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Mendez Olivares, on behalf of others similarly situated v. 1761 Fonda Mexico Magico LLC d/b/a Mexico Magico and Paco Paredes, Case No. 1:17-cv-01082 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant in New York. Victor Mendez Olivares is a pro se plaintiff. AMAZON: Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Prime Membership Debits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a Chicago woman who claims Amazon continued to draw payments from her bank account for an Amazon Prime membership she says she didn't even purchase has filed a class action suit against the online retailer. On Feb. 20, plaintiff Latoya Christmas filed a complaint in Chicago federal court against Seattle-based Amazon, alleging the retailer violated the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Illinois' consumer fraud law for allegedly refusing to stop taking the money after she demanded they stop. Ms. Christmas is represented in the putative class action by attorneys Todd M. Friedman and David B. Levin, of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C., of Chicago. According to the complaint, Ms. Christmas discovered in September 2016 that Amazon had withdrawn $99 from her bank account, using her debit card information for a one-year Amazon Prime membership. Ms. Christmas alleged someone else had used her debit card information to purchase the membership, without her authorization. The complaint said Ms. Christmas contacted Amazon and demanded they refund the money and cancel the membership. She alleged Amazon agreed to do so. However, the lawsuit said Amazon again deducted $99 from her account on Sept. 30, and has yet to refund the money. In her complaint, Ms. Christmas alleges Amazon has likely done this to others who were charged for Amazon Prime memberships they did not wish to purchase. The complaint did not estimate how many people they believe may fit in the potential class of additional plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs said they believed those answers could be obtained in discovery against Amazon. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs asked the court to include anyone in the U.S. "whose bank accounts were debited by (Amazon) after defendants received a cancellation request for their memberships" within the preceding year. The lawsuit also asks the court to include a special sub-class of Illinois residents who were allegedly wrongly charged for Amazon Prime within the past three years. The plaintiffs are asking the court to order Amazon to pay actual damages and statutory damages of $1,000 per alleged violation, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 1 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. securities (AFSI) from May 10, 2016 through February 24, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for AmTrust investors under the federal securities laws. To join the AmTrust class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1061.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AmTrust had ineffective assessment of the risks associated with the financial reporting; (2) AmTrust had an insufficient complement of corporate accounting and corporate financial reporting resources within the organization; (3) in turn, AmTrust lacked effective controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about AmTrust's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On February 27, 2017, AmTrust issued a press release revealing that it had identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting that existed as of December 31, 2016. On this news, shares of AmTrust fell $5.32 per share or over 19% to close at $22.34 per share on February 27, 2017, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 1, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1061.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767- 3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. AQ TEXTILES: Falsely Marketed Bed Linens, "Kremmel" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Paulette Kremmel, Angela Barnes, Jamie Kilgore, Travis Garner, Dominique Morrison, and Amy Hill, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated v. AQ Textiles, LLC, Creative Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd., The TJX Companies, Inc. d/b/a TJ Maxx and Home Goods, Ross Stores, Inc., Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., and Belk, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00147 (S.D. Ill., February 10, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' deceptive, unfair, and false merchandising practices regarding the thread count of their cotton-rich bed linens. On the labels of the Products and in their marketing materials, the Defendants represent that the Products are of particular thread counts, however, thread counts of the Products are far less than advertised. The Defendants are engaged in wholesale distribution of home furnishings and housewares. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC 8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109 St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 258-0212 E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com - and - Stuart L. Cochran, Esq. R. Dean Gresham, Esq. Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: stuart@stecklerlaw.com dean@stecklerlaw.com bruce@stecklerlaw.com krogers@stecklerlaw.com AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Indigenous Workers' Wages Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Barry, writing for The North West Star, reports that for decades in the 20th century Indigenous workers across Australia never got properly paid for their work. Now a law firm, BELAW, is launching a class action in Queensland to justice. Barrister Joshua Creamer of BELAW said the stolen wages class action was on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who worked in Queensland prior to 1973 and had their wages controlled, or whose deceased parents worked before 1973, if people know the work details of their parents. "We've been all over Queensland and about 3000 people have joined the class action in the federal court jurisdiction," Mr Creamer said. "The case has been running since September and there was a lot of media when we first files because one of the lead applicants, Hans Pearson, is Noel Pearson's uncle." Mr Creamer said they were working to identify pontential group members. "I'd suggest there is around 5000 potential claimants in Queensland for people who were under in Act and working (up to) 1973," he said. Mr Creamer said that Aboriginal people under the Act were managed in every detail of their lives and had their wages put in trust accounts, money most never saw. "Many of those wages disappeared or went into state revenues," he said. He said an historian had estimated there may be $500m worth of wages involved. Lawyers recently spoke to people in Mount Isa, Dajarra and Camooweal. To find out how to join the action go to www.stolenwages.com.au BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unlawful Home Mortgage Loan Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Lester, Jeanny T. Chan, Juan Guevara, Elma Coleman, Evie Lengkong, Paul Lo, Jocelyn Tupas, Roger Tupas, Dr. Yasushi Tamura, Reiko Tamura, Minerva Espiritu, Tony Ing, Lina Wong, Purita Romas Silva, Josie Alejo, Ruth Bareng, Michael Bareng, Earl Lester, Fujiko Suzuki Wen Zhong, Emigdio J. Perez, Noel Patricio Mosqueda, Macarthur Medina, Elda Medina, Zita Chua, Martin Medina, Joelle Medina, Jesse Malaguit, Rosita Malaguit, Rosita Malaguit, Kwon Lee, Samuel K. K. Chung, Lolita Cunanan, Nanette Ordona, Ponce John Ordona, individually and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated v. Bank Of America, N.A.; J.P Morgan Chase & Company; J.P. Morgan, Chase Bank, N,A ; Chase Home Finance L.L.C; Wells Fargo Bank N.A.; Citimortgage, Inc.; Wholesale America; U.S. Bank, N.A.; Union Bank of Switzerland; Indymac Bank; CMG Financial; Firstkey Mortgage, LLC; EMC Mortgage LLC; Barclays; Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC; Nationstar Mortgage LLC; Veriprise Processing Solution LLC; Quality Loan Service Corp.; SPS/Select Portfolio Servicing Inc.; Provident Funding Associates LP; Recovery Services LLC; Cashcall Inc.; Option One Mortgage Corp.; Soundview Home Loan Trust; and Does 1-100, Case No. 2:17-cv-01078 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2017), arises out of the misleading and fraudulent practices committed by the Defendants in the course of home mortgage loan servicing businesses, specifically by using an automated mortgage loan management system, along with subsidiaries and inter-company departments and divisions, in order to engage in a scheme to fraudulently conceal their unlawful assessment of improperly marked-up or unnecessary fees for default-related services. Bank Of America, N.A., J.P Morgan Chase & Company, J.P. Morgan, Chase Bank, N.A, Chase Home Finance L.L.C, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Citimortgage, Inc., Wholesale America, U.S. Bank, N.A., Union Bank of Switzerland, and Indymac Bank are banking and financial services companies in the United States. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is a public government- sponsored enterprise, headquartered in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mia Yu, Esq. PACIFIC RIM LAW GROUP 301 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite 202 Arcadia CA 91006 Telephone: (312) 622-7670 Facsimile: (626) 226-5913 E-mail: Lawyerym@hotmail.com BOARD OF COMMERCE: JMCB Tax Suit Removed to M.D. La. ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned JMCB, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. The Board of Commerce Industry, Louisiana Department of Economic Development and Cameron LNG, LLC, Case No. 654026, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on February 9, 2017. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, monetary damages against Cameron LNG in the form of payment of ad valorem taxes not paid and owed payable to the class members, plus penalties and interest owed under Louisiana law as well as attorney's fees and legal interest. Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. Stan P. Baudin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLPO 24110 Eden Street Plaquemine, LA 70764 - and - Christopher D. Shows, Esq. PIERCE & SHOWS, APLC 601 St. Joseph Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 - and - Troy D. Morain, Esq. THE MORAIN FIRM, LLC 8550 United Plaza Blvd., Suite 702 Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Defendant is represented by Linda S. Akchin, Esq. Charles S. McGowan III, Esq. Christopher J. Dicharry, Esq. Angela W. Adolph, Esq. II City Plaza 400 Convention St., Suite 700 Post Office Box 3513 (70821) Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 387-0999 Facsimile: (225) 388-9133 Email: angela.adolph@keanmiller.com chris.dicharry@keanmiller.com linda.akchin@keanmiller.com trey.mccowan@keanmiller.com BP EXPLORATION: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Juarez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv- 00448 (S.D. Tex., February 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. is in the business of providing oil exploration and production services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS, & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com BRICE, OH: Sued for Illegally Collecting Traffic Ticket Fines ------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Sullivan, writing for WSYX/WTTE, reports that earlier in February, Brice Police Chief Bud Bauchmoyer showed ABC 6/FOX 28 the camera he sometimes puts inside an orange barrel that many believe to be a speed trap. He insisted it's not that, instead it's a protective cover for a camera he uses to catch drivers speeding through the tiny village where it's 25 mph limit. "It's not like we're trying to hide something," said the chief. But Franklin County Municipal Court Clerk Lori Tyack's not so sure. "I'm very interested in seeing how the village of Brice is handling these types of cases," she said. "On behalf of the public, I think it should be fully investigated." Two years ago, the state shut down mayor's courts in towns with populations under 200. That decision forced Brice to turn over its court cases to Tyack's office. She said she received almost 500 cases, and what was in those files was shocking. "The files that we received were incomplete," said Ms. Tyack. "There were post-it notes indicating a defendant had paid for instance $25 on their fines and costs, but there were no balance sheets. There were no official records or accounting of all they money collected by that village during that time through the mayor's court." Rather than lose that mayor's court money, the village went to a civil violations system. Images captured by the speed camera are uploaded to an out-of- state company, which then mails out the ticket. The company then splits the resulting fine, 50-50, with Brice. In 2015, Tyack said she compared the village's traffic ordinances to Columbus. "What we found were a number of situations where the village of Brice actually made up new laws that were not already on the books with the state or the city. And they made up the amounts that they wanted to collect on those violations." Attorney David Goldstein said what Brice is doing is illegal. "Here in the village of Brice, you get pulled over and the fines are enormous," he said. "I mean much greater than they would be under the Ohio Revised Code. Once they realized they were collecting too much money, they enacted some additional legislation through their city council, reduced some of those fines. But what they do is if you go on a payment plan, they charge a fee for that. So, it's like $20 there. If you miss a payment, there's a fee for that." Mr. Goldstein and attorney Gina Piacentino have filed a class action lawsuit, which accuses Brice of illegally collecting money from traffic tickets. It also asks that all of the money the village has collected from drivers under these civil citations be returned. On February 16, Brice Mayor Amy Evans was asked for the village's financial records from the past two years. She said they're working on it. ABC 6/FOX 28 also asked her for an on-camera interview to talk about the speed camera and fines. She said she would pass along the request to the village council, but didn't foresee it happening. CANADA: New Online Map May Help Boost Africville Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Nina Corfu, writing for CBC News, reports that a former resident of Africville is hoping a new online map, which documents how much residents were paid when Halifax took the land in the 1960s, will help bolster his case for compensation for those who lost their homes. Nelson Carvery is the proposed lead plaintiff in a lawsuit initially launched in 1996, which aims to pay individuals who lived in the black community along the Bedford Basin for their losses. Lawyers presented Mr. Carvery's case at Nova Scotia's Supreme Court in November, but it hasn't yet been certified as a class action lawsuit. Amateur architectural historian Peter Ziobrowski, who founded the Action Group for Better Architecture in Nova Scotia, met with Mr. Carvery on Feb. 22 to show him an interactive map he designed that shows how much Africville residents were paid when the city expropriated their land. A decade's worth of council minutes Mr. Ziobrowski said he spent "hours and hours" reading through all of the Halifax city council minutes from the 1960s and writing down any reference to expropriation in Africville. In particular, he tried to note the name of the landowner, the property, and the amount they were paid in exchange for their land. He then incorporated that information into an interactive online map. Some properties couldn't be found in the minutes or were mentioned without specifying the payment amount, so the map is incomplete. Mr. Carvery said projects like this one are important, because they bring public attention to the need for additional compensation for former residents. 'We got nothing' He said the apology and accompanying settlement agreement between Halifax Regional Municipality and the Africville Genealogy Society in 2010 did not go far enough. "We got nothing. Nothing that we can put our finger on," Mr. Carvery said. "Apology, that's all we got. Can't take that to the bank." Mr. Carvery, who left Africville at the age of 18, said his grandfather, William Carvery, owned 21 properties on approximately three or four hectares of land. "It was a beautiful place to grow up," he said. "We had a very sizable property with a big barn. We had horses, we had cattle, we had chickens and geese and pigs." $500 plus expenses Mr. Carvery said he didn't know enough about how much his grandfather was paid during expropriation to say how much compensation would be appropriate for his descendants. Mr. Ziobrowski estimated William Carvery was paid $30,000 by the city during expropriation, but cautioned that amount might reflect the payment for only a portion of Mr. Carvery's properties. In most cases where Africville residents had clear title, Mr. Ziobrowski said, they appear to have been paid "full value" for what they owned. That wasn't the case for those who did not have clear title to their land. In those cases, he said, they typically received $500 plus expenses. Expropriation common Mr. Ziobrowski said he built the map in the hopes of making expropriation "visible in a way that perhaps hasn't been done before." Expropriation was common in the 1960s as a means of urban renewal, he said. Halifax councillors handed out expropriation notices "the way they now hand out paving contracts," Mr. Ziobrowski said. CAPITAL ONE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pickett" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Darrell Pickett, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Capital One, N.A., Case No. 6:17-cv-00260-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., February 13, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Capital One, N.A. is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards, home loans, auto loans, banking and savings products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC 5550 Glades Rd. Ste 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com CARUSO TRUCKING: Overtime Pay Sought in "Magsby" Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Trent Magsby, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Caruso Trucking, Ltd., d/b/a Caruso Logistics, Caruso Logistic Services, LLC and and Caruso, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00086, (E.D. Ark., February 9, 2017) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fee as a result of failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Defendants operate food delivery and refrigerated trucking services where Plaintiff worked as a route driver from approximately October 3, 2016, through January 20, 2017. Defendant is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CENTRA CREDIT: Illegally Obtains Credit Reports, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Patricia Lloyd, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Centra Credit Union, Case No. 1:17-cv-00444-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., February 11, 2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's practice of knowingly and intentionally procuring credit reports of consumers whose debts had been discharged in bankruptcy and there was, therefore, no permissible purpose for accessing such reports. Centra Credit Union operates a financial service company located at 3801 Tupelo Dr, Columbus, Indiana, 47201. The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Steinkamp, Esq. JOHN STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES 5214 S. East Street, Suite D1 Indianapolis, IN 46227 Telephone: (317) 780-8300 Facsimile: (317) 217-1320 E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com - and - Ryan R. Frasher, Esq. THE FRASHER LAW FIRM, P.C. 155 East Market Street, Ste. 450 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 634-5544 Facsimile: (317) 630-5844 E-mail: rfrasher@frasherlaw.com - and - Syed Ali Saeed, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE LLP 1433 North Meridian St., Suite 202 Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 721-9214 Facsimile: (888) 422-3151 E-mail: ali@sllawfirm.com CN RAIL: Class Action Mulled Over Makami River Derailment --------------------------------------------------------- Len Gillis, writing for Timmins Press, reports that as the two- year anniversary approaches for the March 7 derailment and train wreck near the Makami River Bridge near Gogama, a Timmins lawyer said he is likely to launch a class action lawsuit for damages. Lawyer James Wallbridge said on Feb. 27 he has already advised many residents that a lawsuit should be a last resort, but he also said that given the two-year limitation period for damages, it would be prudent to file a statement of claim. The firm Wallbridge Wallbridge has sent letters out to residents living in the watershed north of Gogama advising of the two-year anniversary and why it is good idea to move forward on the claims. The letters are being sent to area residents who have contacted the Timmins law firm in the past two years. It was on March 7, 2015 that an eastbound CN Rail train hauling 94 tank cars had a derailment. In all, 39 tank cars left the tracks. Some of the cars fell into the Makami River by the bridge, exploded and burst into flame. Several of the cars were breached releasing hundreds of thousands of litres of synthetic crude oil into the river and the surrounding environment. "My message to everyone at the last town hall meeting was that a lawsuit should be the last resort and that you should organize as a community and push very hard for a more comprehensive cleanup," said Mr. Wallbridge. He added that the community is fortunate that local volunteer fire chief Mike Benson is a driving force behind the clean-up efforts. In the newsletter to clients, Mr. Wallbridge explained there are two approaches for claiming damages in situations where a contaminant has been spilled. "The first is actual damage to your property. In most cases that has not occurred. The second type of claim is for stigma or negative reputation that affects the value of your land and business. Most businesses have not reported a negative impact on their bottom line," said the newsletter. Mr. Wallbridge compared the second example to the situation in the Highway 144 community of Cartier, north of Sudbury, which also suffered an oil spill and contamination over a period of several years. He said actually getting the area cleaned up is important in the long run. "They have had a heck of a time, you know selling their properties, getting mortgages, all of this. And so that's what I'm driving at. I'm not saying they should sue. I am saying they should push very hard to make sure that clean up efforts are pursued," said Mr. Wallbridge. He added that because the Gogama Makami River spill is far from being fully cleaned up, he does not believe the two-year lawsuit limitation period will apply. On the other hand, Mr. Wallbridge said he has to be careful because there is always the possibility that the time period be raised as an issue. "I don't believe that the two-year limitation will coincide with the two-year anniversary because the damages for these people remains to be ascertained. If cleanup efforts continue, that may well affect our approach to damages," said Mr. Wallbridge. "I think as a precaution it is wise to get the claim out. So we are probably going to issue a class action and then just wait and see how the clean-up goes," Mr. Wallbridge revealed on Feb. 27. He said it is too early to know what the full extent of damage might be. The Gogama-Makami River derailment was the second CN oil train derailment in that area in the winter of 2015. Both occurred along the section of the CN mainline known as the Ruel Subdivision. Another train hauling tank cars had derailed three weeks previous, on Feb. 14, 2015, in a remote bush and wetlands area, about 35 kilometres north of Gogama. Canada's Transportation Safety Board issued a report two weeks ago saying that fatigued rail joints were suspected as a key cause of that train wreck, along with the possibility that the speed of the train -- although it was within the 40 mile per hour speed limit - - was still too fast. COMCAST CORP: Judge Tosses Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Bob Fernandez, writing for Philly.com, reports that a federal judge based in Philadelphia denied a former Comcast Corp. call center employee's bid for a class-action discrimination suit. The former employee, Wilbert Spencer Jr., says in the lawsuit that Comcast managers fired him for hanging up on a customer at the Newark, Del., call center after he lodged a discrimination complaint against his managers over a bad employee review. Comcast managers tried to "cover up" the incident when the Delaware Department of Labor sought information on Mr. Spencer's termination for his unemployment insurance, the suit claimed. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick in February denied class certification of the case -- Mr. Spencer's case lacks the names of any other employees who were similarly discriminated against at the Delaware call center -- and one count in the lawsuit. The five other counts in the suit alleged by Mr. Spencer, including retaliating against him and maintaining a hostile work environment, will be litigated, according to court documents. "Comcast adamantly denies the allegations in this case, and we will defend ourselves vigorously in court," a company spokeswoman said in a statement. "This case has not been certified as a class action, but rather has been brought by one former employee. Comcast is committed to the fair and equitable treatment of all of our employees. "We have an exemplary long-standing track record of nondiscrimination and treating our employees fairly, professionally, and with the utmost respect, and we stand by that record." Justin Robinette, Mr. Spencer's lawyer with Post & Post in Berwyn, said that "although a minor part of the case is gone, we are happy that the case is moving forward, and I hope Mr. Spencer can have his day in court soon on all of the remaining discrimination and retaliation claims." Mr. Robinette said that he believed "the judge has left the door open to certify a class action with more victims at a later date." Last February, Comcast settled a discrimination class-action lawsuit brought by African American employees at its South Chicago facility for $7.2 million as the case was about to go to trial, according to court documents and published reports. The case had been filed in 2011. Ninety percent of the employees at the facility were African American. The suit claimed that Comcast didn't promote or train employees there, subjected them to a hostile workplace, and denied them adequate tools and equipment to do their jobs. The suit also said that the South Chicago employees were disproportionately targeted with an internal disciplinary system. Court documents show that Comcast headquarters had instructed local managers to discontinue the use of the system, but that they did not. Mr. Spencer, 55, who began at Comcast in June 2004 in the New Castle call center, complained of discrimination March 13 and 17, 2015, after an annual employee review that graded him poorly for cultural diversity, motivation, and interpersonal communication skills, the suit says. Two Comcast managers were scheduled to meet with Mr. Spencer over his complaints March 27. Comcast fired him three days later. The suit also claims that in early June, when the Delaware Department of Labor requested information from Comcast as it investigated his request for unemployment insurance, Comcast did not provide the information. The company altered Spencer's March 17 complaint, submitted to an internal database, so that it did not say "discrimination" or "retaliation" but instead "unfair treatment (not discrimination)," the suit says. The suit also claims that there is a "near-total absence of African-American/black employees from all but the lower echelons" of Comcast's workforce at the Newark and New Castle call centers. Although Comcast told Spencer it was firing him for hanging up on a customer, the suit claims that "several white/Caucasian employees regularly hang up on irate customers." CONWAY, AR: Court Allows Firefighters' Class Action to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Gueguen, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Supreme Court of Arkansas on Feb. 16 decided to uphold a Faulkner County Circuit Court certified a class of Conway police and firefighters who are seeking salary increases. Arkansas Supreme Court Associate Judge Rhonda K. Wood wrote in the court's opinion that the case originated when Conway police officers and firefighters brought a class action lawsuit against the city in which they alleged breach of contract by the city because it failed to put sales-tax revenues toward salary increases. The city appealed the circuit court's decision because it felt that the individual issues in dispute were not enough to warrant a class action. Judge Wood explained in the court's opinion that the circuit court certified a class including all city firemen and policemen, except for department heads and officials who were elected, that the city employed from Dec. 1, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2012, and named class representatives at a class-certification hearing. Judge Wood said in the opinion the circuit court also felt "there were overarching, common questions that could be efficiently determined on a class-wide basis." Under Rule 23, there are six elements that must be present in order for a lawsuit to attain class action status, which are numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority. When the city appealed the circuit court's certification, it questioned the court's opinions on four of those six elements. Judge Wood explained that the city contended that no common questions exist because the claim of breaching contract means that each plaintiff would have to figure out their individual issues before common questions could be figured out. According to the opinion, the city also felt that it was not possible to establish liability because each plaintiff's set of facts were different for each of his or her claims. Judge Wood also wrote in the opinion that the city argued that the named class representatives made different claims than the rest of the class and that class action does not constitute a superior way to decide plaintiff's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision that commonality existed because the city was found to have treated all its employees the same in terms of the city's human resources department handing prospective employees a hiring packet of information that included benefits, pay, and other employment terms, including a pay grid. Judge Wood also wrote in the opinion that upon giving each prospective employee this grid, the city's human resources department told the candidates the grid said how much those candidates would get paid. The court also affirmed the circuit court's finding of predominance because it found that the fact that each employee got the same pay grid and notification that told them how much they would make proved that the common questions of whether the city promised to pay them through the sales-tax resolution and whether the employees accepting the employment offer meant they gave enough thought outweighed the individual issues. The court also affirmed that typicality exists in the case because the class reps' claims, which the city tried to argue to the circuit court did not match those of the rest of the class, clearly came from the same alleged wrong that the class argued. Finally, Judge Wood wrote in the court's opinion that the Arkansas Supreme Court felt that a class action lawsuit would benefit the city because the city would save money in trying to defend against one claim instead of 200, and so agreed with the circuit court that it would be more efficient to resolve all the claims at once. DAYTON, OH: Ordered to Repay Speed Camera Ticket Fines ------------------------------------------------------ WHIO reports that a judge ordered a community repay people's speeding ticket fines totaling $3 million. Legal experts say they could impact drivers in other towns with speed cameras. The city of Dayton is one of six communities in our area that have speed cameras. They're effectively banned under a new state law so most of them have gone dark. New Miami's speed cameras were ruled unconstitutional in 2014, and a local legal expert says this ruling could signal some green back in the wallets of folks. "I think it's very possible if the Ohio Supreme Court comes down and says 'OK, this stature authorizing this type of conduct was unconstitutional', then there'd be a perfectly good, legal argument that they deserve their money back," said Tom Hagel, professor emeritus at University of Dayton School of Law. Jodi York of Union City was driving from Hamilton through New Miami when she got a ticket a couple years ago. She's still hoping to get her $98 back. "Right before you get to New Miami, it's 55 miles an hour, and then without warning, if you don't know the town or that particular part of that intersection, it'll drop to 35," York said. "The people deserve their money back because I felt that was a speed trap zone." A ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court is expected sometime this year on Dayton's red light camera. DIVERSIFIED CONTRACTORS: "Bowyer" Hits Misclassification, Seeks OT ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oakey Bowyer, Christopher Velez and Carlos Torres, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Diversified Contractors Inc., an Ohio Corporation, George Rumack, an individual and Eric Lilly, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-01786, (N.D. Ohio, February 9, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Diversified Contractors Inc. is a general construction and remodel company in Lorain, Lorain County, Ohio where Plaintiffs were employed as Construction Repair Technicians doing building and repair, new construction and/or remodeling of single-family homes, installation of roofing, siding and framing, setting windows and doors, trim work, painting, electrical work and other similar construction and remodeling-related work. They allege to be misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees, thus denied basic benefits, including overtime pay. Defendant is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. THE BENDAU LAW FIRM, PLLC 6350 E Thomas Rd #330 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Tel: (480) 296-7887 EGALET CORPORATION: Faces "Klein" Suit Over False Business Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Egalet Corporation, Robert S. Radie, Stanley J. Musail, and Jeffrey M. Dayno, Case No. 2:17-cv-00617-MMB (E.D. Penn., February 10, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Egalet Corporation is a specialty pharmaceutical company developing, manufacturing, and commercializing innovative treatments for pain and other conditions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com mackerman@brodsky-smith.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 E-mail: 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 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ENCORE CAPITAL: Arbitration Clause Enforceable, 6th Cir. Says ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration, but reversed the district court's order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion to unseal, and remanded the case captioned JACOB J. DANLEY; JEFFREY J. McINTYRE, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC., Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-1670 (6th Cir.). Plaintiffs Jacob Danley and Jeffrey McIntyre opened credit-card accounts and, after they stopped making payments on their respective accounts, their creditors charged off the debts. Defendants purchased plaintiffs' debts years later, seeking to collect the debts and accrued interest post-charge off, totaling approximately $2,000 for each account. Plaintiffs commenced a class action in 2015, claiming defendants' attempts to collect charged-off interest violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., and the Michigan Collection Practices Act, M.C.L. Section 445.251, et seq. Defendants moved to compel arbitration based upon the binding arbitration agreements in plaintiffs' respective credit-card account agreements. The arbitration agreements provide that they are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, are assignable and survive assignment, and contain a delegation provisions agreement to arbitrate threshold issues concerning the arbitration agreement. Based on the arbitration provisions contained in plaintiffs' various account agreements, the district court compelled the parties to arbitrate, ruling that the agreements were enforceable and that the parties expressly authorized via a delegation clause an arbitrator to consider plaintiffs' various gateway challenges to the arbitration provisions. In a separate order, the district court sealed several documents on the basis that the documents fell within the purview of the parties' protective order. Plaintiffs appeal the orders granting arbitration and denying their motion to unseal documents. Judge Griffin affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration, but reversed the district court's order denying in part plaintiffs' motion to unseal documents, and remanded the case for further proceedings. A copy of the Sixth Circuit's opinion penned by Circuit Judge Richard Allen Griffin, dated February 22, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/PbKUt2 from Leagle.com. EOG RESOURCES: Royalty Claim of Little Land Removed to E.D. Okla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Little Land Company, L.P., on behalf of itself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EOG Resources, Inc. (including affiliated predecessors and affiliated successors), Defendant, Case No. 17-CJ-02, filed in Marshall County District Court, was removed to the U.S. District Court of Eastern Oklahoma on February 9, 2017. Case seeks compensatory damages, attorney fees, punitive damages and a constructive trust resulting from breach of fiduciary duties, breach of oil and gas lease terms, deceit and constructive fraud. Plaintiff alleges that EOG has underpaid royalties on natural gas in Oklahoma from January 1, 1993 to the present by deducting processing fees and expenses, reducing payments for drip condensate and helium. Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Barbara C. Frankland, Esq. REX A. SHARP PA 5301 W. 75th St. Prairie Village, KS 66208 Tel: (913) 901-0419 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com bfrankland@midwest-law.com Defendant is represented by: Michael E. Smith, Esq. HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C. Chase Tower 100 North Broadway, Suite 2900 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8865 Telephone (405) 553-2828 Fax (405) 553-2855 Email: mesmith@hallestill.com - and - Daniel M. McClure, Esq. Rebecca J. Cole, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010-3095 Telephone (713) 651-5151 Fax: (713) 651-5246 Email: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com rebecca.cole@nortonrosefi11bright.com EVERGREEN HEALTH: "Kinsey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Kinsey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Evergreen Health Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv- 00387-JKB (D. Md., February 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Evergreen Health Cooperative, Inc. operates a healthcare insurance cooperative, which provides insurance plans to individual subscribers and corporate groups. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin L. Davis III, Esq. George E. Swegman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com gswegman@nicholllaw.com FOUGERA PHARMA: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Overpriced Clobetasol -------------------------------------------------------------- Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo Co. PLC, Perrigo Company, Perrigo New York, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Wockhardt Usa LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00964, (S.D. N.Y., February 9, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from Defendants' overcharging of clobetasol propionate topical ointment in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Clobetasol is a high-potency prescription corticosteroid used in the treatment of various skin disorders including eczema, psoriasis, dermatitis and vitiligo. It is reportedly one of the most prescribed dermatological drugs in the United States. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund is a voluntary employee benefits plan providing health benefits to eligible participants and beneficiaries, including prescription drug benefits, to approximately 34,000 participants, and their spouses and dependents. Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Melville, New York. Fougera is a specialty dermatology generic pharmaceutical company that markets and sells generic fluocinonide throughout the United States. Fougera is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Sandoz, Inc., a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. It deals in generic pharmaceuticals and bio-similars and is a subsidiary of Defendant Novartis AG. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Akorn, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Amityville, New York. It markets and sells Clobetasol throughout the United States. Perrigo Company PLC is incorporated under the laws of Ireland with its principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland. Perrigo's North American base of operations is located at 515 Eastern Avenue, Allegan, Michigan 49010, where Perrigo's domestic subsidiaries are pharmaceuticals manufacturers. Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York. It is an owned subsidiary of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Wockhardt Ltd., an international pharmaceutical and biotechnology company headquartered in Mumbai, India, manufactures, markets and sells generic drugs, including Clobetasol, throughout the United States. Wockhardt maintains manufacturing plants and substantial operations in the United States, including its wholly-owned subsidiary Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., through which it sold Clobetasol products to customers in the United States. Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDESON AND ASSOCIATES LLC 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Tel: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 Email: mcdelson@edelson-law.com - and - Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, RC. 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel: (484) 342-0700 Fax: (484) 580-8747 Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com GEO GROUP: Immigrant Detainees' Forced Labor Class Action OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Llorente, writing for FoxNews.com, reports that a federal judge based in Denver approved a class-action lawsuit by former and current immigrant detainees against one of the largest private prison management companies in the United States. The lawsuit, filed in 2014, alleges that at a 1,500-bed detention center in Aurora, Colorado, that is run by GEO Group under contract to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detainees were forced to work for little or no pay and threatened with solitary confinement and criminal charges if they failed to comply. U.S. District Judge John Kane, who has refused requests by GEO to dismiss the lawsuit or not allow it to proceed as a class-action case, said in a ruling on Feb. 27 that there appeared to be sufficient basis in the complaint to allow it to move forward on behalf of some 50,000 former and present detainees held there. The lawsuit says GEO unjustly enriched itself through forced labor and violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which prohibits obtaining labor or services from someone by "means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint." The detainees, most of whom are held for civil immigration-related violations, were pressured to sweep and mop floors and clean toilets and showers, among other chores. For a $1 a day, the complaint said, detainees did laundry, prepared meals and cleaned the facility. "Detainees were aware of the Sanitation Policy during their detention and claim that they performed the required duties to avoid solitary confinement," the judge wrote in his decision. Kane added that the only recourse for immigrants held at the facility was a class-action suit, since "many . . . lack English proficiency . . . have limited financial resources and reside in countries around the world. It is very likely that these claims would not be brought by individual detainees, especially considering the case's innovative nature." Nina DiSalvo, executive director of Towards Justice, a nonprofit legal group representing the detainees, said to Fox News that using immigrant labor was how GEO was able to get by with just one full-time custodian for a large facility that houses more than 1,000 people. She said the judge's ruling paves the way for immigrant detainees to fight back against what she described as exploitation by private prison firms. "American immigration policy is too often driven by the profit motives of the private corporations that we pay to round up and detain our immigrants," Ms. DiSalvo said. "Judge Kane's ruling allows vulnerable detainees to band together and hold GEO accountable for profiteering on the backs of its captive labor force." In a statement to Fox News, GEO denied the allegations and said it will fight the suit. The company says it abides by federal standards in its management of the detention center. "We have consistently, strongly refuted these allegations, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend our company against these claims," Pablo Paez, GEO's vice president of corporate relations, told Fox News. "The volunteer work program at immigration facilities as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program are set by the federal government," Mr. Paez said. "Our facilities, including the Aurora, Colo. facility, are highly rated and provide high-quality services in safe, secure, and humane residential environments pursuant to the federal Government's national standards." GOOGLE INC: Must Face Biometric Privacy Law Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a Chicago federal judge has refused Google's request to delete a class action lawsuit accusing the tech titan of violating an Illinois law by automatically creating and storing face scans of people in photos uploaded to its cloud-based Google Photos service without first collecting written authorization from those whose faces were scanned. On Feb. 27, U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang sided with Lindabeth Rivera and Joseph Weiss, named plaintiffs in the action, saying, to date, Google had not done enough to short-circuit their claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. "It is conceivable that discovery will reveal that what Google is actually doing does not fit within the definition of biometric identifiers as interpreted by the Court," Judge Chang wrote. "Until that time, however, the Plaintiffs' allegations must be taken as true, and they adequately state a claim under the Privacy Act." Ms. Rivera and Mr. Weiss are represented in the action by attorneys with the firms of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, of Chicago; Carey Rodriguez O'Keefe Milian Gonya LLP, of Miami, Fla.; and Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, of West Hollywood, Calif. The class action was first filed in March 2016, accusing the Mountain View, Calif.