/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170412.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 12, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 73 Headlines ACCEL LOGISTICS: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over FLSA "Violation" ADVANCED RECOVERY: "Powell" Sues for OT, Missed Break Premium ADVOCATE HEALTH: Supreme Court Hears ERISA Class Action Cases AIR METHODS: Faces "Cowan" Suit in District of Colorado AIRFLOW COOLING: "Muta-Ali" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages APPLIED MACHINERY: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ARGOS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Maurer" Lawsuit Under Securities Act ARKANSAS: Top Court Dismisses Ex-Troopers' Class Action Suit AUSTRALIA: Court Orders Disclosure of Docs in Live Cattle Ban Suit AUTONATION INC: Face Class Action Over Unpaid Wages BAGGIO LTD: Faces "Zepeda" Suit in S.D. New York BELL: Faces Suit Over False Advertisment of Fibe Services BENCHMARK HOSPITALITY: Faces "Riley" Suit in S.D.N.Y. BILL WHATCOTT: Judge Tosses CAD100MM++ Defamation Suit BLU PRODUCTS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Adups Spyware in Phones BLUE APRON: "Lopez" Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. BVM BRIDGES: Faces "Whitaker" Suit in Middle District of Florida CANADA: Three Homosexuality Suits vs. Military Merged CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action Could be Landmine for the Battalion CELLCEUTIX CORP: Judge Denies Bid for Sanction in "Zagami" CERNX MN: "Brown" Seeks OT, Reimbursements, Missed Break Premium CREDIT CORP: "Zilbert" Sues Over FDCPA Breach D-ZEE TEXTILES: Senior Care Sues over Unsolicited Fax Messages DO & CO CHICAGO: "Woods" Hits Illegally Procured Background Check ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Welfare Fund Sues over Amitriptyline Prices ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Avezbadalov" Suit in E.D.N.Y. EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gadomski Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports ESSENDANT CO: "Sinay" Suit Removed to Cent. Dist. Calif. FOUGERA PHARMA: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Overpriced Fungicide FRESH VIEW: Faces "Sparrow" Suit in S.D.N.Y. GAMESTOP CORP: "Brier" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. Federal Court GLOBAL A&T: Marble Ridge Files Lawsuit Over Debt Exchange GOLDEN AGE: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Wages HONGHUA AMERICA: Faces "Gomez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation J. CREW: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Rubin" Suit JJM BEN FOODS: "Alagheband" Asserts Discrimination, Seeks OT Pay JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Leslie" Suit in Middle District Florida KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Paolini" Suit Under Securities Act KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: "Sauceda" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Law KEDREN COMMUNITY: "Robinson" Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages KKW TRUCKING: Judge Denies Renewed Bid to Dismiss "Demmings" Suit KROGER CO: "Perez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court LG CONTRACTING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law LIPOCINE INC: "Lewis" Securities Suit Transferred to D. Utah MAJOR LEAGUE: Soccer Clubs Lose Suit Against Players Union MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Grants Soccer Players' Bid to Dismiss Suit MLS PLAYERS: Court Nixes Class Action Over Transfer Fees MONSANTO COMPANY: "Rawa" Sues Over Herbicide False Label NBTY INC: Suit Says Biotin Product Has No Health Benefits NEA DELIVERY LLC: "Thomas" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NEW YORK: Court Orders Permanent Injunction in Medicaid Suit NIKE RETAIL: "Hamid" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court NORWIN TECH: "Ringler" Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements ONAGOFLY: Faces Class Action Over Low Quality Drone OTTAWA: Faces Suit Over LGBTQ Purge PATELCO CREDIT: Faces "Gadomski" Suit Under Credit Reporting Laws PHB INC: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA PLAINS ALL: Texas Judge Tosses Securities Class Action Suit PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Inflated Vocations Revenue, Suit Says PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: "Archavage" Remanded to Pa. State Court PROGRESSIVE CORP: MSP Recovery Sues over Medicare Act Violations PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Faces "Huntley" Suit in E.D.N.Y. PROPULSION CONTROLS: "Ramirez" Suit Moved to San Diego Court RADIO RENTALS: Thorn Group Confirms Suit Over Lending Practices READY PAC PRODUCE: "Torres" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Faces "Menza" Suit in D.N.J. RED PARROT: Senior Care Sues Over Unsolicited Advertisements RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Jairam" Lawsuit Over Convenience Fee REVLON CONSUMER: NY Court Grants Prelim OK of Class Settlement RUBY TUESDAY: Settles Sharholders' Suit for $5-Mil. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Allegedly Spies on Consumer, Class Says SHIPLEY DO-NUT FLOUR: "Sanchez" Seeks Overtime Pay SHO-ME POWER: 8th Cir. Partly Affirms Ruling Landowners' Suit SILVER BAY: Merger Deal Inadequate, "Scarantino" Says SMITH FOOD: Faces "Doak" Suit in Northern District of Georgia STARBOARD GROUP: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania SUNIVA INC: Faces "Lam" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces "Poudy" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation TOWER PALLET: "Jones" Suit Alleges FLSA, Wisc. Law Violations VALEANT PHARMA: Ackman's Suit May Cost Pershing Investors $75MM VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces "Gaston" Suit in E.D. New York VISA INT'L: Nuts for Candy Files Anti-trust Case WELLS FARGO: "Barbose" Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay WELLS FARGO: Gadomski Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports WESTERN UNION: "Herman" Securities Suit Transferred to D. Col. WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Ahold Suit in S.D.N.Y. WISE FOODS: Faces "Alce" Suit in Southern District of New York ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: "Parshall" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach * Fairness in Suit Litigation Act of 2017 Faces Uncertain Future * Retirement System Drops Law Firm After Tiny Payouts in Suits ********* ACCEL LOGISTICS: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over FLSA "Violation" ------------------------------------------------------------ LANCE PHILLIPS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACCEL LOGISTICS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00035-BL (N.D. Tex., March 14, 2017), alleges that although Mr. Phillips regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, Accel Logistics failed to pay him overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accel Logistics Inc. is an oilfield service company. Lance Phillips worked as a sand coordinator for Accel Logistics Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane Mcguire, Esq. THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC 102 N. College St., Suite 301 Tyler, TX 75702 Phone: 903-630-7154 Fax: 903-630-7173 E-mail: shane@mcguirefirm.com - and - Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75702 Phone: 214-749-1400 Fax: 214-749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com ADVANCED RECOVERY: "Powell" Sues for OT, Missed Break Premium ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Powell, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Recovery System, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00607, (M.D. Fla., April 5, 2017), seeks unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate an addiction clinic center in Winter Park, Orange County FL where Powell worked as a behavioral technician. Plaintiff claims overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 per week, worked through meal breaks but was deducted 30 minutes as break time and was not given accurate wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Tel: (813) 224-0431 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: dsmith@wfclaw.com ADVOCATE HEALTH: Supreme Court Hears ERISA Class Action Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- James F. Seamann III, Esq., and Rene E. Thorne, Esq., at Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that on March 27, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolidated "church plan" cases, Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, St. Peter's Healthcare System v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins. As an initial matter, unless the Senate confirms Neil Gorsuch in the very near future, the case will be decided by an eight-Justice court. While it's impossible to say for sure how Justices will vote, there may be cause for optimism for the Defendants (against whom the lower courts ruled in all three cases). At first, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan both seemed hostile to the Defendants' view of the construction of the church-plan exemption. But this view seemed to change during the Plaintiffs' presentation. Justice Sotomayor commented to Plaintiffs' counsel "I'm torn," and -- saying that ERISA's church-plan provision "could be read either way" -- asked counsel how to "break the tie." Both Sotomayor and Kagan also appeared to struggle with the idea that Plaintiffs' reading would likely exclude some of the organizations that the 1980 amendments to the church plan exemption were intended to encompass. Justices Alito and Kennedy seemed to focus on church-plan sponsors' long-standing reliance on the IRS/PBGC interpretations of the exemption. Defendants' counsel noted that their liability for penalties alone could exceed USD66 billion. Justice Alito seized on Plaintiffs' counsel suggestion that the church-plan cases were "primarily about forward-looking relief" (as opposed to penalties), going so far as to ask counsel to disavow seeking penalties in light of Defendants' reliance on IRS letters. Justice Kennedy also seemed concerned that hundreds of plans had sought and obtained the blessing of the IRS and/or PBGC, and could still face liability 30 years later. Chief Justice Roberts appeared to align with this view, asking Plaintiffs' counsel why those agencies took a view opposite to Plaintiffs' interpretation. Not surprisingly, Justice Ginsberg seemed to be squarely in Plaintiffs' camp, and dismissed other Justices' concerns by noting that the lower courts could fashion a remedy that takes Defendants' good faith into account. Justice Breyer took a pragmatic approach -- he asked several hypotheticals, pressing Plaintiffs' counsel to say whether a plan would be a church plan in each scenario. This line of questioning seemed to highlight for Justice Sotomayor that Plaintiffs' reading would deny church-plan status to many of the plans that lobbied for the 1980 amendments. As usual, Justice Thomas was silent throughout. In short, although any prediction would be speculative, the Justices' questions suggest that Alito and Kennedy would take the defense view, based on the reliance concerns, likely joined by Roberts. And it's probably safe to assume Justice Thomas would side with these Justices. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan could go either way, but if they adopt the Defendants' view of the statute, it will probably be based on their concerns that the Plaintiffs' reading ignores the purpose of the 1980 amendments (i.e., exempting plans maintained by church-affiliated groups). If the conservative wing of the Court holds together, then the addition of either Sotomayor or Kagan would yield a victory. However, if the usual ideological split prevails, a 4-4 tie would leave the adverse rulings intact. [GN] AIR METHODS: Faces "Cowan" Suit in District of Colorado ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Air Methods Corporation. The case is captioned as Randal Cowan and Keith Kranhold, Executor of, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Estate of Kenneth Kranhold, the Plaintiffs, v. Air Methods Corporation and Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00791-RM (D. Colo., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Raymond P. Moore. Air Methods is an American publicly owned helicopter operator. The Domestic Air Medical Division provides emergency medical services to 100,000 patients every year, and serves 48 states and Haiti.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Joseph Burke, Esq. Quantum Legal LLC-St. Louis 1010 Market Street, Suite 1310 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (847) 433 4500 Facsimile: (847) 433 2500 E-mail: Richard@Qulegal.com AIRFLOW COOLING: "Muta-Ali" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abdu Musa Muta-Ali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Airflow Cooling & Heating, Inc. and Naeem Mohammed, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 243/2017 (N.Y. Sup., January 10, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs of this action together with reasonable attorneys' fees and such further relief pursuant to New York Labor Laws. Plaintiff worked as HVAC technician for the Defendant's air- conditioning company. Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for his hours worked from in or around March 2015 to November 2016. Request for Judicial Intervention was filed on April 5, 2017. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (718)263-9591 Defendant is represented by: PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 35-10 Broadway, Suite 201 Astoria, NY 11106 Tel: (718) 777-0400 APPLIED MACHINERY: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN DE DIOS HERNANDEZ on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED MACHINERY CORPORATION, NABORS CORPORATE SERVICES INC., and NABORS INDUSTRIES INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00989 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2017), alleges that Defendants do not pay their Welders overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards; instead, they pay Welders straight time, not time and a half for overtime hours worked. Applied Machinery Corporation manufactures drilling rigs for customers in the oil and gas industry. Defendants Nabors Industries Inc. and Nabors Corporate Services Inc. provide drilling services for its customers throughout the oil and gas industry. Defendant Nabors Industries Inc. and Nabors Corporate Services Inc. retained Applied Machinery Corporation to assist in building land rigs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Fax: (832) 778-8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com ARGOS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Maurer" Lawsuit Under Securities Act --------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY MAURER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARGOS THERAPEUTICS INC., JEFFREY ABBEY, LORI HARRELSON and RICHARD KATZ, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-216 (M.D.N.C., March 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants issued statements that are false and/or misleading and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Argos' most advanced product candidate is AGS-003, also called rocapuldencel-T, for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and other cancers. AGS-003 is being evaluated in a pivotal ADAPT Phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of mRCC (ADAPT), which was initiated in January 2013. Specifically, the case alleges that the Defendants issued statements were false and misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Arcentis technology platform was not viable; (ii) ADAPT was likely to be discontinued, and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements, as well as Defendants' statements about Argos' business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Argos Therapeutics Inc. is an immune-oncology company focused on the development and commercialization of individualized immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases based on a proprietary technology platform called Arcelis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Ward Black, Esq. Nancy Meyers, Esq. WARD BLACK LAW 208 West Wendover Avenue Greensboro, NC 27401-1307 Phone: 336-333-2244 Fax: 336-379-9415 E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com nmeyers@wardblacklaw.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq. LEVI & KORINSKY LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: 203-992-4523 Fax: 212-363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com sbartone@zlk.com ARKANSAS: Top Court Dismisses Ex-Troopers' Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Emily Walkenhurst at Arkansas Online reports the state Supreme Court on March 29 dismissed a class-action lawsuit brought by retired Arkansas State Police troopers that alleged changes to the organization's Deferred Retirement Option Plan were unconstitutional. Maj. Cleve Barfield, Cpl. Ricky Briggs, Capt. Loyd Franklin, Capt. Myron Hall, Lt. Glenn Sligh and Sgt. Mack Thompson sued the Arkansas State Police Retirement System and its board of trustees over changes to the way interest rates were calculated. Calculations for the interest rates on the state police's Deferred Retirement Option Plan were established when the program was founded in 1995. The Legislature passed a law in 2007 that allowed the trustees to set the rate, which they lowered in 2009. Troopers in the retirement system benefit based on the interest rates. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mackie Pierce certified the lawsuit for class-action status in 2013, potentially allowing as many as 70 retired state troopers to join the lawsuit, which sought either a remedy to the interest rates or monetary damages. Attorneys for the retirement system and its board of trustees argued that they had sovereign immunity from being sued, the troopers sued too late, the troopers did not explore all other potential remedies before suing, and the troopers failed to properly demonstrate why they could be entitled to relief. Pierce rejected the state's claim of sovereign immunity, ruling that the retirement system funds in question were not a part of the state treasury but existed because of member contributions. In other words, the money belonged to the officers, not the state. Pierce granted summary judgment in favor of the troopers in December 2015 and awarded monetary damages. The retirement system's board of trustees appealed Pierce's decision. On March 29, the Supreme Court released an opinion reversing Pierce's decision and dismissed the troopers' claim entirely. The court ruled that the people sued were sued in their official capacities, thus the troopers had sued "the State," which has sovereign immunity from lawsuits. Further, the funds in question concern the state treasury, the court ruled. Members are not required to contribute, but their employer -- Arkansas State Police -- does. When the retirement system faced a shortfall in 2009, the state Legislature authorized USD9 million to help sustain it, the court noted. "Thus, appellees are incorrect that their suit does not implicate the state treasury, and we hold that the circuit court erred in finding that appellants were not immune for this reason," Associate Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson wrote in the majority opinion. While sovereign immunity has exceptions that include the constitutional-rights violations the troopers alleged, the court sided with the trustees' argument that exceptions don't apply to claims that seek monetary damages. "We have never recognized this exception to allow a claim for damages to proceed against the State," Goodson wrote. Further, trustees deliberately reduced the interest rate and did not commit an error that may have made them liable under state law, the court ruled. [GN] The case is ARKANSAS STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND KIRK BRADSHAW, JOHN W. ALLISON, BRANT TOSH, BLAKE WILSON, DONNIE UNDERWOOD, JOE MILES, AND DR. JOHN SHELNUTT, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ARKANSAS STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellants, v. GLENN SLIGH, MYRON HALL, RICKY BRIGGS, LOYD FRANKLIN, MACK THOMPSON, CLEVE BARFIELD, AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, No. CV-16-304 (Ark.). Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Patricia Van Ausdall Bell, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellants. C. Burt Newell, for appellees. AUSTRALIA: Court Orders Disclosure of Docs in Live Cattle Ban Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ashley Manicaros at NT News reports the Federal Court has ruled in favour of cattlemen requiring the disclosure of all documents part of the AUD600-million class action emanating out of the 2011 live export ban. Emails from Gillard Government advisers instructed to use the private accounts of the Minister at the centre of class action have not been produced by the Commonwealth, undermining the litigants case, the application to the Federal Court alleges. In a "Document Discovery Application" in the Brett Cattle Company v Senator the Honourable Joe Ludwig in Sydney today, lawyers for the cattlemen, Minter Ellison, said the application had been forced on them in order to prove Mr Ludwig acted unlawfully in enacting the ban. Mr. Ludwig suspended the export of livestock on the back of a Four Corners story about the killing process of cattle. In response to the win, NT Cattlemen's Association chief executive officer Tracey Hayes said the application had to be made despite the "Commonwealth promising to behave like a model litigant". "It is astounding that we have had to fight so hard to get this material, for Joe Ludwig to have to be ordered to provide it," she said. "These documents will assist the NTCA, who is strongly supported by the Australian Farmers' Fighting Fund, to run the case listed for July this year. "We look forward to Joe Ludwig attending the trial in July to answer the issues before him. He owes that to all of those affected. Although the industry is doing well you can't shut up shop for 2 years and not still be hurting financially today. Some farmers had to sell their properties as a result of this ban -- a ban seemingly timed to create the most financial damage to our industry. "We still hold some hope that the Commonwealth will sit down and discuss this claim with us." Industry believes crucial documents emanating from Mr. Ludwig's office have not been 'discovered' (produced by the Commonwealth). The application identified Mr. Ludwig used private email accounts to communicate with his staff, including the accounts -- agfishforest@gmail.com -- and -- jludwig@bigpond.net.au It alleges no emails, texts or other electronic communications have been discovered by Mr. Ludwig had been sourced. There are few discovered emails between the Minister and his key Ministerial staff including Minister Ludwig's Chief of Staff. Communications from the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, or any of Mr Ludwig's cabinet colleagues have not been searched for, they say in breach of his discovery obligations. Some documents may never recovered because "the Department's servers that held the accounts were "decommissioned" and loaded onto backup tapes late in 2015. The application said the Commonwealth said there 'is no guarantee that the tapes can be recovered successfully. "It appears that Ministerial staff were instructed to send materials to these private email addresses. Materials we have seen include a government brief and media talking points -- we cannot know what else may have been sent to this account or how common this practise is or was." [GN] AUTONATION INC: Face Class Action Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy at Law360 reports that a proposed class of salespeople hit AutoNation Inc. with a wage and hour suit on March 30, telling a California state court that the auto dealer paid them on commission while overworking them and not paying overtime. Led by Tarek Abu-Hajar, a former AutoNation salesman, the proposed class claims that the retailer didn't provide its sales staff with rest breaks, pay them overtime, or pay all required wages when they left the company. AutoNation is also accused of violating the California Unfair Competition Law. Abu-Hajar is seeking to represent a class comprising any current or former California residents who sold vehicles for AutoNation at any point starting four years ago on March 29. During the class period, AutoNation based its salespeople's pay on sales commissions, which Abu-Hajar said failed to compensate them for breaks and violated other labor laws. Specifically, sales staff were paid advances on commissions at about USD10 per hour, and AutoNation clawed that amount back when its salespeople were paid commissions, Abu-Hajar said. When the staff worked more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week, they didn't get overtime, he said, adding that they often worked 60-hour weeks. In addition to the lack of overtime, the sales staff's job duties made it impossible for them to take duty-free breaks, since they were required to be on call or otherwise ready to help customers. Abu-Hajar filed a similar complaint in California federal court, but the complaint was refiled in state court with some modifications. AutoNation could not be reached for comment on March 30. Abu-Hajar is represented by Joshua Haffner -- JH@Haffnerlawyers.com -- and Graham G. Lambert -- GL@Haffnerlawyers.com -- of Haffner Law PC. Counsel information for AutoNation was unavailable on March 30. The case is Tarek Abu-Hajar et al. v. AutoNation Inc., case number BC655607, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN] BAGGIO LTD: Faces "Zepeda" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baggio, Ltd. The case is styled as Emiliano Nieto Zepeda, Alan Yair Dominguez Galleres, Luis Guzman, and Sergio Alarcon Mendoza, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Baggio, Ltd., Jointly and Severally; Mario Fava, Jointly and Severally; and Tarcisio Fava, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-02290 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 2017). Founded in 2001, Baggio Ltd is a small organization in the restaurants industry located in Scarsdale, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. BELL: Faces Suit Over False Advertisment of Fibe Services --------------------------------------------------------- Jason Magder at Montreal Gazette reports that Bell's Fibe service is misleading customers because of claims the service delivers a fibre optic network to homes, a new lawsuit claims. Quebec's Superior Court authorized a class-action lawsuit on March 29 against the company for falsely advertising its Fibe television and Internet service. Bell Fibe is an Internet-delivered television service that uses Bell's fibre optic internet network. However, in many cases, the fibre optic wiring is sent to what's called a neighbourhood node, and then connected to homes through old-fashioned copper phone wires for the last kilometre or so. A brief submitted to the court highlighted several promotional advertisements including a brochure from 2012, that said the network is "made up of 100 per cent fibre optic connected directly to each home." Bell writes in small print on the brochure that the fibre wires are available only where technology permits. In a 2015 interview, however, Shawn Omstead, vice-president of residential products who manages Fibe, told Postmedia the Fibe experience the consumer receives doesn't differ whether the cable is directly connected to the home, or through a phone wire from a neighbourhood node. "I don't think, at the end of the day, a customer cares how it gets delivered," he said. "If I have Fibe on FTTH (fibre to the home) or FTTN (fibre to the node), in terms of the way (customers) watch, there's nothing that we differentiate in the service. We haven't felt the need to talk about that difference." Cìte-St-Luc resident Shay Abicidan, however, disagrees. Named as the first plaintiff in the class-action suit, he said he started the action because he wants Bell to pay for lying to customers. "To put it short, I was misled, along with a few hundred thousand customers," Abicidan said. "I didn't get what I was promised." He said he thought Bell was providing a service of fibre optic Internet, but found out by speaking with friends that the wires entering his house were not fibre optic cables. "And then when I went to the garage and looked at the wires, it was clear they were not fibre optic cables," Abicidan said. Because of how class-action lawsuits work in Quebec, people who belong to the group are automatically enrolled in the suit. In this case, anyone who was a Bell Fibe subscriber between the years 2012 and 2017 is eligible to receive compensation if a judge rules against Bell. Joey Zukran, Esq. -- jzukran@lpclex.com -- at LPC Avocat Inc., the lawyer heading the case against Bell said the amount of damages claimed will be made public in a future court filing. BENCHMARK HOSPITALITY: Faces "Riley" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benchmark Hospitality of Westchester, LLC. The case is captioned as Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Benchmark Hospitality of Westchester, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02374 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 3, 2017). Benchmark Hospitality International is a recognized global leader in the management and marketing of resorts, hotels and conference centers.[BN] 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 BILL WHATCOTT: Judge Tosses CAD100MM++ Defamation Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Ruth Gledhill at Christian reports that a judge in Canada has thrown out a CAD100 million-plus class-action defamation lawsuit brought by homosexual activists against a Christian group. The plaintiffs claimed that people taking part in Toronto Pride last year were defamed when the Christian group, led by Bill Whatcott, dressed up as green 'gay zombies' and handed out 'information leaflets' designed to look like packets of condoms. In his judgment, Justice Paul Perell dismissed the case on a technicality, ruling that plaintiffs Christopher Hudspeth and George Smithermen could not claim defamation of an entire group, such as those taking part in the Pride Parade or the 'LGTBTQ2SI' community. He writes, 'The civil law, generally speaking, is concerned with the civil rights of individuals. The doctrinal problem is there is no common law cause of action by a community for defamation, intentional infliction of mental distress, and civil conspiracy to injure.' He does say however that the information packets were 'hate speech' and therefore not covered by a defence of 'legitimate exercise of freedom of expression'. And he says the gay activists can continue the action if they can produce individuals claiming to be defamed, injured, or inflicted by mental distress by the information packets. He gave them 30 days to find any such individuals. LifeSite News also reports that Perell ordered Whatcott to deliver the names some of those who helped hand out the packets and the financial backers who helped pay for the exercise. This was because knowing their identities was necessary to the legal action being continued. Whatcott says on his own website that he would rather go to jail than hand over the names of his friends and supporters. He says: 'There could be serious repercussions for me, including prolonged jail time if I don't comply with the order to disclose the names of my supporters. Generally, Christians should comply with secular courts, but not when complying harms the innocent or when the order is unjust in the eyes of God. 'I don't actually want to be put in jail indefinitely for contempt, or have to spend the rest of my life making it as difficult as possible to prevent these hate-filled homosexuals from taking my property or somehow getting access to who my friends and supporters are and then going after their homes and life savings.' [GN] BLU PRODUCTS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Adups Spyware in Phones ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARREN MARTINEZ AND JOE MOCNIK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. BLU PRODUCTS, INC., and SHANGHAI ADUPS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02507 (C.D. Cal., March 31, 2017), alleges that Defendants knew that its cellular phones utilized the Adups Spyware but caused the software to be installed because it financially benefitted from the software through the use and review of the data intercepted. Blu Products, Inc. is a Miami, Florida-headquartered mobile phone manufacturer. Shanghai Adups Technology Co., Ltd. develops and implements software that controls the functionality of cellular telephones (generally referred to as "firmware"). The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 785-2610 Fax: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com BLUE APRON: "Lopez" Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned MATTHEW LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. BLUE APRON, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND DOES 1-25, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00902648-CU-MT-CXC, (Cal. Super., February 9, 2017) has been removed from the California Superior Court for the County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, according to a case docket dated March 14, 2017. The clerk of court assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-00449 to the proceeding. Plaintiff asserts that he and all others similarly situated "have a dispute" with Defendant "regarding Defendant's billing practices under California's Automatic Renewal Law, and that the arbitration clause in Defendant's Terms of Service bars litigation of those disputes in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. BLUE APRON, INC. delivers fresh ingredients and recipes to make meals for homes. The Plaintiff is represented by: James G. Snell, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 Phone: 650.838.4300 Fax: 650.838.4350 E-mail: JSnell@perkinscoie.com - and - Alisha C. Burgin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: 310.788.9900 Fax: 310.788.3399 E-mail: ABurgin@perkinscoie.com BVM BRIDGES: Faces "Whitaker" Suit in Middle District of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BVM The Bridges, LLC. The case is titled as Todd K. Whitaker, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BVM The Bridges, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00731-EAK- MAP (M.D. Fla., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher James Saba, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 321 4086 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com CANADA: Three Homosexuality Suits vs. Military Merged ----------------------------------------------------- CTV News reports lawyers seeking compensation for people let go from the Canadian Armed Forces and the civil service for being gay are merging three class action lawsuits into one, hoping to find strength in numbers. Martine Roy is one of three named plaintiffs leading the proposed lawsuit against the Government of Canada. She's from Montreal, but another is from Halifax. "I was told, 'You're being dishonorably discharged,'" says Roy, "and I said 'Why?' And he said, 'Because you're a homosexual.'" In total, there are now more than 100 people from across the country who say they were let go from the Canadian Armed Forces or the civil service because they are gay. "The military police actually had a department called the Special Investigation Unit, whose job was to hunt down, root out, identify, interrogate and eventually terminate anyone that they believed to be, anyone who's admitted to be or suspected to be homosexual," says class action lawyer John McKiggan. The lawsuit hasn't yet been certified in court, but McKiggan says he's very confident that will happen. Homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada in 1969, but McKiggan says the military only stopped investigating gay people in 1993. McKiggan says the suit could eventually include thousands of people. They want an apology, recognition and public education. "The average Canadian citizen has no idea what gays and lesbians in service of our country had to put up with," McKiggan says. They're also asking for compensation, which McKiggan says could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. But he says no amount of money will change this dark chapter in Canadian history. The Department of National Defence says it is currently working on a response, but it has not yet been received by CTV News. [GN] CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action Could be Landmine for the Battalion ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Dawson at Bay Today reports that 'in our last year in Brampton, the team lost approximately CAD800,000. Only after our move to North Bay in 2013, the team began to break even or turn a nominal profit of less than CAD100,000.' Scott Abbott says if he is forced to pay Battalion players a minimum wage, the team would likely have to shut down. Abbott made the statements in an affidavit sent out by the Canadian Hockey League in defence of a class action lawsuit where current and former players claim major junior hockey is a strong enough industry that they should be able to pay all the players a minimum wage salary. "If the Battalion were required to pay its players minimum wage, the consequences of this additional expense item would likely result in the team shutting down," stated Abbott in the affidavit, among many that were made out by OHL teams as part of the CHL defence. Abbott claims in the legal document that the franchise never had a profitable season in any of the 15 years in Brampton. "We ran a deficit of at least CAD100,000 per year with our losses often being as high as CAD400,000 per year. In our last year in Brampton, the team lost approximately CAD800,000. Only after our move to North Bay in 2013, the team began to break even or turn a nominal profit of less than CAD100,000," stated Abbott in the affidavit which was submitted in the fall of 2015. Players currently receive about CAD475 per month from the team for spending money. However, on top of that the teams cover room and board for the players, along with medical and dental insurance, along with hockey equipment that -- depending on the player -- could be close to CAD7,000 for each player. When they leave the CHL, the league says players are eligible for university and college scholarships if they don't pursue a long- term pro hockey career. It's been estimated that paying players minimum wage would cost each club about CAD300,000 per year. The league claims that would force teams to cut back benefits such as scholarships and might even drive some teams like the Battalion, into bankruptcy. "The only way the team could possibly continue to operate would be for the team to re-allocate funds spent on other benefits (education package, equipment, social events, training, facilities) to minimum wage payments," Abbott continued in the affidavit. "The players would be receiving minimum wage but they would no longer benefit from having the best hockey development experience in the world with top of the line coaching, facilities and equipment. Players would potentially lose out on fully paid education packages. The atmosphere, personality and purpose of the OHL would be significantly altered after being a staple in the hockey world for so many decades." Court proceedings relating to the landmark case have continued in 2017 in both Toronto and in Calgary. [GN] CELLCEUTIX CORP: Judge Denies Bid for Sanction in "Zagami" ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants' motion for sanctions in the case styled GARY ZAGAMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELLCEUTIX CORPORATION, LEO EHRLICH, and KRISHNA MENON, Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 7194 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.). Cellceutix Corporation is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing several drugs for approval by the Food and Drug Administration, including the drugs Kevetrin and Brilacidin. Defendant Krishna Menon has served as President, Chief Scientific Officer, Director, and Chairman of the Board of Cellceutix since 2007. Defendant Leo Ehrlich has served as Chief Financial Officer and Director of Cellceutix since 2007, and as the company's Chief Executive Officer since 2010. On August 6, 2015, a short seller of Cellceutix securities using the pseudonym "Mako Research" posted an article on the website Seeking Alpha. The author contended that Cellceutix was a sham company and purported to identify and explain the falsity of misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in the company's public statements. Just over one month after the publication of the Mako Research Report, on September 11, 2015, the Rosen Law Firm filed a class action complaint on behalf of Nicole O'Connell against defendants. The complaint recited violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. The first amended complaint was filed as of right on September 24, 2015. It replaced Nicole O'Connell with plaintiff Gary Zagami. In all substantive respects, the allegations of securities fraud remained the same. On October 22, 2015, counsel for Cellceutix served a fourteen-page letter on the Rosen Law Firm, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, demanding that plaintiff withdraw the first amended complaint. Counsel began by offering background on both Cellceutix and Mako Research, noting several sensational reports' that the latter had submitted to Seeking Alpha in the preceding two months, each of which recited Mako Research's status as a short-seller of securities issued by the subject of the report. Counsel for Cellceutix detailed various reasons why Cellceutix believed that it was unreasonable for plaintiff to rely on the Mako Research Report. Plaintiff did not withdraw his complaint. Instead, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 11, 2016. The second amended complaint presented a more nuanced theory of how certain of the purported misstatements and omissions in Cellceutix's public statements amounted to securities fraud Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, as well as a request for the court to take judicial notice of certain documents, on February 10, 2016. The court issued its decision granting defendants' motion on June 8, 2016, and on June 13, 2016, defendants submitted a letter to the court seeking guidance regarding their contemplated motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and the court's correlative obligation to make Rule 11 findings under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Defendants moved pursuant to the mandatory review provision of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u- 4(c)(1), for a finding that the lawsuit amounted to abusive litigation, and for the consequent imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Failla held that plaintiff raised several claims with legitimate, if ultimately unavailing, legal arguments. These claims are sufficiently meritorious to save the complaint as a whole from being abusive. Defendants' motion for sanctions is denied. A full-text copy of Judge Failla's opinion and order dated March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/hDGQmJ from Leagle.com. Gary Zagami, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Jonathan Stern -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. Defendants, represented by Michael J. Sullivan -- msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com -- at Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC CERNX MN: "Brown" Seeks OT, Reimbursements, Missed Break Premium ---------------------------------------------------------------- Terrance Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CERNX MN, L.L.C. and Amazon.com LLC, Defendants, Case No. RB17855267 (Cal. Super., April 3, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, premium pay for missed rest breaks, statutory penalties and unreimbursed expenses under the California Labor Code, restitution under the California Business and Professions Code, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees and such other relief. Amazon is an Internet-based retailer who commissioned Cernx to deliver goods purchased through its website to consumers. Amazon operates a fulfillment center located at 250 Utah Avenue in South San Francisco, California where Cernx employed Plaintiff as a delivery driver. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura L. Ho, Esq. James Kan, Esq. GOLDSTELN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417 Email: lho@gbdhlegal.com jkan@gbdhlegal.com - and - Julian Hammond, Esq. HAMMONDLAW PC 1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410 Baltimore, MD 21208 Tel: (310)601-6766 Fax: (310)295-2385 Email: jhammmond@hammondlawpc.com CREDIT CORP: "Zilbert" Sues Over FDCPA Breach --------------------------------------------- James Zilbert, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02617 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2017) seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant was a company engaged, by use of mail, in the business of collecting a debt from Plaintiff owed to a "Synchrony Bank - Care Credit" in the amount of $1,180.62. Defendant allegedly threatened legal action. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com D-ZEE TEXTILES: Senior Care Sues over Unsolicited Fax Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- SENIOR CARE GROUP, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. D-ZEE TEXTILES LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00761-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks actual monetary loss from Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. According to the complaint, receiving the Defendants' junk faxes caused Plaintiff and the other recipients to lose paper and toner consumed in the printing of the Defendants' faxes. Moreover, the Defendants' faxes used the Plaintiff's and the other class members' telephone lines and fax machine. The Defendants' faxes cost the Plaintiff and the other class members time, as the Plaintiff and the other class members and their employees wasted their time receiving, reviewing and routing the Defendants' unauthorized faxes. That time otherwise would have been spent on the Plaintiff's and the other class members' business activities. The Defendants' faxes unlawfully interrupted the Plaintiff's and other class members' privacy interests in being left alone. D-Zee Textiles manufacture & supplies top quality bed linen, bath linen, amenities, and janitorial supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com DO & CO CHICAGO: "Woods" Hits Illegally Procured Background Check ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barrie Woods, individually and as a representative of the class, Plaintiff, v. DO & CO Chicago Catering, Inc. and DO & CO New York Catering, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-04801, (Ill. Cir., April 3, 2017), seeks relief, statutory' and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and all other relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the complaint, Defendants procured consumer reports on the Plaintiff, then an applicant. Plaintiff completed Defendants' Background Check Disclosure and Authorization Form and Applicant Notification of Release of Information form that did not comply with the requirements of Sec. 1681 of the FCRA. It allegedly contained a vast amount of extraneous information that violates the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement. Said Disclosure Form is confusing and misleading because it identifies and authorizes three different consumer reporting agencies to run a background check for employment purposes and contains two liability waivers that purport to release Defendants, and other entities from liability and responsibility for collecting the said information. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. James B. Zouras STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com aficzko@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stcplianzouras.com ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Welfare Fund Sues over Amitriptyline Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., SANDOZ, INC., AND ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02355 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from continuing and maintaining the anticompetitive combination, conspiracy, or agreements. The case is a civil antitrust action on behalf of proposed classes of end-payors who indirectly purchased, reimbursed, or otherwise paid for amitriptyline hydrochloride from June 3, 2014 to the present (Class Period). The case arises out of an anticompetitive conspiracy among Defendants to raise and fix the prices of generic amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant sold in tablet form. Endo International is global specialty pharmaceutical company. It was created as a result of a management buyout from DuPont Merck in 1997.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Safirstein, Esq. Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201 2845 E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981 4800 Facsimile: (415) 981 4846 E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Avezbadalov" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC. The case is entitled as Bela Avezbadalov, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01759 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 2017). Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gadomski Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services LLC. The case is captioned as Kellie Gadomski, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00670-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Senior Judge William B. Shubb.[BN] Equifax Information collects and reports consumer information to financial institutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ml@kazlg.com ESSENDANT CO: "Sinay" Suit Removed to Cent. Dist. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Patrick Sinay, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Essendant Co., United Stationers Supply Co., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC651043, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on March 24, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02315 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Defendants operate a wholesale distribution company of workplace essentials, with consolidated net sales of $5.3 billion. [BN] Patrick Sinay is a pro se plaintiff. FOUGERA PHARMA: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Overpriced Fungicide ------------------------------------------------------------- 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. and Teligent, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01528, (E.D. Pa., April 5, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from overcharging of generic econazole nitrate topical ointment in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Econazole nitrate is a generic anti-fungal used to treat athlete's foot, jock itch, ringworm and pityriasis. 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 econazole nitrate 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. Teligent, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business and manufacturing facilities at 105 Lincoln Ave, Buena, NJ 08310. Teligent sold generic econazole to purchasers in this District and throughout 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 FRESH VIEW: Faces "Sparrow" Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fresh View Solutions. The case is styled as Deshonta Sparrow, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Fresh View Solutions, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02296 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 2017). Fresh View Solutions work with customers to repay their consumer and commercial debt owned by Fresh View Funding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq. DANIEL COHEN PLLC 407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11212 Telephone: (646) 645 8482 E-mail: dancohenlaw@gmail.com GAMESTOP CORP: "Brier" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled George Brier, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. GameStop Corp., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-17-557301, was removed on April 3, 2017 from the San Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-01856-KAW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. GameStop Corp., or simply referred to as GameStop, is an American video game, consumer electronics, and wireless services retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Telephone: (415) 442 1190 Facsimile: (415) 442 1001 E-mail: snakabayashi@morganlewis.com GLOBAL A&T: Marble Ridge Files Lawsuit Over Debt Exchange --------------------------------------------------------- MARBLE RIDGE CAPITAL LP and KLS DIVERSIFIED ASSET MANAGEMENT LP, Plaintiffs, - against - GLOBAL A&T ELECTRONICS LTD., GLOBAL A&T FINCO LTD., UNITED TEST AND ASSEMBLY CENTER LTD., UTAC CAYMAN LTD., UTAC HONG KONG LIMITED, UTAC (TAIWAN) CORPORATION, UTAC THAI, LIMITED, UTAC THAI HOLDINGS LIMITED, NEWBRIDGE ASIA GENPAR IV ADVISORS, INC., TPG ASIA GENPAR V ADVISORS, INC., AFFINITY FUND III GENERAL PARTNER LIMITED, and COSTA ESMERALDA INVESTMENTS LIMITED on behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Defendants, Index No. 651724/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of New York, March 31, 2017), alleges, on behalf of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, that Defendants breached their contract by entering into an improper Affiliate Transaction in connection with an exchange of Junior Debt for Additional Senior Secured Notes. The debt exchange allegedly unlawfully impaired the rights and priority of the holders of GATE's 10% senior secured notes due 2019 for the benefit of GATE's junior creditors and controlling shareholders. Global A&T Electronics Ltd. is a provider of semiconductor assembly and testing services in mixed signal and logic products, analog products, and memory products. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sigmund S. Wissner-Gross, Esq. BROWN RUDNICK LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 209-4930 GOLDEN AGE: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres at Penn Record reports that a home health aide has filed a class action lawsuit against Golden Age Home Care Inc., a home care provider, citing alleged unpaid wages, violation of applicable minimum wage law and violation of workers compensation acts for failing to pay adequate wages. Modestine Smith Thorpe of Philadelphia filed a complaint on behalf of all persons similarly situated on March 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that her employer, headquartered in Feasterville, failed to adequately compensate the plaintiff for her work. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked for more than 40 hours but was not paid any overtime compensation. The plaintiff holds Golden Age responsible because it allegedly failed to pay minimum wages to the plaintiff nor did it compensate her for time or travel costs between work sites. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks back pay damages, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid travel time, interest, liquidated damages, court costs and any further relief the court grants. She is represented by Shanon J. Carson, Esq. -- scarson@bm.net -- Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. -- sschalman@bm.net -- and Camille Fundora, Esq. -- cfundora@bm.net - - of Berger & Montague P.C. in Philadelphia. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case number 2:17-cv-01187-GEKP [GN] HONGHUA AMERICA: Faces "Gomez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR GOMEZ on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. HONGHUA AMERICA, LLC, NABORS CORPORATE SERVICES INC., and NABORS INDUSTRIES INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00990 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2017), alleges that Defendants do not pay their Welders overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act; instead, they pay Welders straight time, not time and a half for overtime hours worked. Honghua America LLC manufactures drilling rigs for customers in the oil and gas industry. Defendants Nabors Industries Inc. and Nabors Corporate Services Inc. provide drilling services for its customers throughout the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Fax: (832) 778-8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com J. CREW: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Rubin" Suit ------------------------------------------------- Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned FRUMA RUBIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J. CREW GROUP, INC., Defendant, Civ. Action No. 16-2167 (FLW) (D.N.J.). J Crew Group, Inc., owns and operates the retail website jcrew.com, which defendant uses to sell clothing directly to consumers. The website provides a terms and conditions section, which purportedly governs the use of the site and J. Crew's services, applications, contents and products. Plaintiff Fruma Rubin avers that throughout the last six years, she has purchased products from the website for personal, family and household purposes. Plaintiff alleges that the terms and conditions in the website limits defendant's liabilities and obscures the effects of its disclaimers on New Jersey consumers. More specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant's exculpatory and indemnification clauses impermissibly attempt to absolve itself of all liability, and completely remove the duties J Crew owes to its customers. Plaintiff avers that such clauses violated the New Jersey's Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, (TCCWNA). Plaintiff also alleges that defendant wrongfully attempts to prevent consumers from seeking punitive damage awards for damage incurred, seeking redress for violations of their internet commerce rights and pursuing any damages, including treble and statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs for any illegal actions engaged in by defendant on its website. By including such limitations, plaintiff alleges that defendant has violated the TCCWNA. Finally, Plaintiff accuses Defendant of violating the Act by such statement: "SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THIS LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY, SO SOME OF THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU." Plaintiff asserts that the illegal placement of such provisions on the website violated two separate sections of the TCCWNA: N.J.S.A. 56:12-15 and -16, i.e., Count I and Count II, respectively. As to her injury, plaintiff explains that she has sustained a concrete and particularized injury by defendant's placement of numerous provisions within its terms and conditions that violated her rights under New Jersey law. Plaintiff further alleges that she has suffered harm by defendant's failure to specify whether all of the terms stated on the website applied or did not apply in New Jersey. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint based on a lack of standing, as required by Article III of the Constitution, and by TCCWNA itself. Judge Wolfson held that the court is aware that there are numerous class actions filed in the district based upon similar TCCWNA violations alleged in the case. While the intent of the New Jersey legislature in enacting the TCCWNA is to provide additional protections for consumers in the state from unfair business practices, the passage of the Act is not intended, however, for litigation-seeking plaintiffs and/or their counsel to troll the internet to find potential violations under the TCCWNA without any underlying harm. In such instances, standing would be lacking. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/5XrnLz from Leagle.com. FRUMA RUBIN, Plaintiff, represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 70 Clinton Ave., Suite 3 Newark, NJ 07114-2012 Tel: 973-525-2552 J. CREW GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. MICHIE -- chris.michie@clarkmichie.com -- BRUCE W. CLARK -- bruce.clark@clarkmichie.com -- at CLARK MICHIE LLP JJM BEN FOODS: "Alagheband" Asserts Discrimination, Seeks OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Max Alagheband, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. JJM Ben Foods, Inc., Legendary Restaurant Brands, LLC and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG17855173 (Cal. Super, April 3, 2017) seeks penalties, costs of suit incurred herein and attorneys' fees, compensatory damages, compensation for all hours worked but not paid, general, punitive and special damages, restitution of all monies due, injunctive relief, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from wrongful termination in violation of public policy, discrimination and harassment, emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violations of the California Labor Code, California Workers' Compensation Act and the California Business and Professions Code. JJM operates a number of restaurants and hotels including Bennigan's of Fremont, Bennigan's of Santa Clara, Denny's, and La Quinta Inns and Suites. Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a Floor Manager at Bennigan's of Fremont in April 2016, clearing tables, running food to customers and other restaurant duties. Alagheband is a 64-year-old male and alleges discrimination in the workplace because of his age as well as being an Iranian. Defendants misclassified Plaintiff by refusing to provide the right to overtime and other employment benefits. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq. Tracy T. Scanlan, Esq. Frank J. Zeccola, Esq. 1001 Bayhill Drive, 2nd Floor San Bruno, CA 94066 Tel: (415) 580-2574 Fax: (415) 735-3454 Email: silg@ilglegal.com tscanlan@ilglegal.com fzeccola@ilglegal.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Leslie" Suit in Middle District Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPMorgan Chase & Co. The case is captioned as Barbara Leslie, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., doing business as: Chase Bank, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00746-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell.[BN] JPMorgan Chase is a leading global financial services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United States, with operations worldwide. 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 KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Paolini" Suit Under Securities Act ------------------------------------------------------------- NUNZIATINA PAOLINI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., XIAOMING HU, XIAOYING ZHU, CHENG WANG, and BING MEI, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02025 (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain areas in the Company's previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016 required adjustment; (2) in turn, the Company lacked effective controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., through its subsidiaries, designs, produces, manufactures, and distributes electric vehicles (EVs) products, EV parts, and offroad vehicles in the People's Republic of China and internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 L.A., CA 90071 Tel: (213) 785-2610 Fax: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: "Sauceda" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE SAUCEDA, for and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM INC., the Defendant, Case No. 153021/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiff and members of the putative class were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on various public works contracted with such government entities the Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority and the Metropolitan Transit Authority, pursuant to New York Labor Law. The Defendant Kapsch breached the Public Works Contracts by willfully failing to pay and ensure payment to Plaintiff and the other members of the putative class the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits for all labor performed upon the Public Works Projects. Kapsch Trafficcom is an Austria-based company engaged in the manufacture and supply of electronic toll collection systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. James Murphy, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street - 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 KEDREN COMMUNITY: "Robinson" Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages -------------------------------------------------------- Jeneen Robinson, an individual, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kedren Community Health Center, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC656198 (Cal. Super., April 3, 2017), seeks penalties, waiting time penalties, general and special damages, compensatory damages, restitution of wages and other monies wrongfully withheld by the Defendants, declaratory and injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code for failure to pay earned wages upon termination and the California Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff worked for the Company as a Care Manager and Referral Coordinator from December 2015 until her termination on May 13, 2016. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aanand Ghods-Mehtani, Esq. Jana M. Moser, Esq. RUSHOVICH MEHTANI LLP 5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5013 Telephone: 323-330-0543 Facsimile: 323-395-5507 Email: amehtani@rmlawpartners.com jmoser@rmlawpartners.com KKW TRUCKING: Judge Denies Renewed Bid to Dismiss "Demmings" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied defendant's renewed motion to dismiss the case styled RODERICK DEMMINGS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KKW TRUCKING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-494-SI (D. Or.). On or around March 8, 2012, Plaintiff Roderick Demmings applied online with KKW Trucking, Inc. for a position as a truck driver. KKW's application form did not contain any notice advising plaintiff that KKW would obtain a consumer report to determine plaintiff's eligibility for employment, that plaintiff has the right to obtain a free copy of any consumer report obtained by KKW, or that plaintiff could dispute information contained in any consumer report obtained by KKW directly with the credit reporting agency. KKW did, however, provide plaintiff with a release form to obtain his State of Washington driving record, also known as a motor vehicle report (MVR), which plaintiff signed and returned on or about March 8, 2012. KKW did not obtain Plaintiff's MVR until after Plaintiff returned his signed consent form. The form identifies Total Information Services, Inc. d/b/a DAC Services as the entity from which KKW would obtain plaintiff's MVR. Plaintiff did not discover that KKW had obtained plaintiff's MVR from a different, possibly related, company, HireRight, Inc., as part of the application screening process until on or about March 25, 2014. In May 2015, plaintiff learned for the first time that KKW had also obtained a consumer report on plaintiff from A-Check. Plaintiff further learned that KKW denied plaintiff employment because of information contained in his A-Check consumer report. Plaintiff also alleges that KKW generally does not advise applicants orally, in writing, or by electronic means, of an applicant's rights under the FCRA, and that KKW does not obtain the required consent before procuring consumer reports. Plaintiff further alleges that KKW generally does not provide either in- person or remote applicants the required disclosures that an adverse action was taken, at least in part, because of a consumer report. Plaintiff Roderick Demmings a putative class action lawsuit against KKW and alleges that KKW violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when KKW procured plaintiff's consumer information from two consumer reporting agencies without providing plaintiff proper notice and, for one report, without his consent. Plaintiff also alleges that KKW ultimately used one of plaintiff's consumer reports as a basis for taking an adverse employment action against him, again without providing the statutorily mandated notifications. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on June 12, 2015. The court granted the parties' joint motion to stay the case until the Supreme Court decided the case of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. After Spokeo was decided, KKW filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint, but the court ordered plaintiff to file a second amended complaint and denied KKW's motion to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to renew. Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. KKW filed a renewed motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that plaintiff fails to allege a concrete or particularized injury and thus fails to adequately plead Article III standing. KKW also argues that the factual predicate for Plaintiff's claims is incorrect. Judge Simon held that KKW's argument is inappropriate at this stage of the litigation. In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. KKW's assertion that the court may look outside the pleadings is correct only in evaluating jurisdiction, not in evaluating whether the factual predicate of a complaint is accurate. Plaintiff alleges that KKW obtained plaintiff's MVR from HireRight. Plaintiff further alleges that he did not discover such fact until HireRight produced to plaintiff the report it provided to KKW. These allegations are sufficient to survive KKW's motion. Defendant KKW Trucking, Inc.'s renewed motion to dismiss is denied. A full-text copy of Judge Simon's opinion and order dated March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/mivKY6 from Leagle.com. Roderick Demmings, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew A. Dooley -- mdooley@omdplaw.com -- at O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co. KKW Trucking, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew T. Gust -- Dennis G. Woods -- dwoods@scheerlaw.com -- at Scheer & Zehnder LLP KROGER CO: "Perez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sonia Perez, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co., an Ohio corporation, the Defendant, Case No. BC650000, was removed on March 29, 2017, from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02448 to the proceeding. Kroger is an American retailing company founded by Wafiq Choudhury in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. LG CONTRACTING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------------- ISRAEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against LG CONTRACTING INC. and MICHAEL DIFIORE, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01428 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs, and the purported Class Members regularly worked over 40 hours per workweek, but were not paid overtime premiums as required by law. The case was filed under the wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendants operate a construction and demolition company based in Stony Brook, New York. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a demolition worker. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 1517 Voorhies Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Phone: 800 789 9396 Fax: 261 5478 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com LIPOCINE INC: "Lewis" Securities Suit Transferred to D. Utah ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned DAVID LEWIS, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LIPOCINE INC., MAHESH V. PATEL, and MORGAN R. BROWN, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04009, D.N.J., July 1, 2016) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, according to a docket entry dated March 14, 2017. The case was assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00182-DB under Judge Dee Benson. The case alleges that in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's filing of its New Drug Application (NDA) for lead product candidate, TLANDO(TM) (LPCN 1021), as an oral testosterone replacement therapy LPCN 1021 to the FDA contained deficiencies; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about Lipocine's business and operations were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Defendant Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company, which develops pharmaceutical products using its oral drug delivery technology in the areas of men's and women's health. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Phone: (973) 3131887 Fax: (973) 8330399 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com MAJOR LEAGUE: Soccer Clubs Lose Suit Against Players Union ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Amos L. Mazzant, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned DALLAS TEXANS SOCCER CLUB, CROSSFIRE FOUNDATION, INC., SOCKERS FC CHICAGO, LLC, v. MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER PLAYERS UNION, CLINT DEMPSEY, DEANDRE YEDLIN, MICHAEL BRADLEY, Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00464 (E.D. Tex.). Plaintiffs Dallas Texans Soccer Club, Crossfire Foundation Inc., Sockers FC Chicago, LLC, are three youth soccer clubs located in the United States. Each youth soccer club is associated with the United States Soccer Federation, Inc. which is a Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) national association member. FIFA national association members must adopt FIFA rules and regulations, except when compliance with a specific FIFA rule is illegal under national law. Defendant Major League Soccer Players Union is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all players selected to play in Major League Soccer, LLC. The Players Union represents fifty-nine players in Texas, including at least twenty-one players from the Dallas Texans. The Players Union has two union representatives continuously present in Texas and sends employees to meet with players in Texas. The Players Union is an unincorporated association with offices in Bethesda, Maryland. Plaintiffs initiated administrative proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber seeking either training compensation or solidarity fees in connection with the signing or transfer of players plaintiffs trained. Specifically, Dallas Texans trained Clint Dempsey and is seeking a solidarity fee in connection with Dempsey's transfer to Major League Soccer, LLC from the Football Association of the United Kingdom. Crossfire trained Deandre Yedlin and is seeking a solidarity fee in connection with Yedlin's transfer to the Football Association of the United Kingdom from Major League Soccer, LLC. Socker FC trained Michael Bradley and is seeking a solidarity fee in connection with Bradley's transfer to Major League Soccer, LLC from the Italian Football Federation. Plaintiff Sockers also trained Eric Pothast and is seeking training compensation in connection with his signing with Angelholms FF of the Swedish Football Association. On May 24, 2016, plaintiffs, the Players Union, the U.S. Soccer Federation, and professional soccer leagues met in Chicago, Illinois, to discuss a training compensation and solidarity fee system for U.S. youth clubs. Plaintiffs allege that during the meeting, Bob Foose, the Executive Director of the Players Union, stated that any effort by plaintiffs to enforce training compensation or solidarity fees would violate federal antitrust law. Plaintiffs also allege that a representative from Major League Soccer, LLC alerted U.S. youth club representatives that the Players Union threatened to file an antitrust lawsuit against plaintiffs, the U.S. Soccer Federation, and others if the Dispute Resolution Chamber awarded plaintiffs training compensation or solidarity contributions. On July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed a class action Complaint for Declaratory Relief against the Players Union, Dempsey, Yedlin, Bradley, and all those similarly situated. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that any U.S. youth club's receipt of training compensation or solidarity fees does not violate antitrust laws. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the implementation of a system of training compensation and solidarity fees for player transactions within the U.S. does not violate antitrust laws. On November 3, 2016, the Players Union filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction Judge Mazzant finds that plaintiffs have not established a prima facie case supporting general jurisdiction over the Players Union. Although the Players Union meets with players in Texas and represents fifty-nine players in Texas, the Players Union's contacts with Texas are viewed in light of its activities nationwide. The Players Union's offices and employees are not located in Texas. The Players Union's contacts in Texas thus only represent a portion of its total activity as an association. These contacts are not so continuous and systematic as to render the Players Union essentially at home in Texas. Judge Mazzant granted defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' claims against defendant are dismissed. A full-text copy of Judge Mazzant's memorandum opinion and order dated March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/solwIa from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by David Bruce Koch -- dkoch@coatsrose.com -- John Joseph Mongogna -- jjoseph@coatsrose.com -- at Coats/Rose; Lance D. Reich -- lreich@helsell.com -- at Helsell Fetterman LLP Major League Soccer Players Union, Defendant, represented by: Jonathan D. Newman, Esq. Robert D. Kurnick, Esq. SHERMAN, DUNN, COHEN, LEIFER & YELIG, PC 900 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-785-9300 Fax: 202-775-1950 -- and -- Patrick M. Flynn, Esq. PATRICK M. FLYNN, PC 1225 North Loop W Ste 1000 Houston, TX 77008-1775 Tel: 713-861-6163 Fax: 713-961-5566 Clint Dempsey, DeAndre Yedlin, and Michael Bradley, Defendants, represented by: Jonathan D. Newman, Esq. Robert D. Kurnick, Esq. SHERMAN, DUNN, COHEN, LEIFER & YELIG, PC 900 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-785-9300 Fax: 202-775-1950 MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Grants Soccer Players' Bid to Dismiss Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Amos L. Mazzant, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case styled DALLAS TEXANS SOCCER CLUB, CROSSFIRE FOUNDATION, INC., SOCKERS FC CHICAGO, LLC v. MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER PLAYERS UNION, CLINT DEMPSEY, DEANDRE YEDLIN, MICHAEL BRADLEY, Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00464 (E.D. Tex.) Plaintiffs Dallas Texans Soccer Club, Crossfire Foundation Inc., Sockers FC Chicago, LLC are three youth soccer clubs located in the United States. Each youth soccer club is associated with the United States Soccer Federation, Inc. which is a Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) national association member. FIFA national association members must adopt FIFA rules and regulations, except when compliance with a specific FIFA rule is illegal under national law. Under FIFA rules, professional soccer clubs must pay youth soccer clubs that trained players certain fees, called training compensation and solidarity fees. When a player signs his or her first contract with a professional soccer club in a different national association, the professional soccer club must pay the youth club training compensation. When a player is transferred to a professional soccer club in a different national association, the professional soccer club acquiring the player must pay the youth club a solidarity fee. Disputes over the payment of training compensation and solidarity fees are adjudicated by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber in Zurich, Switzerland. Dallas Texans trained Clint Dempsey and the latter made a transfer to Major League Soccer, LLC from the Football Association of the United Kingdom. Crossfire trained Deandre Yedlin and the latter made a transfer to the Football Association of the United Kingdom from Major League Soccer, LLC. Socker FC trained Michael Bradley and the latter made a transfer to Major League Soccer, LLC from the Italian Football Federation. Plaintiffs initiated administrative proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber seeking either training compensation or solidarity fees in connection with the signing or transfer of players plaintiffs trained. On May 24, 2016, plaintiffs, the Players Union, the U.S. Soccer Federation, and professional soccer leagues met in Chicago, Illinois, to discuss a training compensation and solidarity fee system for U.S. youth clubs. Plaintiffs allege that during the meeting, Bob Foose, the Executive Director of the Players Union, stated that any effort by plaintiffs to enforce training compensation or solidarity fees would violate federal antitrust law. Plaintiffs also allege that a representative from Major League Soccer, LLC alerted U.S. youth club representatives that the Players Union threatened to file an antitrust lawsuit against plaintiffs, the U.S. Soccer Federation, and others if the Dispute Resolution Chamber awarded plaintiffs training compensation or solidarity contributions. On July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint for Declaratory Relief against the Players Union, Dempsey, Yedlin, Bradley, and all those similarly situated. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that any U.S. youth club's receipt of training compensation or solidarity fees does not violate antitrust laws. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the implementation of a system of training compensation and solidarity fees for player transactions within the U.S. does not violate antitrust laws. On November 3, 2016, the defendant players filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant players argue that the court lacks specific jurisdiction over them because the basis for plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action are alleged statements made by the Players Union's Executive Director, Bob Foose, and a representative of Major League Soccer, LLC. Defendant players argue that the statements cannot be attributed to them because they did not give the Players Union authority to act on their behalf and the Players Union representative did not hold himself out as the player defendants' agent. Judge Mazzant held that the court does not need to determine whether an agency relationship existed between the player defendants and the Players Union. Even if the Players Union threat of litigation could be attributed to the defendant players, the threat of litigation does not establish specific jurisdiction over the defendant in a declaratory judgment action. Judge Mazzant granted the defendant players' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' claims against defendant players are dismissed. A full-text copy of Judge Mazzant's memorandum opinion and order dated March 29, 2017, is available https://goo.gl/NfBYVT from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by David Bruce Koch -- dkoch@coatsrose.com -- John Joseph Mongogna -- jjoseph@coatsrose.com -- at Coats/Rose; Lance D. Reich -- lreich@helsell.com -- at Helsell Fetterman LLP Major League Soccer Players Union, Defendant, represented by: Jonathan D. Newman, Esq. Robert D. Kurnick, Esq. Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yelig, PC 900 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-785-9300 Fax: 202-775-1950 -- and -- Patrick M. Flynn, Esq. Patrick M. Flynn, PC 1225 North Loop W Ste 1000 Houston, TX 77008-1775 Tel: 713-861-6163 Fax: 713-961-5566 Clint Dempsey, DeAndre Yedlin, and Michael Bradley, Defendants, represented by: Jonathan D. Newman, Esq. Robert D. Kurnick, Esq. Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yelig, PC 900 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-785-9300 Fax: 202-775-1950 MLS PLAYERS: Court Nixes Class Action Over Transfer Fees -------------------------------------------------------- Goal reports a that U.S. District Court in Texas has dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by a trio of youth clubs against the MLS Players Union and U.S. national team stars Michael Bradley, DeAndre Yedlin and Clint Dempsey. The court, representing the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas, ruled on March 29 that the suit lacked personal jurisdiction over the Players Union and specific jurisdiction over the trio of players, according to ESPNFC. Crossfire Premier in Washington state, Chicago-based club Sockers FC and the Dallas Texans filed the suit in July in hope of overturning precedent that has denied youth clubs in the U.S. from receiving payment as part of a player's transfer fee -- a practice sanctioned by FIFA. U.S. Soccer has avoided the payments by citing the 1998 antitrust case of Fraser v. MLS, but Yedlin's transfer from the Seattle Sounders to Tottenham in 2014 reignited the debate. In a July statement, the three clubs clarified that Bradley, Yedlin and Dempsey were included in the suit "solely for a legal reason to maintain the Complaint" and that the teams had "no desire to, in essence, sue their own kids." The MLS Players Union released a statement on March 30 in which executive director Bob Foose said the organization was "very satisfied" with the decision. "We have said consistently that training compensation and solidarity payments are bad for players, and would treat players differently than employees in any other industry, including sports," Foose said. "For example, it's absurd to think that a business school could demand a fee from a company that hired one of its students. Yet, that's the kind of payments the youth clubs seek. "No player should have the market for his services adversely affected by these payments. This is not to say that players and the Players Union don't believe in and support youth development. We do, but it should not be funded through a tax on randomly selected professional players' contracts." ESPNFC reports the clubs have now taken their case to FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber. [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: "Rawa" Sues Over Herbicide False Label -------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Rawa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01252 (E.D. Mo., April 5, 2017) seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Monsanto is the manufacturer of Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate and Roundup Concentrate Plus. These are intended to be diluted with water prior to use. The 36.8 oz. size Roundup Concentrate Plus advertises that it makes 10 gallons of Roundup, while the 64 oz. size makes 21 gallons. Plaintiff claims that it only makes half the number of gallons when diluted to the strength required for the uses advertised on the label. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Canova, Esq. Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 692-3840 Fax: (619) 362-9555 Email: tom@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - and - Sidney W. Jackson, III, Esq. JACKSON & FOSTER, LC 75 St. Michael Street Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 433-6699 Fax: (251) 433-6127 Email: sid@jacksonfosterlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC 2726 S. Brentwood Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63144 Phone: (314) 645-4100 Fax: (314) 736-6216 Email: kevin@dolleylaw.com NBTY INC: Suit Says Biotin Product Has No Health Benefits --------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado at Legal Newsline reports a consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against NBTY Inc. and Nature's Bounty Inc., alleging the defendants' vitamin product falsely claims it supports skin and hair health. Rosa Alvarez filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on March 22, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the defendants. She alleges that they made false representations to the public regarding their health products. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she suffered damages from being misled into purchasing biotin supplements. The plaintiff holds NBTY Inc., and Nature's Bounty Inc. responsible because the defendants allegedly made false claims regarding the health benefits of their biotin products. The complaint says the mega dose of biotin contained in their product does not provide any benefit. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks restitution and disgorgement and injunctive relief. She also wants the defendant ordered to engage in a corrective advertising and seeks all legal fees and any other relief the court deems just. She is represented by Patricia Syverson, Esq. -- psyverson@bffb.com -- and Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. -- mmuecke@bffb.com -- of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint P.C. in San Diego. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case number 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS [GN] NEA DELIVERY LLC: "Thomas" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Veronica Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEA Delivery, LLC d/b/a First Delivery Service, Avitus, Inc. d/b/a Avitus Group and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. HG17855208, (Cal. Super., April 3, 2017), seeks state-mandated minimum wages for all hours worked, including, but not limited to, time spent working on the clock but deducted through both manual adjustments and automated timekeeping parameters, uncompensated time for which Plaintiff was clocked in, required overtime and/or double time compensation for violation of the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders Defendants allegedly also failed to provide Plaintiff with duty- free meal periods of at least thirty minutes and/or failed to properly compensate Plaintiff for such malfeasance in providing proper meal periods. Defendants also failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements and all wages due upon termination of their employment in violation of the Business and Professions Code. Defendants operate a logistics company where Thomas worked as a delivery driver. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com NEW YORK: Court Orders Permanent Injunction in Medicaid Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Joseph F. Bianco of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in the case captioned NEIL FISHMAN, BY HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN, SELMA FISHMAN, AND SURUJ SIRIKESHUN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD F. DAINES, M.D., AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND JOHN PAOLUCCI, AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE, Defendants, No. 09-cv-5248 (JFB) (ARL) (E.D.N.Y.). Neil Fishman, through his legal guardian Selma Fishman, and Suruj Sirikeshun brought a class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1396a(a)(3) against the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health and the Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State Department of Family Assistance. The case involves the procedures by which defendants determine that a Medicaid appeal is abandoned. After defendants conclude that a claimant is no longer entitled to Medicaid benefits, they inform the claimant by letter and advise him that he may request a fair hearing. If the request is timely made, the claimant may continue to receive aid-continuing Medicaid coverage pending the outcome of the hearing, and defendants send two additional letters, first, an acknowledgement that a fair hearing has been requested and second, a notice that the fair hearing has been scheduled, which includes instructions for requesting adjournments. Plaintiffs contend that many class members lost aid continuing coverage, at least temporarily, because they did not realize that they missed their fair hearing. The default notice requested by plaintiffs, and temporarily put in place by the court when it granted the preliminary injunction, would inquire as to whether the defaulting Medicaid appellant wanted his or her hearing rescheduled and would give the appellant at least ten (10) days to respond to the notice before dismissal of the administrative appeal. By memorandum and order dated September 16, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to mail a default notice to members of the plaintiff class before their Medicaid appeals are deemed abandoned because they missed a scheduled hearing. The court found that plaintiffs failed to make a clear showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their due process or statutory claims. Plaintiffs appealed the decision, and by summary order dated October 15, 2015, the Second Circuit reversed the court's denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction by memorandum and order dated March 4, 2016, as amended on March 10, 2016. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to make the preliminary injunction permanent. Defendants oppose the motion on the sole ground that plaintiffs lack standing to bring the action. Judge Bianco finds the defendants' position to be without merit, grants plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety, and orders that defendants are permanently enjoined from dismissing administrative appeals of defaulting Medicaid appellants who are not given at least ten (10) days to respond to a written notice from defendants inquiring as to whether they would like their hearings rescheduled. A copy of Judge Bianco's memorandum and opinion dated March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/ZWIaq2 from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Peter Vollmer, Esq. VOLLMER & TANCK Jericho Atrium, 500 N Broadway # 123 Jericho, NY 11753 Tel: 516-870-0335 Richard F. Daines, M.D. and John Paolucci Defendants, represented by Susan M. Connolly -- Kimberly Ann Kinirons -- Patricia M. Hingerton -- at New York State Attorney General's Office NIKE RETAIL: "Hamid" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Omran Hamid, an individual, on behalf himself and all others similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., an Oregon Corporation; Rianna Marie Lopez, an individual; and Does 1 to 200, inclusive, Case No. 30-02017-00904483-CU, was removed on Apr. 3, 2017 from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-00599 to the proceeding. Nike Retail Services Inc. distributes athletic products. The company is based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike Retail Services Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Nike Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NORWIN TECH: "Ringler" Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements --------------------------------------------------------- William Ringler, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Norwin Technologies, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00423, (W.D. Pa., April 5, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation owed, liquidated damages, billed, unpaid and unreimbursed expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest as well as the litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred and such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Norwin Technologies provides IT consulting and other services throughout the United States. Defendant maintains its headquarters at 300 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Defendant hired Plaintiff for the position of Senior Network Security Consultant/Senior Network Engineer Architect in late March 2016, and Plaintiff held that position until his employment with Defendant ended in July 2016. Plaintiff was hired at $95 per hour on a W2 Contractor basis, with all payments subject to withholdings applicable to wages. Ringler traveled extensively to clients' business premises to perform his duties and work from his home as well. He alleges that all his time logs (submitted electronically) were shaved off to ensure that his time was well within 40 hours per week, thus no overtime pay. He also claims that he was not reimbursed for his travel expenses. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. First & Market Building, Suite 650 100 First Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 227-0763 Fax: (412) 774-1994 Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com - and - John R. Linkosky, Esq. JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106 Tel: (412) 278-1280 Fax: (412) 278-1282 Email: linklaw@comcast.net ONAGOFLY: Faces Class Action Over Low Quality Drone --------------------------------------------------- Crowdfund Insider reports that ONAGOFly, a top-twenty Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign and the 2nd most funded drone project ever on the platform, has been hit with a class action lawsuit filed in United States District Court in California on March 27, 2017. The lawsuit was filed by Allan Black, Christopher Jones, Roger Watts, and Robert Matos Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others impacted by the rewards-crowdfunded project. ONAGOFly raised over USD3.5 million in 2016 supported by more than 17,000 backers on Indiegogo. As with many rewards based or presale projects, the creators struggled to deliver on commitments to backers. ONAGOFly was described as a "Smart Nano Drone" and a "Palm-Sized Drone With GPS Auto-Follow and High Res Video Camera to Take Better Photos." While some backers received the drones many complained that ONAGOFly failed to live up to its promises. The defendants listed in the case include: Shenzen Sunshine Technology Development, LTD, Acumen Robot Intelligence, Inc., Sam Tsu, D/B/A ONAGOFLY, and DOES 1-100. The plaintiffs called the ONAGOFly creator's acts, "fraudulent, deceptive and illegal." The court filing itemized the alleged shortcomins of the crowdfunded drone, including: The Onagofly drone contains a 15 Megapixel Sony camera. Instead, the camera in the drone is of a significantly lower resolution than promised. The Onagofly drone has a 800 mAh or even a 1000 mAh battery. It does not. The battery is less powerful than promised and will not hold a sufficient charge. The Onagofly drone does not have or maintain the stability or control in the air which is promised, and the propellers are ofpoor quality and break easily. The GPS applications touted in Onagofly's marketing materials do not work; the drone fails to orient itself or follow the user as promised. Crowdfund Insider wrote about the project last August as complaints arose regarding the product. One jilted backer even created a website dedicated to the project called OnagoLIES that documented the rise and fall of ONAGOFly. This is an interesting lawsuit to watch as there have been many crowdfunded projects that have failed to deliver or simply shipped a product that was utter crap. Failed campaigns have undermined the entire rewards based crowdfunding industry as burned backers have started to avoid supporting projects. Many backers have learned it is better to wait for a product to show up on Amazon instead of taking the risk of losing their money. Launching a class action lawsuit is no small undertaking. One would expect the plaintiffs to believe they have a decent chance of receiving financial compensation for the ONAGOFly drone project. [GN] OTTAWA: Faces Suit Over LGBTQ Purge ----------------------------------- CTV Montreal reports that some military and public services employees have teamed up against the federal government to file a class action lawsuit against Ottawa for what's known as the 'LGBTQ purge.' Ottawa once had a policy in place 'not to keep or to allow gays in the military or public service.' Martine Roy was one of the people affected, and is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "Once and for all let's fix this story -- not all different places and all different people, but for everybody that is public function, that is army, that is from '69, '72, '88, let's fix it. They changed the law in '92, but they never admitted what they did or apologized. Then they can talk about redress and fix it," she said. This new lawsuit brings together three separate suits. [GN] PATELCO CREDIT: Faces "Gadomski" Suit Under Credit Reporting Laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- KELLIE GADOMSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, Defendant, (E.D. Cal., March 29, 2017), alleges that PCU has adopted a systematic pattern and practice of failing and refusing to update credit information with regard to debts discharged in bankruptcy because it sells those debts and profits by the sale. The case alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Defendant is a debt collector regularly engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts from consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com naomi@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Clark Ovruchesky, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CLARK OVRUCHESKY 750 B. Street, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 356-8960 Fax: (619) 330-7610 E-mail: co@colawcalifornia.com PHB INC: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- FREEMAN HARRIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, V. PHB, INC. and E-TRANSPORT GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01007 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2017), alleges that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act for all unpaid wages and overtime compensation as well as for liquidated damages, attorney's fees, out of pocket expenses and costs. PHB, Inc. manufactures and supplies zinc and aluminum die castings, machining products, plastic and rubber moldings, tools and dies, injection molding, and product assemblies. Freeman Harris was interviewed and was hired by Defendant E-Transportation in March of 2016, and worked for Defendants until February of 2017 as a general laborer and yard driver, spotter and hostler. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Phone: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com - and - Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Phone: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com PLAINS ALL: Texas Judge Tosses Securities Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned IN RE PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P. SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. H:15-02404 (S.D. Tex.). The plaintiffs alleged that Plains All American Pipeline, LP falsely claimed to have a comprehensive, effective environmental and regulatory compliance program to prevent oil spills and, if they occurred, quickly remediate the effects. Instead, the plaintiffs allege, the touted compliance program was close to nonexistent, and Plains repeatedly violated regulatory mandates. Plains allegedly deceived the public about its compliance program with falsehoods that inflated the price of the company's securities. The lack of an effective compliance program was dramatically exposed when a Plains pipeline in Santa Barbara County, California, burst and thousands of barrels of oil spilled. Plains securities lost significant value in the aftermath. Lead plaintiff IAM National Pension Fund is a defined benefit pension plan for members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. IAM bought Plains and Plains Holdings securities on the open market during the relevant class periods. Plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System is a defined benefit governmental retirement system for police and firefighters in Warren, Michigan. It purchased 4.7% Plains notes in the April 2014 offering. Plaintiff Ming Liu is an individual who purchased Plains Holdings Class A shares in the IPO. Plaintiff Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund is a defined benefit government retirement system for police and firefighters in Jacksonville, Florida. It purchased Plains Holdings Class A shares in the IPO and the Secondary Offering. Plaintiff Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System is a defined benefit governmental retirement system for police and firefighters in Detroit, Michigan. It purchased Plains Holdings Class A shares in the Secondary Offering and Plains common units in the Plains Offering. The plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against Plains, Plains Holdings, and the Officer Defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Holdings LLC, Plains Holdings, and the officer defendants, Section 11 of the Securities Act against all defendants, Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Underwriter Defendants and Section 15 of the Securities Act against Holdings LLC, Plains Holdings, the officer defendants, and the director defendants. For the Exchange Act claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a), the plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of those purchasing Plains common units between February 27, 2013 and August 5, 2015, and those purchasing Plains Holding Class A shares between October 16, 2013 and August 5, 2015. For the Securities Act claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of those purchasing securities pursuant and traceable to these offerings. Plains All American Pipeline, LP (Plains), is a publicly traded Delaware master limited partnership that owns and operates oil and gas pipelines throughout the United States. A general partner, Plains All American GP LLC (GP LLC), manages Plains and employs Plains's officers, directors, managers, and US-based employees. GP LLC, in turn, is wholly controlled by Plains GP Holdings, LP (Plains Holdings), a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership. Plains Holdings is, in turn, managed by PAA GP Holdings LLC (Holdings LLC), which owns the general partner interest in Plains Holdings and directs that entity's activities. Plains itself wholly owns PAA Finance Corp., a Delaware corporation formed in 2001 to co-issue Plains's debt securities. Greg L. Armstrong is the CEO and Chairman of the Board of GP LLC, Plains's general partner, Holdings LLC, and PAA Finance. Armstrong signed all of the securities offering and many of the SEC filings alleged to contain false and misleading statements and allegedly made false or misleading statements at investor meetings. Chris Herbold is the Vice President -- Accounting and Chief Accounting Officer of GP LLC, PAA Finance, and Holdings LLC. He signed the registration statements for some of the securities offerings, as well as the SEC filings that contained allegedly misleading statements. Richard McGee is the Executive Vice- President, General Counsel, and Secretary of GP LLC and Holdings LLC. He signed the SEC filings that allegedly contained false and misleading statements. Harry Pefanis is President and Chief Operating Officer of GP LLC and Holdings LLC, and President of PAA finance. Pefanis signed the registration statement for some of the securities offerings and other SEC filings that contained allegedly false or misleading statements. Al Swanson is the Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of GP LLC, PAA Finance, and Holdings LLC. Swanson signed the allegedly misleading registration statements and SEC filings. In addition to these Officer defendants, the plaintiffs sued various director defendants. Victor Burk, Everardo Goyanes, Gary Petersen, John Raymond, Bobby Shackouls, Robert Sinnott, Vicky Sutil, Taft Symonds, and Christopher Temple were all allegedly directors of various Plains entities for at least some of the relevant period. All allegedly signed securities-offering materials containing untrue or misleading statements. In addition to the Plains defendants, the plaintiffs sued various underwriter defendants. They are all financial institutions alleged to have participated in at least one Plains securities offering in which the relevant registration statement or other offering materials contained false or misleading statements. Different underwriter defendants allegedly participated in each of the securities offerings at issue. Chief District Judge Rosenthal held that none of the statements in Plains's SEC filings are actionably misleading. Because the plaintiffs' Securities Act allegations sound in fraud and are subject to the same particularized pleading requirement as the Exchange Act allegations, the analysis and result are the same. The court need not sift through the plaintiffs' allegations to try to find actionable lesser included strict liability and negligence allegations. Because none of the statements on which the plaintiffs base their Securities Act claims are actionably false or misleading, the claims are dismissed, without prejudice and with leave to amend. The plaintiffs must file their amended complaint by May 15, 2017. A full-text copy of Judge Rosenthal's memorandum and opinion dated March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/v0uJyk from Leagle.com. City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System, Plaintiff, represented by Roger Farrell Claxton -- roger@claxtonlaw.com -- at Law Firm of Roger F. Claxton Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Plaintiff, represented by Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Jake Nachmani -- jake.nachmani@blbglaw.com -- Jeremy P. Robinson - - jeremy@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP; Thomas Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP; Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP IAM National Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Edison -- andrew.edison@emhllp.com -- at Edison, McDowell & Hetherington, LLP; Angel P. Lau -- alau@rgrdlaw.com -- Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Ashley M. Price -- aprice@rgrdlaw.com -- Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Darryl J. Alvarado -- dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Ming Liu and City of Warren Police & Fire Retirement System, Plaintiffs, represented by Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., USCA Securities LLC, Stifel Nicolaus & Company Inc, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Simmons & Company International, SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Stephens Inc., SG Americas Securities LLC, Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., Regions Securities LLC, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., PNC Capital Markets LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Mizuho Securities USA Inc., BB&T Securities, LLC, Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA), Inc., Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., ING Financial Markets LLC, Fifth Third Securities, Inc., DNB Markets, Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., CIBC World Markets Corp., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., BMO Capital Markets Corp., and BBVA Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy N. LeRoy -- tleroy@sidley.com -- Robin Wechkin -- rwechkin@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Gregory L. Armstrong, Al Swanson, and Chris Herbold, Defendants, represented by Craig Eric Zieminski -- czieminski@velaw.com -- Jeffrey S. Johnston -- jjohnston@velaw.com -- Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com -- at Vinson Elkins LLP John T. Raymond, Bobby S. Shackouls, Robert V. Sinnott, Vicky Sutil, Taft Symonds, Christopher M. Temple, Victor Burk, Everardo Goyanes, Gary L. Petersen, Harry N. Pefanis, and Plains GP Holdings L.P., Consol Defendants, represented by Craig Eric Zieminski -- czieminski@velaw.com -- Jeffrey S. Johnston -- jjohnston@velaw.com -- Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com -- at Vinson Elkins LLP UBS Securities LLC, Wells Fargo Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., and Barclays Capital Inc., Consol Defendants, represented by Tracy N. LeRoy -- tleroy@sidley.com -- Robin Wechkin -- rwechkin@sidley.com -- Mark K. Glasser -- Matthew J. Dolan -- mdolan@sidley.com -- Norman J. Blears -- nblears@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc., Movant, represented by William B. Federman -- wbf@fedemanlaw.com -- at Federman Sherwood The Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, Movant, represented by Carl E. Singley -- csingley@tlgattorneys.com -- Joe H. Tucker -- jtucker@tlgattorneys.com -- at Tucker Law Group; Christine Donato Saler -- CDS@chimicles.com -- Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith -- KimDonaldsonSmith@chimicles.com -- Nicholas E. Chimicles -- Nick@chimicles.com -- at Chimicles & Tikellis LLP; Roger B. Greenberg -- roger@smglawgroup.com -- Thane Tyler Sponsel, III -- sponsel@smglawgroup.com -- at Sponsel Miller Greenberg PLLC Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Movant, represented by Thomas E. Bilek -- at The Bilek Law Firm LLP; Jeffrey Haber -- Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. -- Seidman@bernlieb.com -- Stanley D. Bernstein -- Bernstein@bernlieb.com -- at Bernstein Liebhard LLP Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Jake Nachmani -- jake.nachmani@blbglaw.com -- Jeremy P. Robinson -- jeremy@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP; Thomas Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP; Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, and Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, Movant, represented by Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP; Thomas Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP Alfred H. Davis, Movant, represented by Thomas E. Bilek -- at The Bilek Law Firm LLP PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Inflated Vocations Revenue, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Edmund Tadros at Financial Review reports PricewaterhouseCoopers has been accused of helping to design an accounting policy that inflated the revenue figures of education provider Vocation and masked the loss of government funding in the lead-up to its collapse. The class action suit alleges PwC and partner Steven Bourke, and Vocation, developed a new accounting policy that allowed Vocation to increase its 2014 financial year revenue by nearly AUD15.9 million and its profit by AUD7.6 million. A statement of claim against PwC alleges prior to signing off on the annual report, PwC and Mr Bourke knew the Victorian government had suspended funding pending investigation into Vocation's teaching entities for potential breaches of funding agreements. It is also alleged PwC and Mr Bourke knew the government had withheld AUD14.4 million of funding from Vocation and Vocation had also agreed to repay the government AUD4 million, but did not disclose these facts when preparing Vocation's financial reports to the ASX. PwC said in a statement: "We will be vigorously defending the allegations. We are unable to comment further on this matter as it is before the court." According to statement of claim, Vocation and its auditor PwC developed a new revenue recognition policy in August 2014 where up to 75 per cent of course fees would be recognised as revenue even before students completed a unit of study. Under the old revenue recognition policy, students had to complete a unit and the company had to issue an invoice before the course fee could be recognised as revenue. It is also alleged under PwC's new policy, government funding would be accounted as revenue when Vocation estimated it was in a position to issue a claim for payment. Under the old policy, Vocation had to make sure five criteria have been met before it could recognise government funding as revenue, which included making sure the student participated in the course and getting notification by the educational authorities about the claims. The class action lawyers claim PwC failed to disclose the change in accounting policy even though there were material differences between the old and new policies. This meant PwC failed to present a "true and fair view" of Vocation's financial position in the 2014 financial year, it is alleged. 'Failed to use necessary skill' According to the court documents, a "reasonably competent auditor in PwC's position" would have had "material concerns" the AUD14.4 million from the government funding would not be forthcoming once it had agreed to repay the government AUD4 million. It also says PwC should have disclosed the suspension of the government funding in preparation of the financial result. The class action lawyers argue PwC "failed to use the necessary skill and expertise to an appropriate professional standard and/or exercised reasonable skill and care in undertaking the audit of the financial report ... and in giving its audit opinion as to that financial report." The big four accounting and advisory firm is the latest party to be dragged into a shareholder class action brought by Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon. In October 2014, Vocation shocked the market by announcing it lost almost AUD20 million in government funding, triggering a nearly 60 per cent share price drop and wiping out AUD350 million from its market cap. Vocation collapsed in November 2015, leaving more than 10,000 students in limbo. In 2012, PwC was a defendant in a class action by shareholders over the nearly failed property group Centro. The case was settled for AUD200 million, the largest settlement in Australia's history, with AUD133 million paid by Centro-related companies and AUD67 million paid by Centro's long-time auditor PwC. PwC auditor Stephen Cougle had to accept an ASIC suspension for nearly three years. [GN] PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: "Archavage" Remanded to Pa. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case STEVEN ARCHAVAGE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00319 (M.D. Pa.). Steven Archavage alleged that on various occasions in 2012, he received medical treatment at the Wilkes-Barre General Hospital for which the hospital sought payment. Most of the medical bills were processed and paid by applicable insurance and when some of the bills went unpaid, the hospital sent the unpaid bills to Professional Account Services, Inc. (PAS) for collection. Archavage alleges that PAS conducted its collection activity under the guise of being the original creditor, wrongfully cloaking itself with the identity of the creditor and referring to itself as the original creditor. PAS is a debt collector in the business of collecting debts. On January 25, 2016, Steven Archavage initiated a civil action on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. Archavage named PAS as the defendant. In his complaint, Archavage asserted several Pennsylvania claims for unfair and deceptive debt collection activities on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated under the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. Section 2270.1 et seq., common law fraud, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. Section 201-3, the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Section 5703 and for unjust enrichment. Archavage explicitly states that the total amount in controversy for Archavage and those similarly situated is $5,000,000 or less. Furthermore, Archavage asserts that the members of the class in Pennsylvania and as described in paragraph 8 of the complaint are less than or equal to 100 in number. On February 22, 2016, PAS filed a notice of removal to the present court alleging subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy greater than $5,000,000 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 federal question. Archavage filed a motion to remand the case to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. Judge Saporito held that the complaint does not make any claims under federal law. The complaint does not request that the state court rule upon the FDCPA or any other federal law. The case does not present a situation where a substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of the plaintiff's well-pleaded state claims. Judge Saporito finds that PAS has not demonstrated that the court would have had original jurisdiction on the basis of federal question under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The case is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. A full-text copy of Judge Saporito's memorandum dated March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/jGFYIZ from Leagle.com. Steven Archavage, Plaintiff, represented by: Joseph P. Comerota, Esq. COMEROTA LAW, P.C. 7 S Main St #221 Wikes-Barre, PA 18701 Tel: 570-408-9880 Professional Account Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christian W. Francis -- cwfrancis@burnswhite.com -- Stuart T. O'Neal, III -- soneal@burnswhite.com -- at Burns White, LLC PROGRESSIVE CORP: MSP Recovery Sues over Medicare Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, the Plaintiffs, v. THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION d/b/a PROGRESSIVE GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES AND PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00686-JG (N.D. Ohio., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks reimbursement for medical expenses paid for by the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members that should have been paid, in the first instance, by Defendant under the Medicare Act. The Defendant allegedly failed to fulfill its statutorily-mandated duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs") for medical treatments or expenses paid by Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members ("Class Members") on behalf of Defendant's insureds. The Plaintiffs assert the rights of MAOs via assignment of all rights, title, and interest allowing them to bring these claims. Progressive Corporation provides car insurance in the United States. The company also insures motorcycles, boats, RVs and commercial vehicles, and provides home insurance through select companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tracy L. Turner, Esq. Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. Courtney L. Stidham, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 5093 Heath Gate Drive New Albany, OH 43054 Telephone: (614) 657 3454 E-mail: tturner@pbclawfirm.com ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com cstidham@pbclawfirm.com - and - Michael L. Baum, Esq. R. Brent Wisner, Esq. Pedram Esfandiary, Esq. BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207 3233 Facsimile: (310) 820 7444 E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Faces "Huntley" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Financial Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Gary G. Huntley and Nicole Charleston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Progressive Financial Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01887 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 3, 2017). Progressive Financial is a national collection agency with offices in Arizona and Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com PROPULSION CONTROLS: "Ramirez" Suit Moved to San Diego Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Israel Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiff, v. Propulsion Controls Engineerings, a California corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02017- 00001738-CU-OE-CTL, was removed on March 29, 2017 from Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00634-CAB-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Propulsion Controls is a full service electro-mechanical repair and diesel repair contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 Facsimile: (818) 265 1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com The Defendant is represented by: James Mink, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP 333 Bush Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 627 1453 E-mail: james.mink@sedgwicklaw.com RADIO RENTALS: Thorn Group Confirms Suit Over Lending Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- News.com.au reports that Thorn Group says a AUD50 million class action involving past lending practices of its subsidiary Radio Rentals could drag on for years. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers announced the action against Radio Rentals on March 29 on behalf of customer and lead plaintiff Casey Simpson. The legal firm alleges that the home appliance rental company's "Rent, Try, AUD1 Buy" contracts are misleading and deceptive as customers do not get to buy rented goods for AUD1 at the end of their contract periods. Thorn Group confirmed it had been served with a statement of claim but warned the case could drag on. "Thorn Australia Pty Limited will defend the claim in the ordinary course of the class action process," the company said in a statement to the ASX. "It is anticipated that the process could take a significant length of time (perhaps years) to run its course." The Radio Rentals website tells potential customers that at the end of a 24, 36 or 48 month rental plan for an appliance or piece of furniture: "you can make it yours for just AUD1". However, Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said the contract fine print states that the impetus is on customers to negotiate to buy rented appliances or furniture for a price agreed by Radio Rentals. If customers fail to secure a purchase, their contracts automatically roll over into another 24, 36 or 48 month term. Additionally, Radio Rentals' website states that goods available to buy under those contracts "are similar to (the) rented good in age, dimension and features". At 1214 AEDT on March 30, Thorn shares were down 3 cents, or 2.27 per cent, at AUD1.29. [GN] READY PAC PRODUCE: "Torres" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Torres and Joel Rodriquez, behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ready Pac Produce, Inc., Ready Pac Foods, Inc., Defendants, Case BC656221 (Cal. Super., April 3, 2017) seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code and applicable Wage Orders issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The complaint says Defendants failed to provide adequate rest periods, unpaid vested vacation wages, failed to properly calculate overtime wages vis-a-vis accurate and complete wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages, applicable civil penalties, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. [BN] Ready Pac Foods, Inc. employed Plaintiffs in their Los Angeles County and Irwindale locations. Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq., Esq. Joshua M. Webster, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Faces "Menza" Suit in D.N.J. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC. The case is styled as MICHELE MENZA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC, doing business as BERKS CREDIT PARTNERS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02235-ES-JAD (D.N.J., Apr. 3, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Esther Salas. Receivables Management provides financial and accounts receivables management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com RED PARROT: Senior Care Sues Over Unsolicited Advertisements ------------------------------------------------------------ SENIOR CARE GROUP, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. RED PARROT DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Florida corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00760-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, their employees, agents, representatives, contractors, affiliates, and all persons and entities acting in concert with them, from sending unsolicited advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (JFPA). The Defendants have sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff and the Class in violation of the JFPA, including, but not limited to, the facsimile transmission of an unsolicited advertisement on or about February 23, 2017 ("the Fax"). The Fax describes the commercial availability or quality of Defendants' products, goods and services. Red Parrot is a privately owned Pharmaceutical and Medical supply wholesaler located in Florida and serving Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Jairam" Lawsuit Over Convenience Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- ANITA JAIRAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., d/b/a AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60634-BB (S.D. Fla., April 2, 2017), alleges that Defendant unlawfully charged Floridians a Convenience Fee for credit card payments made using the Online Payment Portal in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Founded in 1977, RMCB is a recovery agency for Consumer collections. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-907-1136 Fax: 855-529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and - Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THOMAS-JOHN LAW, P.A. 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-543-1325 Fax: 954-507-9975 E-mail: tpatti@thomasjohnlaw.com REVLON CONSUMER: NY Court Grants Prelim OK of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, adopts Judge Tomlinson's amended report and recommendation in its entirety in the case styled ANNE ELKIND and SHARON ROSEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant, No. 14-CV-2484 (JS) (AKT) (E.D.N.Y.). On April 17, 2014, plaintiffs Anne Elkind and Sharon Rosen commenced a putative class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against defendant Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, asserting claims with respect to defendant's sale of cosmetics under the brand name Revlon Age Defying with DNA Advantage. On May 14, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended Complaint. On June 30, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion seeking preliminary approval of their class action settlement. The parties request that the court certify the proposed class for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3), grant preliminary approval of their proposed settlement, and direct notice to be sent to the class. On July 6, 2016, the court referred the parties' motion to Judge Tomlinson for a report and recommendation and on February 17, 2017, Judge Tomlinson issued her R&R. On March 2, 2017, the parties requested clarification as to the class definition set forth in the R&R and, alternatively, objected to the R&R. The parties noted that the class definition set forth in the R&R did not include purchasers of the Revlon Age Defying with DNA Powder and requested that Judge Tomlinson amend the class definition to include purchasers of the powder. Judge Tomlinson issued an order addressing the parties' letter indicating that purchasers of the powder were excluded from the class definition based on the District Court's prior dismissal of plaintiffs' claims relating to the labeling and marketing of the powder. However, Judge Tomlinson stated that the court was inclined to amend the R&R with respect to the issue to the extent the parties submitted a communication signed by counsel indicating that defendant intended to include purchasers of the powder in the settlement. On March 7, 2017, the parties submitted a joint letter signed by counsel confirming that they intended to include the purchasers of the Powder in their settlement. On March 9, 2017, Judge Tomlinson issued her Amended R&R recommending that the parties' motion for preliminary approval of their settlement be granted. Judge Tomlinson recommended that the following class be certified pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3): "Elkind, Rosen and all other Persons in the United States who, during the Class Period (the time period beginning on April 25, 2011 and ending on the date a motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement is filed in the Action) purchased one or more of Revlon's Age Defying with DNA Advantage Cream Makeup, Concealer, and Powder, in any package, size, or iteration, for personal, family or household use, and not for resale. Specifically excluded from the class, however, are any Person(s) who timely opts-out of the class." Judge Tomlinson determined that the parties must establish the reasonableness of the settlement agreement's enhancement award for class representatives at the fairness hearing. Judge Tomlinson also recommended that the issue of attorneys' fees be addressed in a separate motion. Finally, Judge Tomlinson recommended that the court appoint the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron and the Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald as class counsel, and determined that the parties' proposed notice plan satisfied Rule 23(c)(2)(A) and (B). Upon careful review and consideration, Judge Seybert finds Judge Tomlinson's amended report and recommendation to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free of clear error, and the same is adopted in its entirety and granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of their class action settlement agreement to the extent that the certified class encompasses the class definition set forth in the Amended R&R. A full-text copy of Judge Seybert's memorandum and order dated March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/xOw29v from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- tom@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- Trevor Flynn -- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- at The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC; Ronald A. Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Alexis M. Wood -- Kas L. Gallucci -- kas@consumersadvocates.com -- William Richards -- bill@consumersadvocates.com -- at Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patricia Glaser -- pglaser@glaserweil.com -- Sean Riley -- sriley@glaserweil.com -- Rory S. Miller -- rmiller@glaserweil.com -- at Glasesr Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP; Jill Caroline Barnhart -- Nelson A. Boxer -- nboxer@pkbllp.com -- at Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP RUBY TUESDAY: Settles Sharholders' Suit for $5-Mil. --------------------------------------------------- Joyce Hanson at Law360 reports that restaurant chain Ruby Tuesday Inc. agreed on March 29 in Tennessee federal court to pay USD5 million to settle a securities class action accusing the company and some of its executives of making false and misleading statements about its financial performance and new brand concept. The restaurant company, along with former Ruby Tuesday CEO James J. Buettgen, Chief Financial Officer Michael O. Moore and Chief Operations Officer Kimberly S. Grant, signed off on the settlement with no admission of wrongdoing, violation of law or liability, according to the settlement agreement filed in court. "Defendants vigorously deny any wrongdoing and liability and maintain that their conduct at all times was legal and proper," the stipulation of settlement said. The settlement principal amount of USD5 million is paid as consideration for full and complete settlement of all claims, the stipulation said. Ruby Tuesday was hit with the proposed shareholder class action in May 2014 by investor Dennis Krystek. The shareholders alleged that the company and the officers misled the investing public about the restaurant chain's financial performance, including the purported success of its new Lime Fresh Mexican Grill brand concept. The suit said materially misleading statements artificially inflated Ruby Tuesday's stock price before it plummeted in the second half of 2013. The complaint alleged two counts of violations of the Exchange Act under a "fraud on the market" theory, in which the defendants allegedly engaged in a scheme to deceive the market as well as a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of Ruby Tuesday common stock. The defendants committed fraud and deceit on investors during the class period, the complaint said. Under a prior CEO, Ruby Tuesday underwent changes to its brand, menu and pricing to appeal to higher-end customers and also began investing in new concepts such as the Lime Fresh brand, which Ruby Tuesday acquired in April 2012 for USD24 million in cash, according to the suit. But after Buettgen took over, he began reversing course by offering more affordable menu options and closing most of the new concept restaurants, including some of the Lime Fresh restaurants, according to the suit. Buettgen resigned from his post in September. The company under Buettgen's leadership made several positive statements about the performance of its new menu options and the remaining Lime Fresh brand restaurants, leading the company's stock price to reach a high of USD9.88 per share in July 2013, the suit alleged. However, Krystek said the positive statements were false and misleading because the officers ignored facts available to them and that the changes to the menu were actually hurting sales as "check price was declining without contemporaneous increases in traffic," the suit said. Krystek also said the officers knew the company had seen a "dramatic decline in sales" at its Lime Fresh restaurants and that the carrying value of Lime Fresh assets "were materially impaired and should have been written down." The company contended in a motion to dismiss that it made no effort to conceal its poor performance, including the performance of its Lime Fresh Mexican Grill restaurants. Not only did it avoid making optimistic statements about the brand, according to the motion, but it also warned investors of risks associated with the brand and said it had "much work ahead" in bringing it up to expectations. Under the terms of the stipulation of settlement, lead counsel for the investors may now submit an application for an award of attorneys' fees, payment of expenses in connection with prosecuting the litigation and any interest on attorneys' fees and expenses, the Tennessee federal court said. In addition, lead plaintiff Krystek may seek payment from the settlement fund. A representative of Ruby Tuesday did not immediately respond to a request for comment on March 30. Legal counsel for the company, Buettgen and the investors did not respond to requests for comment. The company and Buettgen are represented by Stuart J. Baskin, Daniel H.R. Laguardia and Brian Polovoy of Shearman & Sterling and Britt K. Latham and Joseph B. Crace Jr. of Bass Berry & Sims PLC. Krystek is represented by Mary K. Blasy, Laurie L. Largent, Danielle S. Myers, Ivy T. Ngo, Samuel H. Rudman, Ashley M. Price, Christopher M. Wood and Darren J. Robbins of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jerry E. Martin, George E. Barrett, Timothy L. Miles and Scott P. Tift of Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison LLC and Michael I. Fistel Jr. and Frank J. Johnson of Johnson & Weaver LLP The case is Dennis Krystek v. Ruby Tuesday Inc. et al, case number 3:14-cv-01119, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division.[GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Allegedly Spies on Consumer, Class Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Wadi Reformado at Legal Newsline reports that a consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against Samsung Electronics America Inc. and other parties, alleging that Samsung's high-tech televisions contain hidden devices that record consumers' private communications. Joshua Siegel filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on March 10, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the defendants, including Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., alleging that they routinely record private conversation of consumers through devices inside their smart TVs. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered damages from having his privacy invaded due to the hidden recording devices. The plaintiff holds Samsung responsible because the defendants allegedly transmit the private conversations of their consumers to third parties. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks permanent injunction and to enjoin the defendant. He also wants disgorgement of profits, restitution, actual damages, punitive damages, all legal fees, interest and any other relief the court deems just. He is represented by Michael Berman of Berman Class Law in Long Beach, N.Y. [GN] SHIPLEY DO-NUT FLOUR: "Sanchez" Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- Esmeralda Sanchez, Juan Sanchez, Martha Garcia and Elizabeth Peralta, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Shipley Do-Nut Flour & Supply Co., Inc., Shipley Holding Company and Lawrence W. Shipley, III, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01048 (S.D. Tex., April 5, 2017), seeks damages in the amount of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and all other relief as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Shipley's business involves mixing and preparing products such as yeast mix, fillings and other food goods to be delivered to retail stores and franchises across Texas and other states within the United States. Juan Sanchez was a warehouse employee assigned to Shipley's 5200 North Main Street warehouse in Houston. Esmeralda Sanchez was employed in a secretarial/clerical capacity. Garcia and Peralta were cleaning/housekeeping employees, cleaning the office including the personal residences of family members, company-owned houses located adjacent to the warehouse and the corporate office. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matias J. Adrogue, Esq. Leila M. El-Hakam, Esq. MATIAS J. ADROGUE - PROFESSIONAL LLC 1629 West Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 425-7270 Fax: (713) 425-7271 Email: service@mjalawyer.com SHO-ME POWER: 8th Cir. Partly Affirms Ruling Landowners' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the appealed case titled Chase Barfield, Plaintiff, Michael D. Biffle; Gina Biffle; Dwight K. Robertson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, J. Carol Hutchens; Rowena Hutchens, Plaintiffs, v. Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative; Sho-Me Technologies, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc.; K-PowerNet, LLC, Defendants. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Associated Electric Cooperative; Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives Amici on Behalf of Appellants, No. 15-2964 (8th Cir.). Sho-Me Power Cooperative is a rural electric cooperative (REC) governed by Missouri's Rural Electric Cooperative Law, Chapter 394 RSMo. Before 1992, Sho-Me got easements across thousands of parcels in southern Missouri. The easements' language varies, but they all grant Sho-Me the right to construct and operate an electric transmission line. Some grant the right to construct appurtenances or do things necessary and useful to the enjoyment of the easement. In 1997, it decided to install fiber-optic cables alongside its electrical lines. Sho-Me used the cables for internal communications. Sho-Me assigned the cables' excess capacity to a separate company, Sho-Me Technologies, LLC (Tech), to operate a public-serving commercial telecommunications business. Tech currently provides broadband services to individuals and businesses across southern Missouri. In 2010 and then in 2011, Michael and Gina Biffle, Dwight Robertson, and Chase Barfield -- owners of land subject to Sho-Me easements filed putative class actions against Sho-Me and Tech. They alleged Tech's use of the fiber-optic cable for public- serving telecommunications purposes was not authorized by the easements, making Sho-Me and Tech liable for trespass and unjust enrichment. The district court certified a class of landowners, granted the landowners summary judgment on liability, and held a jury trial on damages. The district court instructed the jury to award the landowners the fair market rental value of Sho-Me and Tech's use of the fiber-optic cable on the landowner's land "for commercial- telecommunications purposes. The jury awarded the landowners over $79 million. Sho-Me and Tech appeal the liability determinations, damages instructions, evidentiary rulings, and class certification. The court affirms the summary judgment on trespass liability and the class certification, reverses the summary judgment on unjust- enrichment liability, vacates the damages award, and remanded the case for further proceedings. In reversing the summary judgment on unjust-enrichment liability, the Eighth Circuit used the case of Sterbenz v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 333 S.W.3d 1, 7-10 (Mo. App. 2010). The case summarizes the limited remedies available against entities such as Sho-me and Tech. It says when an entity otherwise entitled to exercise the power of eminent domain ignores that power and trespasses upon private land, the landowner has an election of remedies. The landowner may proceed by way of injunction to restrain the installation; or he may sue in ejectment; or he may avail himself of section 523.090; or he may maintain a common law action for damages. The landowners say that Sterbenz's silence on unjust enrichment is not a rejection. But Sterbenz is not just silent, the Eighth Circuit held. It says landowners have an election of remedies and lists four remedies. It makes little sense to say a plaintiff has an election of four remedies if the plaintiff can elect a fifth. The landowners do not identify any Missouri cases recognizing unjust enrichment as a remedy for unauthorized land use. A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's opinion dated March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/AByidY from Leagle.com. W. Stanley Walch -- swalch@thompsoncoburn.com -- David Lynn Coffman -- dcoffman@thompsoncoburn.com -- Robert J. Wagner -- rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com -- Christopher Martin Hohn -- chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Mark A. Mattingly -- mmattingly@thompsoncoburn.com -- at Thompson Coburn LLP; Dana Lynette Kollar -- dkollar@LawOfficeMo.com -- Terry M. Evans -- tevans@LawOfficeMo.com -- at Andereck Evans Widger Lewis & Figg LLC, for Defendant-Appellant John Edmund Price -- jprice@fulcherlaw.com -- at Fulcher Hagler LLP; Jessica Healy; Tyrus H. Thompson; Richard Theodore Ashe -- rashe@cecb.com -- Christiaan D. Horton -- chorton@cecb.com -- at Carnahan Evans Cantwell & Brown, P.C., for Amicus on Behalf of Appellant(s) Ronald J. Waicukauski -- rwaicukauski@price-law.com -- Brad A. Catlin -- bcatlin@price-law.com -- at Price Waicukauski Joven & Catlin, LLC; Fred O'Neill; Heidi Doerhoff Vollet -- hvollet@cvdl.net -- at Cook Vetter Deorhoff & Landwehr, P.C.; Cecilia Fex -- Kathleen Clubb Kauffman -- at Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC, for Plaintiff-Appellee The United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Duane Benton, James B. Loken and Raymond W. Gruender. SILVER BAY: Merger Deal Inadequate, "Scarantino" Says ----------------------------------------------------- Louis Scarantino, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp., Irvin R. Kessler, Thomas W. Brock, Tanuja M. Dehne, Stephen G. Kasnet, Thomas E. Siering, Daryl J. Carter, W. Reid Sanders, Mark Weld, Silver Bay Management LLC, Silver Bay Operating Partnership L.P., Tricon Capital Group Inc., TAH Acquisition Holdings LLC, and TAH Acquisition LP, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-01066 (D. Minn., April 5, 2017) seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger of Silver Bay with Tricon Capital Group. The suit further seeks rescissory damages in case the merger pushes through, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. Silver Bay focuses on the acquisition, renovation, leasing, and management of single-family properties for rental income and long- term capital appreciation. It generates virtually all of its revenue by leasing its portfolio of single-family properties. On February 27, 2017, it was announced that Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. will be acquired by Tricon Capital Group Inc. and its affiliates for $21.50 per share in cash. Plaintiff, a Silver Bay shareholder, claims that said amount is inadequate considering Silver Bay's undisclosed financial projections for fiscal years 2017 through 2019. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 - and - Adam Altman, Esq. Douglas B. Altman, Esq. ALTMAN & IZEK 901 North Third Street, Suite 140 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 335-3700 E-mail: adam@altmanizek.com SMITH FOOD: Faces "Doak" Suit in Northern District of Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Food Group. The case is entitled as Kimberly Doak, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Smith Food Group, Inc., doing business as Buffalo's Cafe, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00043-TCB (N.D. Ga., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. The Company offers frozen meat, poultry, seafood and further processed products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC - ATL 191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (407) 420 1414 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com STARBOARD GROUP: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against STARBOARD GROUP OF BUCKS COUNTY, INC. The case is styled as JESSICA SLIVAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. STARBOARD GROUP OF BUCKS COUNTY, INC., doing business as WENDY'S OLD FASHIONED HAMBURGERS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01399-RK (E.D. Pa., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Robert F. Kelly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364 5030 Facsimile: (215) 364 5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com SUNIVA INC: Faces "Lam" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------- BILL LAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SUNIVA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01168-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 31, 2017), is a civil action for collection of alleged unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Suniva Inc. designs and manufactures monocrystalline photovoltaic solar cells and modules for residential, commercial, government, and micro-utility applications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Lampros, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 950 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 876-8100 Fax: (404) 876-3477 Email: alampros@hallandlampros.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite1100 New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 581-5005 Fax: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 210 S. Washington Ave. Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 433-8100 TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces "Poudy" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Ganel Poudy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Texas Roadhouse of Fort Myers, FL, LLC, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00148-UA- CM (M.D. Fla., March 14, 2017), was brought on behalf of "server" employees who did not earn minimum wages for each hour worked and/or performed work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Texas Roadhouse of Fort Myers, FL, LLC serves hand-cut steaks, fall off the bone ribs, fresh baked rolls and ice cold beer. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt "prep cook." The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A. 4423 Del Prado Boulevard S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Phone: 239 549 6689 TOWER PALLET: "Jones" Suit Alleges FLSA, Wisc. Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOWER PALLET COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-468 (E.D. Wis., March 31, 2017), alleges that Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived current and former non-exempt Manufacturing employees, including Plaintiff, of wages earned for all compensable work time, including overtime pay for each hour worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. Defendant, Tower Pallet Company, Inc. is a De Pere, Wisconsin corporation that manufactures, delivers, and repairs pallets through the Midwest region of the United States. Plaintiff worked as a manufacturing employee at Defendant. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. Jesse R. Dill, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com jdill@walcheskeluzi.com VALEANT PHARMA: Ackman's Suit May Cost Pershing Investors $75MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Antoine Gara at Forbes reports that, "I win, tails you lose... and then you lose some more." That seems to be the story surrounding Bill Ackman's disastrous near USD4 billion loss in Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Ackman's pharmaceutical foray is mostly over after his hedge fund Pershing Square dumped all of its Valeant shares in mid-March at USD11 apiece, or an over 90% loss, cementing one of Wall Street's biggest-ever investment debacles. But a document released evening indicates investors in Ackman's funds stand to lose even more. Valeant may cost Pershing Square investors at least another USD75 million, the hedge fund has estimated, due to an ongoing class action lawsuit in a California court accusing Ackman of insider trading when making a USD3 billion investment in botox-maker Allergan in 2014. In that investment, Ackman bought Allergan shares in concert with a plan with Valeant CEO Michael Pearson to press a merger of the two companies. Although Allergan was sold to a 'white knight' drugmaker called Actavis in the fall of 2014 for USD66 billion in cash and stock, it netted Pershing Square a USD2.6 billion profit and propelled the fund to a 37% net gain. Ackman personally made USD1.1 billion, Forbes calculated at the time, mostly from Allergan-fueled performance fees. As this windfall was being booked, Allergan investors led by the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio and the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System sued Ackman, accusing the hedge fund billionaire of insider trading. Those investors, who sold their Allergan shares in the months leading up to the unsolicited Ackman/Valeant takeover offer in April 2014, said they'd been harmed because Ackman was in possession of material nonpublic information surrounding the bid when building his position. Pershing Square contests these allegations. In early 2015, after the Actavis/Allergan merger closed, Ackman bet the house on Valeant Pharmaceuticals and his M&A buddy Pearson, who'd just joined the three comma club himself. Ultimately, Valeant proved to be a house of cards, fueled by obscene drug price increases, highly leveraged acquisitions, and shoddy accounting. The company's collapse has led to accusations of fraud and criminal investigations surrounding a specialty pharmacy channel. A year ago, Forbes Magazine published an investigation into Valeant, attributing the company's heady rise and dramatic fall to its ultra-aggressive compensation plan. Though the ugly history of Valeant is mostly written for Ackman, the class action insider trading case rages on in California courts. In February, Ackman struck a deal with Valeant where the drugmaker would cover 60% of any costs from the class action suit, with Pershing Square covering the rest. Efforts to dismiss the case have so far failed. If a settlement or judicial claim emerges, Ackman's loss-share with Valeant stipulates that he will forfeit his right to sue Valeant for Pershing Square's staggering loss. As of now, Pershing Square believes it may be on the hook for USD75 million, split between USD29 million at it publicly traded investment vehicle Pershing Square Holdings, and the remainder from its private funds. Ackman, though he booked immense performance fees from Allergan's takeover, will not pay the prospective liability on his own. Instead, fund investors will share the potential liability on a pro rata basis. Of course, Ackman and his partners are the biggest investors in Pershing Square's various funds, so they stand to be hit alongside LPs. Nevertheless, even after billions of dollars in Valeant losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in Allergan-fueled performance fees paid to Ackman & Co., Pershing Square LPs and shareholders may still be reaching into their pockets. Pershing Square declined to comment. Valeant warns investors of its various prospective legal costs but has yet to set aside a reserve, filings show. About Valeant, Ackman said on March 28: "My approach to mistakes is that I personally assume 100% of the responsibility on behalf of the firm while sharing the credit for our successes. While I and the rest of the Pershing Square team have suffered significant losses from this failed investment as we are collectively the largest investors in the funds, it is much more painful to lose our shareholders' money, and for this I deeply and profoundly apologize." The Pershing Square document -- its annual report -- also reveals other nuggets from the inner workings of one of the biggest hedge funds in the world. Despite a 13.5% net loss in 2016, which followed a 20.5% net loss a year prior, Pershing Square and Ackman are finding life in hedge fund land to be quite lucrative. Pershing Square's 18 partners and top investment staff, led by Ackman, received USD101 million in management-fee-related pay in 2016, despite losing billions. A year earlier, as bonus checks were cut for the fund's strong 2014, these partners made over USD500 million. Pershing Square's USD75 million insider trading liability and the fund's steady hum of management fees appear to be another prime example of how hedge funds accrue most of the benefits from their risky investments, not limited partners. The New York Times's James Stewart recently calculated Pershing Square Holdings insiders like Ackman have accrued 72% of the funds gains since it was created in 2012. Institutional investors are presently demanding cuts to hedge fund fees, and firms are shutting their doors at a record pace. Pershing Square recently changed its fee structure to lower fees for mediocre performance but take a greater cut of gains exceeding 16.5%. The hedge fund also has a high water mark, meaning Ackman & Co. won't receive performance fees until Pershing Square recovers its pre-Valeant collapse highs. The high watermark for Pershing Square Holdings is USD26.37, over 40% above its current net asset value. Bill Ackman was also among the biggest hedge fund losers on Forbes 2016 billionaires list, shedding USD600 million in his net worth in 2016 and falling off the Forbes 400 list of the richest people in the United States. In recent yeas, as the wealth of quantitative hedge fund managers has risen, stock pickers like Ackman and macro-oriented investors have seen their wealth drop alongside stagnating performance and dwindling assets. [GN] VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces "Gaston" Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley National Bancorp. The case is captioned as Maritza Gaston, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Valley National Bancorp and Valley National Bank, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01886 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 3, 2017). Valley National Bancorp is a regional bank holding company headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey with over $19 billion in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. VISA INT'L: Nuts for Candy Files Anti-trust Case ------------------------------------------------ Nuts for Candy, a Sole Proprietorship, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VISA International Service Association, VISA, Inc., VISA U.S.A., Inc., and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 17-CIV-01432, (Cal. Super., April 5, 2017), is a civil antitrust action challenging illegal, horizontal agreements entered into by Visa and its member banks restraining trade in the general-purpose credit card services market under California's Antitrust Law. The lawsuit seeks as an action for unfair and unlawful business practices under California's Unfair Competition Law. Visa, along with their issuing and acquiring banks have allegedly connived to fix, set and enforce interchange fees associated with general and premium credit cards paid by retail merchants such as Plaintiff to Defendants and to their member banks, to eliminate merchants' ability to negotiate lower interchange fees through a set of restraints incorporated in Visa association rules and to unlawfully tie together credit card products and separate network services. Nuts for Candy is a family-owned shop with collectible stuffed animals and over 400 different candies from all around the world, with its principal place of business at 1241 Broadway Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010. It accepts Visa payment cards as payment for goods, along with cards issued by MasterCard. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. Nancy L. Fineman, Esq. Camilo Artiga-Purcell, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com jcotchett@cpmlegal.com nfineman@cpmlegal.com cartigapurcell@cpmlegal.com WELLS FARGO: "Barbose" Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Drea Barbose and Joshua Moreno, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 170400287, (Pa. Comm. Pleas, April 3, 2017), seeks unpaid wages including overtime wages, prejudgment interest, litigation costs, expenses and attorney's fees and such other and further relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Defendant is in the business of providing retail and commercial banking and financial services to customers in the U.S. Plaintiffs were assigned as Payroll Sales Representatives at Wells Fargo Branches at Philadelphia County. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Tel: (215) 884-2491 - and - Peter Rukin, Esq. Rebecca Stephens, Esq. RUKIN HYLAND LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2150 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 421-1800 WELLS FARGO: Gadomski Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports --------------------------------------------------------- KELLIE GADOMSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00691-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently or intentionally systematically reporting negative and inaccurate information on consumers' credit reports, failing to properly investigate disputes concerning the inaccurate data WFBNA is reporting in consumers' credit files, and failing to correct such, which WFBNA knew or should have known was erroneous and which caused Plaintiff and the Class damages. Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit card, insurance, and consumer and commercial financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com - and - Clark Ovruchesky, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CLARK OVRUCHESKY 750 B. Street, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 356 8960 Facsimile: (619) 330 7610 E-mail: co@colawcalifornia.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233 7770 Facsimile: (619) 297 1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com WESTERN UNION: "Herman" Securities Suit Transferred to D. Col. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned MARTIN HERMAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY, HIKMET ERSEK, SCOTT T. SCHEIRMAN, and RAJESH K. AGRAWAL, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00650-CBM-AJW (originally C.D. Cal., January 26, 2017) has been removed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, according to a docket entry dated March 31, 2017. The clerk of court assigned Case No. 1:17-cv- 00809 to the proceeding under Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. The case alleges that Defendants issued misleading financial statements in violation of the U.S. Securities Act. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Western Union's fraud prevention efforts did not comply with applicable laws; (2) Western Union willfully failed to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program; (3) Western Union aided and abetted wire fraud; (4) for at least five years, Western Union knew of agents structuring transactions designed to avoid the reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act; (5) Western Union was not compliant with its regulatory responsibilities; (6) between 2004 and 2012, Western Union violated U.S. laws--the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-fraud statutes-- by processing hundreds of thousands of transactions for Western Union agents and others involved in an international consumer fraud scheme; (7) Western Union knew of but failed to take corrective action against Western Union agents involved in or facilitating fraud-related transactions; (8) between January 1, 2004 and August 29, 2015, Western Union received at least 550,928 complaints about fraud-induced money transfers, totaling at least $632,721,044; and (9) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Defendant Western Union provides money movement and payment services worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 785-2610 Fax: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Ahold Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, Corp. The case is titled as Ahold U.S.A. Inc., On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; Mark Adorney On behalf of himself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; Meijer, Inc. On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; Meijer Distribution, Inc., On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan, On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; Value Drug Co., On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated, the Movants, v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, Corp. f/k/a Roxane Laboratories, Inc., the Respondent, Case No. 1:17-mc-00099-P1 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 2017). West-Ward Pharmaceutical develops, manufactures, and distributes generic pharmaceuticals.[BN] Ahold et al. are represented by: Miles Greaves, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU 80 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 931 0704 Facsimile: (212) 931 0703 E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com WISE FOODS: Faces "Alce" Suit in Southern District of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wise Foods, Inc. The case is titled as SAMELINE ALCE and DESIRE NUGENT, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Wise Foods, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02402 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 3, 2017). Wise Foods is a company based in Berwick, Pennsylvania, that makes snacks and sells them through retail food outlets in 15 eastern seaboard states, as well as Vermont, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: "Parshall" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC., MARK J. FOLEY. D. KEITH GROSSMAN. DAVID J. ENDICOTT. MARY M. FISHER. KEVIN C. O'BOYLE. ANDREW N. SCHIFF, ALLERGAN PLC, ALLERGAN HOLDCO US, INC., and BLIZZARD MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00270- UNA (D. Del., March 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants issued a Proxy Statement regarding the acquisition of ZELTIQ by Allergan plc and its affiliates that omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Allegedly, says the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the Company's officers and directors; the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the Company's financial advisor, Guggenheim Securities, LLC; and the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections. ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC. is a medical technology company focused on developing and commercializing products utilizing its proprietary controlled-cooling technology platform. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Fax: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com E-mail: gms@rl-legal.com * Fairness in Suit Litigation Act of 2017 Faces Uncertain Future ---------------------------------------------------------------- John F. O'Brien III, Esq., at McGuireWoods LLP, at Lexology reports on March 9, 2017, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 passed the House, 220-201, split almost entirely along party lines. No Democrats voted for the bill and only 14 Republicans voted against it. The proposal faces a number of obstacles, but if it passes, it will be the most sweeping revision of federal class action law to date. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who introduced the bill, was a principal author of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. On March 13, 2017, the bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The legislation is intended to "assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members and multidistrict litigation plaintiffs with legitimate claims" and to "diminish abuses in class action and mass tort litigation that are undermining the integrity of the U.S. legal system." To accomplish these goals, the bill proposes several substantive changes to class action procedures in federal court: Class Injury -- Under this legislation, a court could not certify a class unless the party seeking class certification "affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class member suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named class representative." The bill also requires that any order certifying a class include a determination, based on a "rigorous analysis of the evidence." Conflicts -- The bill requires disclosure of any relationship between class counsel and class representatives. It also requires the proposed class complaint to describe "the circumstances under which each class representative or named plaintiff agreed to be included in the complaint." Federal courts would be prohibited from "granting certification of any class action in which any proposed class representative or named plaintiff is a relative or employee of class counsel." These provisions target the trend of "repeat offenders" filing multiple class action complaints against multiple defendants using the same counsel. Administrative Feasibility -- The bill requires the class to be defined with reference to objective criteria. The party seeking class status "must affirmatively demonstrate that there is a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism" for determining whether individuals are within the class definition. This is in direct response to recent circuit court decisions that rejected the "ascertainability" requirement recognized by the Third Circuit in Carrera v. Bayer, 727 F. 3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013). Funding Disclosures -- Class counsel would have to disclose any person or entity "who has a contingent right to receive compensation from any settlement, judgment, or other relief obtained in the action." Attorney's Fee Awards -- The bill delays payment of class counsel's fees until after the distribution of monetary recovery to the class. Second, instead of tying attorney's fee awards to the total amount of the class settlement fund, attorney's fee awards would be limited to "a reasonable percentage" of the payments actually distributed and received by class members. Third, the bill ties the calculation of fees in injunctive classes to the value of the injunctive relief. Finally, class counsel in any settlement providing monetary benefits would have to submit an accounting to the director of the Federal Judicial Center and the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts before recovering any fees. Ostensibly, this provision is designed to make it more difficult for class counsel to recover fee awards, which presumably would discourage them from filing class actions in the first place. Case Management -- The bill stays all discovery during the pendency of any motion to transfer, motion to dismiss, motion to strike class allegations, or other motion to dispose of the class allegations. Appeals -- The bill mandates that an appellate court must consider an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Currently, appellate review is discretionary. The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 faces a long road to becoming law, however. In 2015, Chairman Goodlatte proposed a much less cumbersome bill that failed to pass the Republican Senate after making it out of the House. What's more, the bill has been opposed by numerous civil rights organizations, nearly every major consumer advocate group, the Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, and numerous academics. Indeed, PredictGov currently gives the bill a 21 percent chance of enactment. President Trump, who has been the subject of several class actions, hasn't addressed the bill. But given his promise not to side with lobbyists, a veto from him could appeal to his base. Still, it's nearly impossible to predict how votes like this will go. And the climate seems ripe for legislative reform of class action litigation procedures, as the most recent round of reforms -- the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 -- became law the last time Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress with a sitting Republican president. [GN] * Retirement System Drops Law Firm After Tiny Payouts in Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Leighton at The Salem News reports that the Essex Regional Retirement System has ended its relationship with a law firm whose class-action lawsuits resulted in minuscule payouts for the local organization. The system's board of directors voted to terminate its agreement with Labaton Sucharow after receiving just USD624 in January as its share of a nearly USD2 billion class-action settlement. "It didn't seem like a worthwhile thing to pursue so we decided to call it quits with them," Essex Regional Board Chairman Joseph Maney said. Essex Regional, which manages USD370 million in pension money for 5,500 public employees and retirees on the North Shore, took part in three class-action suits at the urging of Labaton Sucharow, a New York-based law firm that specializes in securities fraud litigation. But the organization was awarded only USD255 in one lawsuit and USD624 in another, while a third suit was dismissed. In the meantime, the lawyers who brought the cases earned millions of dollars in fees. Essex Regional did not have to pay any of those fees, but it did end up spending about USD10,000 on staff time and documents in the latest case. The case involved alleged fraud by large banks that could have affected USD13.8 million that Essex Regional invested in complex financial instruments known as credit default swaps. Most of Essex Regional's assets are now invested in the state pension fund, so the organization no longer needs the services of a law firm that specializes in security fraud, Maney said. The board also voted to approve a new five-year contract for Executive Director Charles Kostro. Maney said Kostro was willing to accept an annual salary increase of 1.5 percent, which Maney said is on the "low side." Kostro will be paid USD145,725 starting in January 2018, rising to USD154,750 in the final year of the contract in 2022. The contract must be reviewed by lawyers and approved by the board again before it becomes official. Kostro was hired in 2011 after the former executive director was fired over lavish expense accounts and other financial problems. "We're very happy with him," Maney said. "We like the way he operates." [GN] ********* 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 * * *