/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170609.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 9, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 115 Headlines 618 MAIN CLOTHING: Proof of Service Requested in "Archer" Case ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over GMO in Similac ADRIEN SERVICE STATION: "Najarro" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ADVANCE STORES: Wins Final Nod of "Whitehead" Class Settlement ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Faces "Gallagher" Suit Over DVB Merger ALABAMA: Aug. 3 Fairness Hearing on "Hunter" Case Accord ALBA CARTING: "Deas" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law AMERICAN RECOVERY: "Shackowsky" Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages ANTELOPE VALLEY: Allegedly Paid "Hargrave" Sub-Minimum Wage Rates ASSET CAMPUS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jang" Class Suit ASSET RECOVERY: Trujillo's Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn ASSURANCE GROUP: "Yoak" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 150+ People Opt Out of Fire Class Action AZ COMPASSIONATE: Llewellyn Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to 9th Cir. BANK OF AMERICA: Charles Schwab Appeals Judgment in Libor MDL BLAZING NEEDLES: "Rojas" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages BLITCHTON MARATHON: "Swope-Kreiser" Lawsuit Alleges Wage Theft CANADA: Gov't to Formally Apologize Over LGBT Purge in Military CASCADE CAPITAL: McKenzie Moves for Certification of TCPA Class CHICAGO, IL: Asks Judge to Toss Class Action Over Parking Tickets CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD: "Rumreich" Suit Asserts FLSA Breach COTY INC: "Caddell" Suit Over Balsam Color Kit Sent to S.D. Ala. CRESTVIEW FINANCIAL: "Menichiello" Hits Telemarketing Calls CVS PHARMACY: Class Certification Sought in "Marcus" Suit DCH REGIONAL: Accused of Illegal Billing Practices by "McAteer" DEJA VU: Nude Dancers Push Back Against Class-Action Settlement DUKE ENERGY: Bowser Moves for Certification of Collective Action DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Mora Seeks Certification of Consumers Class DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Falbo" Suit E-Z TRANS CORP: "Urbina" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay ECO SCIENCE: "Stires" Sues Over Share Trading Suspension ECO SCIENCE: "Penhollow" Sues Over Devalued Securities EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Wins OK of "Dunn" Accord; Hearing on Sept. 12 EL PASO NATURAL: July 18 Hearing to Approve Royalty Case Accord ELOISE LANDA: June 23 Final Hearing on Tenant Deposits Suit ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Sasin Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gonzalez" Lawsuit Under Cal. Law FEIN SUCH: "Perez" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection FLUSHMATE: September 18 Settlement Approval Hearing Set FRUIT OF THE EARTH: "O'Shaughnessy" Sues Over Aloe Vera Products GENERAL MOTORS: Class Suit Alleges Cheating in Emissions Tests GENERAL MOTORS: Shares Drop After Emissions Class Suit GEICO: VIP Auto Seeks Class Action Status HARTFORD CASUALTY: Johnson's Bid to Certify OK'd; To Meet June 20 HARTFORD FIRE: Faces Potential Class Action From Policy Holders HEALTH AND PALLIATIVE: "Snow" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT HOME DEPOT: Settlement Provides Data Security Framework HOMELAND SECURITY: Osorio-Martinez Appeals Ruling to 3rd Circuit HONDA OF AMERICA: Faces "Cooper" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation HUMANA AT HOME: "Cruz" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to M.D. Fla. ILLINOIS BELL: LaMarr Wins Class Cert. Bid; Hearing on Aug. 29 INDIANA: BMV Supervisor Fired Amid Hoosier Class Action INTRA-CELLULAR: Pakdeljam Files Suit Over Stock Price Drop JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Vazquez Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit JIVE SOFTWARE: Faces "Ward" Suit Over Wave Merger KBR INC: July 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set KOREA KING: Foundation for Consumers Mulls Class Action LINCOLN NATIONAL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Barber" Suit LONG VALLEY PHARMACY: "Patel" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation LYFT INC: Overton Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Circuit MARKET AMERICA: Yang Files Suit Over Illegal Pyramid Scheme MATRIX HOME: Faces "Valdes" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation MAXIMUS INC: Bais Yaakov Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads MEDICREDIT INC: Court Denied as Moot Hartman's Class Cert. Bid MEYERKORD & MEYERKORD: Pavone's Motion to Certify Class Denied MICHAELS STORES: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Court Ruling MITCHELL D. BLUHM: Sixth Cir. Appeal Filed in "Wolschlager" Suit MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: April 2018 Claims Bar Date NANTHEALTH INC: Bucks County Fund Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Three Teams Fail to Avert Class Action NEW MEXICO, USA: Cummings Appeals D.N.M. Ruling to 10th Circuit NIKITA LEVY: Baltimore Victim Says Settlement Isn't Justice NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Edwards Moves for Certification of Classes OMEGA EMPIRE: "Linder" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime OMNINET VILLAGE: Court Denies Stallworth's Bid to Certify Class PHELAN HALLINAN: Borg's Bid to Certify Nixed for Lack of Standing PLAYERS BIKINI: Entertainers File Labor Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages POWER DESIGN: Faces "Anderson" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation PROGISTICS DISTRIBUTION: "Petersson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Transnational Suit Over Oil Spill Commences QES WIRELINE: "Meador" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages RED ROBIN: Brackley Moves for Final Approval of FLSA Settlement REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Approves Taylor's Notice & Consent Form ROSEVILLE, MI: Garner Seeks Consolidation and Settlement Approval RUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Sought in "Place" Suit SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: July 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set SAUL CHEVROLET: Rivera Moves to Certify Class of Salespeople SBKU SERVICES: Faces "Garcia" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws SCOTTS COMPANY: "Shedron" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. SELFRIDGE LEASING: "Wetzel" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages SETERUS INC: Reizes Files Suit Over Improper Collection Letter SEVENTH GENERATION: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in Rapoport-Hecht Suit SNAP INC: July 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline SPAN-AMERICA: Pill Files Suit Over Sale to Savaria Corp. SOUTHERN TUBULAR: "Torres" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages SPOTLESS GROUP: Slater & Gordon Launches Class Action TCP INTERNATIONAL: Aug. 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set TONAWANDA COKE: Faces Class Action Over Pollution UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Gayed" Suit Over Upfront Pricing Model UNITED FARM: Judge Adds $772,000 to Class Attorney Fees UNITED STATES: 160K Acres Covered in 'Takings' Class Action UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Certify & Tosses "Vapne" Suit UNITED WATER: "Sauers" Action Seeks Unpaid OT, Damages UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Hack" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Faces Suit for Printing 5++ Card Digits UNROLLME INC: Parikh Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy VOLKSWAGEN: Asks Judge to Move Drivers' Suit to NJ Federal Court VOLKSWAGEN: Italian Court OKs Class Action Over Emissions Tests WASHINGTON: Settles Suit Over Denied Healthcare for $55-Mil. WAYSIDE AUTO BODY: "Robles" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay WEST COAST: Faces "Cross" Lawsuit Alleging Privacy Invasion WINGS OVER: Faces Suit Over Wage Act Violations WIX.COM INC: Faces "Williams" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation * Anapol Weiss Atty Provides Insight Into World of Class Actions * Fairness in Class Action Act Would Lead to MDL Litigation Reform Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Pneumo Abex Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Savoie" to State Court Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Se Plaintiff Directed to Amend Asbestos Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Metalclad Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims vs. Owens ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shell Owes Duty to Protect Family Member ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Affirms Remand of PI Suit to State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Faces PI Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Ongoing in 2 Suits vs. Dixie Group ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 33,600 Claims Pending at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has US$152MM Liability at Mar31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Defends 2 Asbestos Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Faces 325 U.S. Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,580 Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: WABTec Still Faces PI Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Accrues US$8MM Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Faces 55 Rupture Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Has 5,800 Claims Pending at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Still Faces Suits at April 2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Defends PL Suits at March 31 ********* 618 MAIN CLOTHING: Proof of Service Requested in "Archer" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the civil case captioned Oscar Archer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 618 Main Clothing Corp. (d/b/a Ten Spot Madrag), Defendant, Case No. 507477/2017 (N.Y. Sup., April 17, 2017), Plaintiffs were requested to produce a proof of service on May 30, 2017. Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages and interest for overtime wages and non-overtime wages, costs and attorneys' fees, an injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate the weekly payment requirement for manual workers pursuant to New York Labor Law and liquidated damages pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 740-2000 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over GMO in Similac --------------------------------------------------- Mike Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports two consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Abbott Labs, alleging breach of implied warranty, breach of warranty, fraud, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. Crystal Kao of San Francisco and Nina Barwick of Nasvhille filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, May 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Abbott Laboratories Inc., doing business as Abbott Nutrition, alleging the defendant made false claims regarding the contents of its infant care products. According to the complaint, Kao and Barwick were damaged from purchasing a Similac infant care product that contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The plaintiffs allege Abbott Nutrition failed to inform consumers that its products contain GMOs. The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, actual, statutory, consequential, punitive and exemplary damages, interest, attorney fees and court costs, and all other relief the court deems appropriate. They are represented by attorneys Jonathan Weissglass, Esq.-- jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com -- of Altshuler Berzon LLP in San Francisco, and by Michael Isaac Miller, Esq., of Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC of Nashville, Tenn. [GN] U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case number 3:17-cv-02790-JCS ADRIEN SERVICE STATION: "Najarro" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Ocniel Obed Garlobo Najarro, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Adrien Service Station, Inc., Adrien Besson, Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-21979 (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2017) requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing. Plaintiff worked for Defendants' auto repair shop located at 3600 NW 46th St. Miami, FL 33142. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com ADVANCE STORES: Wins Final Nod of "Whitehead" Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Roy B. Dalton, Jr., granted the parties' joint unopposed motion for final order approving the settlement agreement and certifying the class in the lawsuit captioned JORDAN WHITEHEAD; and JANIE STAPLETON v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INC., Case No. 5:16- cv-00250-RBD-PRL (M.D. Fla.). For purposes of settlement only, the Court finally certifies the Settlement Class: All current and former ASC employees whose personal identification information was disclosed as a result of the ASC Phishing Attack. Excluded from the Settlement Class are individuals who submitted a timely request to be excluded from the Settlement Class pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Class Notice. The Court finally approves the Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits, as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court overrules the objections to the Settlement Agreement. The Court finally designates Plaintiffs Jordan Whitehead and Janie Stapleton as Class Representatives. The Court also finally appoints the law firm of Whittel & Melton, LLC, as Class Counsel. Judge Dalton also granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and [an] Incentive Award to Class Representatives. Within 30 days of entry of the Order, the Defendant will pay to Class Counsel: (a) $145,000 for Court- approved attorney fees and costs; and (b) a total amount of $5,000 for Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs. The action is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PIos9npe ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Faces "Gallagher" Suit Over DVB Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN GALLAGHER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS HOLDINGS, INC., DEAN HOLLIS, CHRISTOPHER D. SLIVA, CELESTE A. CLARK, PETER C. DILLINGHAM, STEPHEN A. KAPLAN, GARY L. PERLIN, and MATTHEW C. WILSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00356-TSB (S.D. Ohio, May 24, 2017), alleges that Defendant issued materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement in connection with the tender offer by DVB Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc., to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of AdvancePierre common stock for $40.25 per share. In particular, the Recommendation Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning AdvancePierre's financial projections and the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, says the complaint. Defendant produces and distributes ready-to-eat sandwiches, sandwich components and other entrees and snacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Camillus, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC P.O. Box 141410 Columbus, OH 43214 Phone: (614) 558-7254 Fax: (614) 559-6731 E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212 971 1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com ALABAMA: Aug. 3 Fairness Hearing on "Hunter" Case Accord -------------------------------------------------------- One of your clients or family members may be affected by the proposed settlement of a claim made under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in the lawsuit styled Hunter, et al. v. Perdue, Case No. 2:16-cv-798- MHT-CSC, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. This notice summarizes the claim in the lawsuit, what the proposed settlement entails, and Class Members' rights under the proposed Settlement Agreement. Defense counsel, family members, and legal guardians of Class Members are encouraged to submit any objections, comments, and or statements that they may have regarding the proposed Settlement Agreement. 1. What is the issue in the lawsuit? Whether the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Mental Health (ADMH) has failed to timely provide court-ordered inpatient mental evaluations and competency restoration treatment, which currently occur only at the Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility, to persons charged with a crime in Alabama and incarcerated in city and county jails and Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) facilities throughout the State. 2. Who is affected by the settlement? A Class Member is any person who has been or will be charged with a crime in Alabama, is incarcerated, and who has been ordered to receive an inpatient mental evaluation and committed to the custody of ADMH for that purpose or who has been found incompetent to stand trial, ordered to receive competency restoration treatment, and committed to the custody of ADMH for that purpose. If you have any questions as to whether your client is affected by this settlement, contact the Class Counsel referred to in Question 6 on Page 2 of this Notice. 3. What is the proposed settlement? The Plaintiffs and the ADMH Commissioner have reached a proposed Settlement Agreement that would release the ADMH Commissioner from any further liability related to this claim. The proposed Settlement Agreement requires the ADMH Commissioner to do the following, subject to Court approval: -- within 24 months, provide court-ordered outpatient mental evaluations to incarcerated criminal defendants suspected of being incompetent to stand trial within 30 days; -- within 24 months, provide court-ordered inpatient mental evaluations to incarcerated criminal defendants suspected of being incompetent to stand trial within 30 days; -- within 24 months, provide court-ordered to competency restoration treatment to criminal defendants found incompetent to stand trial within 30 days; -- create and operate 49 new hospital forensic beds; -- create and operate 52 new community forensic beds; and -- educate court personnel, sheriffs, and lawyers regarding the time periods for the ADMH Commissioner's provision of mental evaluations and competency restoration treatment to incarcerated criminal defendants The Settlement Agreement also creates a system to monitor the ADMH Commissioner's compliance with the Settlement Agreement and requires theADMH Commissioner to pay fees to the court-approved monitor and attorneys' fees to the lawyers who represented the class members. You have the right to learn more about the proposed settlement. Contact Class Counsel referred to in Question 6 below to request a copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement. 4. Who represents the individuals affected by the settlement? The lawyers representing class members ("Class Counsel") are: M. Geron Gadd Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program 400 South Union Street, Suite 280 Montgomery, AL 36104 - and - Henry F. (Hank) Sherrod III, Esq. 119 South Court Street Florence, AL 35630 - and - Randall C. Marshall ACLU of Alabama Foundation P.O. Box 6179 Montgomery, AL 36106-0179 5. What are your options? The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama has preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement but will hold a hearing to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate on August 3, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2FMJ of the Frank M. Johnson Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama 36104. You may request to appear at the hearing if you submit a written objection or comment regarding the settlement using the attached "Response to Proposed Class Action Settlement" form or your own paper. The Court will decide which class members will testify. Class members who do not appear will be represented by Class Counsel. If you have objections, comments, or statements about the proposed Settlement Agreement, you must make them in writing using the attached "Response to Proposed Class Action Settlement" form or your own paper. If you choose to send an objection, comment, or statement, you must include your full name, all objections or comments and the reasons for them, any and all supporting papers (including all briefs, written evidence, and declarations), and your signature. If you are sending supporting papers, do not send originals because they will not be returned to you. Written objections, comments, and statements should be sent to the following address: M. Geron Gadd, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, 400 South Union Street, Suite 280, Montgomery, Alabama 36104. They must be submitted or postmarked by June 26, 2017. Written objections and comments sent to this address will be consolidated and submitted to the Court on June 30, 2017, in advance of the August 3 hearing. Any objections, comments, or statements that do not comply with the above procedures and timeline will not be heard or considered by the Court. 6. How can you get more information? If you have any questions about the matters contained in this notice or any questions regarding the proposed Settlement Agreement, you may write or call Class Counsel below: M. Geron Gadd ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM 400 South Union Street, Suite 280 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 (334) 240-0994 RESPONSE TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Hunter, et al. v. Perdue, Case No. 2:16- cv-798-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.) Your Name: Class Member's Name: Criminal Case No.: Relationship to Class Member: Are you the Class Member's Legal Guardian? Yes/No Your Mailing Address: Your E-mail Address: Your Telephone No.: Objections/Comments/Statements: Do you want to provide oral testimony to the Court regarding the settlement? Yes/No Date: Signature: ALBA CARTING: "Deas" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELVIN DEAS, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, against ALBA CARTING & DEMOLITION INC., and ANDREW HORAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03947 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2017), alleges that Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, in that Defendants required Plaintiff to routinely work more than forty hours per workweek, but intentionally failed to compensate him at the rate of time and one-half his straight-time rate for each hour that he worked per week in excess of forty, and simply paid him straight-time for all hours worked. Defendants also allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements on each payday or with an accurate wage notice at the time of hire, as the NYLL requires. Plaintiff worked for Defendants -- a corporation that provides demolition services and its Chief Executive Officer -- as a laborer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joan B. Lopez, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 AMERICAN RECOVERY: "Shackowsky" Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Shackowsky and Terry Nelson, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Recovery Specialists of Florida, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:17- cv-01240, (M.D. Fla., May 24, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates a vehicle repossession company in Tampa, in Hillsborough County, Florida where Plaintiffs were employed as repossession agents. Defendant is accused of not maintaining time- keeping records, thus failing to account for Plaintiffs overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Fenton, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Tel: (813) 224-0431 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: mfenton@wfclaw.com ANTELOPE VALLEY: Allegedly Paid "Hargrave" Sub-Minimum Wage Rates ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roberta Hargrave, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Antelope Valley Hospital, Defendants, Case No. BC663252 (Cal. Super., May 30, 2017), seeks redress for failure to pay state-mandated minimum wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. Plaintiff worked for Antelope Valley Hospital, a public hospital located in Lancaster, California specializing in acute care from December 12, 2012 to June 3, 2016. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664 Tel: (323) 549-9100 Fax: (323) 549-0101 Email: Bames@kbarnes.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 Telephone: (818) 992-2935 Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com ASSET CAMPUS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jang" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Andy Jang filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit titled Andy Jang v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01067-JAK-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The nature of suit is stated as constitutionality of state statutes. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff appealed a ruling relating to the lawsuit. The appellate case is captioned as Andy Jang v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-55757, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by June 22, 2017; -- Transcript is due on September 20, 2017; -- Appellant Andy Jang's opening brief is due on October 30, 2017; -- Appellees Asset Campus Housing, Inc., Does, Entrata, Inc. and Property Solutions International, Inc.'s answering brief is due on November 29, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ANDY JANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Ron Bochner, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RON BOCHNER 3333 Bowers Ave. Santa Clara, CA 95054 Telephone: (408) 200-9890 E-mail: robolaw@justice.com Defendants-Appellees ASSET CAMPUS HOUSING, INC., PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ENTRATA, INC., are represented by: Kevin K. Eng, Esq. MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP 465 California St. San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 438-4515 E-mail: keng@mzclaw.com Defendants-Appellees ASSET CAMPUS HOUSING, INC., and PROPERTY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., are represented by: Gary Bruce Friedman, Esq. FRIEDMAN LAW GROUP, LLP 154 Grand Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (917) 568-5024 E-mail: gfriedman@flgllp.com - and - Deepak Gupta, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER PLLC 1735 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 E-mail: deepak@guptabeck.com - and - David S. Markun, Esq. MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON, LLP 17383 West Sunset Boulevard Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-4181 Telephone: (310) 454-5900 E-mail: dmarkun@mzclaw.com - and - Edward S. Zusman, Esq. MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP 465 California St. San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 438-4515 E-mail: ezusman@mzclaw.com ASSET RECOVERY: Trujillo's Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff withdrew the motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled Yuridia Trujillo v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-02303 (N.D. Ill.). Pursuant to the parties' stipulation to withdraw, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn without prejudice, according to the Court's docket entry. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LLvlq2CV ASSURANCE GROUP: "Yoak" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Kipp Yoak, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Assurance Group, Inc., (a.k.a. Edward L Shackelford, Inc.) Defendant, 5:17-cv-01094 (N.D. Ohio, May 24, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, any other compensatory damages, prejudgment interest at the statutory rate, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs and all other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants' insurance firm as District Sales Director at their Akron, Ohio office. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephan I. Voudris, Esq. Christopher M. Sams, Esq. Voudris Law LLC 8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Tel: (440) 543-0670 Fax: (440) 543-0721 Email: svoudris@voudrislaw.com csams@voudrislaw.com AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 150+ People Opt Out of Fire Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that more than 150 proposed settlement class members, most of whom are pursuing related state court actions, have opted out of a tentative deal with the developer of a luxury apartment complex in a consolidated class action in New Jersey federal court over a 2015 fire that destroyed hundreds of units. Those proposed members -- residents or occupants of one of the complex's buildings at the time of the blaze -- have informed the court that they want to be excluded from the proposed class action settlement with defendant real estate investment trust AvalonBay Communities Inc. As of May 17, such exclusion notices had been electronically filed on the court docket on behalf of 155 individuals. Michael J. Epstein, an attorney representing most of the opt-out members, told U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares in a May 17 letter that his office planned to electronically file exclusion letters for an additional 19 individuals seeking to opt out of the proposed deal. Judge Linares on March 13 granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in which an uncapped claims process will be handled by an independent claims adjuster who will be agreed upon by class counsel and the developer. The judge scheduled a final hearing for July 11 to determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement. The action accuses AvalonBay of negligence over the Jan. 21, 2015, fire in Edgewater, which was reportedly started by a maintenance worker using a blowtorch and ultimately displaced about 1,000 residents. The fire completely destroyed the Russell Building, which had several hundred apartment units and represented part of the complex, plaintiffs said. The proposed settlement class represents all residents and occupants of the Russell Building at the complex as identified on the operative lease agreements as of Jan. 21, 2015, whose property in a building apartment or storage unit was destroyed by the fire. Under the tentative deal, each claim form will be evaluated by the independent claims adjuster, who will make all final decisions on the issuance of awards through the claims process, according to a brief filed by the plaintiffs. The recovery amount available to each class member will be uncapped, the plaintiffs said. On the issue of attorneys' fees, AvalonBay has agreed to pay class counsel $1,900 for each Russell Building unit for which any claim is submitted and an award issued pursuant to the agreement, the brief states. In addition to that payment, class counsel would receive 6 percent paid directly from the award received by each claimant, according to the brief. Parties pursuing New Jersey state court lawsuits against AvalonBay and related defendants over the fire had urged Judge Linares to reject the proposed settlement in the federal matter. The state lawsuits were filed on behalf of plaintiffs who were residents and occupants of certain apartments in the Russell Building at the time of the fire. Those parties argued in part in a brief that the proposed settlement "prejudices the rights of the state court plaintiffs who have already prospectively opted out of the proposed class action by filing and prosecuting individual lawsuits in state superior court." But Judge Linares rejected the arguments of the state court plaintiffs, saying they could opt out of the proposed settlement class. "A potential class member is not forced to be part of this process, because each potential class member has the option to be excluded for any reason," the judge said in his March 13 written opinion. The class action plaintiffs are represented by Bruce D. Greenberg -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- of Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC, Benjamin F. Johns of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP and Daniel R. Lapinski -- dlapinski@wilentz.com -- of Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA. AvalonBay is represented by Ronald A. Giller and Daniel J. DiMuro of Gordon & Rees LLP. The case is DeMarco et al. v. AvalonBay Communities Inc. et al., case number 2:15-cv-00628, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] AZ COMPASSIONATE: Llewellyn Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to 9th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jason Llewellyn filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jason Llewellyn v. AZ Compassionate Care, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-04181-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. The Class Action Reporter previously reported that a medical marijuana dispensary customer failed to convince a federal court that his payment card receipt revealing the card expiration date was harmful enough to pursue a class action. Allegations that the receipt revealed too much information in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, without more, doesn't implicate traditional privacy interests, the District Court said. The appellate case is captioned as Jason Llewellyn v. AZ Compassionate Care, Inc., Case No. 17-16074, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by June 22, 2017; -- Transcript is due on July 24, 2017; -- Appellant Jason Llewellyn's opening brief is due on August 31, 2017; -- Appellee AZ Compassionate Care, Inc.'s answering brief is due on October 2, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JASON LLEWELLYN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Wendall Williams, Esq. DAVIS MILES MCGUIRE GARDNER, PLLC 80 E Rio Salado Pkwy. Tempe, AZ 85281 Telephone: (480) 733-6800 E-mail: dwilliams@davismiles.com - and - Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY APLC 1010 N. Central Ave. Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (877) 574-7100 E-mail: chant@chant.mobi Defendant-Appellee AZ COMPASSIONATE CARE, INC., DBA TruMed, is represented by: Jeff Gardner, Esq. JENNINGS STROUSS & SALMON, PLC One East Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85004-2554 Telephone: (602) 256-6100 Facsimile: (602) 495-2605 E-mail: jgardner@jsslaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Charles Schwab Appeals Judgment in Libor MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- The Charles Schwab Corporation, et al., took an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from (1) the April 27, 2017 judgment entered in the 2011 Schwab Actions; and (2) all orders and rulings subsumed within the Judgment, including the District Court's Memorandum and Order entered on December 20, 2016, which dismissed the 2011 Schwab Actions in their entirety. The 2011 Schwab Actions are SCHWAB SHORT-TERM BOND MARKET FUND, et al. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv- 06409-NRB (S.D.N.Y.); CHARLES SCHWAB BANK, N.A., et al. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-06411-NRB (S.D.N.Y.); and SCHWAB MONEY MARKET FUND, et al. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-06412-NRB (S.D.N.Y.). The lawsuits are part of the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 1:11-md-2262-NRB. The Plaintiffs-Appellants are The Charles Schwab Corporation, Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Schwab Money Market Fund, Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund, Schwab Retirement Advantage Money Fund, Schwab Investor Money Fund, Schwab Cash Reserves, Schwab Advisor Cash Reserves, Schwab YieldPlus Fund, Schwab YieldPlus Fund Liquidation Trust, Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund, Schwab Total Bond Market Fund, and Schwab U.S. Dollar Liquid Assets Fund. The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 17-1569, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Steven E. Fineman, Esq. Michael J. Miarmi, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com mmiarmi@lchb.com - and - Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. Brendan P. Glackin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com efastiff@lchb.com bglackin@lchb.com - and - Lowell Haky, Esq. ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL - CIVIL AND COMPLEX LITIGATION CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. 211 Main Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 667-0622 Facsimile: (415) 667-1638 E-mail: Lowell.Haky@schwab.com Defendant Bank of America Corporation is represented by: Paul Steel Mishkin, Esq. Arthur J. Burke, Esq. Edward Fu, Esq. Neal Alan Potischman, Esq. Patrick Wyatt Blakemore, Esq. Peter John Davis, Esq. Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL L.L.P. 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4292 Facsimile: (212) 450-3292 E-mail: paul.mishkin@dpw.com arthur.burke@davispolk.com edward.fu@davispolk.com Neal.Potischman@dpw.com patrick.blakemore@davispolk.com peter.davis@davispolk.com rwise@dpw.com - and - Julie Saranow Epley, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL L.L.P. 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 752-2061 E-mail: julie.saranow@dpw.com Defendant Barclays Bank Plc is represented by: Amos Emory Friedland, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8248 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 E-mail: afriedland@bsfllp.com - and - Jonathan David Schiller, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com - and - David Harold Braff, Esq. Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. Yvonne Susan Quinn, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4705 Facsimile: (212) 558-3333 E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com scottj@sullcrom.com quinny@sullcrom.com Defendant Citibank NA is represented by: Alan M. Wiseman, Esq. Jonathan James Gimblett, Esq. Thomas A. Isaacson, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P. One City Center 850 10th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Facsimile: (202) 662-6261 E-mail: awiseman@cov.com jgimblett@cov.com tisaacson@cov.com - and - Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 Facsimile: (212) 841-1010 E-mail: aruffino@cov.com - and - Tammy Albarran, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P. One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 955-6566 E-mail: talbarran@cov.com Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by: Aidan John Synnott, Esq. Andrew Corydon Finch, Esq. Moses Silverman, Esq. Hallie Suzanne Goldblatt, Esq. PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3213 Facsimile: (212) 492-0213 E-mail: asynnott@paulweiss.com afinch@paulweiss.com msilverman@paulweiss.com hgoldblatt@paulweiss.com Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is represented by: Alan Craig Turner, Esq. Alexander Nuo Li, Esq. Eamonn Wesley Campbell, Esq. Francis John Acott, Esq. Jeffery Li Ding, Esq. Omari Largos Royter Mason, Esq. Paul Christopher Gluckow, Esq. Thomas C. Rice, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 Facsimile: (212) 255-2502 E-mail: aturner@stblaw.com zander.li@stblaw.com eamonn.campbell@stblaw.com francis.acott@stblaw.com jeffery.ding@stblaw.com omason@stblaw.com pgluckow@stblaw.com trice@stblaw.com - and - Patrick E. King, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 E-mail: pking@stblaw.com - and - Lawrence H. Heftman, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 6600 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5725 E-mail: lheftman@schiffhardin.com - and - Matthew Charles Crowl, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5500 Defendant Lloyds Banking Group plc is represented by: Benjamin Andrew Fleming, Esq. Kevin Timothy Baumann, Esq. Lisa Jean Fried, Esq. Marc Joel Gottridge, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3283 Facsimile: (212) 918-3100 E-mail: benjamin.fleming@hoganlovells.com kevin.baumann@hoganlovells.com lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com marc.gottridge@hoganlovells.com - and - Megan Polly Davis, Esq. FLEMMING ZULACK WILLIAMSON ZAUDERER, LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 412-9500 Facsimile: (212) 964-9200 E-mail: mdavis@fzwz.com Defendant Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc is represented by: Robert G. Houck, Esq. CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 878-3224 Facsimile: (212) 878-8375 E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com - and - Andrea J. Robinson, Esq. David S. Lesser, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (617) 526-6360 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 E-mail: andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com David.Lesser@wilmerhale.com - and - Harriet Hoder, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6203 E-mail: harriet.hoder@wilmerhale.com - and - Michael A. Mugmon, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 E-mail: michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com Defendant The Norinchukin Bank is represented by: Alan M. Unger, Esq. Andrew W. Stern, Esq. Kenneth Benjamin Meyer, Esq. Thomas Andrew Paskowitz, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5785 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: aunger@sidley.com astern@sidley.com kmeyer@sidley.com tpaskowitz@sidley.com - and - William J. Nissen, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: wnissen@sidley.com Defendant UBS AG is represented by: Peter Sullivan, Esq. Jefferson Eliot Bell, Esq. Lawrence Jay Zweifach, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-5370 Facsimile: (212) 351-6370 E-mail: psullivan@gibsondunn.com jbell@gibsondunn.com lzweifach@gibsondunn.com - and - David Jarrett Arp, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8678 Facsimile: (202) 530-9527 E-mail: jarp@gibsondunn.com - and - Gary Richard Spratling, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 393-8222 Facsimile: (415) 374-8464 E-mail: gspratling@gibsondunn.com BLAZING NEEDLES: "Rojas" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Feliciano Rojas and Maria Espinosa, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Blazing Needles, L.P., H.A. Shaban and David Shaban, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv- 01408 (N.D. Tex., May 26, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this action, post-judgment interest and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Blazing Needles, L.P. is an importer, manufacturer, and seller of soft home furnishings specializing in traditional wholesale and e- commerce drop-shipping. Its sells through internet retailers including Amazon, Overstock, Walmart, Lowe's, Hayneedle and Wayfair. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hannah Alexander, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 1250 West Mockingbird Lane, Suite 455 Dallas, TX 75247 Tel: (469) 228-4226, ext. 302 Fax: (469) 941-0861 Email: halexander@equaljusticecenter.org - and - Anna Bocchini, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 510 S. Congress Ave., Suite 206 Austin, TX 78704 Tel.: (512) 474-0007, ext. 105 Fax: (512) 474-0008 Email: abocchini@equaljusticecenter.org BLITCHTON MARATHON: "Swope-Kreiser" Lawsuit Alleges Wage Theft -------------------------------------------------------------- Dakota Swope-Kreiser, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLITCHTON MARATHON INC., and ALVARO OCEJO, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00235-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., May 26, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to unpaid minimum wages from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff further alleges that shed is entitled to unpaid wages from Defendants for all time worked for which they were not paid as a result of wage theft. Plaintiff also alleges that she is entitled to unpaid minimum wages pursuant to Florida's State Minimum Wage Law. Defendants are gas station operators. Plaintiff was employed as cashier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Phone: (727) 822-1111 Fax: 727) 898-2001 E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com daveyard@theFLlawfirm.com CANADA: Gov't to Formally Apologize Over LGBT Purge in Military --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashifa Kassam, writing for The Guardian, reports that Canada's government has said it will formally apologise to the thousands of Canadians who suffered injustices during a decades-long campaign to root out homosexuality from the military and public service, bringing it in line with a longstanding demand by advocates. The apology is expected to take place in early autumn. Public consultations are under way -- led by the MP Randy Boissonnault, the prime minister's special adviser on LGBT issues -- in an attempt to capture a full picture of the wrongs inflicted by the federal government during a period of some three decades. The plans come months after the announcement of a C$600m class action lawsuit by former public servants and military members who were forced out of their jobs because of their sexuality. In a statement, Mr. Boissonnault said the government would acknowledge the role of its legislation, programs and policies in the discrimination and injustices faced by LGBT Canadians. "We are committed to apologise in an inclusive and meaningful manner before the end of 2017," he said. The apology is likely to be directed to public servants and members of the military who were fired or pressured to leave because of their sexuality, a spokesman for Mr. Boissonnault told the Guardian. "But we want to make sure we do it right and that it is all-encompassing and that we don't forget people," he added. "That's the reason that the consultations are ongoing at this point." The government is also considering whether the apology will include pardons or some sort of financial compensation. The government has long fended off calls to apologise, with advocates pointing to Germany, where legislation was introduced to financially compensate those who were convicted under laws that criminalised homosexuality, and Britain, where thousands of men were posthumously pardoned this year. In March -- frustrated by the government's continued delays in addressing the issue -- former public servants and military members filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Montreal. The class action is seeking at least C$600m damages for what lawyers called the LGBT purge, which saw thousands of people expelled from the military and public service by a federal government that considered homosexuals a threat to national security. The purge began during the cold war, with the last documented case recorded some two decades after homosexuality was decriminalised in 1969. The purge at time bordered on dystopian; some were interrogated with the "Fruit Machine", a device developed by an Ottawa university to detect homosexuality but which was reportedly never able to detect any differences between heterosexuals and LGBT individuals. Hundreds of people have already signed on to the lawsuit, according to Douglas Elliott, a Toronto lawyer and prominent gay rights activist who is leading the case. "It was a brutal, senseless, wasteful, harsh and cruel campaign for which the government should abjectly apologise," he said. He welcomed the news that the federal government was moving forward with an apology, calling it long overdue. "Canada is really starting to fall behind on this issue," he said. "I really am mystified as to why it's taking so long . . . I think its been very well-intentioned, but there's been a lot of overpromising and underdelivery so far." But he noted the importance of getting it right: "I would much rather have a good apology that has taken a few months than a rotten apology that's given quickly, because we're only going to get it once." The apology would have no effect on the lawsuit, he said. Negotiations were under way to find a solution, Elliott added, with both sides keenly aware of the urgent need to provide relief to the many who have suffered in silence for years. "The reality is that a lot of the people who were affected by these obnoxious laws are already dead." The apology would be a start, he said, citing the many other institutions -- from Christian churches to the police -- who also had to express sorrow for their actions. "It is a critical moment," he said. "Because we can begin to heal once we acknowledge the wrong that was done and we make a commitment that we are not going to behave like that in future." [GN] CASCADE CAPITAL: McKenzie Moves for Certification of TCPA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that Count I of the action titled MARILYN MCKENZIE, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv- 03798 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant. Count I alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff defines a class consisting of: (a) all persons (b) whose cell phones Cascade Capital, Inc. called (c) and delivered a recorded or computer-generated message (d) during a period beginning four years prior to the filing of this action (e) at a number that neither Cascade Capital, Inc. nor Santander obtained from the person called. The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iqQA685v The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Michelle A. Alyea, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com malyea@edcombs.com CHICAGO, IL: Asks Judge to Toss Class Action Over Parking Tickets ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Chicago City Hall has asked a Cook County judge to toss a class action lawsuit which alleged the city has wrongly issued parking tickets to motorists who had actually paid to park using the ParkChicago smartphone app, as the city says the man who brought the lawsuit actually had never been made to pay an improperly issued parking ticket. In a motion to dismiss filed in April, lawyers for the city asserted plaintiff Edward Sanchez should not be allowed to continue with his legal action, as an administrative law judge determined in January -- two days before he filed his lawsuit - that he shouldn't be made to pay a $65 parking ticket he had been issued by mistake. Any further action in this case, the city lawyers said, would amount to allowing Sanchez's legal team to conduct a "fishing expedition," poring over city records in search of potential new clients, or at least a plaintiff to replace Sanchez and rescue the lawsuit. Sanchez, represented by attorneys Phillip A. Bock, Esq.-- phil@classlawyers.com -- and Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.-- jon@classlawyers.com -- of the firm of Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim LLC, of Chicago, had filed his putative class action lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court on Jan. 27 against the city and vendor Chicago Parking Meters LLC (CPM), as well as LAZ Parking, the company hired by CPM to administer its network of parking meters throughout the city. The lawsuit centered on the rollout of the ParkChicago app in 2014. Introduced by CPM and LAZ Parking in the aftermath of the signing of CPM's $1.2 billion, 75-year lease of the city's 36,000 metered parking spaces, the app was promoted as a way of helping busy commuters and others parking on the city's streets to quickly and easily pay for parking without having to take the time to visit the associated curbside parking payment kiosk. According to the lawsuit, the city and its vendors had pledged the app could help prevent them from getting parking tickets. While those who pay to park at the kiosk must return to their vehicle and place a receipt on their dashboard to prove they had paid to park, those using the app were told parking enforcement officers would need only run their license plate number to see they were legally parked. The app has since been downloaded by hundreds of thousands of users, who agreed to fund their parking account through an initial $20 deposit, and to allow the ParkChicago vendors to replenish the account each time a customer's balance drops below $10. However, in the years since the rollout, the lawsuit has asserted flaws in the system could allow those who pay using the app to still receive parking tickets, particularly if a parking enforcement officer arrives within 15 minutes of the user submitting payment, or if the parking enforcement officer doesn't run a user's license plate to determine if they had paid. In his complaint, Sanchez asserted he was issued a ticket in November 2016, even though had had paid using the app. Sanchez said he contested the ticket. But Sanchez's complaint potentially untold number of other ParkChicago users had simply paid the tickets, rather than take the time and incur the potential expense to challenge the tickets. The lawsuit alleged the city, CPM and LAZ Parking's actions surrounding ParkChicago broke consumer fraud law, and breached implied warranty and the defendants' fiduciary duty, as keepers of the funds deposited by ParkChicago users. The lawsuit asked the court to award "appropriate damages," plus punitive damages and attorney fees. The plaintiffs have also asked the court to allow them the chance to review city documents related to ParkChicago and parking tickets issued to users. But the city has asked the court to instead refuse to pull the suit to the curb, asserting Sanchez had never actually been harmed by the parking ticket he received, which was dismissed by the city on Jan. 25. And the city also asked the court to block Sanchez's team's request for "accounting," specifically to learn "all amounts paid by users of the ParkChicago application and the dates and times of the alleged violations . . ." "This request appears to be nothing more than a premature attempt to locate additional members of the purported class, perhaps because Plaintiff recognizes he does not have standing to bring this action," the city said in a memorandum accompanying its dismissal motion. ". . . Plaintiff's fishing expedition to locate additional potential class members should not be permitted under the guise of an equitable accounting that does not apply to Plaintiff's limited allegations against the City." City Hall is represented in the action by its own corporation counsel from the city's Department of Law, including attorneys Edward N. Siskel, Esq., John L. Hendricks, Esq., Jennifer Zlotow, Esq., David M. Baron, Esq., and Tara Kennedy, Esq.[GN] CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD: "Rumreich" Suit Asserts FLSA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mariah Rumreich, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Church of The Good Shepherd, Inc., Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-00292 (M.D. Fla., May 30, 2017), to recover unpaid back wages, minimum wages, overtime wages, an additional equal amount of liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rumreich worked for the Defendants as a Preschool Teacher. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A. 4423 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com COTY INC: "Caddell" Suit Over Balsam Color Kit Sent to S.D. Ala. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned MAMIE CADDELL and DIANE BOWDEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COTY, INC., a Delaware Corporation; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, INC., an Ohio Corporation; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., an Ohio Corporation; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PROCTER & GAMBLE HAIR CARE, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00242-C, (N.D. Ala., February 28, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, and assigned Case Number 7:17-cv-00322. The suit alleges that Defendants failed to warn the public of the true risks and dangers associated with the cosmetic hair dye "The Balsam Color Kit." Allegedly, the dye causes significant hair loss; skin and scalp irritation; scalp burnings and blistering; severe dermatitis; eye irritation and tearing; asthma; gastritis; renal damage and/or failure; vertigo; tremors, convulsions and comas; and eczematoid contact dermatitis [in chronic (long-term) expose situations]. The Plaintiffs' claims are for Unjust Enrichment (Count I), Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count II), Breach of Express Warranty (Count III), Breach of Implied Warranty (Count IV), violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count V), Fraud (Count VI), and Negligent Design and Failure to Warn. Coty, Inc., is a North American beauty products manufacturer based in New York founded in Paris, France, by Franáois Coty in 1904.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 326-3336 Fax: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: brandy@hgdlawfirm.com - and - Joseph L. Tucker, Esq. JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C. Black Diamond Building 2229 1st Avenue N. Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 252-3535 Fax: (205) 252-3536 E-mail: josh@jacksonandtucker.com - and - W. Lewis Garrison , Jr. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC 2224 First Ave. N. Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 326-3336 Fax: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com - and - Defendant(s) is represented by: Hugh Cannon Lawley, Esq. HUIE, FERNAMBUCQ & STEWART 417 N. 20th St., Ste. 800 Birmingham, AL 35203 E-mail: cannon@huielaw.com - and - Jeffrey B. Cannon, Jr., Esq. HUIE FERNAMBUCQ & STEWART, LLP 2801 Highway 280 S., Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 35223 Phone: (205) 251-1193 E-mail: bcannon@huielaw.com - and - Walter J. Price, III, Esq. HUIE, FERNAMBUCQ & STEWART, LLP 800 Regions Bank Bldg., Ste. 825 417 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3279 Phone: (205) 251-1193 E-mail: wprice@huielaw.com CRESTVIEW FINANCIAL: "Menichiello" Hits Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Crestview Financial, LLC (d.b.a. In Advance Capital) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00912, (C.D. Cal., May 25, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages for willful and negligent violations, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief resulting from negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the provision of the National Do-Not-Call regulations. In Advance Capital is a business lending company accused of using an automatic telephone dialing system to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services without Plaintiff's prior express consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, 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 abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com CVS PHARMACY: Class Certification Sought in "Marcus" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled SHANI MARCUS and FRIEDA ESSES ASHKENAZI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00259- PGS-LHG (D.N.J.), move for an order granting class certification. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SgFHAmAm The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-6667 E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN & PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com josefchen@denittislaw.com sprince@denittislaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric R. Kanefsky, Esq. CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY LLP One Newark Center 1085 Raymond Blvd., 14th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (862) 397-1796 Facsimile: (862) 902-5458 E-mail: eric@ck-harris.com - and - Michael D. Leffel, Esq. Irina N. Kashcheyeva, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 234-7100 Facsimile: (313) 234-2800 E-mail: mleffel@foley.com ikashcheyeva@foley.com - and - Frank E. Pasquesi, Esq. Robert H. Griffith, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP 321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60654-5313 Telephone: (312) 832-4500 Facsimile: (312) 832-4700 E-mail: fpasquesi@foley.com rgriffith@foley.com DCH REGIONAL: Accused of Illegal Billing Practices by "McAteer" --------------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell McAteer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DCH Regional Medical Center, DCH Health Systems, Avectus Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Defendants, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, nominal Defendant, Case 2:17-cv- 00859 (N.D. Ala., May 25, 2017) seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, penalties, disgorgement of any unlawfully gained proceeds, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, declaratory relief, a permanent injunction against Defendants from engaging in unlawful billing practices, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of this action and such other and further relief resulting from breach of contract, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contractual relationship/business expectancy and violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff received medical treatment at hospital facilities owned and/or operated by the DCH Regional Medical Center. DCH Regional Medical Center and their debt collection agent Avectus wrongfully sent improper collection notices and collected payments for medical services in amounts that violate the terms of the Services Provider Agreement entered into by DCH Regional Medical Center, DCH Health systems with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama of which McAteer is a member, says the complaint. DCH Health Systems, Inc. provides medical services through its affiliate, DCH Regional Medical Center, headquartered in and with their principal place of business in Northport, Alabama. Avectus Healthcare Solutions LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Corinth, Mississippi. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is a subsidiary and independent licensee of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, with its principal place of business headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren E. Miles, Esq. J. Allen Schreiber, Esq. BURKE HARVEY, LLC 3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35243 Tel: (205) 930-9091 Fax: (205) 930-9054 Email: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com lmiles@burkeharvey.com DEJA VU: Nude Dancers Push Back Against Class-Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Egan, writing for USA Today, reports that a growing number of exotic dancers want to block a national class-action settlement alleging workplace exploitation by Michigan-based Deja Vu clubs, saying it will pay many dancers only a few hundred dollars each. Kalamazoo dancer Merry Clark said in a letter to the court that the proposed $6.5-million settlement is "nowhere near enough" for her and other dancers she says have been outrageously exploited by Deja Vu Services and related companies for "sweaty gross work." Also, dancers' attorneys from as far away as Massachusetts and Tennessee have filed objections to the settlement ahead of a June 6 hearing in federal court in Detroit, saying the proposal is not fair, reasonable or adequate. Attorneys for the lead plaintiffs and for Deja Vu say the settlement is fair and contains many non-monetary benefits for the dancers. They say objectors still represent a tiny handful of the more than 28,000 dancers and former dancers who are class members. U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy can't modify the proposed settlement, but can only accept it or reject it as is, attorneys say. The case centers on whether the dancers are employees or independent contractors -- a classification that affects issues such as whether the clubs must pay them a minimum hourly wage or can instead charge them for doing business inside the clubs. Though it's billed as a $6.5 million settlement, the proposal would provide only $920,000 in cash payments to settle claims from more than 28,000 dancers who worked at 64 different clubs in 18 states, Boston attorney Harold Lichten, Esq. -- info@llrlaw.com -- of Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C. argued in a May 12 court filing. Most of the rest of the "egregiously unfair and unreasonable" settlement would pay for coupons the dancers could use to offset future fees charged by the clubs, plus about $1 million in attorney fees, Lichten said. The suit alleges the nude and nearly nude dancers are paid no wages but required to pay rent to the clubs, plus 30% or more of their tips. The dancers also face monetary penalties for leaving early or showing up late, the suit alleges. Deja Vu, which has denied the allegations and admits no wrongdoing as part of the settlement, maintains that despite the claims made in the lawsuit, most exotic dancers who are given the opportunity to become club employees find out they prefer being independent contractors because they make more money that way and have more control over their hours and conditions of work. Bradley Shafer, Esq. -- bshafer@swartzcampbell.com -- of Swartz Campbell LLC, a Lansing attorney representing Deja Vu, said the settlement does not involve "coupons," but a $4.5 million pool of money that can be used by dancers determined to be independent contractors to pay fees the dancers would otherwise have to pay from their own pockets. Also, in clubs that operate on an independent contractor model, dancers will receive cash payments from that pool, Shafer said. Lichten, representing California dancers Eva Cabrera and Brittney Halverson, said exotic dancers have brought a series of lawsuits around the country in recent years, challenging their classification as independent contractors, and have received $50,000 or more each when they pursued their claims as individuals and often thousands or tens of thousands of dollars when part of a class action. In contrast, the proposed settlement "would put an end to a number of previously filed actions against individual clubs, and would allow dancers to receive no more than a few hundred dollars in cash if they submit a claim form," Lichten wrote. Anyone with an existing lawsuit elsewhere can opt out of the settlement and continue their suit, Shafer said. So far, close to 3,000 dancers have filed claims to share in the $920,000 cash portion of the settlement, and with notices recently sent a second time to 8,000 dancers, that number is likely to grow, he said. That means each dancer who files a claim for a cash settlement -- passing up on a share of $4.5 million in club coupons -- is likely to receive between $100 and $300. Many of them may be former dancers who would not be eligible for coupons, Lichten said. Lichten estimates the dancers' claims should be worth more than $141 million, based on the clubs' failure to pay minimum wage alone. Under the proposed settlement, Deja Vu will assess all current and future dancers based on a set of agreed criteria -- including the dancer's expressed wishes -- to determine whether they should be hired or retained as employees or as independent professional entertainers. Those deemed employees will be paid minimum wage, plus bonuses including commissions of at least 20% on their private dances and drink sales, and receive club support to pay for employment-related expenses such as the purchase and cleaning of costumes and payment of required local license fees. Southfield attorney Jason Thompson, Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- of Sommers SchwartzLaw Offices said that aspect of the settlement is "ground-breaking" in that it will require the clubs to change their business practices going forward. Lichten said that essentially allows the dancers to "choose" their status as employees or independent contractors, which flies in the face of the law because the dancers should clearly be classified as employees. Shafer said the dancers don't get to choose their employment status. What they want is one of several factors that will determine whether they are employees or independent contractors, he said. Deja Vu, founded in Michigan but now a national firm with offices in Michigan, California and Nevada, has operated many of its clubs under a model in which the clubs serve no alcohol but dancers disrobe completely. Until recently, Michigan law prohibited fully nude dancing at clubs where alcohol was served. The case began in 2016, when a Bay City dancer filed suit against Deja Vu clubs in Saginaw, but it was expanded this year to include Deja Vu clubs and their affiliates nationwide. [GN] DUKE ENERGY: Bowser Moves for Certification of Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JOHN BOWSER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DUKE ENERGY CORP.; THE EMPYREAN GROUP, LLC; and GUIDANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:16- cv-00482-DSC (W.D. Pa.), moves the Court to conditionally certify a collective action and to authorize the issuance of notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=myIPWkp0 The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Telecopier: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Mora Seeks Certification of Consumers Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the action styled LOURDES MORA v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, and FEDERAL PACIFIC CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-06714 (N.D. Ill.), as a class action. Ms. Mora seeks to maintain the action on behalf of herself, and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals, defined as: All consumers in the United States of America, beginning one year prior to filing this Complaint and continuing through the resolution of this action, who, with respect to a time barred "debt" (as defined by the FDCPA), received a debt collection letter from Defendant that states: (i) Defendant, or some other entity, "will not" sue the consumer for the debt; and/or (ii) payment on the debt "may" restart the applicable statute of limitations on the debt. In her complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Dynamic Recovery violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by using false, deceptive, and unfair methods in attempting to collect debts that are no longer collectable pursuant to the applicable statutes of limitations. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as Class Representative and to designate her counsel as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZtXMdfLV The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com - and - Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. Ahmad T. Sulaiman, Esq. Omar T. Sulaiman, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 900 Jorie Blvd., Suite 150 Oak Brook, IL 60523 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Falbo" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 22, 2017, in the case titled MICHAEL FALBO v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03740 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. The minute entry states that: -- the motion for class certification is denied without prejudice; -- the Court does not accept prophylactic class -- certification motions in light of Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016); and Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); -- if the Plaintiff is prepared to proceed on the Motion as briefed, it may be refiled; -- alternatively, the Motion may be refiled at any point at which the Plaintiff is prepared to proceed with substantive briefing. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sjLDFb4G E-Z TRANS CORP: "Urbina" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Ronnie Urbina, and those similarly situated to him who have or will become part of this collective action, v. E-Z Trans Corp. (a/k/a Intermodal Equipment & Leasing Corp., Statewide Transportation Inc. and Reliable Trans Services Inc.) and Nathan Sasonov individually, Case No. 2:17-cv-03799 (D.N.J., May 27, 2017), demands judgment against Defendants, as well as payment of compensation for all overtime hours worked at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay due him for the hours worked; liquidated damages; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and all other appropriate relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Defendants are in the business of leasing trucks for hazardous materials where Plaintiff performed yard/shop work. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com ECO SCIENCE: "Stires" Sues Over Share Trading Suspension --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Stires, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Eco Science Solutions, Inc., Jeffery Taylor and Don Lee Taylor, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03707 (D.N.J., May 24, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages for violation of federal securities laws; and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Eco Science Solutions is a technology-focused company that provides solutions for the health and wellness industry. On May 5, 2017, it announced the proposed acquisition of Ga-Du Bank, Inc. On May 19, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension of trading in the securities of Eco Science Solutions, Inc. because of concerns regarding the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning its proposed acquisition of Ga-Du Bank, Inc. As a result, Company's securities are illiquid and virtually worthless thereby damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com ECO SCIENCE: "Penhollow" Sues Over Devalued Securities ------------------------------------------------------ David Penhollow, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Eco Science Solutions Inc., Jeffery Lee Taylor, and Don Lee Taylor, Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-03760 (D.N.J., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages for violation of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Eco Science Solutions is a technology-focused company that provides solutions for the health and wellness industry. On May 5, 2017, it announced the proposed acquisition of Ga-Du Bank, Inc. On May 19, 2017 the Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension of trading in the securities of Eco Science Solutions, Inc. because of concerns regarding the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning its proposed acquisition of Ga-Du Bank, Inc. As a result, Company's securities are illiquid and virtually worthless thereby damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman J. Alexander Hood II Marc Gorrie POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Wins OK of "Dunn" Accord; Hearing on Sept. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Thomas M. Rose granted the joint motion to certify a class and preliminary approve a class action settlement in the lawsuit entitled IRENE DUNN and DONALD STEELY, on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Persons, and IUE- CWA, AFL-CIO v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, f/k/a Energizer Personal Care, LLC, formerly a Division of Energizer Holdings, Inc., as the Plan Sponsor and Administrator of the Hewitt Soap Retiree Medical Insurance Plan, Case No. 3:14-cv-00195-TMR (S.D. Ohio). Edgewell will serve notice to the individual Class members, and counsel for Edgewell will file proof of service with the Court, no later than July 17, 2017. Objections must be filed with the Clerk of the Court, postmarked no later than August 23, 2017. A fairness hearing is scheduled for September 12, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. The Complaint asserts a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of a class of retired employees, who once worked at a facility owned by the Hewitt Soap Company -- predecessor to Defendant Edgewell Personal Care, LLC -- and who were covered by collective bargaining agreements between Plaintiff IUE-CWA and Hewitt Soap. The Ohio Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, and the Complaint which reflected the agreement, identified this class for certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All participants in the Hewitt Soap Retiree Plan, sponsored by Energizer Personal Care, LLC, or its corporate affiliates, including Energizer Holdings, Inc., Edgewell Personal Care Company, American Safety Razor Company, LLC, or Hewitt Soap Company, Inc., covering retirees from the Dayton, Ohio factory who: (i) had retired from active employment at the Dayton factory on or before October 2003, (ii) were represented by the IUE-CWA, AFL-CIO during their employment at the Dayton factory, and (iii) received medical insurance benefits during their retirement under the collective bargaining agreement after retiring from active employment at the Dayton factory (the "Class"). The Class Settlement provides, among other things, that putative class members, who have received any monthly payments of $75 pursuant to the retiree medical cost reimbursement provisions of a collective bargaining agreement at any time on or after January 1, 2013 will be eligible to receive the lump sum amount set forth in the chart. The Defendants will pay a single lump sum benefit to each eligible class member in these amounts depending on their ages as of January 1, 2017: AGES LUMP SUM AMOUNT ---- --------------- 85+ $5,000 80-84 $6,000 75-80 $8,150 70-74 $9,225 <70 $10,250 A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z4tA50Om EL PASO NATURAL: July 18 Hearing to Approve Royalty Case Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHITA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., formerly known as NATIONS BANK, N.A., as TRUSTEE OF THE VIRGINIA C. EARMAN TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; and BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY, LP, formerly Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, a Delaware Corporation, formerly Meridian Oil, Inc.; formerly El Paso Exploration Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. Case No. CJ-2004-45 Judge Christopher S. Kelly. TO: All individuals and entities owning any royalty and/or overriding interests that burden the Defendants' working interests in the oil and gas leases owned by Defendants, which leases, at any point during the periods described below for Subclasses 1, 2, and 3, produced or now produce natural gas located within the States of Oklahoma, Texas or New Mexico (less and except certain coalbed methane gas produced from the Fruitland formation in the State of New Mexico), and less and except other excluded persons and claims set forth below (the "Class" which is comprised of "Class Members"). If you are a Prior Owner of a Subject Royalty Interest now held by Current Owner during the Class Period, you will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make a claim for distribution of settlement funds attributable to the time you were an owner, even if the Current Owner has opted out of the Class, provided that you did not relinquish your right to recover royalty underpayments during the time of your ownership when you passed title to your royalty interest to the successor. A hearing is set for July 18, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Christopher Kelly at the Washita County Courthouse, which is located at 111 East Main Street, Cordell, Oklahoma 73632. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a proposed class action settlement of the claims in the above captioned lawsuit asserted against El Paso Natural Gas Company and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company, and as successor in interest to Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company (collectively referred to herein as "Defendants"). A detailed settlement notice has been mailed to all known potential Class Members describing the settlement and the rights of the Class Members. Because the proposed settlement and the scheduled court hearing may affect your rights to share in the possible settlement recovery proposed in this lawsuit, you should immediately obtain a copy of the Class Settlement Notice if you have not received one in the mail. The Certified Class On August 7, 2009, the District Court of Washita County, Oklahoma entered its Order certifying the Oklahoma and Texas Subclasses. That Order was affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals by Order dated May 27, 2011 in Appeal No. 107,510. Thereafter, the Oklahoma Supreme Court by Order dated October 10, 2011, denied certiorari and the Mandate issued on February 27, 2012. In conjunction with this Order, the Oklahoma and Texas Subclasses are defined, as follows: Subclass 1: The persons or entities who own or have owned non-cost bearing interests, which are subject to oil and gas leases owned prior to August 7, 2009 from in whole or in part by BROG and/or El Paso, which leases are or were productive of natural gas, and other hydrocarbons during the period March 1, 1984 through May 31, 2015 and located in the State of Oklahoma. This subclass further includes owners who received a share of their royalty and/or overriding royalty revenue from BROG and/or EPNG, even though they were not directly leased to BROG and/or El Paso, vis-a-vis Oklahoma Senate Bill 168, codified as 52 Okla. St. Sec. 570.4. This subclass excludes overriding royalty owners with the right to take in kind. Subclass 2: The persons or entities who own or have owned non-cost bearing interests, which are subject to oil and gas leases owned prior to August 7, 2009 in whole or in part by BROG and/or El Paso, which leases are or were productive of oil, gas and other hydrocarbons during the period March 1, 1984 through May 31, 2015 and located in the State of Texas a) For each of the above two subclasses, "natural gas or other hydrocarbons" shall include natural gas, casinghead gas, natural gas liquids, condensate from natural gas, and all hydrocarbons entrained in natural gas and all other hydrocarbons not produced and separated at the well in liquid form by ordinary production methods. b) For each of the above two subclasses, "non-cost bearing interests" shall include owners of royalty, overriding royalty and other forms of non- participating mineral rights. c) For each of the above two subclasses, the Class includes persons who owned non-cost bearing interests in the above described wells from March 1, 1984 to May 31, 2015. d) For each of the above two subclasses, the claim period encompasses claims accruing from January 1, 1980 through the Final Approval. EXCLUSIONS The following persons or entities are excluded from the subclasses: (i) Defendants and any of their wholly owned affiliates, parents or commonly owned subsidiaries through a common parent; (ii) All state or federal owned interests; (iii) Indian Tribe interests, whether or not allotted; (iv) All publicly traded companies who receive over seventy-five (75) percent of their oil and gas revenue from working interest sources; (v) All claims under wells qualified under Sec. 107 of the NGPA, inclusive of those claims settled by persons or entities in the case of Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al., consolidated Case No. CJ-9768, District Court for Washita County, State of Oklahoma; and (vi) The wells and claims covered by the allegations pled in Dodson v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al., Case No. CJ-2004-119, Beckham County, Oklahoma. On February 13, 2014, the District Court of Washita County, Oklahoma entered a subsequent Order certifying the New Mexico Subclass. That Order was affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals by Order dated January 30, 2015 in Appeal No. 112,648. Thereafter, the Oklahoma Supreme Court by Order dated November 9, 2015, denied Certiorari and the Mandate issued on January 27, 2016. The 3rd subclass is defined as follows: Subclass 3: The persons or entities who own or have owned non-cost bearing interests, which are subject to oil and gas leases, owned prior to February 13, 2014 in whole or in part by BROG and/ or EPNG, which leases are or were productive of oil, gas and other hydrocarbons during the period March 1, 1984 through December 31, 2015 and located in the State of New Mexico. For further definition, and as is consistent with the Oklahoma and Texas subclasses previously certified: a) "oil, gas and other hydrocarbons" shall include, but not be limited to natural gas, oil, condensate, casinghead gas, natural gas liquids, all hydrocarbons entrained with natural gas, or casinghead gas regardless of where such hydrocarbons are captured or obtained, inclusive of coal bed methane, shale gas, shale oil or any other substance or material which consists of or is commonly accepted as a hydrocarbon; b) "non-cost bearing interests" shall include owners of royalty, overriding royalty and other forms of non- participating mineral rights; c) for this subclass 3, the Class includes persons who owned non-cost bearing interests in the above described wells during the period March 1, 1984 through May 31, 2015; and d) the claim period encompasses claims accruing from January 1, 1980 through the Final Approval. EXCLUSIONS The following persons or entities are excluded from the proposed subclass: (i) Defendants and any of their wholly owned affiliates, parents or commonly owned subsidiaries through a common parent; (ii) all state or federal owned interests; (iii) Indian Tribe federal trust interests, whether or not allotted; (iv) all publicly traded companies who receive over seventy-five (75) percent of their oil and gas revenues from working interest sources; and (v) The claims, pertaining to coal bed methane (CBM), covered by the settlement approved on October 21, 2014 in Ideal v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, L.P., Santa Fe County, New Mexico, Case No. D-0101-CV-2003-02309. You may be a member of the Class even though your royalty or overriding royalty interest burdening Defendants' working interest is or has been paid to you by an operator other than Defendants. Please contact Class Counsel, the Settlement and Claims Administrator, or the operator from which you receive or received payments to determine if you own or owned royalty or overriding interest that burden Defendants' working interests during the Class Period and hence are a member of the Class. If you are a member of the Class, you have the right to object to the settlement, you have a right to request to be excluded from the Class, and you may be entitled to a payment under the Plan of Allocation if you do not request or have not requested to be excluded from the class. Preliminary Settlement Approval As a part of the preliminary approval, the Court approved a Plan of Allocation. A copy of the Plan of Allocation can be obtained by writing to Counsel for the proposed Class at their addresses specified below. Under the terms of the Plan of Allocation, the settlement funds shall be distributed to "Eligible Class Members" who are defined as the current owner of the Class Members' royalties and overriding royalties during the Class Period who did not opt out of the Class and whose portion of the Net Settlement Amount as calculated pursuant to the Plan of Allocation is equal to ten dollars or more. The Plan of Allocation, the