-based Google of violating the Illinois BIPA when it allegedly created and stored face scans of Illinois residents Rivera and Weiss, without their consent, from photos that others uploaded onto Google's photo sharing service. It is one of a number of cases brought by a number of different plaintiffs and attorney firms alleging various tech companies, including social media giant Facebook and photo sharing service Shutterfly, violated the Illinois law by applying facial recognition technology to uploaded and stored photos. Under the Illinois law, which was enacted in 2008, private entities are barred from obtaining and possessing people's biometric identifiers without their consent. The law defines a biometric identifier as "any personal feature that is unique to an individual, including fingerprints, iris scans, DNA and 'face geometry,' among others," and establishes biometric information as "any information captured, converted, stored, or shared based on a person's biometric identifier used to identify an individual." According to the class action complaint, Google Photos has "created, collected and stored" millions of "face templates or face prints -- highly detailed geometric maps of the face -- from millions of Illinois residents, many thousands of whom are not even enrolled in the Google Photos service," using "sophisticated facial recognition technology" to organize and group photos based on the people pictured. The complaint noted the law allows for damages of $5,000 for each intentional violation and $1,000 for each negligent violation, meaning Google could be on the hook for millions of dollars in damages. In response to the lawsuit, Google asked the judge to dismiss the action, essentially arguing the law should not apply to such photographs, and the Illinois state law cannot be applied across the country, under the U.S. Constitution, as it would effectively force Google to comply everywhere with a law enacted only in Illinois. Judge Chang set aside Google's arguments on the law's scope and constitutionality, saying those would be better left for a later time after further discovery into the case could be conducted. The judge, however, said, for now, the plaintiffs had established Google's face scans may have violated Illinois law. And Chang said Google's arguments crashed over the applicability of the law to photos. According to the judge's opinion, Google had attempted to argue the law should only apply to face scans generated in person, and not scans generated from photos uploaded by users. But, said the judge, the text of the law does not support Google's contention. "Rivera and Weiss nowhere argue that the photograph itself is the biometric identifier," the judge wrote. "Indeed, if Google simply captured and stored the photographs and did not measure and generate scans of face geometry, then there would be no violation of the Act." The judge indicated he would set a discovery scheduled at the case's next hearing. Google is represented in the action by the firm of Perkins Coie LLP, of San Francisco, Seattle and Chicago. GRAEBEL VAN: Faces Class Action Over Driver Misclassification ------------------------------------------------------------- Land Line reports that a California trucker's lawsuit against Graebel Van Lines seeks class action status for wage and labor violations alleging driver misclassification, according to court records. The lawsuit, which was filed Feb. 27 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeks back pay and overtime wages for class members who were allegedly misclassified as independent contractors, and subsequently denied compensation for meal and rest breaks under California state law. The lawsuit was filed by Los Angeles-based Haffner Law, on behalf of truck driver Fidel Coronel and other similarly-situated truckers who were employed by Graebel during the last four years. Last fall, the law firm filed similar lawsuits seeking class action status against Atlas Van Lines and Stevens Transport. According to court documents, Coronel worked as a driver for Graebel, where the lawsuit claims he and other members of the proposed class were incorrectly classified as independent contractors. Graebel is accused of failing to pay drivers all wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to provide meal and rest breaks under California law. The class includes drivers who worked or lived in California and were employed by the company within the last four years. The class action complaint alleges the company violated California labor codes by requiring drivers to work shifts lasting more than four hours without receiving a 10-minute rest break; requiring drivers to work shifts longer than five or 10 hours and not providing or allowing required 30-minute meal breaks; and failing to pay class members for all hours worked. The suit also alleges that class members suffered loss of wages and compensation by failing to be paid for all hours worked, and failing to be paid minimum and overtime wages. "Defendants (Graebel Van Lines) have engaged in a pattern and practice of misclassifying their employees as independent contractors to avoid the taxes, insurance and other costs that accompany employees," the complaint states. GRANDE PIZZA: "Maxwell" Suit Claims Business-related Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Eric Maxwell and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Grande Pizza Co., Salvatore Amico and Joseph M. Lay, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60315, (S.D. Fla., February 9, 2017) seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for violations of the minimum wage pay provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Grande Pizza Co. operates pizzerias under the name "Grande Pizza." Defendants require delivery drivers, including the Plaintiff, to maintain and pay for his own safe, legally-operable, and insured automobile, shouldering the costs of gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, automobile repair and maintenance services, elevated automobile insurance, and depreciation of their vehicle while delivering food and beverages. These expenses render their net wages way below the mandated minimum wage rates. Defendant 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 J&C NY RESTAURANT: "Galicia" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Galicia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J & C NY Restaurant Inc., Zhu Wu Chen and Coco Tan, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00754, (E.D. N.Y., February 9, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, reimbursement for tools of the trade, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff also seeks unpaid spread of hours premium and compensation for Defendants' failure to provide wage notices at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs in violation of New York Labor Laws. Defendants operate Golden Temple, a restaurant in Syosset located at 417 Jericho Turnpike, Syosset, NY 11791, where Galicia worked as a dishwasher, kitchen helper and busboy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718) 353-8588 Email: jhang@hanglaw.com JELLY BELLY: "Allen" False Advertising Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jason Allen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated current citizens of Missouri, Plaintiff, v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, Defendant, Case No. 1622-CC11517 (Mo. Cir., December 12, 2016) was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on February 10, 2017. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement or restitution, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief from unjust enrichment resulting from the mislabelling of Jelly Belly's Superfruit Mix, Sport Beans and Sports Beans Extreme in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC 8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109 St. Louis, MO 63144 Tel: (314) 258-0212 Email: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com - and - Stuart L. Cochran, Esq. COCHRAN LAW PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Tel: (214) 300-1765 Email: scochran@scochranlaw.com Defendant is represented by Paul A. Del Aguila GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 456-8400 Fax: (312) 456-8435 KLOPP INVESTMENT: "Ramsay" Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL RAMSAY, for himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KLOPP INVESTMENT CORP., a Foreign corporation d/b/a EASY RENTAL, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 20584-JAL (S.D. Fla., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). From 2006 to 2016, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and other account managers at a rate of one and one-half times each account manager's regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks. Klopp Investment provides consumer electronics & appliances rental services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL, 33324 Telephone: (954) 318 0268 Facsimile: (954) 327 3016 E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com LANDMARK CREDIT: "Behrens" Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Danell Behrens, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Landmark Credit Union and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00101, (W.D. Wis., February 9, 2017), seeks monetary damages, restitution and injunctive relief due to breach of contract and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Defendant is a Wisconsin state-chartered credit union with its headquarters in New Berlin, Wisconsin with its primary business activities in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Plaintiff complains of the Defendant's policy and practice of charging overdraft fees even if there was sufficient money in her account to cover the transaction. Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas P. Dehler, Esq. Laura J. Lavey, Esq. O'NEIL, CANNON, HOLLMAN, DEJONG & LAING S.C. 111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 276-5000 Facsimile: (414) 276-6581 Email: Doug.Dehler@wilaw.com Laura.Lavey@wilaw.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq. McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com jkk@mccunewright.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. Robert Dart, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 201 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Robert@kicklawfirm.com LIGHT ME: Does Not Properly Pay Employees OT, "Levi" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Levi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Light Me Up Signs LLC, d/b/a Yesco Houston, Case No. 4:17-cv-00441 (S.D. Tex., February 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by forcing its employees to work a substantial amount of overtime without properly paying all compensation due. Light Me Up Signs LLC operates a lighting and sign repair company that provides its installation and maintenance services in and around the Houston, Texas area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Cowan, Esq. Justin Jenson, Esq. Katie McGregor, Esq. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com jjenson@bpblaw.com kmcgregor@bpblaw.com LUCILLE ROBERTS: Faces "Norton" Class Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Lucille Roberts Health Clubs, Inc. The case is captioned Larena Norton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lucille Roberts Health Clubs, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00796 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2017). Lucille Roberts Health Clubs, Inc. operates a chain of health clubs for women in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com MDL NO. 2406: Summary Judgment Bid Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------- Judge David Proctor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the parties cross motions in the case captioned IN RE: BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTITRUST LITIGATION (MDL No. 2406), Master No. 2:13-CV-20000-RDP (N.D. Ala.) Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (BCBSAL) has employed rating classifications for its group insurance products as follows: (a) for groups of 2-14, BCBSAL has applied a community-rating methodology, and adjusts base rates using benefit plan and group- size adjustment factors; (b) for groups of 15-50, BCBSAL has applied a demographic-rating methodology, and adjusts base rates using demographic adjustment factors such as gender and age; and (c) for groups of 50 or more, BCBSAL has applied an experience- rating, or merit-rating, methodology, adjusting base rates using the claims experience of each group. From January 1, 2008, through the present, the two Alabama subscriber plaintiffs named in the subscriber track amended consolidated class action complaint, CB Roofing, Inc. and American Electric Motor Services, Inc. (AEMS), purchased products covered by BCBSAL's Small Group category of business. CB Roofing became a BCBSAL customer in 2009. Since 2009, CB Roofing has had either two or three enrolled subscribers. AEMS became a BCBSAL customer before 2008. Since 2008, AEMS has had between two and four enrolled subscribers. BCBSAL's undisclosed cap and hold variances were not applied to the premiums paid by either CB Roofing or AEMS. On November 14, 2016, subscriber plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint in American Electric Motor Services, Inc., et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., and to file a second amended consolidated class action complaint in In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation MDL 2406 to add small group plaintiffs Consumer Financial Education Foundation of America, Inc., Fort McClellan Credit Union, Rolison Trucking Co. LLC, Conrad Watson Air Conditioning, Inc., Hilton Cooper Contracting, Inc., and Bradford Building Company, Inc. On November 22, 2016, the court granted subscriber plaintiffs' motions, and on December 2 and 7, 2016, respectively, subscriber plaintiffs filed their amended class action complaint and their second amended consolidated class action complaint adding those plaintiffs and alleged that BCBSAL charges at least some of their subscribers health insurance premium rates that were never filed or approved because such rates vary from the base rates it files with the state. Before the court are defendants' amended and restated motion based on the Filed Rate Doctrine for summary judgment on the Alabama subscribers' damages claims and Alabama subscriber plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the Filed-Rate Doctrine. With regard to the Filed Rate Doctrine, the parties have stipulated to the following facts: (1) the doctrine does not apply to the damages claims of plaintiffs whose groups contained more than fifty members because BCBSAL did not file rates for such market segment; and (2) the parties consent to entry of judgment as a matter of law against BCBSAL with respect to its Filed Rate Defense targeted at plaintiffs' groups which contain more than fifty members. Defendants contend that application of the doctrine entitles them to summary judgment on the damages claims asserted by the two subscriber plaintiffs. Subscriber plaintiffs respond that it is actually they who are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the affirmative defense because BCBSAL has systematically charged rates that varied from the rates they filed with the Alabama Department of Insurance. Judge Proctor held that the Filed Rate Doctrine is judicially created and finds its origins in principles of federal preemption. In the antitrust context, it operates to bar treble damages claims that are based upon challenges to rates that have been filed with regulatory agencies. The Filed Rate Doctrine only bars recovery of money including treble damages. It has no effect on claims for declaratory or injunctive relief. Thus, the Filed Rate Doctrine only bars claims for money damages by subscriber plaintiffs who were charged and paid rates that were actually filed and approved. Defendants' amended and restated motion based on the Filed Rate Doctrine for summary judgment on the Alabama subscribers' damages claims, and Alabama subscriber plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the filed-rate are each due to be granted in part and denied in part. A copy of Judge Proctor's memorandum opinion datede February 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/3P8Cyv from Leagle.com. Special Master, Special Master, represented by Edgar C. Gentle, III -- escrowagen@aol.com -- at Gentle Turner Sexton & Harbison Plaintiffs' Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Helen Lynne Eckinger -- psheehan@whatleykallas.com -- Deborah J. Winegard -- dwinegard@whatleykallas.com -- Edith M. Kallas -- ekallas@whatleykallas.com -- Henry C. Quillen -- hquillen@whatleykallas.com -- Joe R. Whatley, Jr. -- jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- Michael S. Lyons -- mlyons@whatleykallas.com -- Patrick J. Sheehan -- psheehan@whatleykallas.com -- Tucker Brown -- tbrown@whatleykallas.com -- at WHATLEY KALLAS LLP; Joseph H. Webster -- harland@chapman-lewis-swan.com -- at CHAPMAN LEWIS & SWAN PLLC; Megan Jones -- mjones@hausfeld.com -- William Butterfield -- wbutterfield@hausfeld.com -- Arthur N. Bailey, Jr. -- abailey@hausfeld.com -- Braden Beard -- bbeard@hausfeld.com -- Jeannine M. Kenney -- jkenney@hausfeld.com -- Melinda Coolidge -- mcoolidge@hausfeld.com -- Michael D. Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- Scott Allen Martin -- smartin@hausfeld.com -- Swathi Bojedla -- sbojedla@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP; Richard A. Feinstein -- rfeinstein@bsfllp.com -- David Boies -- dboies@bsfllp.com -- James Wells Harrell -- wharrell@bsfllp.com -- Jonathan R. Voegele -- jvoegele@bsfllp.com -- Kathleen Simpson Kiernan -- William A. Isaacson -- wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- at BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP; Aaron S. Podhurst -- apodhurst@podhurst.com -- John Gravante, III -- jgravante@podhurst.com -- Matthew P. Weinshall -- Matthew P. Weinshall -- Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- at PODHURST ORSECK PA; Ami Swank -- at Ami Swank Law Firm; Andrea Layne Stackhouse -- Lawrence L. Jones, II -- larry@jonesward.com -- at Jones Ward PLC; Andrew England Brashier -- andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com -- Archibald I. Grubb, II -- archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com -- Rebecca Diane Gilliland -- rebecca.gilliland@beasleyallen.com -- Wilson Daniel Miles -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Leslie Lee Ann Pescia -- leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com -- at BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC; Andrew Allen Lemmon -- Irma L. Netting -- at Lemmon Law Firm; Andrew M. Stone -- astone@stone-law-firm.com -- at STONE LAW FIRM LLC; Annesley H. DeGaris -- at DeGaris Rogers Attorneys at Law; Anthony F. Jackson -- at BECK & AMSDEN; Archie C. Lamb, Jr. -- alamb@archielamb.com -- at ARCHIE LAMB AND ASSOCIATES LLC; Augusta S. Dowd -- adowd@whitearnolddowd.com -- Hope S. Marshall -- hmarshall@whitearnolddowd.com -- J. Mark White -- mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com -- Katherine R. Brown -- kbrown@whitearnolddowd.com -- Linda G. Flippo -- lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com -- at WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD PC; Barry A. Ragsdale -- bragsdale@sirote.com -- at SIROTE & PERMUTT PC; Ben W. Gordon, Jr. -- bgordon@levinlaw.com -- Virginia M. Buchanan -- vbuchanan@levinlaw.com -- at LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR; Benjamin L. Barnes -- at Benjamin L. Barnes Attorney @ Counselor at Law; Benjamin J. Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- at CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KIPELA; Bradley A. Wasser -- at LAW OFFICES OF DAVID BALTO; Brian M. Clark -- bclark@wigginschilds.com -- Dennis G. Pantazis -- dgp@wigginschilds.com -- at WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB; Brian E. Wojtalewicz -- at WOJTALEWICZ LAW FIRM LTD; Bruce C. Jones -- bruce@jonesandswartzlaw.com -- Eric B. Swartz -- eric@jonesandswartzlaw.com -- at JONES & SWARTZ PLLC; Bryan L. Clobes -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- Patrick E. Cafferty -- pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com -- at CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP; Carl S. Kravitz -- ckravitz@zuckerman.com -- Cyril V. Smith, III -- csmith@zuckerman.com -- D. Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Daniel Patrick Moylan -- dmoylan@zuckerman.com -- at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP; Carl Wesley Pittman -- at THE PITTMAN FIRM PA; Casey Langston Lott -- at LANGTSON & LOTT, P.A.; Charles D. Hudson -- charlie@pennandseaborn.com -- L. Shane Seaborn -- shane@pennandseaborn.com -- John W. Partin -- will@pennandseaborn.com -- Myron C. Penn -- myron@pennandseaborn.com -- at PENN AND SEABORN LLC; Charles C. Hunter -- at HAYES HUNGER PC; Charles M. Thompson -- at CHARLES M. THOMPSON PC; Charles R. Watkins -- charlesw@gseattorneys.com -- David J. Guin -- DavidG@gseattorneys.com -- Tammy McClendon Stokes -- tstokes@gseattorneys.com -- at GUIN STOKES & EVANS LLC; Christina D. Crow -- ccrow@jinkslaw.com -- Lynn W. Jinks, III -- ljinks@jinkslaw.com -- Nathan A. Dickson, II -- ndickson@jinkslaw.com -- at JINKS CROW & DICKSON PC; Christopher T. Cain -- at SCOTT & CAIN; Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Nicholas R. Rockforte -- nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com -- Patrick W. Pendley -- pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com -- Stanley P. Baudin -- sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com -- at PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP; Christopher T. Hellums -- ChrisH@pittmandutton.com -- Jonathan S. Mann -- JonM@pittmandutton.com -- at PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS PC; Clint Sargent -- at MEIERHENRY SARGENT LLP; Dale Ernest Akins -- at AKINS LAW FIRM; Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Daniel C. Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Jason S. Kilene -- jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- Ellen M. Ahrens -- at GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC; Daniel E. Phillips -- at SOLBERG STEWART MILLER; Daniel A. Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Laura Alexander -- lalexander@cohenmilstein.com -- Meghan M. Boone -- at COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC; David A. Balto -- at LAW OFFICES OF DAVID BALTO; David F. Evans -- at HICKEY & EVANS; Dennis Craig Reich -- at, REICH & BINSTOCK LLP; Donald D. Knowlton, II -- don@alalawyers.net -- Emily Hawk Mills -- hawk@alabamatortlaw.com -- Gregory S. Cusimano -- greg@alabamatortlaw.com -- Michael L. Roberts -- mlr@alabamatortlaw.com -- at CUSIMANO ROBERTS & MILLS LLC; Donna Smith Cude -- John D. Saxon -- at JOHN D. SAXON PC; Earnest William Wotring -- ewotring@bakerwotring.com -- Karen R. Dow -- kdow@bakerwotring.com -- at Connelly Baker Wotring LLP Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Barry A. Ragsdale -- bragsdale@sirote.com -- at SIROTE & PERMUTT PC; Ben W. Gordon, Jr. -- bgordon@levinlaw.com -- at LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR; Mario A. Pacella -- at STROM LAW FIRM; Rebekah Keith McKinney -- at WATSON MCKINNEY LLP Defendants' Counsel, Defendant, represented by Aaron G. McLeod -- aaron.mcleod@arlaw.com -- Stephen A. Rowe -- steve.rowe@arlaw.com -- at ADAMS & REESE LLP; Adam H. Charnes -- Acharnes@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Chad Dwight Hansen -- Daniel R. Taylor, Jr. -- Dantaylor@kilpatricktownsend.com -- at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP; Alan D. Rutenberg -- arutenberg@foley.com -- Erik F. Benny -- ebenny@foley.com -- Michael A. Naranjo -- mnaranjo@foley.com -- Samantha A. Robbins -- srobbins@foley.com -- at FOLEY & LARDNER LLP; Andrew Phillip Campbell -- andy.campbell@campbellguin.com -- Andrew T. Campbell -- todd.campbell@campbellguin.com -- Stephen D. Wadsworth -- stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com -- Yawanna Nabors McDonald -- at CAMPBELL GUIN WILLIAMS GUY AND GIDIERE LLC; Anna M. Clark -- aclark@phillipslytle.com -- Edward S. Bloomberg -- ebloomberg@phillipslytle.com -- John G. Schmidt, Jr. -- jschmidt@phillipslytle.com -- at PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP; Anne Salomon -- anne.salomon@kirkland.com -- Casey R. Fronk -- casey.fronk@kirkland.com -- Christa C. Cottrell -- christa.cottrell@kirkland.com -- Daniel E. Laytin -- daniel.laytin@kirkland.com -- David J. Zott -- david.zott@kirkland.com -- Erica Zolner -- erica.zolner@kirkland.com -- Helen E. Witt -- helen.witt@kirkland.com -- Ian R. Conner -- ian.conner@kirkland.com -- Jeffrey J. Zeiger -- jeffrey.zeiger@kirkland.com -- Jessica Staiger -- jessica.staiger@kirkland.com -- Mark Edward McKane -- mark.mckane@kirkland.com -- Sarah J. Donnell -- sarah.donnell@kirkland.com -- Zach Holmstead -- zachary.holmstead@kirkland.com -- at KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP; Antonio M. Clayton -- at CLAYTON & FRUGE; April N. Ross -- aross@crowell.com -- Honor R. Costello -- hcostello@crowell.com -- Kathleen Taylor Sooy -- ksooy@crowell.com -- Tracy A. Roman -- troman@crowell.com -- Michael Wyld Lieberman -- mlieberman@crowell.com -- at CROWELL & MORING LLP; Arthur Patrick Fritzinger -- afritzinger@cozen.com -- John W. Reis -- Lezlie Madden -- lmadden@cozen.com -- Matthew L. Bleich -- mbleich@cozen.com -- Paul K. Leary, Jr. -- pleary@cozen.com -- at COZEN O'CONNOR; Ashley M. Lowe -- alowe@bakerdonelson.com -- D. Keith Andress -- kandress@bakerdonelson.com -- Gary C. Shockley -- gshockley@bakerdonelson.com -- Matthew G. White -- mwhite@bakerdonelson.com -- R. Mark Glover -- mglover@bakerdonelson.com -- at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC; Brian P. Kappel -- bkappel@lightfootlaw.com -- John M. Johnson -- jjohnson@lightfootlaw.com -- at LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC; Brian K. Norman -- bkn@snlegal.com -- at SHAMOUN & NORMAN LLP; Bruce F. Rogers -- brogers@bainbridgemims.com -- at BAINBRIDGE MIMS ROGERS & SMITH LLP; Carl S. Burkhalter -- cburkhalter@maynardcooper.com -- Grace Robinson Murphy -- gmurphy@maynardcooper.com -- Jacob Joel Franz - - jfranz@maynardcooper.com -- James L. Priester -- jpriester@maynardcooper.com -- John T.A. Malatesta, III -- jmalatesta@maynardcooper.com -- Sarah S. Glover -- sglover@maynardcooper.com -- Scott S. Brown -- scottbrown@maynardcooper.com -- at MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC; Cavender C. Kimble -- ckimble@balch.com -- at BALCH & BINGHAM LLP; Charles L. Sweeris -- Mary C. St. John -- at BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA; Cheri D. Green -- Christopher A. Shapley -- James A. McCullough, II -- jmccullough@brunini.com -- M. Patrick McDowell - - pmcdowell@brunini.com -- Norman E. Bailey, Jr. -- R. David Kaufman -- dkaufman@brunini.com -- Scott F. Singley -- ssingley@brunini.com -- at BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER & HEWES PLLC; Christine Varney -- cvarney@cravath.com -- Evan Chesler -- echesler@cravath.com -- Karin DeMasi -- kdemasi@cravath.com -- Margot Miller -- mamiller@cravath.com -- Rowan D. Wilson -- at CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE; Christopher G. Scanlon -- Paul A. Wolfla - - paul.wolfla@FaegreBD.com -- at FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP; Courtney B. Green -- David A. Coulson -- coulsond@gtlaw.com -- at GREENBERG TRAURIG PA; Craig A. Hoover -- craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- David Newmann -- david.newmann@hoganlovells.com -- E. Desmond Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- Elizabeth A. Jose -- elizabeth.jose@hoganlovells.com -- Emily M. Yinger -- emily.yinger@hoganlovells.com -- J. Robert Robertson -- robby.robertson@hoganlovells.com -- N. Thomas Connally, III -- tom.connally@hoganlovells.com -- Robert F. Leibenluft -- robert.leibenluft@hoganlovells.com -- at HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP; D. Bruce Hoffman -- bhoffman@hunton.com -- Todd M. Stenerson -- tstenerson@hunton.com -- at HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP; D. Kent Meyers -- kent.meyers@crowedunlevy.com -- Elizabeth Barnett LaBauve -- at Crowe & Dunlevy; Devin Clarke Dolive -- ddolive@burr.com -- Gary M. London -- glondon@burr.com -- at BURR & FORMAN LLP; Douglass C.E. Farnsley -- dfarnsley@stites.com -- at STITES & HARBISON PLLC; Erin M. Wilson -- wilsonem@lanepowell.com -- Gwendolyn C. Payton -- paytong@lanepowell.com -- at LANE POWELL PC; Gregory Haynes -- ghaynes@wyattfirm.com -- at Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP; Gustavo Adolfo Pabon Rico -- pabong@reichardescalera.com -- Rafael Escalera-Rodriguez -- escalera@reichardescalera.com -- Sylvia Maria Arizmendi -- at REICHARD & ESCALERA LLP; Henry James Koch -- hjk@ajlaw.com -- at ARMBRECHT JACKSON LLP; J. Bentley Owens, III - - bowens@wefhlaw.com -- at ELLIS HEAD OWENS & JUSTICE; James Thomas Williams, Jr. -- jwilliams@brookspierce.com -- Jennifer K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- at Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP; Jason Gourley -- at BODMAN PLC; Jess Randall Nix -- jnix@spotswoodllc.com -- Joshua K. Payne -- jpayne@spotswoodllc.com -- Mary Godwin Menge -- mmenge@spotswoodllc.com -- Michael Sansbury -- msansbury@spotswoodllc.com -- Morgan Brooke Franz -- mfranz@spotswoodllc.com -- Robert K. Spotswood -- rks@spotswoodllc.com -- at SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY LLC; John D. Briggs -- jbriggs@axinn.com -- Kenina Lee -- klee@axinn.com -- Rachel J. Adcox -- radcox@axinn.com -- at AXINN VELTROP HARKRIDER LLP; John Stone Campbell, III -- johnstone.campbell@taylorporter.com -- L. Adam Thames -- adam.thames@taylorporter.com -- at Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips; John Martin -- john.martin@nelsonmullins.com -- Lucile Cohen -- lucie.cohen@nelsonmullins.com -- at NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP; Jonathan M. Redgrave -- jredgrave@redgravellp.com -- Victoria Ann Redgrave -- vredgrave@redgravellp.com -- at REDGRAVE LLP; Kimberly R. West -- kwest@wallacejordan.com -- Mark Montgomery Hogewood -- mhogewood@wallacejordan.com -- at WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT LLC; Kristen Jordana Gillis -- Tyrone Carlton Means -- at MEANS GILLIS LAW, LLC; Pamela B. Slate -- pslate@hillhillcarter.com -- at HILL HILL CARTER FRANCO COLE & BLACK PC; Peter W. Zuger -- pzuger@serklandlaw.com -- at SERKLAND LAW FIRM; Robert R. Riley, Jr. -- at RILEY & JACKSON PC; Samuel Andrew Diddle -- sdiddle@eberle.com -- at EBERLE BERLIN KADING TURNBOW & MCKLVEEN MICHIGAN STATE: Mich. Court Dismisses Marijuana Users' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Eastern Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned MAXWELL LORINCZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLONEL KRISTE KIBBEY ETUE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-12290 (E.D. Mich.). On June 21, 2016, Plaintiffs Maxwell Lorincz, Jason Poe, Earl Cantrell Carruthers, and Brandon Shobe, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against defendants Colonel Kriste Kibbey Etue in her official capacity as the Director of the Michigan State Police, and Inspector Scott Marier in his official capacity as the Interim Director of the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division or the State defendants and against Captain Joe Quisenberry in his official capacity as Commanding Officer of the Forensic Services Laboratory for Oakland County, and Michael Bouchard in his official capacity as Sheriff of Oakland County or the County defendants. Plaintiffs and the proposed class are all licensed medical marijuana patients and/or caregivers in Michigan who use marijuana oils and edibles, and allegedly possess such items at almost all times. The class action complaint alleges Due Process and Fourth Amendment violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988, and seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, plaintiffs seek: (a) class certification; (b) a declaratory judgment that defendants' policy of reporting oils and edibles containing THC as scheduled 1 THC when two or more naturally occurring cannabinoids other than THC are also found in the sample violates plaintiffs' and class members' constitutional rights; (c) a declaratory judgment that defendants' failure to note in laboratory reports analyzing oils and edibles that naturally occurring cannabinoids other than THC were found violates plaintiffs' and class members' constitutional rights; (d) an injunction enjoining defendants from issuing laboratory reports in the future contrary to the declaratory relief sought; (e) an order requiring defendants to amend existing laboratory reports in pending criminal cases to conform with the declaratory relief sought; (f) the appointment of a crime lab monitor to assure compliance with the injunctive relief sought; and (g) attorney's fees and costs. State and County defendants filed separate motions to dismiss arguing that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs lack standing to bring the action. Judge Hood concludes that plaintiffs lack standing and do not meet the preconditions for asserting injunctive and declaratory relief in federal forum. Even if the named plaintiffs were exposed to illegal conduct in the past, and even if they may bring a Section 1983 action to recover damages, they cannot show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive and declaratory relief because they cannot establish continuing present adverse effects. In short, taking the allegations in the complaint as true, the named plaintiffs have not established that they have personally suffered some actual or threatened injury that is immediate and concrete and fairly traceable to the alleged illegal conduct of State and County defendants such that any potential injury will be redressed by the injunctive and declaratory relief sought. The motions to dismiss are granted and the action is dismissed. Plaintiffs may file a motion to amend their complaint, as to state defendants only relative to the recent changes in the law and in State Defendants' reporting policy, within fourteen days of the entry of the order if plaintiffs believe they can overcome the standing issues which the court concludes result in dismissal. A copy of Judge Hood's order dated February 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/o9LKEc from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy A. Daniels -- tim.daniels@figdav.com -- at Figari, Davenport; Michael A. Komorn -- at Komorn Law Colonel Kriste Kibbey Etue and Inspector Scott Marier, Defendants, represented by Mark E. Donnelly -- Rock A. Wood -- at Michigan Department of Attorney Captain Joe Quisenberry and Sheriff Michael Bouchard, Defendants, represented by David N. Asmar -- Keith J. Lerminiaux -- Nicole B. Tabin -- at Oakland County Corporation Counsel NEWCASTLE KNIGHTS: McManus Suit Not NFL-Style Concussion Case ------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian reports that James McManus isn't Ray Easterling, the former American football player who first filed a lawsuit against the NFL over the game's handling of concussion which ultimately led to a billion-dollar settlement with the governing body. Crucially, Mr. McManus isn't suing the NRL. He isn't alleging that the NRL has concealed the dangers of concussion and rushed injured players back onto the field. Nor is he alleging they have glorified the sort of sickening collisions that featured on reels of NFL footage, allegations that were at the heart of legal action taken by Mr. Easterling and a handful of others which ultimately became the central premise in a class action involving more than 4500 athletes. What he does have in common with Mr. Easterling and those pioneering few NFL players is that he faces a protracted and painstaking battle through the courts if he persists with legal action against his former club, the Newcastle Knights. Fears that Mr. McManus's action could prompt a flood of litigation are probably unfounded. Since the concussion issue became part of the rugby league landscape several years ago, there has been no shortage of legal types attempting to generate interest in a class action of the type that recently ended in the US. Thus far, their attempts have failed. During that period, the NRL has made significant strides in the area of concussion. It has strict protocols surrounding head knocks and heavy penalties for clubs and officials who violate the rules. Intriguingly, McManus continues to be employed by the Knights after retiring last year following a series of concussions. He played his last game for the club in 2015 and chairman Brian McGuigan has reiterated his employment is not threatened by the current legal action. Mr. McManus's last concussion was suffered in July 2015, only a matter of months after the NRL made significant changes to its rules designed to strengthen concussion protocols. The rules were tightened to help doctors determine what action should be taken when a player suffered a head injury. The Knights' application of those rules and their subsequent treatment of Mr. McManus will be central to the player's case against the club. The matter is due to appear before the Supreme Court on March 17 but it shapes as a lengthy process if recent history is any guide. Paul Aiton, Anthony Tupou and Nathan Stapleton were among a group of players who commenced legal action against the Sharks over the peptide scandal. While several players reached settlements with the club, the trio remain locked in a court battle that stretches back more than a year and shows few signs of reaching a resolution. Likewise, former Sharks forward Michael Greenfield commenced legal action against the Australian Rugby League Commission in mid-2015 after alleging his career was ended by a shoulder charge, a case viewed as potentially a landmark one for the code. That case is due for its latest mention in the Supreme Court on Friday, March 3, the day after his former club is due to open the NRL season against the Brisbane Broncos at Southern Cross Group Stadium, a ground where he once plied his trade. Another former Knights player, Alex McKinnon, has also foreshadowed legal action against the NRL and Melbourne Storm over the tackle that left him in a wheelchair, although it is believed no damages claim has yet been lodged as talks continue. Mr. McKinnon was seen at Rugby League Central on Feb. 24, spending more than an hour at the game's headquarters where it's understood he received information about his role as an ambassador with the game. Regardless, he too faces a lengthy battle in the courts should he decide to follow through on his plan to seek recompense for the devastating injuries that ended his career. NFL ENTERPRISES: Court Denied Cheerleader's Plea to Use Alias ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, denied plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, in the case JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NFL ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. C 17-00496 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff, a former cheerleader for the San Francisco 49ers, brought an action under the pseudonym Jane Doe. The complaint alleges that the National Football League and its member clubs conspired to eliminate competition for recruiting cheerleaders and to keep cheerleaders' wages below market value. On February 3, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed a pseudonym, claiming she will be subject to harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment if forced to maintain the action under her legal name. Plaintiff's counsel also submitted a declaration stating that he had discussed the motion with defense counsel the same day and requested that defendants stipulate to the motion, but received no response to his request. Plaintiff cites Jane Roes 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, a case involving exotic dancers, for the proposition that highly sensitive situations involving social stigmatization or sexuality warrant anonymity. Judge Alsup denied plaintiff's motion observing that the plaintiff has not shown that public disclosure of her identity presents substantial risk of harm. Moreover, the suggestion that exotic dancers and professional cheerleaders share comparable risks of stigmatization, ridicule, or embarrassment because the latter wear revealing uniforms is unpersuasive particularly since the complaint emphasizes that professional cheerleaders are skilled female athletes but does not mention any sensitivity, stigmatization, or sexuality in the profession, Judge Alsup pointed out. For purposes of testing the pleadings, however, and assuming that the defendants will move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, the court will allow the plaintiff to use only her true first and last initials in pleadings for the time being. If the defendants choose to answer rather than move under Rule 12, or if the complaint survives past the Rule 12 stage, then the plaintiff will likely be required to re-file her complaint using her true full name. A copy of Judge Alsup's order dated February 22, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/YgcMPa from Leagle.com. Jane Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Joseph Obrien -- tobrien@bradshawassociates.com -- Drexel Andrew Bradshaw -- drexel@bradshawassociates.com -- at Bradshaw Associates ONEFLOW ENERGY: "Keddy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Keddy, Chris Browning, and Joshua Mullins, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oneflow Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-00142-C (W.D. Ok., February 10, 2017), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Oneflow Energy Services, LLC operates an oilfield service company, providing frac, water transfer, and well tank services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com mparmet@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS, & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com PRESSLER & PRESSLER: New York District Court Stays Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Alexander, Esq. -- alexander.nathan@dorsey.com -- and Michelle Ng, Esq. -- ng.michelle@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in Zambrana v. Pressler & Pessler LLP, the Southern District Court of New York stayed a putative class action against various creditors for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), referring the matter to arbitration. In the case, lead plaintiff Alicia Zambrana (Zambrana) obtained a Best Buy credit card from, and entered into a cardholder agreement with, Household Bank N.A (HSBC) in 2003 (2003 Agreement). The 2003 Agreement includes a mandatory arbitration clause, obligating the parties to arbitrate all future disputes. In 2010, HSBC allegedly sent Ms. Zambrana a change in term notice and an amended cardholder agreement (2010 Agreement). The 2010 Agreement included a revised arbitration clause that allowed cardholders to opt out of arbitration by notifying HSBC within 30 days of receiving the 2010 Agreement. Ms. Zambrana never sent HSBC an opt-out notice. In 2012, Ms. Zambrana defaulted on her account. By then, her account had been assigned to a number of creditors, initially from HSBC to Capital One, and then to other creditors (defendants). The defendants initiated a separate state action against Ms. Zambrana for the outstanding debt. In turn, Ms. Zambrana initiated the instant action claiming that the defendants' collection practices violated the FDCPA. Ms. Zambrana argued that the defendants could not compel arbitration for two reasons: First, neither the arbitration provision in the 2003 Agreement nor the 2010 Agreement was enforceable as to her. Specifically, she argued that the 2003 Agreement was inoperative because it had been superseded by the 2010 Agreement. The 2010 Agreement -- including the arbitration clause therein -- was also unenforceable because the defendants could not prove that they sent her the 2010 Agreement -- thus whether or not she opted out of arbitration in 2010 was a non-issue. Second, Ms. Zambrana argued that the defendants lacked standing because the initial assignment of her account from HSBC to Capital One was improper, thereby rendering all subsequent assignments invalid as well. In response, the defendants submitted a declaration of the HSBC senior legal counsel responsible for the Best Buy credit card portfolio in 2010, who stated that because the 2010 Agreement was sent to all HSBC Best Buy cardholders, and Ms. Zambrana was a customer at the time, she would have been sent one as well. With respect to standing, the defendants submitted business records, including a Bill of Sale, showing that Ms. Zambrana's account was assigned by HSBC to Capital One. The court found the legal counsel's declaration insufficient to prove that HSBC in fact sent Ms. Zambrana the 2010 Agreement, because, while he had knowledge of the creation of the 2010 Agreement, he did not have personal knowledge of how or when the 2010 Agreement was sent out to Ms. Zamrabana, and therefore the defendants failed to establish ordinary office procedures to prove that Ms. Zambrana received the 2010 Agreement. Nevertheless, the court held that the 2003 Agreement required arbitration. Rejecting Ms. Zambrana's "heads I win, tails you lose" argument that both the 2003 and 2010 Agreement were inoperative, the court determined that "[e]ither the 2010 Agreement was sent to her so that her failure to opt out of arbitration means that she is bound by the 2010 Agreement, or it was never sent to her, in which case the 2003 Agreement with its arbitration provision remains in force." Since there was no evidence that Ms. Zambrana received the 2010 Agreement, the arbitration clause in the 2003 Agreement remained in effect. The court also found that the defendants had standing. Unlike in a debt collection case, defendant creditors seeking to enforce the arbitration clause in a binding contract need not prove a complete chain of title over the account in order to prevail. Instead, the court held that the defendants need only show "by a preponderance of the evidence that [Zambrana]'s account and corresponding cardholder agreement were assigned." Defendants did so by submitting evidence that the initial assignment from HSBC to Capital One was valid. The case presents some takeaways for financial institutions seeking to enforce arbitration agreements in their agreements: -- Establish and implement ordinary mailing procedures for disseminating important notifications to customers; and -- Present evidence of these ordinary office procedures to the court, not just evidence of the creation of the agreement or the purpose of the agreement. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: "Chapman" Case Transferred to N.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Richelle Chapman, Plaintiff, v. Progressive American Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 16000959, (Fla. Cir., December 16, 2016), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on February 9, 2017. Chapman filed this suit on behalf of herself and an unknown number of persons insured by Progressive due to its failure to pay the $10,000 automobile insurance benefits coverage despite policy holders obtaining emergency medical condition determinations from their treating physicians. Defendants allegedly hired independent medical examiners to contradict their findings, thus depriving them of some $7,500.00. Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Vlachos, Esq. VLACHOS INJURY LAW, P.A. 244 East Intendencia Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Email: chris@vlachosinjurylaw.com regina@vlachosinjurylaw.