Settlement Agreement, and other documents may be reviewed at shallowwellsettlement.com Choices and Deadlines for Class Members If you are a member of the Class, you have the following choices: -- You may remain in the Class by doing nothing and participate in the benefits of the proposed settlement if you are an Eligible Class member. If this is what you choose to do, your interests will be represented without any advance cost to you by the following attorneys, whom the Court has appointed as Counsel for the Class: (1) Bradley D. Brickell Brickell & Associates 1014 24th Ave NW, Suite 100 Norman, OK 73069 - and - Stephen R. McNamara, Esq. Brian T. Inbody, Esq. McNamara, Inbody & Parrish, PLLC 1437 S. Boulder Ave., Suite 1210 Tulsa, OK 74119 -- If you remain in the Class, you may file with the Court a written objection to any aspect of the proposed settlement. To do so, you must comply with the requirements described in the Settlement Notice, which include filing your objection with the Clerk of the Court and serving it on counsel for the parties no later than June 14, 2017. -- If you want to be excluded from the Class, you must inform Class Counsel of that fact by written letter or postcard postmarked no later than June 14, 2017 to: Brickell & Associates Attn: Burlington Settlement 1014 24th Ave NW, Suite 100 Norman, Oklahoma 73069 You must specify the name and address of the Class Member that elects to be excluded from the Class. Only Class Members may opt out. Persons claiming to opt out for or on behalf of other Class Members must show an executed Power of Attorney or other valid documentation showing their authority to act on behalf of the other Class Member. -- If you are a Prior Owner, you have one of two options: * First, if the Current Owner has opted out of the Class, then you may make a claim for distribution of the settlement funds attributable to the time you were an owner. The list of opt-outs is maintained by the Settlement and Claims Administrator: Barbara Ley, P.C. Attn: Burlington Settlement 6305 Waterford Blvd., Suite 450 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118 To make a claim you must, by June 28, 2017, submit in writing to the Settlement and Claims Administrator your intention to make a claim on the settlement payments attributable to the time you were an owner that would have gone to the Current Owner had the Current Owner not opted-out of the Class along with information sufficient to identify the Subject Royalty Interest and the legal basis for their claim by no later than June 28, 2017. You must provide evidence of your prior ownership (including your prior ownership ID number, a legal description of the property or wells in which you held a royalty or overriding royalty interest and evidence of the period of your prior ownership), information identifying the Current Owner who opted-out of the Class and proof that you did not relinquish your right to recover royalty underpayments during your time of ownership when you passed title to your royalty interest to your successor. * Second, if the Current Owner has not opted out of the Class, you may file an objection to allocation of the settlement amount due on the Subject Royalty Interest solely to the Current Owner. To dispute allocation of the settlement payment from a particular Subject Royalty Interest solely to the Current Owner you must by June 28, 2017, submit in writing to the Settlement and Claims Administrator your intention to object along with information sufficient to identify the Subject Royalty Interest and the legal basis for the objection, including proof that they did not relinquish their right to recover royalty underpayments during their time of ownership when they passed title to their royalty interest to their successor. The Settlement and Claims Administrator will then provide additional instructions regarding resolution of any dispute with the Current Owner over entitle to settlement funds. More detail on the above procedures is contained in the long-form Notice of Settlement Agreement. If you have any questions, if you wish to obtain a copy of the settlement notice, or if you need further information about the terms of the settlement, please write to counsel for the Class at their addresses described above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL FOR INFORMATION. DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL, EMPLOYEES AND REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. ELOISE LANDA: June 23 Final Hearing on Tenant Deposits Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- A final fairness and approval hearing will be held on June 23, 2017, on the settlement of the case captioned Alvarado v. Landa et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division No. 15-CH-07447. A Settlement Agreement has been preliminarily approved by the Court. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, each Class Member who submits a valid claim form will receive a single settlement payment check of $75.00. If multiple claim forms are received from co-tenants, then a single payment check of $75.00 will be made payable to the co-tenants who submitted a claim form. A class action lawsuit was filed against Eloise Landa et al., by Ricardo Alvarado alleging a violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance concerning the failure to attach a copy of the separate summary describing the respective rights, obligations and remedies of landlords and tenants with respect to security deposits that was prepared by the Chicago commissioner of the department of housing as explicitly required by Section 5-12- 170 of the RLTO. The class includes ALL TENANTS OR PROSPECTIVE TENANTS OF THE FOLLOWING CHICAGO APARTMENT BUILDINGS BETWEEN MAY 6, 2013 AND APRIL 10, 2017: 1324 N. Bosworth Ave., Chicago, Illinois 1353-57 N. Ashland Ave., Chicago, Illinois 1437 N. Bosworth Ave., Chicago, Illinois 2400 N. Lakeview St. #810, 1112, Chicago, Illinois 253 E. Delaware St., #14D, Chicago, Illinois 2836-38 N. Francisco Ave., Chicago, Illinois 2840 N. Francisco Ave., #3, Chicago, Illinois 1726-28 W. Division St., Chicago, Illinois 900 N. Lake Shore Drive #1106, 1814, 2506, Chicago, Illinois 175 E. Delaware St., #5020, 5105, 5416, 5617, 5717, 5906, 6006, Chicago, Illinois 1361-63 N. Ashland Ave., Chicago, Illinois (a/k/a 1547-59 W. Blackhawk St., Chicago, Illinois) Additional information is available at https://is.gd/LnBdXH Class counsel is: JS Law 29 E. Madison St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 756-1330 Email: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Sasin Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vitaliy Sasin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enterprise Financial Group, Inc., Royal Administration Services, Inc., Barantas Incorporated, EGS Administration, LLC, Assurant, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-04022 (C.D. Cal., May 30, 2017) seeks statutory damages, recovery of costs of suit and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. EFG, Omega, and Royal are administrators of after-market automobile warranty policies sold by each of these defendants directly to consumers who own vehicles. Assurant is an insurance company which insures the policies sold by Royal and EFG. Defendants contacted Plaintiff on his mobile telephone numbers in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase their auto warranty policies. All the calls were allegedly made using an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Niv V. Davidovich, Esq. DAVIDOVICH KAUFMAN LEGAL GROUP, APA 6442 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 211 North Hollywood, CA 91606 Tel: (818) 661-2420 Fax: (818) 305-5131 Email: niv@davkauf.com EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gonzalez" Lawsuit Under Cal. Law --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA T. GONZALEZ, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Nevada Corporation; LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01077-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 24, 2017), accuses Defendants of systemic misclassification and mistreatment of California phlebotomists as independent contractors in violation of California's wage and hour laws. EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. is a medical information services company. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS is a health care diagnostics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-342-8000 Fax: 619-342-7878 E-mail: alreenh@zhlaw.com aarono@zhlaw.com FEIN SUCH: "Perez" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------- Cathy Perez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05175 (E.D. La., May 23, 2017), seeks actual and statutory damages for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant is a law firm with offices located at 7 Century Drive, Suite 201, Parsippany, New Jersey. Plaintiff's spouse, Alejandro Perez, allegedly incurred a financial obligation to The Valley Hospital. But Plaintiff herself was not contractually or otherwise liable on said debt. Defendant sent a legal complaint in behalf of Valley Hospital to collect hospital dues addressed to both her and her husband. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Tel: (201) 507-6300 FLUSHMATE: September 18 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------- A new settlement has been reached about the Series 503 Flushmate III Pressure Assist Flushing System ("Flushmate System"). A separate $18 million settlement has already been approved and all valid claims have been paid. Anyone who owns or owned a toilet with a Flushmate System manufactured from October 14, 1997 through April 30, 2011 is eligible to file a claim. Flushmate Systems were installed in American Standard, Copperfit, Crane, Ecotech, Eljer, Gerber, Kohler, Lamosa, Mancesa, Mansfield, Orion, St. Thomas, Universal Rundle, Vitra, Vitromex, Vortens and Western Pottery toilets, which were sold at Home Depot and Lowe's stores and through distributors and plumbing contractors. Subject to Court approval, and to the extent not previously reimbursed, class members can receive money for having installed: (1) a Flushmate III repair kit, (2) a replacement pressure vessel, or (3) a replacement toilet. To the extent not previously reimbursed, class members can also receive reimbursement for any direct property damage caused by a Flushmate System that leaked or burst. Approximately $7 million is left over from the previous settlement. The remaining money will be used to pay all valid claims. If necessary, Defendant will contribute additional money to pay 100% of all valid claims submitted before the claims deadline for people covered by the new settlement. If there is any money left over from the previous settlement after paying all valid claims from both settlements, the claims periods may be extended again, or the money may be donated to a charity. Class Members must submit a claim in order to get reimbursement. Claims can be filed online at www.FlushmateClaims.com or class members can call 1-877-412-5277 to receive a claim form. Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions. Certain deadlines have already passed for the previous settlement, but class members can comment on the modifications to the previous settlement by August 21, 2017. If class members want to keep their right to sue the Defendant in the new settlement, they must exclude themselves from the class by August 21, 2017. If they stay in the class, they may object to the new settlement by August 21, 2017. The Court will hold a hearing on September 18, 2017 to consider the proposed modifications to the previous settlement and whether to approve the new settlement and a request for attorneys' fees and costs up to $600,000. The attorneys' fees for the new settlement are being paid separately by the Defendant and will not reduce settlement payments. Class members may hire their own lawyer to appear at the hearing at their own expense. For additional information about the settlements, please visit www.FlushmateClaims.com or call 1-877-412-5277. FRUIT OF THE EARTH: "O'Shaughnessy" Sues Over Aloe Vera Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bridget O'Shaughnessy and Merrick Ungar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fruit of the Earth, Inc., CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreens Co. and Edgewell Personal Care Company, Defendants, Case No. D-1-GN-17-002316 (S.D. Tex., May 24, 2017), seeks money damages, pre and post judgment interest at the maximum legal rate, costs of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for breach of implied and express warranty and for violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Defendants are manufacturers, marketers and sellers of aloe vera products. Plaintiffs allege that their aloe vera products do not contain a substantial content of aloe vera and thereby do not have its healing and restorative elements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Colley, Jr., Esq. Jarrett Stone, Esq. COLLEY & COLLEY, L.L.P. 12912 Hill Country Blvd., Suite F-234 Austin, TX 78738 Tel: (512) 477-2001 Fax: (512) 477-3335 Email: paul@colleylaw.net jarrettf@colleylaw.net GENERAL MOTORS: Class Suit Alleges Cheating in Emissions Tests -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Tarantola, writing for Engadget, reports that yet another automaker has potentially been caught trying to cheat on its EPA emissions tests. Following VW's "diesel-gate" SNAFU in 2015 and the Justice Department going after Fiat-Chrysler, GM found itself the defendant in a class-action suit over its alleged use of "defeat devices" similar to those used by VW. The suit, filed in federal court in Detroit, is on behalf of more than 705,000 people who bought or leased Chevy "Duramax" Silverado and Sierra trucks between 2011 and 2016. It alleges that the company employed three different "defeat devices" to bypass state and federally mandated emissions tests and that these vehicles actually produce between two and five times the legal limit of NOx gas. GM has denied the charges' validity, calling the lawsuit "baseless". A group of law firms, including Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (which was involved in the VW case), filed the suit. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Shares Drop After Emissions Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Tomi Kilgore, writing for Marketwatch, reports that shares of General Motors Co. sank 2.2% in midday trade May 25, after a Bloomberg report that the automaker was being sued by consumers for installing devices in its trucks to beat emissions tests, similar to Volkswagen AG's highly-publicized scandal in 2015. The Bloomberg report said the class-action suit was filed in Detroit by people who own or lease more than 705,000 GM Duramax diesel trucks, and not by a government agency. The suit alleges that GM's defeat devices allowed its trucks to pass inspections even though the trucks spewed emissions up to five times the legal limit under regular driving conditions, the report said. The report does not say the damages being sought. Earlier, the stock was down as much as 3.9% at 6-1/2-month low of $31.92 in intraday trade. The stock has now lost 6.8% year to date, while the S&P 500 SPX, +0.03% has gained 7.8%, according to the report dated May 25. [GN] GEICO: VIP Auto Seeks Class Action Status ----------------------------------------- John Huetter, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that a glass shop which has sued GEICO has formally sought class-action status for itself and other shops who've butted up against GEICO's "prevailing competitive price." VIP Auto Glass argued that GEICO's use of its contractually discounted rate with Safelite as the "prevailing competitive price" is inappropriate. By requiring customers to pay the difference between that amount and what non-network shops reasonably charge for glass work, GEICO is in effect charging a glass deductible in violation of Florida law, the shop alleges. "Despite collecting billions in premiums, GEICO is, on a continuing basis, unlawfully underpaying legitimate Windshield Claims to its Florida insureds and thereby pocketing windfall profits," the shop argues in a May 19 motion for class certification, which echoes many of the allegations in its Feb. 21 amended VIP Auto Glass v. GEICO lawsuit. Florida Section 627.7288 declares that deductibles for all insurance "providing comprehensive coverage or combined additional coverage shall not be applicable to damage to the windshield of any motor vehicle covered under such policy," VIP wrote in its lawsuit. GEICO has denied the VIP allegations in its answer to the U.S. Middle District of Florida lawsuit. While the case hinges on a glass-specific point of law, it still might set a precedent for collision repairers in the state by calling into question an insurer's methodology in determining "prevailing competitive price." Collision repairers and the state of California have challenged using contractually discounted direct repair program labor rates to calculate the market rate for auto body repairs as well. "By euphemistically describing the amount it pays as the 'prevailing competitive price,' when that is just a privately- negotiated rate with the largest operator in the windshield repair and replacement market, GEICO engages in deceptive business practices and violates the statutory and contractual prohibitions against imposing a deductible on Windshield Claims in Florida," the motion states. According to the lawsuit and motion, GEICO's policy is far too vague on what constitutes a "prevailing competitive price." "Under well-settled Florida law, a statutory or contractual provision is ambiguous whenever reasonable people can disagree over its meaning," and an insurer automatically loses any dispute over ambiguous policy language, VIP wrote in its motion for class certification. "Other than stating that the 'prevailing competitive price' is the price Defendant "can secure from a competent and conveniently located repair facility,' the policy does not include a definition of the term 'prevailing competitive price' or a definition of the term 'competent and conveniently located repair facility,' or identify or adopt any particular pricing schedule or pricing methodology that cannot be exceeded," the lawsuit states. "Although the policy states that Defendant will, upon the insured's request, 'identify a repair facility that will perform the repairs or replacements at the prevailing competitive price,' the policy does not indicate or require that the insured must make such a request or use any particular windshield repair facility, and as a result of the undefined and unauthorized 'prevailing competitive price' language in the policy, Defendant has and continues to evade the no deductible mandate." VIP hangs its case on a customer which selected the glass company to address a damaged windshield -- and gave it an assignment of benefits. VIP's motion says it charged GEICO $936.37, "which is VIP's standard price based on the same retail price published by the National Auto Glass Specifications." GEICO only paid $468.03, and "has underpaid VIP on other windshield claims performed for other customers insured by GEICO." That $468.03 is nearly 50 percent of the VIP bill, which seems to mesh with what VIP alleges GEICO charges its glass network shops - - notably, Safelite. "According to the current Glass Pricing Agreement, which dates back to February 6, 2012, GEICO has unilaterally decided that it will pay merely 50% of the NAGS benchmark list price for windshield parts," VIP Auto Glass wrote in the motion. ". . . Notably, the prevailing competitive price provision does not say it is the "lowest" price that GEICO can secure, or the price that it can secure from a particular facility or preferred vendor (e.g., Safelite)." And given that VIP Auto Glass is charging NAGS prices, it's hard to argue that it's not being reasonable or competitive -- particularly as other insurers are agreeing to the bills, according to the motion. Other insurance companies, such as Liberty Mutual, Infinity, the Hartford, Chubb, Mercury, and many others, regularly pay VIP's standard pricing in full, which include charges for windshields at 100% of the NAGS benchmark price. . . . In fact, even GEICO Commercial Insurance paid VIP's standard price of 100% of the NAGS benchmark. . . . Indeed, VIP's prices are certainly within GEICO's vague description of the "prevailing competitive price" because VIP's price is one that GEICO can secure from VIP, and GEICO does not dispute that VIP (and the Class members) are each "a competent and conveniently located repair facility." GEICO has disputed that it uniformally imposes these terms across the board. "Defendant admits that Exhibit G contains some examples of documents referenced as Glass Pricing Agreement, but denies that those examples are applicable to all claims in Florida. Otherwise, Defendant denies the allegations of this paragraph," it wrote in its March 7 answer to the lawsuit. ". . . Defendant admits that the referenced pricing structure applied to certain windshield repair or replacement claims in Florida, but denies that the referenced pricing structure applied to all windshield repair or replacement claims in Florida." Class status VIP has asked that the court define the class as all windshield repair facility owners in Florida hired by a policyholder to perform windshield repair or replacement and did so. These class members must also have an assignment of benefits and requested payment but didn't receive all that they'd billed for. Shops which "were otherwise satisfied through litigation or settlement; and/or (ii) are the subject of pending litigation against Defendant as of the date of any class certification order or other deadline established by the Court" don't count as class members. VIP Auto Glass estimates that "there are hundreds of potential Class members," noting that GEICO itself suggests there are more than 100 at least who'd fall into the class. GEICO has not yet filed a more detailed response or motion to dismiss the lawsuit or class motion. As noted above, its answer to the lawsuit either flatly denies most of VIP's assertions or denies them on the grounds that it lacks sufficient details to respond. However, the March 7 answer does provide several potential defenses and responses GEICO might use against VIP's specific case, the idea of granting class-action status, or the allegations of a class-action lawsuit should one be allowed on the terms sought by VIP. These include that assignments of benefits might have been obtained under fraudulent grounds and that each claim is too different to merit being lumped into a class-action suit. It also raises the possibility that some class-action shops' bills were actually third-party invoices inappropriately marked up by the shops. Finally, GEICO also might also argue that VIP and the other prospective class-action shops already knew it would be a tightwad when they agreed to serve policyholders. Some of the claims of Plaintiff and the putative class members may be barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, ratification, or other equitable doctrine. For example, without limitation, Plaintiff and the putative class members are, or should have been, aware of the amount Defendant is willing to pay for the subject windshield repair and replacement services due to actually having obtained estimates or work orders from Defendant (or intentionally or negligently not obtaining authorization and an estimate prior to performing the subject services) and by being aware through prior dealings of the manner in which Defendant pays for such services. Some of the claims of Plaintiff and the putative class members may be barred by the doctrine of estoppel, a contract implied in fact or law, or other equitable doctrine. For example, without limitation, Plaintiff and the putative class members may have performed windshield repair or replacement services after having received from Defendant the amount Defendant was willing to pay for the subject services or being aware of Defendant's payment methodology, thereby constituting a contract in fact or law or otherwise estopping them from seeking reimbursement greater than what they knew, or should have known, Defendant would pay. [GN] HARTFORD CASUALTY: Johnson's Bid to Certify OK'd; To Meet June 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William H. Orrick entered an order in the lawsuit titled G. GRANT JOHNSON v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-cv-04138-WHO (N.D. Cal.): -- denying in large part Hartford's motion for summary judgment. Material facts are in dispute over Hartford's liability to Johnson, if any, and the record does not establish as a matter of law that Hartford's interpretation of its policy is correct; -- granting Mr. Johnson's motion for class certification; -- denying Hartford's motion to exclude the testimony of Eugene Peterson; -- granting Mr. Johnson's motion to strike portions of the Frost Declaration; -- granting Mr. Johnson's motion to strike the rebuttal report of Adrian Frank; and -- setting a case management conference for June 20, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. A Joint Case Management Statement is due June 13, 2017; it should include the parties' proposals for a case schedule through trial, according to the Order. Mr. Johnson owns a commercial building in San Francisco, California, which a fire partially consumed. He alleges that Hartford unlawfully underpaid him because it purposefully miscalculates "actual cost value" pay-outs by "depreciating all components of Plaintiff's structural loss without regard to whether the components were normally subject to repair and replacement during the useful life of that structure." He also contends that Hartford underpays ACV by decreasing the sales tax component of ACV by the percentage of physical depreciation taken on the claim. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qmX8aqbv HARTFORD FIRE: Faces Potential Class Action From Policy Holders --------------------------------------------------------------- Insurance Business reports that The Hartford Fire Insurance Company is facing a class action suit from almost 20,000 California policyholders who allege that the insurer routinely underpays claims for damaged property. According to the plaintiffs, The Hartford engages in practices that involve depreciating items not subject to such reductions under the stipulations of the policy or state law. The firm has also been accused of decreasing sales tax paid on replacement items. The Recorder reported that the class suit originated from a complaint filed in 2015 concerning an antique early 20th century building in San Francisco that sustained damage from a fire. In the original complaint, the plaintiff said that the insurer depreciated the cost of items including baseboards, cement, drywall, insulation, marble, lath and plaster, plumbing, and ornamental iron, among others, often by significant amounts. For instance, the complainant said that the replacement cost for plumbing was reduced by more than 42% while the replacement cost for marble was whittled down by 80%. The Hartford filed a motion to have the class certification denied, and sought summary judgment, both of which were denied by Judge William Orrick. Judge Orrick outlined that the company's policyholders "may decide, for a variety of reasons, to take (the actual replacement value) to which they are entitled and not rebuild all of the structure . . . . " "The measure of damages is not the difference between the amount of money spent on repairs and what was paid out, but rather the difference between what Hartford paid out and what it should have paid out," Orrick explained. As for the sales tax, the judge ruled that it "constitutes a non- tangible item not subject to deduction at all" under the policy or under the state insurance code. [GN] HEALTH AND PALLIATIVE: "Snow" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Snow, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Health and Palliative Services of the Treasure Coast, Inc. (d/b/a Treasure Coast Hospice), Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14186 (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, benefits tied to wages and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Treasure Health is a community of health professionals, volunteers and donors, primarily engaged in the care of the sick and the aged where Plaintiff worked as a hospice palliative care nurse. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Cullen, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Clearlake Plaza 500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 543 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 640-9191 Facsimile: (561) 214-4021 E-mail: mailbox@cullenlawfirm.net HOME DEPOT: Settlement Provides Data Security Framework ------------------------------------------------------- Catherine F. Ngo, Esq. -- cngo@nossaman.com -- of Nossaman LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the latest settlement in Home Depot's data breach litigation provides a data security framework for corporate governance that may be used by other companies as a template. Based on claims arising from a massive data breach in 2014 involving 56 million credit cards, Home Depot Inc. recently settled both a shareholder derivative action and a class action filed by financial institutions. Both settlements were filed and approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As part of a third settlement of a direct consumer class action in 2016, Home Depot had already agreed to set up a $19.5 million fund to reimburse its affected consumers, and to hire a chief information security officer (CISO). The recent settlement in In re: The Home Depot Inc. S'holder Derivative Litig., N.D. Ga., No. 15-cv-02999 provided nine corporate governance provisions that focus on corporate reform in data security, and were designed to improve Home Depot's ability to prevent and respond to future attacks. Home Depot and its board of directors agreed to: (i) document the duties and responsibilities of the newly-hired CISO; (ii) periodically conduct tabletop cyber exercises to validate the Home Depot's processes and procedures, test the readiness of its response capabilities, raise organizational awareness and train its personnel, and create remediation plans for issues and problem areas; (iii) monitor and periodically assess key indicators of compromise on computer network endpoints; (iv) maintain and periodically assess the Company's partnership with a dark web mining service to search for confidential Home Depot information; (v) maintain an executive-level committee focused on the Company's data security; (vi) receive periodic reports from management regarding the amount of the Company's IT budget and what percentage of the IT budget is spent on cybersecurity measures; (vii) maintain an incident response team and an incident response plan; (viii) maintain membership in at least one information sharing program; and (ix) retain their own IT, data and security experts and consultants as they deem necessary. The Home Depot shareholder derivative settlement agreement offers a valuable example of cybersecurity-focused corporate governance practices to all companies, including consumer-facing retailers, for implementing data breach protections and conducting post- breach remedial actions. Additionally, companies should consider using tools such as Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA) and Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA), designed to assess privacy and security frameworks, are also important in identifying risks and implementing necessary processes to meet regulatory and business expectations. [GN] HOMELAND SECURITY: Osorio-Martinez Appeals Ruling to 3rd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jethzabel Martiza Aguilar Mancia, Carmen Aleyda Lobo- Mejia, Maria Delmi Martinez Nolasco and Wendy Amparo Osorio Martinez filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Wendy Osorio Martinez, et al. v. Attorney General United States, et al., Case No. 5-17-cv-01747, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25, 2017, the proposed class action lawsuit, which was filed on April 17, 2017, in Philadelphia, is brought by four mothers fleeing violence in Central America. The Plaintiffs allege that the new administration's rush to deport their children violates a longstanding settlement. The children in question all successfully petitioned the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services last year, in the waning days of the Obama administration, for SIJ status. Short for special immigrant juvenile, SIJ status was created in 1990 by Congress for foreign-born children who meet certain criteria, such having experienced abuse, neglect or abandonment. The mothers say it allows at-risk minors under the age of 21 "to remain in the United States legally and permanently" while they apply for a green card. Homeland security is an American umbrella term for the national effort to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, aspirations, and ways of life can thrive to the national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States. The appellate case is captioned as Wendy Osorio Martinez, et al. v. Attorney General United States, et al., Case No. 17-2159, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants WENDY AMPARO OSORIO MARTINEZ; CARMEN ALEYDA LOBO-MEJIA, Individually and on behalf of her minor child, A.D.M.- L., and all other similarly situated; MARIA DELMI MARTINEZ NOLASCO, Individually, and on behalf of her minor child, J.E.L.- M., and all others similarly situated; and JETHZABEL MARTIZA AGUILAR MANCIA, Individually, and on behalf of her minor child, V.G.R.-A., and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Bridget Cambria, Esq. Jacquelyn M. Kline, Esq. CAMBRIA AND KLINE, PC 532 Walnut Street Reading, PA 19601 Telephone: (484) 926-2014 E-mail: bridget.cambria@cambriaklinelaw.com jackie.kline@cambriaklinelaw.com - and - Carol A. Donohoe, Esq. P.O. Box 12912 Reading, PA 19612 Telephone: (610) 370-7956 - and - Jessica Rickabaugh, Esq. Anthony C. Vale, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 217 Ryers Avenue Philadelphia, PA 1012 Telephone: (215) 981-4308 Facsimile: (215) 981-4750 E-mail: rickabaughj@pepperlaw.com Valea@pepperlaw.com Defendants-Appellees ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ACTING DIRECTOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE and FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT are represented by: Thomas W. Hussey, Esq. Jeff Sessions, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 HONDA OF AMERICA: Faces "Cooper" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES COOPER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 4212 Carona Street Springfield, Ohio 45503 Plaintiff, vs. HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC., c/o Statutory Agent Corp., 52 East Gay Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, Defendant, Case No. 2:17- cv-00460-GCS-TPK (S.D. Ohio, May 26, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were only paid for work performed between their scheduled start and stop times, and were not paid for the following work performed before their scheduled start times and after their scheduled stop times, including, but not limited to, donning and doffing safety glasses, a bump cap, Kevlar shirt, Kevlar pants, Kevlar gloves and sleeves, and steel toe boots. The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is an Ohio corporation that operates manufacturing facilities in various locations in Ohio. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee at Defendant's Marysville, Ohio location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Michaela Calhoun, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Phone: 330-470-4428 Fax: 330-754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com HUMANA AT HOME: "Cruz" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to M.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned HARRY CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HUMANA AT HOME 1, INC. And HUMANA, INC., Defendant (originally S.D. Fla., April 11, 2017), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida as Case No. 8:17-cv-01234-RAL-JSS, according to a case docket dated May 24, 2017. The case alleges that Plaintiff was denied overtime pay required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant, HUMANA AT HOME 1, INC., is a multi-line healthcare enterprise that provides programs and related services to Medicare-insured individuals throughout Florida and the United States. Plaintiff, HARRY CRUZ, is an adult resident of the State of Florida and has been employed by Defendants as a "Personal Health Coach", "Healthcare Coordinator."[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: John Clark Davis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS 623 Beard St. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Phone: (850) 222-4770 Fax: (850) 222-3119 E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net - and - Sean Parnell Culliton, Esq. SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC 150 John Knox Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Phone: (850) 385-9455 Fax: (813) 441-1999 E-mail: sean.culliton@gmail.com - and - Jeremiah Joseph Talbott, Esq. JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, PA 900 East Moreno Street Pensacola, FL 32503 Phone: (850) 437-9600 Fax: (850) 437-0906 E-mail: civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com Respondent(s) are represented by: Stephanie Leigh Adler-Paindiris, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC Suite 1285 390 N Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 246-8440 Fax: (407) 246-8441 E-mail: adlers@jacksonlewis.com - and - Amanda Simpson, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC Suite 1285 390 N Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 425-7010 Fax: (407) 425-2747 E-mail: amanda.simpson@jacksonlewis.com ILLINOIS BELL: LaMarr Wins Class Cert. Bid; Hearing on Aug. 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 24, 2017, in the case entitled Jacquelyne LaMarr, et al. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08660 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan. For the reasons stated in the Court's memorandum opinion, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification and approval of class notice is granted. Status hearing is reset to August 29, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. Status hearing set for June 6, 2017, was stricken. The minute entry also states that the joint motion to modify scheduling orders is granted as follows: -- All expert discovery shall be noticed in time to be complete by August 25, 2017; -- Dispositive motions are to be filed by September 22, 2017; -- Responses to dispositive motions, if any, are to be filed by October 20, 2017; and -- Replies, if any, are to be filed by November 14, 2017. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VguazCoS INDIANA: BMV Supervisor Fired Amid Hoosier Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Tony Cook, writing for IndyStar, reports that a supervisor at the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and her son -- also a BMV employee -- have been fired after an internal fraud investigation. But the BMV is releasing few details about the firings, rekindling concerns about openness at an agency that has overcharged customers, grappled with an ethics scandal and faced questions about politically motivated hirings. Stacy Cox, the accounting supervisor at BMV's headquarters in Indianapolis, was terminated March 21 for providing false information during an investigation by the agency's Fraud and Security Enforcement division. Her son, Richard Cody Pringle, who also worked at the central office as a driver's license printer, was terminated two weeks later for the same reason. The fraud investigation was prompted by the employees' personal vehicle transactions, including allegations of the employees submitting false monetary amounts paid for those vehicles, according to Ashley Hungate, a spokeswoman for the state personnel department. In phone interviews, Cox and Pringle defended their actions as oversights rather than deliberate misconduct. IndyStar requested a copy of the fraud investigation reports, but the BMV refused to provide them. citing exemptions to the state's public records law regarding personnel matters. Such reports, however, are typically released when they involve nonemployees. Government watchdogs say the agency's decision to withhold reports involving BMV employees is concerning, especially since employees fired after fraud investigations have landed sensitive jobs with BMV contractors in the past. Sarah Bonick, a spokeswoman for the BMV, said the agency must strike a balance between employee privacy and transparency. Cox told IndyStar the investigation began when she bought a vehicle from an east-side junkyard, Barlow's Used Auto Parts, where her brother worked. The vehicle turned out to be stolen. She said she was unaware that the vehicle was stolen when she bought it. BMV investigators later found she had titled a box truck five years earlier in her name and listed the purchase price as $0, even though her then-boyfriend had paid for it, she said. The BMV takes such indiscretions seriously because they can muddy the vehicle's ownership history and allow the new owner to avoid title costs, which include a 7 percent sales tax based on the purchase price listed on the title. Ms. Pringle said BMV investigators questioned him about several vehicles he bought or sold, including a pickup truck he purchased from the owner of Barlow's, where his uncle worked. "They accused me of lying about how much I paid for it," Ms. Pringle said. "I can't remember the amounts." He then sold that vehicle for $500 and "some handguns," he said, but only listed the $500 cash on the title work. He later told BMV investigators there was only one handgun involved in the exchange, though in reality there were "three or four," he said. "It was none of their business how many guns I traded for," he said. In another case, he purchased a vehicle for $2,000 from a friend, but paid only $100 in cash and agreed to work off the remaining $1,900 at his friend's shop, he said. So he listed $100 on the title work. While the terminations may be justified, advocates of open government said the BMV should be more transparent about such situations. "As a citizen, I am always concerned when a government agency fails to be transparent regarding offenses or violations that occur at the hands of its employees," said Zachary Baiel, president of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government. "Without access to this information, the public cannot be assured the necessary accountability has been met." Julia Vaughn, public policy director for Common Cause Indiana, shared his concerns. "While keeping these records under wraps serves their immediate interest of avoiding public scrutiny about what happened here, in the long term, it's just another reason for the public not to have faith in this agency," she said. "All I can think is there is information embarrassing to someone at a higher level who is still at the BMV." IndyStar reported in 2015 that at least three fired BMV employees were later hired by a BMV contractor, where they continued to have access to sensitive information stored on BMV terminals. Two of the employees had been fired after a fraud investigation; the other was terminated for poor performance that supervisors said opened up the agency to potential fraud. As in this latest case, the BMV declined to release any of the FSE investigation reports related to those employees. Ms. Bonick said the BMV now has safeguards to ensure that fired employees don't end up working in similar positions for outside contractors. "All potential employees who will have access to BMV terminals or our transaction system while working for a contractor are vetted through the State Personnel Department and also the BMV's Fraud and Security Enforcement Department," she said in an email. "Any former State of Indiana employee, not just those who previously worked for the BMV, who have been flagged as Not Eligible For Rehire are not approved." The firings come after several turbulent years for the agency. Since 2013, the BMV has admitted to overcharging Hoosier motorists about $90 million in taxes and fees. Those overcharges have since been refunded, but one of two class-action lawsuits over the fees remains unresolved. An IndyStar investigation in 2015 found that top BMV officials knew for years they were likely gouging Hoosier motorists with excessive fees, but chose to ignore or cover up the overcharges rather than refund the extra money and adjust to significant budget losses. The financial mismanagement raised serious questions about the qualifications of several top BMV officials and the role that political connections played in their hiring. IndyStar also found that Shawn Walters, the agency's former chief of staff, encouraged the use of a new fee, then went to work for a private vendor that benefited from it. The series of controversies led then-Gov. Mike Pence to shake up BMV leadership and cancel the state's contract with the controversial outside vendor. The state ethics commission later fined Walters $500 for violating state ethics rules -- an amount that government accountability experts criticized as too low. The BMV has since worked with lawmakers to streamline the state's complicated system of fees. [GN] INTRA-CELLULAR: Pakdeljam Files Suit Over Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Pakdeljam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc., Sharon Mates, Lawrence J. Hineline And Kimberly E. Vanover, Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-03197 (E.D. N.Y., May 26, 2017) seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that is focused on the discovery and clinical development of innovative, small molecule drugs that address underserved medical needs in neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders by targeting intracellular signaling mechanisms within the central nervous system, or CNS. The Company's lead drug candidate, ITI-007 also known as lumateperone, is supposed to treat schizophrenia, behavioral disturbances in dementia, bipolar disorder and other neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders. Defendants failed to disclose that the findings related to toxicity observed in animals treated with lumateperone posed a safety concern. On this news, Intra-Cellular's share price fell $3.33, or over 24%, to close at $10.49 on May 1, 2017. Plaintiff owns Intra- Cellular securities and lost substantially upon these disclosures. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Vazquez Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Gerardo Vazquez, Gloria Roman and Juan Aguilar filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Gerardo Vazquez, et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l Inc., Case No. 3:16- cv-05961-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs seek to recover minimum wage, overtime pay, other wage protections and other benefits of employment, such as eligibility for unemployment and workers' compensation, statutory enhancement of damages as allowed by law, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, California Business and Professions Code, New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia. The Company operates a franchise system by which franchisees sell and administers Jan-Pro cleaning workers, including the work of the Plaintiffs. The appellate case is captioned as Gerardo Vazquez, et al. v. Jan- Pro Franchising Int'l Inc., Case No. 17-16096, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by June 26, 2017; -- Transcript is due on July 24, 2017; -- Appellants Juan Aguilar, Gloria Roman and Gerardo Vazquez's opening brief is due on September 5, 2017; -- Appellee Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.'s answering brief is due on October 2, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GERARDO VAZQUEZ, GLORIA ROMAN and JUAN AGUILAR, and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com Defendant-Appellee JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC., is represented by: Jeffrey Mark Rosin, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH AND PROPHETE, LLP 535 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 849-7882 Facsimile: (617) 849-7872 E-mail: jrosin@constangy.com JIVE SOFTWARE: Faces "Ward" Suit Over Wave Merger ------------------------------------------------- BRYAN WARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. JIVE SOFTWARE, INC., ELISA STEELE, MARGARET BREYA, STEVE DARCY, ROBERT FRANKFURT, PHIL KOEN, TOM REILLY, CHUCK ROBEL, GABRIELLE TOLEDANO, BALAJI YELAMANCHILI, and TONY ZINGALE, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02993-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2017), alleges that the recommendation statement that solicit the tendering of shares of the Company's common stock omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not false or misleading in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Specifically, Defendants solicit the tendering of shares of Company's common stock to ESW Capital, LLC through ESW's wholly owned subsidiary, Wave Systems Corp. The Tender Offer, commenced on May 12, 2017, is set to expire at midnight Eastern Time on June 9, 2017. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $462 million. Allegedly, the Recommendation Statement is materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material information about the financial projections prepared by the Company and relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, the potential conflicts of interest faced by the financial advisor, and the potential conflicts of interest faced by Company management. JIVE SOFTWARE, INC. furnishes social business software products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 291-2420 Fax: (415) 484-1294 - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 333-2121 Email: denright@zlk.com KBR INC: July 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE KBR, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 4:14-CV-01287 Judge Lee H. Rosenthal SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All Persons and Entities Who Purchased or Otherwise Acquired the Publicly Traded Common Stock of KBR, Inc. ("KBR") During the Period from September 11, 2013 through July 30, 2014, Inclusive (the "Class Period"), and Who Were Damaged Thereby (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that the above- captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Class Representatives Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and IBEW Local No. 58 / SMC NECA Funds, on behalf of themselves and the Class, and Defendants KBR, William P. Utt, Susan K. Carter, Dennis S. Baldwin, and Brian K. Ferraioli (collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action in the amount of $10,500,000 in cash that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in the United States Courthouse, Courtroom 11-B, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX 77002 at 2:00 p.m. on July 25, 2017 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of April 5, 2017; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the Action, www.KBRSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: KBR Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Epiq P.O. Box 4290 Portland, OR 97208-4290 (844) 685-5620 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: Louis Gottlieb, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com (888) 219-6877 John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 www.blbglaw.com (800) 380-8496 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or received no later than August 19, 2017. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than July 4, 2017. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are filed and received no later than July 4, 2017. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel. DATED: May 5, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS URL: www.KBRSecuritiesLitigation.com KOREA KING: Foundation for Consumers Mulls Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Thai BPS reports that The Foundation for Consumers will launch a class action lawsuit against the importer and distributor of Korea King cooking pans on behalf of 109 buyers of the kitchen utensil. This came after Wizard Solution, the sole distributor the controversial cooking pans rejected the foundation's offer to mediate with the company on behalf of the consumers but would directly deal with them. Foundation secretary-general Ms Saree Ongsomwang said on May 25 that the class action lawsuit would set an example for the business sector to pay more attention their advertising to make sure that their products match with the advertised quality. Mr Sitthawat Pakinsakulpat, a volunteer lawyer, said consumers would get fairer treatment if the collectively lodge a class action suit instead of separately filing cases. Ms Narumon Mekborisut, head of the Centre for the Protection of Consumers' Rights, said each buyer would demand compensation for the price each paid for the cooking pans, 3,900 baht for Diamond series and 3,300 baht for the Gold series, plus other expenses incurred such as travel expenses. She expected the lawsuit to be filed with the court in June. [GN] LINCOLN NATIONAL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Barber" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Oliver Huston Barber, III, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Oliver Barber, III v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-00034, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks to recover full benefits due and a declaration of the right to receive future benefits without improper offsets; prejudgment and post-judgment interest at 12% per annum; enjoinment of the Defendant from making additional illegal offsets from benefit payments and from administering claims without using the appropriate and requisite tax reporting information; disgorgement of any offsets from benefit payments withheld without using appropriate tax reporting information and any offsets in excess of the amounts properly offset as shown by appropriate tax reporting information; legal fees and such other relief as is just and proper under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Mr. Barbers was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and filed for disability under his insurance plan. Lincoln reduced his monthly benefits after finding out Barber's was doing freelance political consulting work. He claims this as baseless and illegal. The appellate case is captioned as Oliver Barber, III v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 17-5588, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant brief is due on July 10, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due on August 9, 2017; and -- A Telephone Mediation conference has been scheduled for June 26, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. (ET) with Rod McFaull.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant OLIVER HUSTON BARBER, III, on behalf of himself and two classes of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Clark C. Johnson, Esq. Marjorie A. Farris, Esq. Michael T. Leigh, Esq. STITES & HARBISON PLLC 400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202-3352 Telephone: (502) 587-3400 E-mail: mfarris@stites.com cjohnson@stites.com mleigh@stites.com Defendant-Appellee LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Edmund Scott Sauer, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 1600 Division Street, Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2582 Facsimile: (615) 252-6374 E-mail: esauer@bradley.com LONG VALLEY PHARMACY: "Patel" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pinakin Patel, and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Long Valley Pharmacy, Inc. and Mickey Singh, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03798, (D.N.J., May 27, 2017), seeks payment of compensation for all overtime pay due, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and for all other appropriate relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Defendants operate a store in Long Valley, Morris County, NJ where Plaintiff works as a delivery personnel. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com LYFT INC: Overton Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Intervenor Archie Overton filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-04065-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several objectors have filed separate appeals in the lawsuit, including Kerry Ann Sweeney. On May 4, 2017, the District Court gave final approval to a $27 million settlement between ride-hail app Lyft and its drivers, who claimed they were classified as independent contractors so Lyft could skirt minimum wage laws. The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 17-16072, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by June 19, 2017; -- Transcript is due on July 20, 2017; -- Appellant Archie Overton's opening brief is due on August 28, 2017; -- Appellees Patrick Cotter, Jeffrey Knudtson, Lyft, Inc. and Alejandra Maciel's answering brief is due on September 28, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Movant-Appellant and Proposed Intervenor ARCHIE OVERTON of San Leandro, California, appears pro se.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL and JEFFREY KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew David Carlson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com Defendant-Appellee LYFT, INC., is represented by: Simona Agnolucci, Esq. R. James Slaughter, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 E-mail: sagnolucci@keker.com rslaughter@kvn.com - and - Peder Kristian Batalden, Esq. Felix Shafir, Esq. HORVITZ & LEVY LLP 3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Floor Burbank, CA 91505-4681 Telephone: (818) 995-0800 E-mail: pbatalden@horvitzlevy.com fshafir@horvitzlevy.com - and - Jon B. Eisenberg, Esq. HORVITZ & LEVY LLP 509 Tucker Street Healdsburg, CA 95448-4428 Telephone: (707) 395-0111 E-mail: jeisenberg@horvitzlevy.com - and - Thomas M. McInerney, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Steuart Tower One Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-4871 Facsimile: (415) 442-4870 E-mail: tmm@ogletreedeakins.com MARKET AMERICA: Yang Files Suit Over Illegal Pyramid Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- Chuanjie Yang and Ollie Lan, individuals and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Market America, Inc., Market America Worldwide, Inc., James Howard Ridinger, Loren Ridinger, Marc Ashley and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04012, (C.D. Cal., May 30, 2017), seeks rescission of the agreements made between Plaintiff and Defendants; recovery of all consideration paid pursuant to the scheme, less any amounts paid or consideration provided to the participant pursuant to the Defendants' business entered into by Plaintiffs; damages for the financial losses incurred by Plaintiff and for injury to their business and property; restitution and disgorgement of monies; temporary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining MarketAmerica from paying its Distributors recruiting rewards that are unrelated to retail sales to ultimate users and from further unfair, unlawful, fraudulent and/or deceptive acts; cost of suit including reasonable attorneys' fees, relief and pre- and post-judgment interest under California's Endless Chain Scheme Law (California Penal Code and California Civil Code), Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law under the under the Business and Professions Code and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Defendants allegedly run an illegal pyramid scheme, taking in money in return for the right to sell products that they do not even manufacture and reward for recruiting other participants into the pyramid. Enrollees, such as the Plaintiff, must pay a start-up fee of $399.00 to MarketAmerica as well as a monthly fee of $129.00 per month. They then must spend $130 to $300 on products offered on their website and training costs between $20 and $200. Rewards are paid in the form of cash bonuses, where primarily earned for recruitment, as opposed to merchandise sales to consumers, thus constituting a fraudulent business model. Market America, Inc. and Market America Worldwide, Inc. are North Carolina corporations that also operates and manages the alleged pyramid scheme in California with James Howard Ridinger as founder and CEO. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Blake J. Lindemann, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC 433 N. Camden Drive, 4th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310)-279-5269 Facsimile: (310)-300-0267 E-mail: blake@lawbl.com - and - Daren M. Schlecter, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAREN M. SCHLECTER, APC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310)-553-5747 MATRIX HOME: Faces "Valdes" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- LOURDES VALDES and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. MATRIX HOME CARE, LLC, PRENILLE OSTBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21984-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2017), alleges that Defendants have employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate home care/assisted living facilities. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an ALF worker/attendant tending to the infirmed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com MAXIMUS INC: Bais Yaakov Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads ------------------------------------------------------ Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Maximus, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-03984, (S.D. N.Y., May 25, 2017) seeks statutory damages in excess of $2,500,000; an injunction against Defendant prohibiting it from committing further violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff is a New York religious corporation, with its principal place of business at 11 Smolley Drive, Monsey, New York 10952. Defendant sent fax advertisements without Plaintiff's express invitation or permission. Defendant, operating as MaxOutreach, offers recruitment services. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. Bellin & Associates LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Tel: (914) 358-5345 Fax: (212) 571-0284 Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com MEDICREDIT INC: Court Denied as Moot Hartman's Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled MELISSA HARTMAN v. MEDICREDIT, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-01596-MPK (W.D. Pa.). On October 3, 2016, Ms. Hartman filed the Motion asking that the Court certify the action as a class action and her as class representative. On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff and Defendant Medicredit, Inc. filed a Joint Motion for an Order Conditionally Certifying Class and Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement. On May 10, 2017, the Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order which, inter alia, certified the action as a class action and appointed the Plaintiff as the class representative. In light of the Joint Motion and the current posture of the case, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is moot. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YktmAnPk MEYERKORD & MEYERKORD: Pavone's Motion to Certify Class Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Amy J. St. Eve denies, in the Court's discretion, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit styled Antonio Pavone, et al. v. Meyerkord & Meyerkord, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01539 (N.D. Ill.). A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pWEcqOXN MICHAELS STORES: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Forman, Esq. -- jforman@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, wrote that early in May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., No. 16- 260 (L) (2d Cir. May 2, 2017), affirmed the dismissal of a data breach class action brought against Michaels Stores Inc. (Michaels) for failing to sufficiently allege an injury to support standing. This decision is significant because it widens the existing circuit split on what allegations constitute an injury- in-fact, particularly where a plaintiff seeks standing by alleging a substantial risk of harm resulting from a data breach. Background and Procedural History In January 2014, Michaels notified its customers of "possible fraudulent activity on some U.S. payment cards" and then later confirmed that hackers obtained information from its systems relating to approximately 2.6 million credit and debit cards. Although Michaels noted that there was no evidence that the hackers retrieved any other customer information (e.g., names, addresses or personal identification numbers), it offered its customers 12 months of free credit monitoring services. Plaintiff learned that she was one of the affected customers after a credit card she used for payment at Michaels was later physically presented twice in Ecuador for attempted payments she did not authorize. Plaintiff did not pay for either charge and canceled her credit card promptly thereafter. Plaintiff filed a data breach class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging she suffered actual damages and faces an increased risk of future harm. Yet the court dismissed the class action for lack of standing because Plaintiff did not allege that she suffered any unreimbursed charges. 153 F.Supp.3d 577 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2015). Among other things, the court found that Plaintiff did not allege that she was required to pay the charges made in Ecuador, and that any allegations regarding time or money spent to mitigate the data breach did not support an injury-in-fact. The court also found Plaintiff's allegations of increased risk of future harm to be unavailing because nearly two years had passed and she had not experienced any additional fraudulent charges after she canceled her credit card. Second Circuit Decision On appeal, the Second Circuit found that Plaintiff did not satisfy the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1147 (2013), that a plaintiff must allege an injury that is "concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling." The Second Circuit reasoned that Plaintiff "never was either asked to pay, nor did pay, any fraudulent charge." The Second Circuit also reasoned that Plaintiff did not plead any specifics about the amount of time or money she spent monitoring her credit. Moreover, the Second Circuit found that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a future injury, which must be "certainly impending" and not "simply speculative," because she promptly canceled her credit card after the breach and did not allege that any other personally identifiable information (PII) was stolen. Although the Second Circuit attempted to distinguish the facts and circumstances in Whalen from those in some of the cases discussed below, its application seemed to deepen the existing split between various circuit courts on what constitutes a substantial risk of harm in data breach class actions. Circuit Split on Pleading Standard for Substantial Risk of Harm With Whalen, the Second Circuit joined the First, Third and Fourth Circuits, which also require heightened pleading to establish an injury in data breach class actions when alleging substantial risk of harm. See Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38 (3rd Cir. 2011); Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017); cf. Katz v. Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2012) (interpreting risk of harm where no breach occurred but defendant allegedly failed to adequately protect information). These circuits require pleading more than merely the fact that a plaintiff's PII was stolen to support standing. And neither the Second nor the Fourth Circuit inferred a threat of future harm from an offer to provide free credit monitoring services to affected individuals. In contrast, both the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have made such an inference. See, e.g., Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015). And the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have also found that a plaintiff has standing where the data breach allegedly targeted PII and mitigation costs have been incurred. See, e.g., Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015); Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010). Because this widening circuit split encourages forum shopping and creates uncertainty about the pleading standard for substantial risk of harm in data breach class actions, it is ripe for review by the Supreme Court. [GN] MITCHELL D. BLUHM: Sixth Cir. Appeal Filed in "Wolschlager" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Alan Wolschlager filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Alan Wolschlager v. Law Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00033, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff has asked the Court to certify three classes: "all persons who incurred a medical debt in Florida, where no payment was made on that debt five years prior to being sent a letter, from January 11, 2016, to January 11, 2017; "all persons who were sent a letter from January 11, 2016, to January 11, 2017, where the letter was the initial collection letter sent by The Law Office of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates, LLC, to the person; and "all persons who were sent a letter from January 11, 2016, to January 11, 2017, by The Law Office of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates, LLC, on behalf of CP Medical LLC, where Capio Partners LLC, or any related company other than CP Medical LLC, was the owner of the debt referenced in the letter". The appellate case is captioned as Alan Wolschlager v. Law Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-1598, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ALAN WOLSCHLAGER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 701 5290 E-mail: cwarner@warnerlawllc.com Defendants-Appellees LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL D. BLUHM & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; CAPIO PARTNERS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and CP MEDICAL LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, are represented by: Michael D. Slodov, Esq. SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC 15 E. Summit St. Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (440) 318-1073 Facsimile: (216) 359-0049 E-mail: mslodov@sessions-law.biz MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: April 2018 Claims Bar Date ----------------------------------------------------- A settlement has been reached in the class action lawsuit against the Montana University System (MUS) captioned as, Gendron v. MUS. Specifically, MUS has agreed to pay certain medical expenses that were due under the MUS Health Beneits Plan (MUS Plan). Individuals employed by MUS between Oct. 5, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2016, may be due money if the following two conditions exist: 1. The employee or a family member incurred medical expenses for injuries between October 5, 2001 and December 31, 2016; and 2. The employee's medical expenses were not paid in full by the MUS Plan because the medical expenses were paid or able to be paid by another source, including another source of insurance. For more information or to access an Acknowledgement and Claims Form, go to http://choices.mus.edu/notice.aspor call the phone number dedicated to this settlement, at 844-632-5699. Any claim must be submitted in writing to the Montana University System on or before April 13, 2018. NANTHEALTH INC: Bucks County Fund Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NANTHEALTH, INC., PATRICK SOON-SHIONG, PAUL A. HOLT, MICHAEL S. SITRICK, KIRK K. CALHOUN, MARK BURNETT, EDWARD MILLER, MICHAEL BLASZYK, JEFFRIES LLC, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, FIRST ANALYSIS SECURITIES CORPORATION, CANACCORD GENUITY INC., and FBR CAPITAL MARKETS & CO., Defendants, Case No. BC-662330, (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, May 22, 2017) was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 26, 2017, and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03964. The case is a securities suit. NANTHEALTH, INC. -- http://nanthealth.com/-- operates as an evidence-based personalized healthcare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Boris Feldman, Esq. Cynthia A. Dy, Esq. Michael R. Petrocelli, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: (650) 493-9300 Fax: (650) 565-5100 Email: boris.feldman@wsgr.com Email: cdy@wsgr.com Email: mpetrocelli@wsgr.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Three Teams Fail to Avert Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News, reports that three National Football League teams must continue to fight off a class action claiming they pushed painkillers on hurt athletes, though a federal judge blew the whistle on May 15 on most claims against 32 teams. U.S. District Judge William Alsup found only two former players with claims against three teams -- the Green Bay Packers, Denver Broncos, and Los Angeles Chargers -- could pursue their grievances under Maryland's three-year statute of limitations. Lead plaintiff Etopia Evans, widow of the late Charles "Chuck" Evans, who played for the Minnesota Vikings and Baltimore Ravens, sued all 32 NFL teams in May 2015. Ms. Evans and 12 former players say the teams conspired since at least 1964 to dole out unprescribed pills and injections to put hurt athletes back in play without warning them of the long-term effects. Judge Alsup in February dismissed with prejudice conspiracy claims against the teams, finding the players could not allege they suffered financial harm within the four-year statute of limitations. In his May 15 ruling, Judge Alsup had harsh words for the plaintiff's 124-page amended complaint, grumbling that much of it repeated "the same sweeping criticisms and accusations, directed against the NFL as a whole, that permeated" the previous complaint. "Only a fraction" of the complaint's 50 relevant pages of specific allegations pertained to the named plaintiffs, rather than potential class members not yet certified by the court, Judge Alsup wrote. "Plaintiffs do not have leave to patch up weaknesses in their pleadings by expanding their numbers at this stage," Judge Alsup ruled. "It is important at the outset to determine whether the named plaintiffs can state claims for relief before deciding whether or not they can represent a class." But claims of intentional misrepresentation against 12 of the 32 teams could survive a motion to dismiss, Judge Alsup ruled. The plaintiffs said the teams falsely represented that they cared about the players and prioritized their safety. However, when considering the NFL teams' motion for summary judgment, Judge Alsup found most of those claims were barred by Maryland's statute of limitations. Only two former players -- Alphonso Carreker and Reggie Walker -- suffered injuries within the three years before the lawsuit was filed in May 2015, Alsup wrote. Mr. Carreker, who played for the Green Bay Packers and Denver Broncos from 1984 to 1991, had to get heart surgery in 2013 after anti-inflammatory drugs stopped working because of resistance he'd built up from taking painkillers during his career, according to the complaint. After suffering a sprained ankle while playing for the San Diego Chargers (now the Los Angeles Chargers), Mr. Walker said he was given Toradol injections by a team doctor before every game for the rest of his career. Now that he's retired, Mr. Walker continues to feel pain in his ankles. Those are the only claims that will proceed in the lawsuit and serve as the basis for class certification due to Maryland's statute of limitations, Alsup ruled. Judge Alsup set a deadline of June 1 for the plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification. Attorneys for the proposed class of retired players and the NFL teams did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment on May 16. The class is represented by William Sinclair -- bsinclair@mdattorney.com -- of Silverman Thompson Slutkin White in Baltimore. The NFL teams are represented by Jack DiCanio -- jack.dicanio@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom in Palo Alto. Judge Alsup dismissed a similar lawsuit against the NFL in December 2014. An appeal of that ruling is pending in the Ninth Circuit. [GN] NEW MEXICO, USA: Cummings Appeals D.N.M. Ruling to 10th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Randy Cummings, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled Cummings, et al. v. Bussey, et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-00951-JAP-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico - Albuquerque. Celina Bussey is the Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. The appellate case is captioned as Cummings, et al. v. Bussey, et al., Case No. 17-2079, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Defendant Jason Dean previously filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. Jason Dean is the Director of the Labor Relations Division of the Department of Workforce Solutions of the State of New Mexico. That appellate case is captioned as Cummings, et al. v. Dean, Case No. 17-2072, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript order form, Entry of appearance and Docketing statement were due on June 6, 2017, for Jesus Aguilar-Murillo, Martin F. Alvarez, Armando Anchondo, Arthur Archuleta, Gustavo Berrospe, Harold Brown, Reyes Cabriales, David Carr, Rene Carrillo, Kevin Charvea, D. Jeremiah Cordova, Enrique Corona, Randy Cummings, Sergio Escobedo, Nathan Espalin, Cruz Gallegos, Robert J. Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Levi Gutierrez, Jason Head, Nick Hinojos, Robert G. Hitzman, Joshua Hoselton, Ronald Hubbard, Eloy A. Jaramillo, Kurt Johnson, David Larranaga, Charles W. Lees, Joseph Lopez, Michael Lopez, Rick Lopez, Andrew M. Lugo, Henry Lujan, Jaime Marquez, Robert Mendoza, David Montano, Dennis Moore, Robert Moreno, Henry Nez Jr., Levi Olivas, Thomas D. Payne, Angelo Rinaldi, Jose Rodriguez, Sergio A. Rojo, Chris Sweeney, Richard Tenorio, Josh Tillinghast, Cesar Torres, Tomas Trujillo, Jeffrey S. Wade, Bryan Wheeler and Grant Willis; and -- Notice of appearance was also due on June 6, 2017, for Celina Bussey and Jason Dean.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RANDY CUMMINGS, CRUZ GALLEGOS, ROBERT J. GARCIA, RICHARD GONZALES, ELOY A. JARAMILLO, DAVID LARRANAGA, RICHARD LOPEZ, RICK LOPEZ, DAVID MONTANO, ANGELO RINALDI, CHRIS SWEENEY, JOSH TILLINGHAST, TOMAS TRUJILLO, JEFFREY S. WADE, JOSHUA HOSELTON, CHARLES W. LEES, JAIME MARQUEZ, ROBERT MENDOZA, ARMANDO ANCHONDO, GUSTAVO BERROSPE, REYES CABRIALES, SERGIO ESCOBEDO, JASON HEAD, NICK HINOJOS, ROBERT G. HITZMAN, MICHAEL LOPEZ, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, SERGIO A. ROJO, RICHARD TENORIO, CESAR TORRES, GRANT WILLIS, HAROLD BROWN, RENE CARRILLO, HENRY NEZ, JR., KURT JOHNSON, JESUS AGUILAR-MURILLO, MARTIN F. ALVAREZ, ARTHUR ARCHULETA, ENRIQUE CORONA, RONALD HUBBARD, ANDREW M. LUGO, HENRY LUJAN, DAVID CARR, D. JEREMIAH CORDOVA, KEVIN CHARVEA, NATHAN ESPALIN, LEVI GUTIERREZ, DENNIS MOORE, ROBERT MORENO, LEVI OLIVAS, THOMAS D. PAYNE and BRYAN WHEELER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Stephen Curtice, Esq. James Montalbano, Esq. Shane Youtz, Esq. YOUTZ & VALDEZ, PC 900 Gold Avenue, SW Albuquerque, NM 87102-0000 Telephone: (505) 244-1200 Facsimile: (505) 244-9700 E-mail: stephen@youtzvaldez.com james@youtzvaldez.com shane@youtzvaldez.com Defendants-Appellees CELINA BUSSEY, Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions; and JASON DEAN, as the Director of the Labor Relations Division of the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, in their individual capacities, are represented by: Jason J. Lewis, Esq. MORRISSEY LEWIS 2501 Rio Grande Boulevard, NW, Suite B Albuquerque, NM 87104 Telephone: (505) 247-3800 - and - Sean Olivas, Esq. KELEHER & MCLEOD, P.A. 201 Third Street NW, Suite 1200 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Telephone: (505) 346-4646 Facsimile: (800) 444-1529 E-mail: so@keleher-law.com NIKITA LEVY: Baltimore Victim Says Settlement Isn't Justice ----------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Swoope, writing for ABC News, reports that more than 8,000 patients of a Johns Hopkins gynecologist accused of secretly recording pelvic exams will soon receive their share of a $190 million settlement. While the amounts range between $1,800 to $28,000 for individuals, some say it still isn't justice. "It's been exhausting. It's been mentally draining. It's been disheartening," said Stazi Gomez, who was a patient of Dr. Nikita Levy from 2007 to 2013 when he committed suicide. "He flashed that light on me several times and then I recalled the behavior of the examinations that I had with him at the East Baltimore Medical Center," she said. "Dr. Levy would either sing the song 'Leila' by Eric Clapton or play the song 'Leila' and start dancing and swing around that pen that hung around his neck on the lanyard." Leila was the daughter Gomez was carrying at the time. Dr. Levy worked for Johns Hopkins for more than 20 years. In 2013, it was discovered that he'd been taking pictures and taping his patients during gynecology exams. Two of Gomez's daughters became Dr. Levy's patients. They were also part of the class action suit representing more than 8,344 victims. "As a parent, we all want our children to be safe, secure and nobody to harm them," Gomez said. "So for me I will never know if Dr. Levy got my girls. I know he got me, but I don't know if he got my daughters. Even with the settlement checks in the mail, Gomez isn't happy. "We can't stand to look at Dr. Levy's face," she said. "It gets us in a panic mode." The settlement was for about $190 million. Seven law firms will split $32 million. Gomez will receive the highest settlement category of up to $28,000, one of her daughters will receive up to $21,000. She says there's no justice in the settlement, but that her help is through healing and supporting women through the Facebook page she started. "I found 14 women and at the end of the day, we're going to be O.K." The Johns Hopkins Health System fired Dr. Nikita Levy in 2013 after a co-worker alerted authorities about a pen-like camera he wore. He killed himself days later, as federal investigators found about 1,200 videos and 140 images on computers in his home. [GN] NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Edwards Moves for Certification of Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Paul Edwards and Gerry Wendrovsky (the "Connecticut Plaintiffs") and Sandra Desrosiers and Linda Soffron (the "New Hampshire Plaintiffs") move the Court for an order certifying the action captioned PAUL T. EDWARDS, GERRY WENDROVSKY, SANDRA DESROSIERS and LINDA SOFFRON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER AND GAS, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01714-VAB (D. Conn.), as a class action and certifying the Connecticut and New Hampshire Classes: Connecticut Class All individual residential and small business consumers enrolled (either initially or through "rolling over" from a fixed rate plan) in a North American Power and Gas, LLC variable rate electricity plan in connection with a property located within Connecticut at any time from January 1, 2014, through and including the date of class certification. Specifically excluded from the Class are: the Defendant, the officers, directors and employees of Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative of Defendant; the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge's immediate family; and any heirs, assigns and successors of any of the above persons or organizations in their capacity as such. New Hampshire Class All individual residential and small business consumers enrolled (either initially or through "rolling over" from a fixed rate plan) in a North American Power and Gas, LLC variable rate electricity plan in connection with a property located within New Hampshire at any time from January 1, 2014, through and including the date of class certification. Specifically excluded from the Class are: the Defendant, the officers, directors and employees of Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative of Defendant; the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge's immediate family; and any heirs, assigns and successors of any of the above persons or organizations in their capacity as such. The Plaintiffs also move that the Court appoint the Connecticut and New Hampshire Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of their respective Classes, and to appoint Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP as counsel for the Connecticut and New Hampshire Classes, and Bouchard Kleinman & Wright P.A. as counsel for the New Hampshire Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8MLvlN1Y The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Craig A. Raabe, Esq. Seth R. Klein, Esq. IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com craabe@ikrlaw.com sklein@ikrlaw.com OMEGA EMPIRE: "Linder" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- Nicolas A. Linder and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Omega Empire, LLC (d/b/a Eat Greek Souvlak) Vassilios Dimotakis a/k/a/ Billy Dimotakis, individually Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21958, (S.D. Fla., May 25, 2017), seeks actual damages for unpaid half-time overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly with interest, an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Eat Greek Souvlaki is a Greek restaurant with several locations within the area of Miami-Dade County where Plaintiff was hired to work as a cook, kitchen helper, dishwasher, and cleaning employee from April 13 to May 8, 2017. He claims to be denied overtime pay and wage statements. He was allegedly fired for complaining about such. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com OMNINET VILLAGE: Court Denies Stallworth's Bid to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Gregory A. Presnell denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify class submitted in the lawsuit captioned DONELL STALLWORTH v. OMNINET VILLAGE, L.P., OMNINET VILLAGE LAKE, LLC and OMNINET PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., 6:16-cv-00546-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Mr. Stallworth seeks to certify a class consisting of: [a]ll former and current residents of the Village Lakes Apartments, generally located at 4901 Bottlebrush Lane, Orlando, Florida, 32808, between the dates of August 12, 2013 to present who had or have mold or mold spores, or excessive moisture in their apartment units. Judge Presnell opined that by failing to identify a relevant common question that this litigation could resolve, Mr. Stallworth has also necessarily failed to demonstrate that the common question(s) in this litigation predominate over individualized questions that would need to be answered to resolve each class members' claims. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ceT4GyED PHELAN HALLINAN: Borg's Bid to Certify Nixed for Lack of Standing ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Virginia M. Hernandez Covington denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled KELLY BORG, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. PHELAN, HALLINAN, DIAMOND & JONES, PLLC, Case No. 8:16-cv- 02070-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.). In her complaint, Ms. Borg alleges that Phelan violated the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act by, among other things, "attempting to collect monthly installment payments due beyond Florida's five year statute of limitations." Judge Hernandez Covington stated that the Motion is denied for lack of standing. "As Borg does not have standing to bring a claim challenging the $45 unknown tenant service fee, she cannot serve as representative of the proposed class," Judge Hernandez Covington opined. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TZuy53jf PLAYERS BIKINI: Entertainers File Labor Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA COLLINS Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH WAYNE BARNETT d/b/a PLAYERS BIKINI CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00092-J (N.D. Tex., May 24, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act because Defendant refuses to compensate employees at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rates of pay. Defendant purportedly does not pay employees any wages at all. Their only compensation is in the form of tips received directly from patrons. Defendant employs entertainers at an adult entertainment club in Amarillo known as Players Bikini Club. Plaintiff worked as an entertainer at Players Bikini Club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Collin Wynne, Esq. YOUNG &NEWSOM, PC 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Phone: (806) 331-1800 Fax: (806) 398-9095 E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com collin@youngfirm.com POWER DESIGN: Faces "Anderson" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSE ANDERSON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. POWER DESIGN, INC., SEL ELECTRIC INC. and MARLON RAMIRES Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01607 (S.D. Tex., May 26, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours . . . at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were] employed." Power Design is a national electrical contractor company. SEL Electric is a regional electrical contractor company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 PROGISTICS DISTRIBUTION: "Petersson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Godfrey Petersson on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Progistics Distribution, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC662714 (Cal. Super., May 24, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wage and overtime for all hours worked, missed breaks premium, compensation for failure to provide accurate and complete wage statements, waiting time penalties, applicable civil penalties, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees costs, and interest pursuant to the California Labor Code. Plaintiff worked as a dispatcher for Defendants' logistics business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Jordan Bello, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com jbello@lelawfirm.com PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Transnational Suit Over Oil Spill Commences -------------------------------------------------------------- John Emmerig, Esq., Michael Legg, Esq., and Jordan N. Phoustanis, Esq., of Jones Day, in an article for Lexology, wrote that, a transnational lawsuit over oil still has commenced in Australia. The Background: Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd raised the question as to whether the Federal Court of Australia possesses the power to consider an extension of time on the class members' statute-barred claims. The Issue: The Federal Court of Australia may be an appropriate forum for the resolution of transnational class action disputes involving events occurring in external Australian territories and beyond, including Indonesia. Looking Ahead: The implication of this proceeding is that class members whose claims are statute-barred may apply for an extension of time, although each may, in certain circumstances, have to apply to the Court individually. This was the position reached by the Court in light of the Northern Territory limitations legislation and may impose a significant evidentiary burden on class members seeking an extension of the limitation period. Following the 2009 Montara Oil Field oil spill in the Timor Sea, an Indonesian seaweed farmer brought a class action in Australia against the operator of the Montara Oil Field. The action was commenced on behalf of a class of Indonesian seaweed farmers who allegedly suffered loss as a result of the oil's sterilization of certain Indonesian waters, causing a decline in seaweed production. On 24 January 2017, Griffiths J handed down judgment in Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 14 ("Sanda v PTTEP") on the separate question of whether the Federal Court of Australia possesses the power to consider an extension of time on the class members' statute-barred claims. Issues It was not contentious that Sanda and the class members had commenced proceedings after the expiration of the relevant statutory limitation period of three years, stipulated by section 12 of the Limitation Act 1981 (Northern Territory) ("Limitation Act"). To sustain the action, Sanda would have to apply for an extension of the limitation period in respect of not only his own claim, but those of the class members he represented. The question of whether, in a class action context, section 44 of the Limitation Act may apply to the extension of the limitation period on the claims of class members turned on whether a class member: -- Is a "plaintiff" for the purpose of section 44 of the Limitation Act; and -- Can, themself, be considered to institute the relevant class action proceedings in satisfaction of the requirements of section 44. Are Class Members Plaintiffs and Do They Institute Class Action Proceedings? Section 44(b) of the Limitation Act specifies that time may be extended where a "plaintiff" (who is defined as a person bringing an action and not a party to the action) ascertains new facts and institutes an "action" (which is defined as including a proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction) after the expiration of the relevant statutory limitation period. Justice Griffiths held that the Limitation Act's definition of "plaintiff" is broad enough to capture class members on whose behalf a class action proceeding is instituted and the definition of "action" is sufficiently broad to encompass any form of legal proceeding. In light of the language of and legislative intention behind the Federal Court Act, His Honour held that class members are properly regarded as plaintiffs (for the purpose of the Limitation Act) who have instituted proceedings. Furthermore, consistent with modern principles of statutory interpretation, Justice Griffiths concluded that class members must be understood to constitute plaintiffs, at least in the context of the Limitation Act. A contrary interpretation would lead to a "profoundly unlikely and scarcely intended result" whereby the statute bar may not have applied to the class members as it did to the representative party. Therefore, His Honour was satisfied that the Court's power not only extended to considering extending time on the representative party's claim but on the claims of each of the class members as well. Three Key Takeaways 1. A class member, at least as far as the Limitation Act is concerned, will be construed as a plaintiff in respect of a class action in which it is represented. The notion that class members are plaintiffs in their own right may have more widespread implications, although broader ramifications will depend on the context. 2. An implication of treating class members as individual plaintiffs is the potential diminishment of the efficiency of a class action proceeding where many or all class members apply to the court for an extension of time and the facts of each application must be determined individually. This may also increase the burden upon and cost to the defendant, if it should seek to contest some or all of those applications. 3. The FCA's decision in Sanda v PTTEP specifically turned on the language of the Limitation Act. Proceed with caution when extrapolating the implications of Griffith J's decision. [GN] QES WIRELINE: "Meador" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Meador, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QES WIRELINE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00586, (D.N.M., May 25, 2017), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and all available penalty wages, all costs and attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this claim and such other and further relief under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Defendant provides wireline and other oilfield services to oil and gas industry customers in New Mexico where Plaintiff worked as an engineer. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Tel: (214) 790-4454 Fax: (469) 339-0204 Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 RED ROBIN: Brackley Moves for Final Approval of FLSA Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CASSANDRA BRACKLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and DANTE BUTLER v. RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, INC., RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., SWAN CONCEPTS, INC., RR FAYETTEVILLE LLC, RR HALFMOON LLC, RR LATHAM LLC, RR POUGHKEEPSIE LLC, JOHN A. SWAN, JR., an individual, Case No. 2:16-cv-00288-JMA-GRB (E.D.N.Y.), ask the Court to: (1) finally certify the settlement class; (2) grant final approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release, as amended by the Parties' stipulation; and (3) grant final approval of the FLSA Settlement. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=StXtozzq The Plaintiffs are represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com gkaske@shulmankessler.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twinning Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Approves Taylor's Notice & Consent Form ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Nelva Gonzales Ramos, in an agreed order, approves the Notice and Consent to Join Wage Claim form in the lawsuit styled CHARLES TAYLOR and RICHARD LaBRYER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00502 (S.D. Tex.). The Court authorized notice, and further held that: (1) Republic will produce to the Court-approved third-party administrator, Angeion Group, the contact information for each potential member of the Class; (2) "The Class" for purposes of this Order, are defined as those who have been employed as a residential, commercial, or industrial driver by Republic Services, Inc. and/or any of its subsidiaries anywhere in the United States other than North or South Carolina, at any time within the three years before the date of this Order and have been subject to a 30-minute meal period deduction and/or received DTS Awards; (3) Within 28 days of the Order, Republic will post a copy of the Notice and Consent Form at all subsidiaries or affiliated entities in the United States other than North or South Carolina that employ one or more potential Class members; and (4) The potential Class members will have a 60-day notice period to join the case such that Angeion Group or Plaintiffs' counsel must receive potential plaintiffs' Consent to join Wage Claim forms on or before 60 calendar days after Notice is distributed by Angeion Group to be considered timely. A copy of the Agreed Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iQU2rIdN ROSEVILLE, MI: Garner Seeks Consolidation and Settlement Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in these lawsuits filed a joint motion for consolidation, certification of settlement class and preliminary approval of settlement and class notice: (1) LAWRENCE M. GARNER, CHRISTOPHER GARNER, AND WILLIAM KAUPUS v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GLENN SEXTON, RODNEY BROWNING, Case No. 2:16-cv-10760-VAR-DRG (E.D. Mich.); and (2) CORDIA MICHIGAN, LLC, RUDALEV I, LLC, and GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GLENN SEXTON, RODNEY BROWNING, Case No. 2:16-cv-10986-VAR-DRG (E.D. Mich.) The Settlement Class and Sub-Class is comprised of: Class: All persons and entities who currently own or at one time owned any non-owner occupied residential structures located within the City of Roseville who or which has been issued a misdemeanor ticket for failure to obtain a Certificate of Compliance under the City's Non-Owner-Occupied Housing Ordinance, and subsequently paid a fine at any time since January 1, 2010 through December 15, 2016. Sub-Class: All persons and entities who were not owners of non-owner occupied residential structures located within the City of Roseville, yet were issued a misdemeanor ticket for failure to obtain a Certificate of Compliance under the City's Non-Owner-Occupied Housing Ordinance from January 1, 2010 through December 15, 2016. The parties also ask the Court to conditionally certify the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, to certify the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel, and to set a date for the Fairness Hearing and Final Hearing. The Plaintiffs filed two class actions on March 3, 2016, and on March 17, 2016. The parties seek to consolidate those related cases for purpose of settlement, as the Class Members in each of those cases are identical. In their allegations, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants improperly administered its Non-Owner-Occupied Housing Ordinance in violation of due process rights and allegations of defamation per se and allegations of an assumpsit action for restitution. Under the Proposed Settlement, the City of Roseville has agreed to establish a settlement fund of $150,000, which will be used in significant part to pay the claims of the Settlement Class Members, who are entitled to participate in the distribution of the settlement proceeds pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Class counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $50,000, which represents one-third of the settlement fund, plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. The Defendants' will pay Named Plaintiffs $2,500 each from the settlement fund for representing the Settlement Class as the Class Representatives. The cost of administering the claims through a third-party administrator will also be paid from the settlement fund. Class Members may make a claim for all fines paid for each misdemeanor ticket issued for failure to obtain the certificate of compliance under the City's Non-Owner-Occupied Housing Ordinance. Valid claims of the Class will be paid at the member's pro-rata share of the settlement fund minus payments for attorney fees and costs, and other payments. Copies of the Motions filed in the Cases are available at no charge at: * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8TtXDYmg * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KkpH4A4d The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron D. Cox, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC 23380 Goddard Rd. Taylor, MI 48180 Telephone: (734) 287-3664 Facsimile: (734) 287-1277 E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com - and - Mark K. Wasvary, Esq. MARK K. WASVARY, P.C. 2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 649-5667 E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Carlito H. Young, Esq. Stephanie S. Morita, Esq. JOHNSON, ROSATI, SCHULTZ & JOPPICH, PC 27555 Executive Dr., Suite 250 Farmington Hills, MI 48331 Telephone: (248) 489-1726 Facsimile: (248) 489-1726 E-mail: cyoung@jrsjlaw.com smorita@jrsjlaw.com RUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Sought in "Place" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit captioned JEREMY PLACE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a COMPUTER ST. LOUIS, SETH RUSSELL, and NICOLE RUSSELL, Case No. 4:17-cv-00399-RWS (E.D. Mo.), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, filed their joint motion to conditionally certify class, order disclosure of putative class members' names and contact information, and facilitate class notice. The class to be conditionally certified consists of: all computer employees employed by Defendants within the last three years whose primary duty was to perform external "help desk" functions for Defendants' clients. Jeremy Place filed his complaint on February 2, 2017, asserting claims for failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Since the filing of the Complaint, two additional individuals have joined this collective action case as opt-in Plaintiffs by filing opt-in consent forms with the Court. By joining the Motion, the Defendants do not waive their right to file a Motion to Decertify the Class after the expiration of the discovery period set forth in any Scheduling Order entered by the Court. Further, by joining this Motion, the Defendants do not waive their ability to assert any of their defenses to the Plaintiff's claims. The parties stipulate that the Defendants will provide a list of all putative class members and their last known contact information. They also stipulate that notice will be disseminated to putative class members via U.S. Mail and e-mail of the Opt-In List. They further stipulate that given the scope and size of the class, an opt-in period of 40 days is appropriate, running from the date that the class notice is first disseminated by te Plaintiffs' counsel. A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bOy8VhTn The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell C. Riggan, Esq. Samuel W. Moore, Esq. RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC 132 W Washington Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkwood, MO 63122 Telephone: (314) 835-9100 Facsimile: (314) 735-1054 E-mail: russ@rigganlawfirm.com smoore@rigganlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven H. Schwartz, Esq. James M. Bertucci, Esq. BROWN & JAMES, P.C. 800 Market Street, 11th floor St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 421-3400 Facsimile: (314) 421-3128 E-mail: sschwartz@bjpc.com jbertucci@bjpc.com SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: July 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD. Case No. 14 Civ. 8925 (KMW) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. ("Salix") or publicly traded call options on Salix common stock, or sold publicly traded put options on Salix common stock, during the period from November 8, 2013 through November 6, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above- captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified for settlement purposes only as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $210,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will fully, finally, and completely resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on July 24, 2017 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Kimba M. Wood at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Courtroom 18B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007-1312, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 24, 2017 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., c/o Epiq Systems, P.O. Box 3656, Portland, OR 97208-3656, 1-844-308-6864. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, http://www.SalixSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than August 9, 2017. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than July 5, 2017, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Salix's Counsel such that they are received no later than July 5, 2017, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Salix, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 (800) 380-8496 blbg@blbglaw.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., c/o Epiq Systems P.O. Box 3656 Portland, OR 97208-3656 (844) 308-6864 www.SalixSecuritiesLitigation.com By Order of the Court URL: www.SalixSecuritiesLitigation.com SAUL CHEVROLET: Rivera Moves to Certify Class of Salespeople ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARCOS RIVERA, an individual, individually, on behalf of the general public, and all other similarly situated v. SAUL CHEVROLET, INC., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-05966-LHK (N.D. Cal.), moves for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and asks the Court to order notice sent to members of a class consisting of: all non-managerial Employees at any of Defendant's dealerships from October 11, 2013 to present who worked as parts salespeople, counterpeople, or associates, auto salespeople or associates, or maintenance employees or associates and who were paid an hourly rate and/or by commission. The Defendants are SAUL CHEVROLET, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP OF TAHOE, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, a California business entity; VOLKSWAGEN HYUNDAI, a California business entity; CARDINALE OLDSMOBILE GMC TRUCK, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALE AG MOTORBIKE, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALE NISSAN, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALE PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALEWAY NEVADA AG INC., a Nevada corporation; CARDINALEWAY ACURA, a Nevada business entity; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP-ARIZONA, INC., an Arizona corporation, CARDINALEWAY MAZDA AT PEORIA, an Arizona business entity; CARDINALEWAY MAZDA AT SUPERSTITION SPRINGS, an Arizona business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=klafrXwG The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Todd, Esq. Zachary Ritter, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD 611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (323) 208-9171 Facsimile: (323) 693-0822 E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com zachary@kyletodd.com SBKU SERVICES: Faces "Garcia" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws ------------------------------------------------------------ LUIS GARCIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against SBKU SERVICES INC. d/b/a KUMO SUSHI & STEAKHOUSE, TONY LAM, BOBBY LAM, and JANE DOE, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03130 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2017), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, "[Plaintiff] is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid mm1mum wages, (b) unpaid overtime compensation, (c) liquidated damages, (d) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and (e) attorneys' fees and costs. ". . . [P]ursuant to the New York Labor Law, he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages, (b) unpaid overtime compensation, (c) unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day he worked a shift in excess of ten (10) hours, ( d) liquidated damages and civil penalties pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, (e) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and (f) attorneys' fees and costs." SBKU SERVICES INC. is a restaurant. Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt busboy for Defendants' restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third A venue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com SCOTTS COMPANY: "Shedron" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Matthew Shedron on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Scotts Company, LLC v. EG Systems, Inc. and Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-10705, (E.D. Mich., March 6, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 26, 2017, under Case No. 0:17-cv-61056. Plaintiff seek to recover overtime wages earned by them and owed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants provide lawn, tree, and shrub care and maintenance services throughout Michigan. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a territory service representative. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Tel: 734-929-4313 Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com - and - Jason R. Bristol, Esq. Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq. COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400 700 West St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 781-7956 Fax: (216) 781-8061 Email: jfuchs@crklaw.com jbristol@crklaw.com - and - Kevin Darnell, Esq. RION, RION & RION, LPA INC. 130 West Second Street, Suite 2150 Dayton, OH 45402 Tel: (937) 223-9133 Fax: (937) 223-7540 Email: kdarnell@rionlaw.com SELFRIDGE LEASING: "Wetzel" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Wetzel, Plaintiff, v. Selfridge Leasing, LLC, DLM Statutory Agent Corp., Providence Healthcare Management, Inc. Eli Gunzburg, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01122, (N.D. Ohio, May 30, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime and an equal amount in liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who join this action, and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Wetzel brings this action in her individual capacity and also on behalf of all similarly situated employees or former employees of Defendants. Selfridge is the registered operator of a licensed nursing facility in Columbiana County. Providence Healthcare operates and/or provides management and staffing services to various nursing facilities in the State of Ohio, including the facility in Columbiana County. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard T. Bush, Esq. GREEN HAINES SGAMBATI CO., L.P.A. City Centre One, Suite 800 100 Federal Plaza East P.O. Box 849 Youngstown, OH 44501-0849 Telephone: (330) 743-5101 Fax: (330) 743-3451 E-Mail: rbush@green-haines.com SETERUS INC: Reizes Files Suit Over Improper Collection Letter -------------------------------------------------------------- Mendel Reizes and Yehoshua Yusewitz on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers Plaintiffs, v. Seterus, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03162, (E.D. N.Y., May 25, 2017), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred in bringing this action and any other relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiffs incurred a home loan debt from HSBC which fell into default status sometime in 2009. Defendant obtained this loan after it went in to default. The written notice was mailed to the creditor, instead of the debtors themselves, so essentially, it was never sent to the Plaintiffs but rather it has been sent to an improper address for the Plaintiffs. Defendant subsequently mailed a letter to the Plaintiffs' proper address on May 30, 2016, but was void of the Plaintiffs' statutory rights. New York City regulations require that a debt collector must provide a consumer with specific information about the consumer's rights regarding a time-barred account in every communication with the consumer, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com SEVENTH GENERATION: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in Rapoport-Hecht Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Patrick S. Sweeney filed an appeal from a District Court order approving class action settlement and final judgment entered on April 28, 2017, in the lawsuit entitled Rapoport-Hecht v. Seventh Generation, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9087, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises out of the Defendant's alleged material misrepresentation and deceptive business practice of labeling its laundry detergent and dish liquid products as natural, when in fact they contain synthetic preservatives benzisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone. Seventh Generation, Inc. manufactures and distributes Natural Laundry Detergent, Natural 4x Concentrated Laundry Detergent, Ultra Plus Natural Laundry Detergent, Natural Dish Liquid, and Ultra Power Natural Dish Liquid to retailers nationwide. The appellate case is captioned as Rapoport-Hecht v. Seventh Generation, Inc., Case No. 17-1592, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Objector-Appellant Patrick S. Sweeney represents himself: Patrick S. Sweeney, Esq. SWEENEY LEGAL GROUP, S.C. 2590 Richardson Street Madison, WI 53711 Telephone: (310) 339-0548 Plaintiff-Appellee Tziva Rapoport-Hecht, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP 77 Water Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (845) 705-9460 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com Defendant-Appellee Seventh Generation, Inc., is represented by: Francis J. Earley, Esq. MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 666 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 935-3000 Facsimile: (212) 983-3115 E-mail: fearley@mintz.com SNAP INC: July 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Snap, Inc. ("Snap" or the "Company") (NYSE:SNAP) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class consisting of persons or entities who purchased the Company's shares (1) pursuant and/or traceable to Snap's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with its initial public offering on or about March 2, 2017 (the "IPO"); and/or (2) on the open market between March 2, 2017 and May 15, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period") for violations of Sec. 10(b) and Sec. 