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1054 31st Street, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com mkestnerclay@baileyglasser.com Defendant is represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Ross E. Linzer, Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 374-5600 Fax: (305) 374-5095 E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com ross.linzer@akerman.com QUALCOMM INC: "Housenick" Files Anti-trust Suit Over Chipset ------------------------------------------------------------ Craig Housenick, Ryan Margulis, Richard Rizzo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00675, (N.D. Cal., February 9, 2017), seeks to recover damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of California state consumer protection statutes, state antitrust and restraint of trade laws, unfair competition law and 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 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: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Bruce J. Wecker, Esq. Samantha J. Stein, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 358-4980 Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com bwecker@hausfeld.com sstein@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202)-540-7200 Fax: (202)-540-7201 Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Len A. Fisher, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Email: espector@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com jjagher@srkw-law.com LFisher@srkw-law.com QUALCOMM INC: Tada File Suit in Cali. Over Anticompetitive Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARALYN TADA, NAGORE MILES, BETHANY RISING and JIYING SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00762 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief from Defendant arising from Defendant's anticompetitive conduct in acquiring and maintaining a monopoly over the modem chipset (baseband processor) market. The anticompetitive conduct also includes abusing the intellectual property rights underlying that technology, and charging an excessive and unlawful royalty on cellular phones or devices incorporating such patents, with the result that each end-user purchaser pays an inflated price for each cellular phone or device. Plaintiffs are purchasers of cellular telephones and other cellular devices utilizing baseband processors Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230 0800 Facsimile: (619) 230 1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Li Jin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regulus Therapeutics Inc., Joseph P. Hagan, Paul C. Grint, and Timothy Wright, Case No. 3:17-cv-00267-LAB-JMA (S.D. Cal., February 10, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing first-in-class drugs that target microRNAs to treat a broad range of diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam C. McCall, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-7290 E-mail: amccall@zlk.com - and - Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. Alexander A. Krot III, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail nporritt@zlk.com akrot@zlk.com SHAHEEN CAFE: "Bagum" Labor Suit Claims Overtime, Spread-of-Hours ----------------------------------------------------------------- Muktha Bagum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shaheen Cafe, Inc., Zishan Hamid and Omar Zia, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00769, (E.D. N.Y., January 10, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime pay with liquidated damages, unpaid spread of hours pay, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive and declaratory relief as provided for by Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendants operate Shaheen Restaurant located at 255 South Broadway, Hicksville, New York 11801 where Bagum was employed by Defendants as a server, stocker, cleaner and cashier. Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Tana Forrester, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 499-9100 - and - David Urena, Esq. 123 William Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10039 Tel: (646) 459-3037 SLATER & GORDON: Faces Cash Woes Amid Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bartholomeusz, writing for The Australian, reports that The Slater & Gordon result tells us little that we already didn't know. The group is in the hands of its bankers and, with an enterprise value smaller than its bank debt, there is no escape route. With borrowings of around $740 million, a deficiency in shareholders' funds of $126m and cash flows that were negative to the tune of $11.4m in the December half, the fate of the group -- rather than its shareholders -- rests on the recapitalisation plan it has to put to lenders by May 26. It is probable that there will be a plan acceptable to the lenders because the alternative for a business whose assets walk out the door each evening is that the lenders face a near total wipe-out. While the group does still have a market capitalisation, a modest $56m, it would appear reasonable to assume that shareholders will get wiped out by a recapitalisation that will seek to limit or eliminate any liability from class actions beyond that which might be recovered from insurers. The result the group issued on Feb. 27 shows there is some urgency in devising a solution to the crisis created by Slater & Gordon's disastrous decision to acquire the Quindell business in the UK. Slater & Gordon wrote another $350m off the value of that business in the half, which was a major factor in the $425.1m loss it reported. In the same half of 2015-16, the UK business drove the group to a $958m loss. If the performance were only due to non-cash impairment charges against assets whose paucity of value was recognised not long after they were acquired, it wouldn't be as disconcerting. Across the group, however, there were big declines in revenue, with the core Australian business suffering a 17.5 per cent fall that resulted in a $4.4m loss at the earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and changes in work-in-progress level. It is apparent that, as acknowledged by the group's managing director, Andrew Grech, the prolonged period during which Slater & Gordon has been under a destabilising spotlight is impacting its ability to generate income. It is perhaps surprising -- and something of a testament to its ability to retain its people -- that the impact hasn't been even more significant. The group's lenders will, however, look at the shrinking of the group's revenue base as a warning sign that, if they are to recover anything of substance, there needs to be a recapitalisation that permanently stabilises the group and removes the distractions and uncertainty around it so that it can operate more normally. It is going to take some ingenuity to do that, given the relationship between debt and equity, the class action and, in the background, an Australian Securities and Investment Commission investigation as to whether the group's accounts were deliberately falsified or manipulated. That investigation could have some implications for the group's insurance coverage and therefore the moneys available in the overall pot for creditors. It remains a messy and difficult situation for the group and its bankers to resolve. SLATER & GORDON: Shareholder Equity Wiped Out Amid Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Robins, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that the clock is now ticking on the financial future of the ailing law firm Slater and Gordon, with a 90-day deadline to finalise negotiations with its bankers to ensure its survival. The company has until May 26 to complete the negotiations, it said, which is likely to see the investment of shareholders wiped out. Earlier on Feb. 27, the company disclosed more heavy losses amid a warning from its auditor about the "material uncertainties" over the company's financial survival. In a filing with the stock exchange, the company disclosed that losses have now reached $1.3 billion, which exceeds the $1.1 billion of equity on its balance sheet, so that all of the shareholder funds have now been wiped out. The underlying value of each of its shares on issue is now minus 36c, since the lawyer had a negative net worth of $126 million as of December 31. The company is negotiating a new financing package with its bankers in what is seen as a 'life-saving' deal for the company. "The continued support of the company's lenders is fundamental," it warned in the sharemarket filing, "as current levels of bank debt exceed total enterprise value." The slide in the group's fortunes follows a slump in revenue to $322.7 million in the December half, which is well below the $487.5 million earned a year earlier. This resulted in the loss for the December half running at $425.1 million. The company is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the corporate watchdog ASIC, the Australian Securities Investments Commission, and has been hit by a shareholder class action which asserts the company "engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct" as well as breached continuous disclosure obligations of public companies. And its auditors, Ernst & Young, have also warned of "material uncertainties" relating to the group's survival, highlighting the latest loss, the negative cashflow as well as the fact that all shareholder equity has been wiped out. The steady flow of bad news saw the shares down a heavy 20 per cent at 12.75c in late trading, after hitting a new all-time low of 12c. One of the few analysts who still follows the company, Morningstar's Gareth James, warned that the shares "look worthless following another bad result". "We maintain our 'extreme fair value uncertainty' rating and 1c per share fair value estimate for Slater & Gordon following another poor financial result," he told clients on Feb. 27. "At 16c per share [Friday's closing share price], we continue to believe the shares are materially overvalued and reiterate our intention to cease coverage of the company early this month." STATE FARM: Dismissal of Florida Suit Reversed ---------------------------------------------- The District Court of Appeals of Florida, Fourth District, reversed and remanded the case captioned NORTHWEST CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, INC. and RANDY ROSENBERG, D.C., P.A., Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, No. 4D15-2881 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.). Three State Farm insureds were all issued separate automobile insurance policies with PIP benefits by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. In 2008, while the policies were all in effect, the insureds were injured in separate accidents. Following the accidents, appellant Northwest Center for Integrative Medicine and Rehabilitation, Inc., provided care to some of the insureds, and appellant Randy Rosenberg, D.C., P.A., provided care to another insured. This care was covered under the insureds' policies with State Farm. Appellants received assignments of benefits from the insureds and billed State Farm for the care under the assignments. Under section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2008), the PIP statute, an insurer may elect to calculate medical reimbursements in one of two ways: (a) it can pay a reasonable amount consistent with subsection (5)(a)1. of the statute; or (b) it can elect to apply the Medicare fee schedules, as set forth in subsection (5)(a)2. of the statute. However, in order to exercise the subsection (5)(a)2. option, the insurer must provide notice in the policy of its election to use the fee schedules. State Farm did not elect subsection 5(a)2. in the insureds' policies. The insureds' policies all provided that State Farm would pay 80% of all reasonable expenses incurred for medically necessary services and treatments. State Farm reimbursed appellants for the insureds' medical care at Medicare Fee schedule amounts. Appellants filed suit for a class action declaratory judgment regarding the calculation of reimbursement under the policy. State Farm moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that there was no live controversy between the parties because the issue had been resolved in the case of GEICO General Insurance Co. v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., 141 So.3d 147, 159 (Fla. 2013). It conceded that the policies did not elect to apply the Medicare fee schedules pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes, but rather the fact-dependent methodology of section 627.736(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes. However, State Farm asserted that under Virtual Imaging, it was still entitled to consult a variety of sources, including the Medicare fee schedules, in determining a "reasonable" amount under subsection (5)(a)1. It also argued that the issue was not a proper subject for a class action. The court granted State Farm's motion to dismiss and dismissed the fifth amended complaint with prejudice. Appellants moved for rehearing, arguing that the court erred in relying on State Farm's characterization of Virtual Imaging. State Farm opposed the motion. The court denied rehearing and appellants an appeal. Appellants challenge the dismissal, arguing that Virtual Imaging did not resolve the dispute because the insurance policy did not rely on permissive Medicare fee schedules, but instead used a fact-based determination of a reasonable fee based on section 627.736(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes, yet the insurer exclusively used the Medicare fee schedules to calculate provider fees. Judge Warner agrees with the appellants that the Virtual Imaging case did not conclusively resolve the issue, hence the order of dismissal is reversed and the case is remanded for reinstatement of the complaint and for further proceedings. Judge Warner held that the issue in the case, unlike the issue in Virtual Imaging, is the proper methodology for calculating reimbursement under (5)(a)1 and whether, under that provision and the policy language, use of Medicare fee reimbursement rates to calculate provider reimbursements is authorized. The trial court erred in concluding that Virtual Imaging fully answered the issues in the present controversy. A copy of the District Court of Appeals of Florida, Fourth District opinion penned by Judge Martha C. Warner, is available at https://goo.gl/gEhFxo from Leagle.com. Gary M. Farmer, Sr. -- gary@pathtojustice.com -- at Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman P.L., for appellants Nancy A. Copperthwaite -- nancy.copperthwaite@akerman.com -- Marcy Levine Aldrich -- marcy.aldrich@akerman.com -- Ross E. Linzer -- ross.linzer@akerman.com -- at Akerman LLP, for appellee The District Court of Appeals of Florida, Fourth District panel consists of Judges Martha C. Warner, Robert M. Gross and Melanie G. May. STATE FARM: District Court Denies Bid to Remand "LaVelle" --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the case captioned EVNA T. LAVELLE & LAVENIA LAVELLE, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-1082 (RBW) (D.D.C.). On August 9, 2015, the plaintiffs' vehicle was struck by an uninsured driver in the District of Columbia and sustained damages that required over $17,000 to repair. According to the plaintiffs, as a result of the damage suffered to the vehicle in the accident, the vehicle was worth less after it was repaired than it was before the accident. State Farm, the plaintiffs' insurer, covered the vehicle's repair costs pursuant to the plaintiffs' Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage, but did not cover the diminution of value damages the plaintiffs suffered. Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court and alleged that State Farm failed to cover the diminished value of the vehicle pursuant to their policies, and assert breach of contract, unlawful and deceptive trade practices in violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as their causes of action and request for actual damages in the form of payment of the difference between the insured vehicles' pre- loss fair market values and their projected fair market values as repaired vehicles immediately after the accident in amounts to be determined at trial, treble damages or $1500 per violation of the Consumer Protection Act for each District of Columbia consumer, whichever is greater, costs of suit including reasonable attorney fees and punitive damages in amounts to be determined at trial. State Farm filed its Notice of Removal, removing the case from Superior Court to the District of Columbia pursuant to the class action fairness act. Plaintiffs filed their motion for remand, arguing that the court does not have federal subject-matter jurisdiction because State Farm has not demonstrated that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million threshold requirement of the class action fairness act. Judge Walton observed that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million threshold required by the class action fairness act, and concludes that the requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction are satisfied. Judge Walton denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. A copy of Judge Walton's memorandum opinion dated February 22, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/oAtnqz from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Jonathan B. Nace, Esq. NIDEL & NACE, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW Washington, DC 20015 Tel: 202-478-9677 -- and -- Jacob M. Lebowitz, Esq. POSEY LEBOWITZ PLLC 3221 M St NW Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-524-0123 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Brittany Michelle Cambre -- brittanycambre@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Gail Lynn Westover -- gailwestover@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Thomas William Curvin -- tomcurvin@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Tracey Katagi Ledbetter -- traceyledbetter@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Wilson G. Barmeyer -- wilsonbarmeyer@eversheds-sutherland.com -- at EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP STERLING JEWELERS: Faces Sexual Harassment, Discrimination Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Harwell, writing for Washington Post, reports that hundreds of former employees of Sterling Jewelers, the multibillion-dollar conglomerate behind Jared the Galleria of Jewelry and Kay Jewelers, claim that its chief executive and other company leaders presided over a corporate culture that fostered rampant sexual harassment and discrimination, according to arbitration documents obtained by The Washington Post. Declarations from roughly 250 women and men who worked at Sterling, filed as part of a private class-action arbitration case, allege that female employees at the company throughout the late 1990s and 2000s were routinely groped, demeaned and urged to sexually cater to their bosses to stay employed. Sterling disputes the allegations. The arbitration was first filed in 2008 by more than a dozen women who accused the company of widespread gender discrimination. The class-action case, still unresolved, now includes 69,000 women who are current and former employees of Sterling, which operates about 1,500 stores across the country. Most of the sworn statements were written years ago, but the employees' attorneys were only granted permission to release them publicly on Feb. 26. One of the original women who brought the case, those lawyers said, died in 2014 as proceedings crawled on without resolution. The statements allege that top male managers, some at the company's headquarters near Akron, Ohio, dispatched scouting parties to stores to find female employees they wanted to sleep with, laughed about women's bodies in the workplace, and pushed female subordinates into sex by pledging better jobs, higher pay or protection from punishment. Though women made up a large part of Sterling's sales force, many said they felt they had little recourse with their mostly male management. Sanya Douglas, a Kay sales associate and manager in New York between 2003 and 2008, said a manager even had a saying for male leaders coaxing women into sexual favors to advance their careers, calling it "going to the big stage." "If you didn't do what he wanted with him," she said in the 2012 sworn statement, "you wouldn't get your (preferred) store or raise." Sterling spokesman David Bouffard told The Post in a statement on Feb. 27 that company officials "have thoroughly investigated the allegations and have concluded they are not substantiated by the facts and certainly do not reflect our culture." The company "has created strong career opportunities for many thousands of women working at our stores nationwide" and takes allegations of pay and promotion discrimination seriously, with "multiple processes in place to receive and investigate allegations of misconduct," Mr. Bouffard said. Allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination "involve a very small number of individuals," he said, adding that their claims were included in arbitration filings by employees' attorneys "to paint a negative and distorted picture of the company." In arbitration, Sterling presented experts it said had reviewed some employee allegations and concluded that the company "devotes adequate resources to manage complaints of unwanted sex-related behavior," according to a 2015 filing. Complaints that were reported to the company were thoroughly investigated, Mr. Bouffard said, and action was taken where appropriate. He added that the company encourages all employees to report any workplace concerns so officials can investigate and respond appropriately. Not all of the 69,000 class members are alleging sexual impropriety. Many are accusing Sterling of wage violations, arguing women were systematically paid less than men and passed over for promotions given to less experienced male colleagues. The former and current employees are seeking punitive damages and years of back pay, though no estimate of the potential damages has been given. A class hearing, during which witnesses will be called to testify before the arbitration judge for the first time, is scheduled for early next year. Sterling, like other U.S. companies, requires all workers to waive their right to bring any employment-related disputes against their employer in public courts. Instead, complaints must be decided in arbitration -- a private, quasi-legal system where cases are guaranteed little transparency. Since 2015, The Post has requested to review the employee statements submitted as part of arbitration, all of which were designated as confidential. Employees' attorneys have also sought to make them publicly available. Attorneys for the employees and the company recently reached an agreement that the documents could be made public on the condition that they not identify any of the individuals to whom conduct was attributed. More than 1,300 pages of sworn statements were released on Feb. 26 and feature company-approved redactions that obscure the names of managers and executives accused of harassment or abuse. But a memorandum by the employees' attorneys supporting their motion for class certification, filed in 2013, revealed that top executives including Mark Light, now chief executive of Sterling's parent company, Signet Jewelers, were among those accused of having sex with female employees and promoting women based upon how they responded to sexual demands. Mr. Light did not respond to requests for comment, and the company did not make him available for an interview. The company declined to address detailed questions about the allegations made by former employees against Light and other managers. Many of the most striking allegations stem from the company's annual managers meetings, which former employees described as a boozy, no-spouses-allowed "sex-fest" where attendance was mandatory and women were aggressively pursued, grabbed and harassed. Multiple witnesses told attorneys that they saw Light "being entertained" as he watched and joined nude and partially undressed female employees in a swimming pool, according to the 2013 memorandum. Routine sexual "preying" at company events "was done out in the open and appeared to be encouraged, or at least condoned, by the company," Melissa Corey, a manager of Sterling stores in Massachusetts and Florida between 2002 and 2008, said in her declaration. Ellen Contaldi, a Sterling manager in Massachusetts between 1994 and 2008, said in her declaration that male executives "prowled around the (resort) like dogs that were let out of their cage and there was no one to protect the female managers from them." "I didn't like being alone, anywhere. I used to dread going" to the meetings, Ms. Contaldi told The Post in an interview. "If you were even remotely attractive or outgoing, which most salespeople are, you were meat, being shopped." "It was like nobody knew right from wrong, and there was nobody trying to show anybody right from wrong," Ms. Contaldi added. "There was no discipline. There was no consequence. You were on your own." Former employees who sought help or reported abuse through an internal hotline alleged in their declarations that they were verbally attacked or terminated. Kristin Henry, a five-year Sterling employee who said she was 22 when an older district manager tried to kiss and touch her at a managers event, told The Post she was falsely accused of theft and quickly fired after reporting his advances to superiors at Sterling. The case, Jock et al. v. Sterling Jewelers, was filed before the American Arbitration Association, one of the nation's largest arbitration organizations. Kathleen A. Roberts, the case's arbitrator and a retired federal magistrate, is forbidden by association rules from speaking with the media. Like other arbitrations, the case before Roberts is conducted in private and is legally binding. While arbitrator decisions are appealable, there are very limited grounds on which decisions can be overturned. The confidential nature of the case has made it difficult to determine why it has taken so long to resolve. In a 2015 decision to grant class-action status to the women, Roberts wrote that the testimony includes references to "soliciting sexual relations with women (sometimes as a quid pro quo for employment benefits), and creating an environment at often-mandatory Company events in which women are expected to undress publicly, accede to sexual overtures and refrain from complaining about the treatment to which they have been subjected." "For the most part Sterling has not sought to refute this evidence," Roberts wrote. Instead, she wrote, "Sterling argues that it is inadmissible, irrelevant and insufficient to establish a corporate culture that demeans women." The case could deeply tarnish a business that sells billions of dollars worth of jewelry a year through romance-centered marketing campaigns such as "Every Kiss Begins with Kay." Signet told shareholders in an annual report last year that it would have to "pay substantial damages" if it lost the case. Sterling's mall outlets and storefronts account for a large chunk of America's jewelry market, as well as more than 18,000 jobs across all 50 states. Its parent company, Signet, which is domiciled in Bermuda but headquartered in Ohio, is the world's largest retailer of diamond jewelry, selling more than $6 billion of jewelry, watches and services in 2015, company filings show. Joseph M. Sellers, a partner at the Cohen Milstein law firm and lead counsel for the case, told The Post in an interview that the former employees' statements provide "breathtaking evidence of ways in which women were mistreated in the workplace." "It was terribly demeaning to them as women," Mr. Sellers said, "not just because they themselves were mistreated but because they saw how their co-workers were treated as sexual objects." 'Backed into a corner' When Heather Ballou left her job at a small jewelry store and moved to a Kay retail outlet in Pensacola, Fla., in 2000, she believed she had made the right move to advance her young career. Sterling seemed to offer high standards, a professional atmosphere and managers willing to groom and mentor new employees, Ms. Ballou, a class member in the arbitration, said in an interview with The Post. As she worked her way up to store manager, though, she said, she became increasingly disturbed at the frequency of sexual harassment from the company's crude "boys club." At a managers meeting in 2005, a district manager promised to help transfer her to a better store if she had sex with him, she said in her sworn statement. That night, she did, believing she was "backed into a corner" and had no other way to advance. "Looking back, I can't believe I did some of the things I had to do," Ms. Ballou, 41, told The Post, adding that in the moment she thought: "You suck it up and do what you have to do for your family. You need this job." Ms. Ballou attended four of Sterling's multi-day managers meetings, where attendance was mandatory for managers at company stores nationwide. The events, which were mostly held in Orlando, included daytime work seminars but were infamous for their wild parties at night, employees said. It was common practice, former employees said, for executives and high-level managers to ply subordinates with alcohol. One night, Ms. Ballou told The Post, she saw a top executive watching as female managers in varying stages of undress splashed in a hotel pool. "He had a drink in one hand and a cigar in the other, just taking it all in, like, 'I am the king and this is my harem,'" she told The Post. She was prevented by her attorneys from naming which executive was involved, because of the condition of the arbitration documents' release. The 2013 class-action motion states Light took part in a pool-related incident similar to the one Ms. Ballou described. Ms. Henry, who attended the 2005 meeting, said she was retrieving her shawl from a hotel room when a male district manager who was her father's age, and whom she had been told to treat like a mentor, forcibly tried to kiss and touch her. Stunned, she left immediately afterward and called her parents for advice. "I was so embarrassed," she told The Post. "I was afraid of what would happen next, how I would be treated, if it was something he would tell other employees about." A few days later, she called an internal hotline to report the encounter, believing her identity would be protected. But within days of her report, a regional boss visited her store for two days, interviewed her co-workers and reviewed surveillance video before accusing her of stealing a gold necklace and $100 in cash. She told The Post she showed the boss evidence that she had not stolen anything, but Sterling fired her, a few days before she was set to receive an annual commission payment worth roughly $30,000, she alleged. Because she was fired and accused of theft, she told The Post, she was unable to find a job at another jewelry store. Now 34, she works as a nurse in Florida. "Friends to this day ask: What ever happened to that job? And it's one of those situations: Do I tell the truth? Or do I say I just moved on, to save myself the embarrassment?" she told The Post. Seeing Kay commercials, she said, continues to unnerve her. "They're still hiring younger women, and I worry about those women," she told The Post. "I worry about what might happen to them." Julia Highfill, a nine-year Sterling manager in Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, said in her sworn statement that the company "did not have an effective or serious mechanism by which female employees could complain about their mistreatment." After calling the company to report that a district manager had arrived to work late and reeking of alcohol, she alleged that he called soon after to warn her against calling again. He told her, "Anything you say, I'm going to know," she recalled in an interview. Men who are not part of the class also filed sworn statements alleging Sterling was a hostile workplace for women. Richard Sumen, who worked for Sterling in Ohio from 1992 until 2005, said in his declaration that a group of managers and officers commonly known as the "good ole boys" was infamous for "protecting and promoting their friends, and wild escapades of sex, drugs, excessive drinking and womanizing." He recalled one former Ohio-based executive saying, "Why pay women more when they just get pregnant and have families?" In his sworn statement, Mr. Sumen also recounted an incident at corporate headquarters in which an executive pointed to a female secretary and asked a district manager, "Are you doing her?" The secretary looked visibly uncomfortable, Mr. Sumen said, but the executive said again, louder, "I want to f---ing know if you are f---ing doing her." Mr. Sumen told The Post that he remained troubled by what he called Sterling's discriminatory corporate climate. He wrote in his 2008 declaration, "This culture of sexism and womanizing was so prevalent that female management employees were pressured to acquiesce and participate." Like 'an abusive relationship' This culture seemingly arose in a company whose sales force was mostly women. More than 68 percent of Sterling's store managers are women, the company told The Post. Three of Signet's 10 executive officers are women. A job-recruitment video calls Sterling "your place to shine" and promises an "exciting and fulfilling career." Mr. Light was made Sterling's chief executive in 2006 and presided over an eight-year growth streak during which the company's sales more than tripled. Light, now 54 and chief executive of Signet, earned about $7.4 million in salary, stock and bonuses in fiscal 2016, up from $2.4 million in 2014, company filings show. Signet, the parent company of Sterling, Zales and other jewelry brands, has struggled in recent months because of disappointing holiday sales, investors' worries over how much of its jewelry is bought on credit, and a scandal during which Kay customers alleged diamonds they had brought in for cleaning were swapped for lesser- quality stones. The company denied the diamond-swapping allegations. Its share price has dropped by half since its late- 2015 peak. Since 1998, Sterling has forced all employees to agree to arbitration -- a no-judge, no-jury resolution system that allows companies to keep potentially embarrassing labor disputes and case records mostly confidential. The nonprofit American Arbitration Association, where the Sterling case is being heard, allows companies to refuse arbitrators they believe will not fairly rule on their case. Some companies have argued that arbitration allows them a quicker path to resolving employee disputes beyond traditional courts. Workers effectively consent to the rules when they sign agreements requiring arbitration as a condition of their employment, as seen with Sterling's contracts. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said in a report last year that mandatory arbitration policies "can prevent employees from learning about similar concerns shared by others in their workplace." Ms. Ballou, who left the company in 2009, is hoping the case leads to more than back pay. Now 41, the single mother is back in school studying to become a registered nurse and working as an office manager for a real estate company, where she told The Post she "hasn't encountered an inkling" of what she saw at Sterling. "What's sad is that I was there for so long, it was almost like when someone is in an abusive relationship: You think that's what normal is," she told The Post. "I can't even go into a Kay anymore. It just turns my stomach," she added. "Even seeing those 'Every Kiss Begins with Kay' commercials revolts me, thinking of what's behind them. All the good things they do, all the lovely things they promise. It's a lie." She told The Post she wanted to speak out in hopes that it could help other women, as well as her 8-year-old daughter. "I was a victim, and I didn't have anyone to speak for me," Ms. Ballou said. "As humiliating as it was, it was worth it, because now maybe it won't happen to her." SUN PRINCESS: Passengers Mull Suit Over Norovirus Infections ------------------------------------------------------------ Robyn Ironside, writing for Herald Sun, reports that passengers caught up in a series of gastro outbreaks on board the Sun Princess are preparing to take legal action against the cruise ship for "disappointment" and personal injury. Since mid-December the 21-year-old ship has been at the centre of three mass norovirus infections involving hundreds of passengers. In the most recent, 176 people were struck down during a 14-day cruise between Brisbane and Auckland. The ship had just completed a 12-day voyage from Papua New Guinea, during which about 100 passengers fell ill. Previously, the Sun Princess was involved in another outbreak during a 13-day coastal cruise off Western Australia in December. Shine Lawyers' Transport Law Manager Thomas Janson said they had been contacted by several passengers and were keen to hear from others laid low by gastro on their Sun Princess cruise. He said a legal precedent existed in the case of Baltic Shipping versus Dillon, in which a Sydney cruise ship passenger successfully sued for disappointment when the vessel sank halfway into a two-week trip. "The High Court awarded the passenger $5000 which at the time (1986) was a considerable sum," said Mr Janson. "You can only imagine what that would be worth in today's terms so it stands to reason why cruise companies are on the front foot about giving holiday credits and refunds." In addition to securing adequate compensation for passengers aboard the Sun Princess, Mr Janson said he would like to see a change in the laws to allow government officials to inspect cruise ships. "They currently have no jurisdiction to go on board and force more thorough sanitation and cleaning," he said. "If laws were introduced to monitor the cleaning of vessels, it would act as an incentive for cruise companies to not turn around these vessels so quickly." In the case of the Sun Princess, passengers were disembarked for just two hours when the 18-deck ship arrived from Papua New Guinea in order for it to be cleaned. Mr Janson said the next step would involve approaching the cruise company Carnival Australia to discuss compensation, and if they did not wish to compensate satisfactorily, file a class action. "At this stage (the claim) would be seeking damages for disappointment, a full refund and damages for any personal injury due to the outbreak of illness," he said. A Carnival Australia spokeswoman said they were unaware of any legal action. "We are aware that is the practice of some law firms to seek business in this way but we have no knowledge of any class action and are confident in the high standards maintained by Princess Cruises," said the spokeswoman. It is common cruise ship practice to confine passengers with the norovirus symptoms of vomiting and diarrhoea to their cabin to prevent infection spreading. Ships also dispense antibacterial hand gel at the door of restaurants and frequently wipe down handrails, lift buttons and chairs. TAKATA: Four Automakers Aware of Defective Airbags, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Hiroko Tabuchi and Neal E. Boudette, writing for The New York Times, report that at least four automakers knew for years that Takata's airbags were dangerous and could rupture violently but continued to use those airbags in their vehicles to save on costs, lawyers representing victims of the defect asserted in a court document filed on Feb. 27. The Justice Department's criminal investigation into Takata's rupture-prone airbags has so far painted automakers as unwitting victims duped by a rogue supplier that manipulated safety data to hide a deadly defect, linked to at least 11 deaths and over 100 injuries in the United States. But the fresh allegations against Ford, Honda, Nissan and Toyota, made as part of a class-action lawsuit in Florida and based on company documents, point to a far deeper involvement by automakers that used Takata's defective airbags for years. Honda vehemently denied the new allegations on Feb. 27. The three other automakers either declined to comment or said a response would come through legal channels. Last summer, The New York Times reported indications that automakers, rather than being the victims of Takata's missteps, had pressed their suppliers to put cost before all else. That report focused on General Motors, which is not named in the Florida case, though plaintiff lawyers said they were preparing to take action against the company. The defect has prompted the nation's largest automotive recall ever, affecting nearly 70 million airbags in 42 million vehicles. The plaintiffs' filing came hours before Takata pleaded guilty, under a deal announced in January, to charges of wire fraud for providing the false data, a rare outcome for businesses accused of wrongdoing. Federal prosecutors also said in January that they had charged three Takata executives with fabricating test data and fined the Tokyo company $1 billion. "I deeply regret the circumstances that resulted in the agreement," Yoichiro Nomura, Takata's chief executive, said at the federal court hearing in Detroit. The company's actions were "completely unacceptable," he said. "Takata is fully committed to ensuring such conduct never happens again," he added. The allegations in the Florida case came in response to a court document filed by the automakers that pointed to Takata's plea deal to argue that the supplier alone was culpable. But the plaintiffs, who could gain from suing the deep-pocketed automakers alongside Takata, argue that the automakers were more deeply involved in the handling of the defect. The fines and costs associated with the scandal have also taken a heavy financial toll on Takata, and it has been searching for a financial lifeline -- possibly in the form of a white knight that would effectively take it over. One of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Kevin R. Dean, filed an objection to Takata's plea deal on Feb. 27 in Detroit, arguing that the automakers were accomplices in the cover-up. He urged the judge to reject the agreement and for the Justice Department to further investigate the automakers' role. The plaintiffs have taken particular issue with the amount set aside for victims in Takata's plea -- a total of $125 million. In contrast, the automakers will have recourse to draw on an $850 million fund to offset continuing recall costs. Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Mr. Dean's objections, saying that Takata's plea deal was in the best interest of the victims. He said any further action against the automakers should be pursued in civil court, and approved the plea deal as is. Randi Johnston, 26, of Farmington, Utah -- who was injured in September 2015 when the airbag in her 2003 Honda Civic ruptured and metal shards struck her throat -- attended the hearing and said afterward that she was shocked by the judge's decision. The shards severed most of her vocal cords, leaving her able to speak only in a whisper. "I really don't have any words right now," said Ms. Johnston, a plaintiff in the Florida class-action case. The filing by the plaintiffs says emails and internal documents turned over by Honda show that in 1999 and 2000, the automaker was intimately involved in developing a problematic propellant, or explosive, used in Takata's airbags. The propellant is housed in a steel container called the inflater, which in the Takata case can rupture, shooting metal fragments toward the car's driver or passengers. That propellant, based on a volatile compound, raised concerns internally at Takata at the time, and long plagued the company's engineers. During testing of Takata's inflaters in 1999 and 2000 at Honda's own facilities, at least two inflaters ruptured, according to the filing. Still, Honda pushed a particularly problematic configuration of the propellant over Takata's objections, the filing said. Honda chose Takata's airbags because of their relative "inexpensiveness," the filing quoted Honda documents as saying. The first recalls of Takata's airbags did not take place until almost a decade later, when Honda recalled 4,000 vehicles in 2008. The Times has reported that Honda and Takata became aware in 2004 of an airbag explosion in a Honda Accord in Alabama that shot out metal fragments and injured the car's driver. But the two companies deemed it "an anomaly" and did not issue a recall or seek the involvement of federal safety regulators. On Feb. 27, Honda strongly y denied the allegations in the plaintiffs' filing. When it installed Takata's airbags, it said in a statement, "Honda reasonably believed, based on extensive test results provided by Takata, that they were safe." Honda said it believed it reacted "promptly and appropriately" in handling known airbag defects. It also said Takata's airbags had not necessarily been cheaper than those of its competitors. "Sometimes they were more expensive, sometimes less," the carmaker said. The filing also cites internal documents from Ford, Nissan and Toyota indicating that cost considerations influenced the automakers' decision to adopt Takata's airbags in the early 2000s, despite safety concerns. Toyota used Takata's airbags "primarily" for cost reasons, even though the automaker had "large quality concerns" about Takata and considered the supplier's quality performance "unacceptable," the filing said. In 2003, a Takata inflater ruptured at a Toyota facility during testing, the court filing said. In 2005, Nissan began investigating the use of adding a drying agent to Takata's airbag inflaters out of concern that exposure to moisture made the propellant particularly unstable, the filing says. Takata engineers had long known that its explosive was sensitive to moisture and adopted it despite internal concerns over its safety. Although patents show that its engineers have long struggled to tame the propellant, the company still maintains that the explosive can be stabilized to withstand moist conditions. Ford chose Takata's inflaters over the objections of the automaker's own inflater expert, who opposed the use of Takata's propellant because of its instability and sensitivity to moisture, the filing said. Ford overrode those objections because it thought Takata was the only supplier that could provide the large number of inflaters Ford needed, the filing says. The filing says that Ford, Honda, Nissan and Toyota were also aware of instances of ruptures years before any recalls. It also mentions the German carmaker BMW and points to circumstantial evidence that BMW was similarly involved in what federal prosecutors, in their criminal complaint and in announcing the Takata guilty-plea agreement, have called a cover-up. But BMW has so far refused to submit documents in the case, the filing says. Representatives of Nissan and BMW said the companies could not comment on active cases. A Toyota representative also declined to comment. A Ford spokeswoman said the automaker would respond through appropriate legal channels. TX CONCIERGE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Llamas" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Angel Llamas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TX Concierge, Inc. a/k/a TXC Bookkeeping Services, Dallas Valet Service, Inc. a/k/a Fort Worth Valet a/k/a McKinney Valet a/k/a Southlake Valet a/k/a DVS a/k/a Valet Dallas a/k/a Dallas Valet a/k/a DFW Valet, BMW of Dallas, Abdallah Demachkie a/k/a Danny Demachkie, and Ahmad Demachkie, Case No. 3:17-cv- 00394-L (N.D. Tex., February 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of more than 40 hours in any work week. The Defendants own and operate a valet parking service company in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq. Joshua A. Petersen, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.C. 6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net josh.a.petersen@gmail.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Chinese Drivers Compelled to Arbitrate Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Pamela K. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted defendant's motion to remand the case SAIZHANG GUAN and LONGBIN LI, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, No. 16-CV-598 (PKC) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.). Uber Technologies, Inc., is a technology company that allows drivers and potential riders to connect through a smartphone application. Plaintiffs are native Chinese speakers who speak little or no English. They started working as Uber drivers in the summer and fall of 2015. When plaintiffs registered to use Uber, they downloaded a Chinese version of the Uber App. When they signed up to use the Uber App, the operative agreement was the software license and online services agreement dated April 3, 2015 along with the driver addendum to software license and online services agreement dated November 10, 2014. The April 2015 services agreement contained a clause stating that Uber could modify the terms and conditions of the agreement or the driver addendum at any time and that by using the Uber Services, or downloading, installing, or using the driver app, customer is bound by any future amendments and additions to the Agreement. On or about December 11, 2015, Uber issued an updated services agreement and driver addendum that contains an arbitration provision and informs the drivers that they will be required to resolve any claim that they may have against Uber on an individual basis, except as provided, pursuant to the terms of the agreement unless they choose to opt out of the arbitration provision, and that the provision precludes them from bringing any class, collective, or representative actions except under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 against Uber or from participating in any such actions. The Arbitration Provision also contains a delegation clause an opt-out provision. Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Uber alleging breach of contract as Uber failed to pay them money they were owed under Uber's New York City 2015 Guarantee Program. They alleged that the 2015 December services agreement and addendum were in English, and none of them could, or did, read it. Defendant moves to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs oppose and argue that they are not bound by either of the Services Agreements on which defendant relies in moving to compel arbitration, because the terms were not reasonably communicated to them, and they did not knowingly agree to the terms, including the arbitration clause. Judge Chen granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and the proceedings are stayed pending arbitration of plaintiffs' claim. Judge Chen held that even when the failure to read the contract is attributable to the party's inability to read or understand the language in which the contract is written, the party is still bound by his or her assent. A copy of Judge Chen's memorandum and order dated February 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/tg5pc6 from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Anne Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 E 39th St New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-465-1180 Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam James Hunt -- adamhunt@mofo.com -- David John Fioccola -- dfioccola@mofo.com -- Tiffani B. Figueroa -- tfigueroa@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Grants Bid to Arbitrate "Peng" ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Pamela K. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted defendant's motion to arbitrate the case captioned KAI PENG, SAIZHANG GUAN and LONGBIN LI Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, No. 16-CV-545 (PKC) (RER) (E.D.N.Y.). Uber Technologies, Inc. is a technology company that allows drivers and potential riders to connect through a smartphone application. In New York City, before drivers can use the Uber App to find riders, they must enter into an agreement with Uber USA, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber. Plaintiffs Kai Peng, Saizhang Guan and Longbin Li are all native Chinese speakers who speak little or no English. They started working as Uber drivers in the summer and fall of 2015. When they registered to use Uber, they downloaded a Chinese version of the Uber App, which had an interface that was entirely in Chinese. When they signed up to use the Uber App, the operative agreement was the software license and online services agreement dated April 3, 2015 along with the driver addendum to software license and online services agreement dated November 10, 2014. The registration process itself was in Chinese, but the April 2015 services agreement and addendum were not translated into Chinese, and were only available in English. The April 2015 services agreement contained a clause stating that Uber could modify the terms and conditions of the agreement or the driver addendum at any time and that by using the Uber Services, or downloading, installing, or using the driver app, customer is bound by any future amendments and additions to the Agreement. On or about December 11, 2015, Uber issued an updated services agreement and driver addendum, and once again drivers had to accept the updated agreement and addendum to continue working. The services agreement contains an arbitration provision and informs the drivers that they will be required to resolve any claim that they may have against Uber on an individual basis, except as provided, pursuant to the terms of the agreement unless they choose to opt out of the arbitration provision, and that the provision precludes them from bringing any class, collective, or representative actions except under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 against Uber or from participating in any such actions. The Arbitration Provision also contains a delegation clause an opt-out provision. Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Uber alleging breach of contract as Uber failed to pay them money they were owed under Uber's New York City 2015 Guarantee Program. They alleged that the 2015 December services agreement and addendum were in English, and none of them could, or did, read it. Plaintiffs failed to timely opt out of the Arbitration Provision because none of them had the means to have any of the services agreements translated into Chinese, and none of them has the resources to pay an arbitrator to pursue their individual claims, even if the costs are split with Uber. On April 18, 2016, defendants moved to compel arbitration. Judge Chen granted defendant motion to compel arbitration and the proceedings are stayed pending arbitration of plaintiffs' claim. Judge Chen held that while the court is sympathetic to plaintiffs' argument that their assent was not informed because they were unable to read the services agreement, which was provided solely in English, the court is bound by clearly established law holding that failure to read a contract is not a defense to contract formation. A copy of Judge Chen's memorandum and order dated February 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/gylsMC from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Anne Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 E 39th St New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-465-1180 Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam James Hunt -- adamhunt@mofo.com -- David John Fioccola -- dfioccola@mofo.com -- Tiffani B. Figueroa -- tfigueroa@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP UBIQUS REPORTING: "Lloyd" Suit Seeks Relief Under Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------- WHITNEY LLOYD, KELVINA MOORE, and ASHLEY TUBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBIQUS REPORTING INC.; UBIQUS INC. and UBIQUS SAS, the Defendant, Case No. 151499/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks relief for the Class pursuant to the applicable provisions of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) to remedy Defendants' failure to pay all wages due, in addition to injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs and the putative class members were previously, or are currently, employed by the Defendants and were denied gap time wages as required by state wage and hour laws. The Defendants further took unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs' paychecks by failing to reimburse them for use of personal cellular devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. Rachel M. Haskell, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC 225 Broadway, Suite 1803 New York, NY 10007 UNITED PARCEL: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ John Riley, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-00254-ACC-DCI (M.D. Fla., February 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. is a package delivery company and a provider of supply chain management solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, 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 UNITED STATES: Iowa Property Owners' $1.5MM Deal Has Prelim. OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Under the proposed settlement, the 26 settling class members would receive a total of $1,527,231.55, of which $561,037.13 is principal for the value of the land at issue, $429,891.71 is accrued interest as of April 1, 2017, and $536,302.71 is attorneys' fees and costs of pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, 42 U.S.C. Section4654(c). Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone of the United States Court of Federal Claims granted preliminary approval of proposed class action settlement and notice plan and scheduling public fairness hearing in the case captioned STEVEN JENKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 09-241L (Fed. Cl.). The case arises from the conversion of a railroad corridor in Dallas County, Iowa, to a recreational trail. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. The Federal Circuit found that the appraiser should have taken into account the physical remnants of the railroad when determining the value of each landowner's property before the taking occurred. On remand, the parties determined that the Federal Circuit's decision potentially affected 27 class members. The parties held that they reexamined the properties and calculated adjustments to previously appraised values to reflect the physical condition of the railroad corridor and conducted settlement discussions to resolve the claims based on those adjusted figures and other information concerning the properties. The parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement for the 26 of the 27 class members remaining in the case and proposed notice plan pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Under the proposed settlement, the 26 settling class members would receive a total of $1,527,231.55, of which $561,037.13 is principal for the value of the land at issue, $429,891.71 is accrued interest as of April 1, 2017, and $536,302.71 is attorneys' fees and costs of pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, 42 U.S.C. Section4654(c). Upon review of the proposed settlement agreement, the court does not find any collusive activity, preferential treatment, or other deficiencies in the proposed settlement. The court preliminarily approves the proposed settlement agreement. The parties propose to use the notice and forms approved by the court on January 23, 2017, to which the court finds that the approved notice is reasonable and adequate to alert class members of their rights and obligations under the terms of the proposed settlement and to afford them opportunity to comment on or object to the proposed settlement in advance of the fairness hearing. The parties shall provide the attached approved notice via U.S. mail for each member of the opt-in class, and do not need to provide additional notice by publication. Class counsel will mail the approved notice and forms to class members by March 3, 2017. The 30-day notice period will begin on March 3, 2017 and shall close on April 3, 2017. The approved notice will be mailed to the opt-in class members, along with the attached forms that will allow class members to submit comments and request to speak at the fairness hearing in advance of the hearing. Class counsel will serve the government with copies of all comments and requests to speak at the fairness hearing, and file copies of the same with the court, no later than April 7, 2017. The court schedules a fairness hearing to take place on Friday, April 14, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. The fairness hearing will be held over the phone. The court will provide call-in information to the parties and any participating class members in advance of the hearing. A copy of Judge Firestone's order dated February 22, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/CaOuEE from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Thomas Scott Stewart, Esq. STEWART WALD & MCCULLEY LLC 2100 Central Suite 22 Kansas City, MO 64108 Tel: 816-303-1500 USA, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Camille Brown -- U.S. Department of Justice UNITED STATES: Faces "Cohen" Class Suit in Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against the U.S. government. The case is captioned Rafael Cohen and the class of all others similarly situated v. USA, Case No. 1:17-cv-00211-VJW (U.S. Fed. Ct., February 14, 2017). The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick Martin Oberlander, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FREDERICK M. OBERLANDER, PC 28 Sycamore Lane, P.O. Box 1870 Montauk, NY 11954 Telephone: (212) 826-0357 Facsimile: (212) 202-7624 E-mail: fred55@aol.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Boss Criticized Over Emissions Scandal ----------------------------------------------------- Martin Williams, writing for Herald Scotland, reports that the boss of Volkswagen has come attack for failing to cover the total current cost to the taxpayer over the emission-rigging scandal while dismissing the compensation claims of over 10,000 British motorists including hundreds in Scotland. Paul Willis, in giving evidence to the transport select committee, said that while paying GBP12.3 billion to settle claims in the US and buy back polluting cars, there was "no legal basis" for similar claims in Britain, he had "misled nobody" and that his company did not set up cars to cheat emissions regulations. It also emerged that the payments to cover the cost to the taxpayer of re-testing vehicles so far has not yet been fully paid with ministers seeking a further GBP1 million over and above the GBP1.1 million paid by Volkswagen. Transport minister John Hayes told MPs that the government were engaging with VW to cough up the further GBP1 million and to press for further compensation to customers who have been affected. VW say it believed that the GBP1.1 million paid was sufficient to cover taxpayer costs. Willis told MPs that fewer than half of the UK vehicles caught up in the Volkswagen emissions scandal had been fixed. Around 470,000 of the 1.2m vehicles fitted with software to cheat environmental tests have been dealt with, he said. SNP MP Stewart McDonald, who is a member of the committee has now written to the Volkswagen managing director raising concerns about the compensation failure and the clearness and inconsistencies of his evidence saying the evidence session was "extremely disappointing and unacceptable". During the hearing, MPs attacked VW's UK boss for failing to give answers to straight answers, repeatedly using phrases such as "to the best of my knowledge" and "I can't recall". Mr McDonald said: "There are obligations that have not been met, including the payment of compensation warranty to cover the taxpayer's costs to fix this, which appears still not to have been paid in full. "The whole thing is causing frustration for the committee still trying to get to the bottom of this and of course for all the consumer and customers of the company. "The motor industry -- and Volkswagen in particular -- have got to live up to a higher standard than this, otherwise their reputations and the reputation of their products is going to be irreparably damaged." He is also concerned that the UK government appears not to have yet received the full report from Volkswagen over the emissions scandal. Paul Willis, Volkswagen Group UK managing director defends a failure to provide compensation at the parliamentary committee. Harcus Sinclair is applying for a group litigation order -- which is similar to a US class action lawsuit -- in the High Court. Glasgow-based Thompsons Solicitors is representing more than 250 motorists in Scotland affected by the scandal. The legal action is aimed at securing compensation for people who own or have previously owned one of the vehicles. In the UK around 1.2 million diesel engine cars are affected by the emissions scandal. Of the UK vehicles affected by the crisis, there were estimated to be 508,276 Volkswagen cars, 393,450 Audis, 131,569 Skodas, 79,838 VW commercial vehicles and 76,773 Seats. Around 20,000 cars a week are being fixed by the company, Mr. Willis told MPs. Mr Willis was being questioned by the transport select committee on the emissions scandal following revelations in 2015 that 11m diesel-engined VW cars worldwide failed to meet pollution controls. Mr Willis said there had been no change in fuel consumption and, from all the data he had seen, there had been no detrimental effect to the residual value of vehicles. VW accepts that 8.5 million vehicles in Europe were fitted with software that could detect when they were being tested for emissions. But it denies that the software amounts to a "defeat device" under EU law. A Scottish Government spokesman said: "Economy Secretary Keith Brown strongly expressed his concerns about a lack of compensation for the VW customers in Scotland when he met Mr Willis last year and he underlined his commitment to getting customers the deal they deserve. * Court Orders Disclosure of Third-Party Class Action Funding ------------------------------------------------------------- Melonia Bennett, Esq. -- mbennett@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra, reports that for years, certain lenders have agreed to fund all or part of a party's litigation costs, usually in exchange for an agreed share of any recovered proceeds, as part of a practice called "third-party litigation funding." This has spawned widespread debate over the propriety of such funding and the degree of transparency parties and courts should have as to the nature and amount of the funding (as well as the identity of the funders themselves). Many types of third-party litigation funding arrangements exist, including investor-based class action funding. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute of Legal Reform, third-party litigation financing from investors has been on the rise in the United States dating back to 2007. Third-party funding of mass litigation and class actions is also on the rise in other countries. Proponents of third-party litigation financing of class actions assert that it allows plaintiffs with limited resources to bring legitimate claims that otherwise might not be asserted. Opponents believe the practice unhinges litigation strategy and related considerations, including the plaintiffs' motivations or willingness to settle. Opponents also question the adequacy of representation in the appointment of class counsel and if class counsel is motivated to protect the interest of the class, or to protect the investors bankrolling the suit. At least one federal district court is taking steps to increase the transparency of third-party litigation funding. Effective January 17, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California announced changes to its Standing Order that require automatic disclosure of third-party funding agreements for proposed class action lawsuits. The Northern District of California encompasses jurisdictions including San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Eureka. Under the Northern District of California's amended Standing Order, third parties funding a proposed class action in the will have to disclose their involvement in the lawsuit in a joint case management statement. The pertinent part of the Standing Order for All Judges in the Northern District of California reads: Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons: Whether each party has filed the "Certification of Interested Entities or Persons" required by Civil Local Rule 3-15. In addition, each party must restate in the case management statement the contents of its certification by identifying any persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) or other entities known by the party to have either: (i) a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding; or (ii) any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. In any proposed class, collective, or representative action, the required disclosure includes any person or entity that is funding the prosecution of any claim or counterclaim. This change to the Standing Order is in lieu of proposed, but ultimately rejected, revisions to Civil Local Rule 3-15 that similarly would have required parties to disclose the person or entity funding the prosecution of the claims. Notably, the Standing Order change follows the April 2016 Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules' consideration of disclosure requirements of third-party litigation funding for all federal courts; however, the Committee has yet to finalize any proposals. This rule change also follows Gbarabe v. Chevron Corp., No. 14-cv-00173, 2016 WL 4154849 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016), which centered on the plaintiffs' class action claims alleging that the defendant was liable for damages related to an exploratory gas well explosion. During a discovery dispute, the Northern District of California compelled the named plaintiff to produce his litigation funding agreement to the defendant. To date, the Northern District of California's Standing Order regarding third-party litigation financing is unique. It appears that the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules might begin to study litigation financing, which is expected to grow over the next decade. In the interim, class action defendants should inquire about the existence of any third-party litigation funding in discovery. * Government-Backed Fund Needed for Class Actions in Australia -------------------------------------------------------------- Mathew Dunckley, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a government-backed fund is needed to ensure access to justice for cases where litigation funders and plaintiff lawyers are unwilling to back court action, says a leading expert in the field. Vince Morabito, a professor at the Monash Business School, said a fund to pick up strong cases that were unattractive to commercial operators would help ensure access to justice for vulnerable claimants such as homeless people, refugees or Aboriginal communities. "That's one of the crucial things, we need some kind of legal fund," Professor Morabito said. He said just such a fund was recommended in 1988 by the Law Reform Commission as part of the work that helped eventually lead to the establishment of a class action regime in 1992. "Class actions on behalf of vulnerable people was what they had in mind, where it might not be as commercially attractive or it might not make sense to run on a no-win, no-fee basis," he said. "Litigation funders are the major players and so far they have had a clear preference for shareholder class actions." The reluctance to back cases on behalf of the vulnerable ignored the relatively strong success rate of such actions when they were brought, he said. A fund would probably need between $15 million and $20 million in seed funding and would need to pick cases very carefully initially but would not necessarily need ongoing funding, he said. In Canada, a similar fund was self funding due to the proceeds from settlements being reinvested, he said. Professor Morabito will speak at the Maurice Blackburn BusinessDay Class Actions Symposium event in March to mark 25 years of class actions in Australia. He referenced a 2014 study he did with Maurice Blackburn's Jarrah Ekstein that found 54 per cent of such case resulted in success for the plaintiffs, usually through a settlement. "We actually found that the success rate of those class actions on behalf of vulnerable people was slightly higher than all other class actions," he said. There were also some encouraging signs that litigation funders would look at broader types of class actions, he said, pointing to IMF's funding of a Queensland floods action. "They are beginning to look beyond the shareholder class actions," he said. Another development that would assist was the landmark full Federal Court judgment on open funding of class actions, which would allow suits to be brought before the individuals represented were completely identified. Professor Morabito said the introduction of contingency fees, as recommended by the Productivity Commission its 2014 inquiry, would also boost competition and would help the non-investor class actions get up. "It would make for a much more competitive market than it is now," he said. * New Bills May Impact Class Action Litigation in Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- Miranda Moore, writing for Missourian, reports that Missourians who sue a company, employer or physician will face more obstacles if a slew of bills making their way through the Missouri General Assembly become law. Bills introduced in both the Missouri House and Senate, if passed, would result in significant changes to how and where class action lawsuits can be filed, the amount of damages a plaintiff may pursue and who could be held liable. Supporters of the more than two dozen bills (and counting) currently making their way through the legislature said they believe that the legal climate in Missouri, specifically St. Louis, inflates insurance costs and deters businesses from coming to the state. In his State of the State address in January, Gov. Eric Greitens cited lawsuits brought under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act as an obstacle to economic growth. "Our judicial system is broken, and the trial lawyers who have broken it, well, their time is up," Mr. Greitens said during the address. Each of the tort bills introduced so far have been sponsored by Republicans. Critics of the proposed policies say that the bills would create all but insurmountable barriers for someone bringing a lawsuit in the state of Missouri, making it difficult, if not impossible, for people who have been wronged to seek remuneration in the civil court system. "I have yet to see solid evidence of any tort reform bill reducing insurance costs," said Rep. Gina Mitten, D-St. Louis. "Each and every one of these bills are to create barriers for people to sue." What is a tort, and why "reform" the law? The term "tort reform" is mentioned casually by politicians, but it refers to a body of law that is quite complex. "A tort means any harm. It can be a negligent harm, or it can be intentional harm," said Genevieve Nichols, a St. Louis trial attorney. When a tort is committed, the law allows the injured party to sue for recompense from the injuring party, or tortfeasor. Examples of reasons someone might sue under tort laws would be if they were injured by harmful consumer products, or by a doctor's malpractice. Suits can be brought individually, but in situations where many people have been injured by the same wrongdoing, class- action suits provide a way for the court to use one set of facts to find resolution for many people. Proponents of "tort reform," however, say the current system gives preference to excessive suits brought by profit-motivated trial attorneys, which inflates insurance costs for businesses. "We want to make sure that we're putting the pendulum back in the middle, I think, where it's supposed to be in the tort-consumer relationship," Sen. Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia, said at a press briefing. Sen. Rowden, who has sponsored two tort bills and serves on the Senate Government Reform Committee that hears most of the tort legislation, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. An annual report produced by the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), cited by the governor in his State of the State speech and by legislators in a number of bill hearings, identified the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis as a "judicial hellhole." ATRA said this designation was earned because when looking at the already-high volume of tort cases in the St. Louis civil justice system, most plaintiffs are not from St. Louis or Missouri. Attorneys from across the country move their lawsuits to St. Louis to "exploit a weak venue law," said ATRA president Tiger Joyce. Opponents to the proposed legislation say that restricting a plaintiff's options in the civil justice system is merely a chance for already-rich corporations to further pad their bottom line by skirting civil responsibility when someone is harmed by the corporations' actions. "All of these bills were paid for by elite billionaires," Rep. Mitten said, referring to campaign contributions to lawmakers supporting the measures. "At the end of the day, the folks that actually pay are working Missourians." A list of ATRA's sample members from November 2016, pulled from internet archives, listed many high-profile doctors groups, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and automobile manufacturers, but this list is no longer on ATRA's website. Darren McKinney, communications director for ATRA, said the website was out of date and had been recently upgraded, but declined to provide a list of specific members beyond a founding organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business. He noted that, as a nonprofit, ATRA is not required to disclose the list. What would change? Republicans' proposed changes to Missouri tort law have been introduced piece by piece in dozens of bills. These bills could later be grouped together and, if passed, sent to the governor's desk as one package of legislation. If no significant challenge to these bills materializes, there is a real chance that the Republican supermajority will usher in these changes during the current session. Missouri Merchandising Practices Act Among the most controversial tort bills introduced this session is Senate Bill 5, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard, R-Joplin. The bill in its original form, if passed, would effectively gut the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, said David Angle, a Columbia-area trial attorney. According to the attorney general's office, the Merchandising Practices Act allows for Missourians to sue if they are sold a product or service under dishonest or deceptive circumstances. The current law says that the suit may be filed either in the county where the seller resides, or in the county where the transaction occurred. Angle, who works on behalf of clients who say they are victims of fraudulent business practices, said that the Merchandising Practices Act was approved in 1967 as part of a nationwide trend in the growth of state-level unfair or deceptive acts or practices laws, or UDAP laws. Since only the government can sue under the Federal Trade Commission Act, these state-level unfair practices laws were intended to allow consumers the option to sue for wrongdoing, Angle said. Under the original version of Senate Bill 5, the proposal would change the statute of limitations to further restrict the time during which a claimant may sue, prevent any business that is regulated by any government authority from being sued and require co-plaintiffs in a class action suit to prove their cases individually, rather than as a group. Angle said that unfair practices laws are intended to be flexible because the types of fraud committed against consumers vary widely, and people who commit fraud are versatile and resourceful. "The ingenuity of folks who commit fraud is never going to stop," Angle said. The bill was on the formal calendar for perfection on the Senate floor, but has since been moved to the informal calendar, said Lauren Hieger, communications director for the Missouri Senate Majority Caucus. Richard is currently working on revising the bill, he said in a news conference on Feb. 9, but has not released further information on any planned changes. Missouri businessman David Humphreys has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the campaigns of Richard and other lawmakers sponsoring tort legislation. Humphreys is the CEO of TAMKO, a roofing supply company that has been the defendant in extensive tort litigation spanning many years, including allegations of wrongful death, personal injury and asbestos- related injuries. TAMKO is currently facing asbestos-related class action litigation in St. Louis. Liability Several of the bills under consideration attempt to redefine who can be held liable for wrongdoing under tort law. One such bill, Senate Bill 237, introduced by Sen. Rowden, revises the law that determines how hospitals may define what they call an employee. During debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Rowden said the bill protected health care providers from unnecessary litigation. Currently, Missouri law requires hospitals to be responsible for harm that occurs under their roof, regardless of whether the harm is committed by employees or others who use their facilities. "(The bill) makes sure that folks who enter into contractual agreements, if there are issues, that the folks who caused the issues are the ones that are held liable, whether it's a hospital or doctor," Sen. Rowden said during a news conference. Sen. Rowden said that by revising liability and litigation rules, the bill aims to keep health care costs low, which he emphasized is of particular importance to his constituents. Critics of this bill say that it gives carte blanche to hospitals to avoid taking responsibility for errors committed under their watch. "What employer in the health-care industry would ever pay a health-care provider directly under this bill? Because all they have to do is set up some sort of artifice of indirect payment, and they're no longer responsible for what anybody does under their roof," said Sen. Scott Sifton, D-Affton, during floor debate. Kansas City trial attorney Brett Emison, who testified in opposition to SB 237, said that doctors could also suffer if this bill becomes law. "It creates a situation where the hospitals are hanging the doctors out to dry," Mr. Emison said. "If (doctors) haven't purchased enough medical malpractice insurance, it risks doctors' personal assets." Mr. Emison said that hospitals are looking to reduce their liability, but doing so this way is to the detriment of both doctors and patients. The bill passed the Senate on Feb. 16, and has been sent to the House. House Bill 452, sponsored by Rep. Kevin Austin, R- Springfield, is identical to SB 237. Venue and Joinders Among the more technical bills introduced are those that address court rules governing where lawsuits may be filed and whether suits can be joined together. Venue rules in Missouri currently allow people outside the state to sue in Missouri if the defendant, including a corporation, is based in the state. Joinder rules allow plaintiffs bringing separate lawsuits to join together if the suits are based on the same set of facts against the same defendant. Rep. Glen Kolkmeyer, R-Odessa, sponsored House Bills 459 through 463, a set of legislation that would change court rules pertaining to venue and joinders. Rep. Kolkmeyer said during a Jan. 30 hearing for the House Special Committee on Litigation Reform that the legislature has the authority to change court rules, a task normally reserved for the Missouri Supreme Court. Rep. Kolkmeyer said that by separating plaintiffs by venue, as well as preventing plaintiffs from grouping their lawsuits together (including out-of-state plaintiffs), these bills would distribute cases throughout the state rather than clogging an overburdened court system. "Trying the cases of all these parties in our state courts causes court congestion, overworked judges, restricted access to courts for our Missouri citizens and huge expenditures of funds to keep the court system functioning," Rep. Kolkmeyer said. Restricting plaintiffs' ability to join their lawsuits together in a single venue, thereby forcing them to pursue their suits individually, would prove cost-prohibitive, said Jack Garvey, a trial attorney and former judge in St. Louis who testified in opposition to the bills. Garvey said that because of the size of the jury pool and the costs involved in trials, St. Louis is better equipped to handle large tort cases, whereas more rural courthouses might be overwhelmed. He also said that St. Louis judges can manage their own dockets without interference from the legislature. Rep. Mitten, who sits on the House Special Committee on Litigation Reform, said that these measures will increase costs to Missouri taxpayers if plaintiffs are prohibited from joining related cases. If joinders are no longer allowed and if venue rules are restricted, what could be litigated under current law as a single case, such as a class-action suit, would instead be litigated as separate cases for each plaintiff in a different venue. "You have to pay for a judge in different counties, but it's all the same facts," Rep. Mitten said. Sen. Brian Munzlinger, R-Williamstown, sponsored the Senate counterparts to Rep. Kolkmeyer's bills, Senate Bills 258 through 262. The House bills were passed out of committee on Feb. 20, and have not yet been scheduled for floor debate. The Senate bills are through committee and are on the Senate floor calendar for Feb. 27. Arbitration Senate Bill 45, sponsored by Sen. Gary Romine, R-Farmington, proposes to reroute disputes between employers and at-will employees away from the court system and into private arbitration proceedings. "What this allows is for the business and the employee to come to an agreement that any employee controversies be dealt with through an arbitration process," Sen. Romine said during floor debate. This bill was especially contentious among its opponents, who said that by forcing disputes into private arbitration, it will allow discrimination and employer retribution to occur without adequate remedy to the victim. "That bill will effectively deny access to the courts for Missourians who believe that they have had adverse employment actions as a result of sexual harassment complaints, or employment discrimination complaints," Sen. Sifton said. "You're going to see far fewer sexual harassment victims and victims of racism and sexism and ageism in the workplace have a chance to make their case to a jury." Other initiatives The scope of the more than two dozen tort bills so far introduced in the General Assembly runs the gamut of tort-specific processes, procedures and judgments. Other bills that have been introduced include measures that potentially reduce judgements, create a distinction between employees of franchisors and franchisees, add time limits to the settlement process and address product liability and asbestos claims. Summary of bills filed proposing changes to class action lawsuits A summary of the bills that would make significant changes to how and where class action lawsuits can be brought, the amount of damages a plaintiff may pursue and who could be held liable. * Seyfarth Reports on 2016 Workplace Class Certification Trends --------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq. of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports on key trends for workplace class action litigation in 2016. In terms of the sheer number of rulings, a significant trend saw wage & hour class action and collective action certification decisions outstripping all other types of certification orders over the past year. This reflects the simple truism that with more wage & hour litigation case filings over the last 36 months than all other varieties of workplace class actions, there have been more conditional certification and decertification decisions in that space than in any other area of workplace class action litigation. The takeaway for employers is that the tidal wave of this type of workplace class action claim is not ending anytime soon. Introduction An undeniable fact of litigation statistics is that wage & hour certification decisions in 2016 increased geometrically as compared to last year. Of the 224 wage & hour certification decisions in 2016, there were 195 conditional certification rulings and 29 decertification rulings. In contrast, in 2015, there were 175 wage & hour certification decisions, including 153 conditional certification rulings and 22 decertification rulings. While plaintiffs' lawyers won more conditional certification motions than compared to prior years, employers also won decertification motions at higher rates than as compared to 2015. At the same time, that led to a more rapid and robust development of case law on conditional certification and decertification issues in the wage & hour context. The Story Behind The Numbers While shareholder and securities class action filings witnessed an increase in 2016, employment-related class action filings remained relatively flat. By the numbers, filings for employment discrimination and ERISA claims were basically flat over the past year, while the volume of wage & hour cases decreased for the first time in over a decade. By the close of the year, ERISA lawsuits totaled 6,530 filings (down slightly as compared to 6,925 in 2015 and 7,163 in 2014), FLSA lawsuits totaled 8,308 filings (down as compared to 8,954 in 2015 and up from 8,066 in 2014), and employment discrimination lawsuits totaled 11,593 filings (an increase from 11,550 in 2015 and a decrease from 11,867 in 2014). In terms of employment discrimination cases, however, the potential exists for a significant jump in case filings in the coming year, as the charge number totals at the EEOC in 2015 and 2016 reached record levels in the 52-year history of the Commission; due to the time-lag in the period from the filing of a charge to the filing of a subsequent lawsuit, the charges in the EEOC's inventory will become ripe for the initiation of lawsuits in 2017. By the numbers, FLSA collective action litigation filings in 2016 far outpaced other types of employment-related class action filings; virtually all FLSA lawsuits are filed and litigated as collective actions. Up until 2015, lawsuit filings reflected year-after-year increases in the volume of wage & hour litigation pursued in federal courts since 2000; statistically, wage & hour filings have increased by over 450% in the last 15 years. The fact of the first decrease in FLSA lawsuit filings in 15 years is noteworthy in and of itself. However, a peek behind these numbers confirms that with 8,308 lawsuit filings, 2016 was the second highest year ever in the filing of such cases (only eclipsed by 2015, when 8,954 lawsuits were commenced). Given this trend, employers may well see record-breaking numbers of FLSA filings in 2017. Various factors are contributing to the fueling of these lawsuits, including: (i) new FLSA regulations on overtime exemptions in 2016, which have been delayed in terms of their implementation due to legal challenges by 13 states; (ii) minimum wage hikes in 21 states and 22 major cities set to take effect in 2017; and (iii) the intense focus on independent contractor classification and joint employer status, especially in the franchisor-franchisee context. Layered on top of those issues is the difficulty of applying a New Deal piece of legislation to the realities of the digital workplace that no lawmakers could have contemplated in 1938. The compromises that led to the passage of the legislation in the New Deal meant that ambiguities, omitted terms, and unanswered questions abound under the FLSA (something as basic as the definition of the word "work" does not exist in the statute), and the plaintiffs' bar is suing over those issues at a record pace. Virtually all FLSA lawsuits are filed as collective actions; therefore, these filings represent the most significant exposure to employers in terms of any workplace laws. By industry, retail and hospitality companies experienced a deluge of wage & hour class actions in 2016. What The Numbers Should Mean To Employers The story behind these numbers is indicative of how the plaintiffs' class action bar chooses cases to litigate. It has a diminished appetite to invest in long-term cases that are fought for years, and where the chance of a plaintiffs' victory is fraught with challenges either as to certification or on the merits. Hence, this reflects the various differences in success factors in bringing employment discrimination and ERISA class actions, as compared to FLSA collective actions. Obtaining a "first stage" conditional certification order is possible without a "front end" investment in the case (e.g., no expert is needed unlike the situation when certification is sought in an ERISA or employment discrimination class action) and without conducting significant discovery due to the certification standards under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). Certification can be achieved in a shorter period of time (in 2 to 6 months after the filing of the lawsuit) and with little expenditure of attorneys' efforts on time-consuming discovery or with the costs of an expert. As a result, to the extent that litigation of class actions by plaintiffs' lawyers are viewed as an investment, prosecution of wage & hour lawsuits is a relatively low cost investment without significant barriers to entry relative to other types of workplace class action litigation. As compared to ERISA and employment discrimination class actions, FLSA litigation is less difficult or protracted, and more cost-effective and predictable. In terms of their "rate of return," the plaintiffs' bar can convert their case filings more readily into certification orders, and create the conditions for opportunistic settlements over shorter periods of time. The certification statistics for 2016 confirm these factors. An increasing phenomenon in the growth of wage & hour litigation is worker awareness. Wage & hour laws are usually the domain of specialists, but in 2016 wage & hour issues made front-page news. The widespread public attention to how employees are paid almost certainly contributed to the sheer number of suits. Big verdicts and record settlements also played a part, as success typically begets copy-cats and litigation is no exception. Yet, the pervasive influence of technology is also helping to fuel this litigation trend. Technology has opened the doors for unprecedented levels of marketing and advertising by the plaintiffs' bar -- either through direct soliciting of putative class members or in advancing the overall cause of lawsuits. Technology allows for the virtual commercialization of wage & hour cases through the Internet and social media. Against this backdrop, wage & hour class actions filed in state court also represented an increasingly important part of this trend. Most pronounced in this respect were filings in the state courts of California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. In particular, California continued its status in 2016 as a breeding ground for wage & hour class action litigation due to laxer class certification standards under state law, exceedingly generous damages remedies for workers, and more plaintiff-friendly approaches to class certification as well as wage & hour issues under the California Labor Code. For the fourth year out of the last five, the American Tort Reform Association ("ATRA") selected California as one of the nation's worst "judicial hellholes" as measured by the systematic application of laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner. Calling California one of the worst of the worst jurisdictions, the ATRA described the Golden State as indeed that for plaintiffs' lawyers "seeking riches and the expense of employers. . ." and where "lawmakers, prosecutors, and judges have long aided and abetted this massive redistribution of wealth." ********* 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 * * *