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Snap made materially false and misleading statements about its reported user growth. On March 3, 2017, the Company completed its IPO, issuing 200 million shares of stock. On May 10, 2017, after the market closed, Snap released its first earnings report as a public company. The report revealed disappointing user growth for the Company's messaging platform and a quarterly loss of $2.2 billion. The user growth was the slowest year-to-year user growth rate in at least two years. Following this news, Snap's stock price dropped 21.45%, which caused investors harm. On May 16, 2017, Anthony Pompliano, a former Snap employee, filed a federal lawsuit against the Company for terminating his employment because he raised questions about false growth metrics being represented to the public in order to inflate Snap's valuation prior to the IPO. Mr. Pompliano is also seeking whistleblower protection against retaliation by the Company. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 17, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] SPAN-AMERICA: Pill Files Suit Over Sale to Savaria Corp. -------------------------------------------------------- David Pill, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Span-America Medical Systems, Inc., Thomas D. Henrion, James D. Ferguson, Richard C. Coggins, Robert H. Dick, Thomas F. Grady, Jr., Dan R. Lee, Dr. Linda D. Norman, Terry Allison Rappuhn, Thomas J. Sullivan, Savaria Corporation and Savaria (SC), Inc., Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-01375 (D.S.C., May 25, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Span- America Medical Systems, Inc. by Savaria Corporation through its wholly owned subsidiary, Savaria (SC), Inc. The complaint seeks rescissory or other damages in the event Defendants consummate the said merger; costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees; and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. Span-America offers specialty solutions for pressure management and patient positioning. It manufactures therapeutic support surfaces, medical bed frames, patient positioners, mattress overlays, wheelchair cushions, foam mattress pads and pillows, skin care products, fall protection products and in-room furniture used mainly in the long-term care portion of the medical market Savaria commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of Span common stock for $29.00 in cash per share, or approximately $80 million in total consideration. Defendants allegedly did not conduct any pre-signing market check, entered into an extremely restrictive letter of intent with Savaria prohibiting Span from negotiating with alternative potential bidders, agreed to restrictive deal protection devices that make it highly unlikely that any competing offer to acquire Span will emerge, declined to engage in discussions with other bidders and engaged a financial advisor, Robert W. Baird & Co. which stands to receive $1.3 million, or over 70% of its total compensation if the merger is consummated. Plaintiff also allege that the offer price is grossly inadequate and substantially undervalues Span as it is below the mean and median implied values based on net sales that Baird calculated. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl L. Stine, Esq. Robert S. Plosky, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 759-4600 Fax: (212) 486-2093 Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com rplosky@wolfpopper.com - and - Manning Y. Culbertson, Esq. CULBERTSON LAW OFFICE, LLC 707 E. North Street Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 233-8282 Email: mculbertson@myclawyer.com - and - Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, Esq. METCALFE & ATKINSON, LLC 9 Toy Street Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 214-2319 Email: hmetcalfe@malawfirmsc.com SOUTHERN TUBULAR: "Torres" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Torres, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Southern Tubular Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01585, (S.D. Tex., May 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorney's fees owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Tubular Services provides services to the oil and gas industry, providing, quality control, inspection and the assembly of tubular steel pipes where Torres worked for Defendant as an inspector, pipe threading quality control inspections, coping, notching and greasing pipes. Plaintiffs are represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com SPOTLESS GROUP: Slater & Gordon Launches Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Andrew White, writing for The Australian, reports that law firm Slater & Gordon rained on Spotless Group's investor day on May 25, launching a class action, the second against the contract cleaning and facilities management business, over its 2015 profit downgrade. Slater & Gordon filed proceedings in the Federal Court on behalf of aggrieved shareholders who watched the value of their shares plunge by 50 per cent in a day after a November 2015 downgrade of its 2016 profit guidance. The lawyers have secured backing from litigation funder Therium Australia, and represent investors who bought Spotless shares between August, 25, 2015, and December 1, 2015. It was the second class action lodged against Spotless, with William Roberts Lawyers also filing a claim for investors in the Federal Court. It came as the company tried to build investor support for its rejection of a hostile takeover bid from engineering and contracting group Downer during an investor day that reaffirmed guidance for 2017 and 2018 annual profits. Downer pounced after Spotless in February reported a $358 million interim net loss due to heavy restructuring charges, as chief executive Martin Sheppard attempts to move the company to longer, more complex and higher-margin facilities management contracts. The loss followed three profit warnings by the company. Slater & Gordon senior associate Mathew Chuk said the claim would make fresh allegations against Spotless, including that it misled the market by issuing guidance for the 2016 financial year without reasonable grounds. In August 2015, Spotless said 2016 results would materially exceed the previous financial year and endorsed market consensus expectations of a AUD161.5 million net profit. But just three months later its shares fell by almost 50 per cent when the guidance was pulled and a downgrade issued. Mr. Chuk said Spotless knew it was highly unlikely to achieve its 2016 guidance. "Spotless explained its profit downgrade was based on problems with acquisition integration and underperformance, general market slowdown and expensing of previously capitalised bid costs," Mr. Chuk said. "Our investigations have found that most of this information was available to the company months earlier. "This class action alleges that Spotless should never have set market expectations so high." Spotless told the stock exchange it "strongly denies" the allegations and would "vigorously defend this proceeding". [GN] TCP INTERNATIONAL: Aug. 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued the following statement regarding the TCPI Sohal Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO SANKTOKH SOHAL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ELLIS YAN, et al., Defendants. No. 1:15-cv-00393-DAP Judge Dan Aaron Polster CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF TCP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD. ("TCPI") AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 26, 2014, THROUGH AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 26, 2015, INCLUDING PURCHASERS OF TCPI COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR TCPI'S JUNE 25, 2014 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, that a hearing will be held on August 1, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. EDT, before the Honorable Dan A. Polster, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse, 801 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the principal amount of $7,175,000, plus interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with this Litigation should be approved. Lead Counsel will request attorneys' fees of no greater than 25% of the Settlement Fund, plus expenses not to exceed $100,000. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TCPI COMMON STOCK AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 26, 2014, THROUGH AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 26, 2015, OR PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR TCPI'S JUNE 25, 2014 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to TCPI Sohal Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30216, College Station, TX 77842-3216, or on the internet at www.tcpisohalsecuritieslitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail to the address above postmarked no later than September 6, 2017, or online at www.tcpisohalsecuritieslitigation.com no later than September 6, 2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to TCPI Sohal Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, EXCLUSIONS, 3301 Kerner Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901, postmarked by July 7, 2017. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee and expense application must be received, not simply postmarked, by each of the following recipients no later than July 7, 2017: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse 801 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Counsel for Lead Plaintiff: ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Counsel for Defendants: CHARLES F. SMITH MARCELLA L. LAPE GAIL E. LEE SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606-1720 JUDY L. WOODS BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP One American Square, Suite 2300 Indianapolis, IN 46282 ADAM S. HAKKI DANIEL C. LEWIS SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiff at the address listed above. DATED: April 13, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO TONAWANDA COKE: Faces Class Action Over Pollution ------------------------------------------------- WIVB reports that a new class action lawsuit was filed against the Tonawanda Coke plant. The lawsuit is for anyone whose quality of life might have been affected by the plant. About four years ago, Tonawanda Coke was convicted of violating the federal Clean Air Act after mishandling hazardous waste. The company has to pay for a soil study to see if, and how far pollution from the plant has spread. It is not clear how lawyers will respond to the lawsuit. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Gayed" Suit Over Upfront Pricing Model ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE GAYED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., UBER USA LLC, RAISER, LLC and TRAVIS KALANICK, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03142 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2017), alleges that Uber has made materially misleading and deceptive representations to Uber X riders concerning the "actual fare" charged by Uber's Upfront Pricing model. The case was filed on behalf of all Uber X riders in New York against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC, Raiser, LLC, and Travis Kalanick for violation of New York General Business Law and unjust enrichment. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a technology company based in San Francisco, California, that offers a smartphone application, the Uber App, to connect riders looking for transportation to independent transportation providers, or drivers, looking for riders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 217 Centre Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: 212-847-8315 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com UNITED FARM: Judge Adds $772,000 to Class Attorney Fees ------------------------------------------------------- According to California AG Today's Laurie Greene, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wills ruled that the UFW underpaid their own employees and mandated the UFW to pay a $1.2 million award that covers former employees, organizers, and other members of the class action suit, as well as penalties for California Labor Code Violations. On April 27, Judge Wills added $772,000 to UFW's court expenses for attorney fees incurred by Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss (NHEH), the law firm that represented former UFW employee Francisco Cerritos in the class action and Private Attorney General Act lawsuit on behalf of himself and other current and former UFW employees. In issuing the additional costs to the UFW, according to a May 3 NHEH press release, Judge Wills stated that, "The Court has not placed an amount to destroy someone, and the union does serve a socially laudable purpose, but (the union) has to follow the law; and when it doesn't do so at the expense of others and that results in drawn out, protracted and complex litigation, it cannot expect the Court to turn a blind eye to what the consequences of what that conduct are." As previously published, ALRB Administrative Law Judge William L. Schmidt issued a decision on April 14 in favor of the UFW, finding Gerawan violated labor law by negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement with UFW "in bad faith -- commonly called "surface bargaining" -- in the eight-month period from January 2013 through August 2013. In an April 17 news release, Gerawan Farming called the April 14 decision of the Administrative Law Judge "erroneous" in that Gerawan did bargain in good faith. Further, Gerawan maintains that imposed mandatory mediation and conciliation does not constitute volitional negotiations. Gerawan will appeal this decision. The following are excerpts from this press release: This unprecedented ruling would punish an employer for failing to "negotiate" the terms of a "contract" dictated and imposed by the ALRB. This is an in-house judge who is not independent; he is an employee of the ALRB. He criticizes Gerawan's positions and second-guesses how it participated in what was supposed to be a confidential mediation and trial-like arbitration, but he never asked the only relevant question: How does this forced contracting process resemble a "negotiation"? The so-called "mandatory mediation and conciliation" procedures (MMC) are neither consensual nor voluntary. It is forced contracting. The ALRB tells the employer what wages to pay, what employees to hire or fire or promote, and what portion of the employees' salary will be turned over to the union. The employer may not opt out, and the employees are not given the choice to ratify or reject the so-called contract that will be forced on them, even if there are provisions detrimental to them. Gerawan had no choice but to submit to this coercive process. The UFW did not bargain; it asked the ALRB to impose terms, based on a forced contracting process the California Court of Appeal has since ruled to be unconstitutional (and is now under review before the California Supreme Court). To date, UFW's unexplained 17-year disappearance from the Gerawan farm workers remains unexplained. During its absence, the UFW never negotiated a single wage increase for any Gerawan employee, nor did it attempt to bargain for a contract, collect dues, or file a single grievance on behalf of the employees. Meanwhile, Gerawan claims its workers are among the highest paid in the industry. Yet, the ALRB's controversial 2002 MMC provision appears to allow this AWOL union to force current Gerawan farm workers to choose between paying union dues or losing their jobs. The majority of Gerawan employees twice asked ALRB for an election to decertify the UFW. At the ALRB's request, the Fresno Superior Court intervened and supervised the decertification petition and election process. This was the first time in the history of the ALRB that a court oversaw an ALRB election. As yet, ballots cast by Gerawan farm workers in the sanctioned November 2013 election to decertify the UFW have never been counted, are being stored in an undisclosed and possibly an insecure location, and are the target of legal attempts by the ALRB and UFW to be destroyed. The Court of Appeal is preparing to decide whether the ALRB may deny employees the right to choose who will represent them at the bargaining table -- a seemingly basic American democratic right. The California Supreme Court is preparing to decide whether the UFW's longstanding abandonment of Gerawan's employees justifies this forced contracting process. California farm workers deserve a full and fair hearing on these issues. [GN] UNITED STATES: 160K Acres Covered in 'Takings' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Holly Dillemuth, writing for Herald and News, reports that as of May 19, 1,151 Notice of Appearance forms covering 3,523 parcels and more than 160,000 acres on Klamath Project land are now under review by the United States as part of the class action lawsuit surrounding the "Takings" case. The case stems from the shutoff of irrigation water to Klamath Project property owners or lessees by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2001. The trial's closing arguments adjourned May 9 -- roughly three months following a trial that lasted more than a week at the Federal Court of Claims in Washington, D.C. "That we had a lot of people coming into the office, asking for help or wanting to make sure they had it (Notice of Appearance form) filled out right," said local water attorney Bill Ganong, special counsel to the case. "The turnout demonstrates that a lot of people were hurt and that a lot of land did not get irrigated. If we prevail and if the United States has to pay on a per acre basis, it's going to be a significant amount of money." Ganong said while technically the claims submitted represent some 178,958 acres of land, that number represents some duplicated claims. For example, duplication could be that of two individuals -- a land owner and a new lessee -- claiming the same parcel of land. Both individuals in such a scenario will be considered for reimbursement from the United States in the event the plaintiff prevails, Ganong said, though the outcome is in the court's jurisdiction. "The next step is the United States is now reviewing the Notices of Appearances that were filed," Ganong said. Ganong said the United States can object to claims, for example, if an individual or partnership that owned land in the project in 2001 that is now owned by another party. "The U.S. will want an explanation of why you think you're entitled to make that claim," Ganong said. "There will be a process during June to identify questions that the United States may have from some of the people, and to try and resolve those. The United States isn't saying they're not entitled," Ganong said. "They're just saying, 'We need some documentation or evidence to demonstrate they're entitled.' " The process to resolve any and all issues the U.S. may have with claims could be completed by June 28, Ganong said. Many who joined the class action lawsuit are couples, partnerships, corporations and farming entities affected by the water shutoffs, Ganong said. "Nearly all of the commercial farms joined," Ganong added. Others who joined the lawsuit are relatives of those who owned or leased land in the Klamath Project at the time of the water shutoffs and who are now deceased. Ganong estimated that if the case prevails, the return could be between $140 to $175 per acre, reaching at least the anticipated $28 million mark or more. A decision is anticipated sometime this year, Ganong said. The case, which is consolidated, is Lonny E. Baley, et al v. United States and Pacific Federation of Fisherman's Association, and includes John Anderson Farms v. United States. [GN] UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Certify & Tosses "Vapne" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Ann M. Donnelly entered a decision and order in the lawsuit entitled GENRIKH VAPNE v. SONNY PERDUE, BEN CARSON, THOMAS PRICE, NANCY BERRYHILL, AMUEL ROBERTS, and HOWARD ZUCKER, Case No. 1:17-cv-02838-AMD-RLM (E.D.N.Y.): -- denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action; and -- dismissing the case. George Ervin "Sonny" Perdue III is the United States Secretary of Agriculture. The pro se plaintiff, Genrikh Vapne, filed the putative class action on May 9, 2017, seeking injunctive relief in connection with the effect of a cost of living adjustment on his public benefits. His request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted for the purpose of this order, Judge Donnelly said. The Plaintiff alleges that a cost of living adjustment should not be counted as income for purposes of "reducing food stamps, increasing rent, increasing of Medicare premiums and deductions and decreasing of admission to Medicaid benefits." He complains that he must pay more money in rent because of a COLA announced by the Social Security Administration. He seeks a declaration that COLA is not income, and should not be considered as income in calculating public benefits, such as food stamps or rental assistance. Judge Donnelly opined that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief against the Defendants. Because the Plaintiff is not a lawyer, and is not represented by a lawyer, he cannot represent a potential class and, thus, the motion for class certification is denied. "I certify pursuant to Section 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauper is status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1962)," Judge Donnelly stated. A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SHoAjBMp UNITED WATER: "Sauers" Action Seeks Unpaid OT, Damages ------------------------------------------------------ Aramis Sauers, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Water Restoration Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00944 (M.D. Fla., May 24, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and all other applicable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. United Water Restoration Group, Inc., is a full service restoration company specialized in water damage, flood, fire, storm, sewage and mold remediation. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a water and mold technician. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor PO. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 Email: mgunter@forthepeople.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Hack" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- BYRON HACK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00909 (C.D. Cal., May 24, 2017), accuses Defendants of repeated violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act resulting from their systemic practice of denying services for lumbar artificial disc replacement (ADR) surgery on the basis that such services are "unproven." The complaint says Defendants have developed and used a mandatory guideline, the "Medical Policy" on "Total Artificial Disc Replacement for the Spine," which provides that lumbar ADR is not safe and effective and excluded as such under all United Plans. Under this guideline, Defendants have systematically denied all requests for lumbar ADR surgery as not safe and effective. Contrary to Defendants' position, lumbar ADR surgery has been approved by The United States Food and Drug Administrations for nearly ten years and is a safe, effective and often recommended procedure that has successfully treated the symptoms of lumbar disc disease, the complaint notes. Defendant UnitedHealth Group Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, including Defendants United HealthCare Services, Inc., and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, is a fully integrated company that is in the business of insuring and administering health insurance plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Gianelli, Esq. Joshua S. Davis, Esq. Adrian J. Barrio, Esq. GIANELLI & MORRIS, A Law Corporation 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 489-1600 Fax: (213) 489-1611 E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Faces Suit for Printing 5++ Card Digits --------------------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that two California consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against the University of Southern California, alleging fraud and violation of federal law. Elizabeth Alvarado, Jose Ramos filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, April 18 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the University of Southern California and Does 1 through 10, alleging they printed more than five digits of the plaintiffs' credit/debit cards. The defendant removed the case to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 16. According to the complaint, Alvarado and Ramos were damaged from having their credit debit card information compromised because printed more than five digits of their customers credit/debit card on receipts. The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, statutory damages, punitive damages, court costs, enjoin the defendant and any further relief the court grants. They are represented by attorneys Kenneth S. Gaines, Daniel F. Gaines, Esq. -- gaines@gaineslawfirm.com -- Alex P. Katofsky, Esq. -- katofsky@gaineslawfirm.com -- and Sepideh Ardestani, Esq. -- sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com -- of Gaines & Gaines, APLC in Calabasas, California. [GN] U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 2:17-cv-03671-GW-AJW [GN] UNROLLME INC: Parikh Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------- Meghna Parikh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Unrollme Inc and Slice Technologies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-03073, (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2017), seeks actual, statutory and/or punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred and such other preliminary and equitable relief resulting from unjust Enrichment, privacy violation based on intrusion, and violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Stored Communications Act, California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California Business and Professions Code, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. UnrollMe and its parent company Slice Technologies, Inc., monitor, disseminate and sell its users' personal information and consumer habits without their informed consent or knowledge for financial gain, says the complaint. UnrollMe is an "email management" service designed to help users eliminate junk mail and remove clutter from their inboxes. It identifies subscription emails and allow users to unsubscribe from marketing lists. Slice is a data firm that measures e-commerce by extracting purchase information from emails containing e-receipts. Slice's technology identifies e-receipts within inboxes, extracts every available data point about every purchase at the item level, normalizes measurements across retailers and structures the data into an industry-wide taxonomy and catalog. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Noah M. Schubert, Esq. Kathryn Y. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Tel: rschubert@sjk.law nschubert@sjk.law kschubert@sjk.law VOLKSWAGEN: Asks Judge to Move Drivers' Suit to NJ Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that Volkswagen, with the consent of a proposed class of drivers, asked a Florida federal court to move the drivers' lawsuit over a purported engine defect to New Jersey federal court, where an earlier-filed case has been pending for more than eight months. The instant suit, led by four Florida residents, was filed in April, alleging Volkswagen and Audi hid their knowledge of a timing chain defect in certain vehicles built between 2008 and 2013. The system is supposed to last for at least 120,000 miles, but the defect means it could fail at any time, cutting power to the engine and putting drivers at risk of rear-end crashes, the complaint said. The New Jersey action -- a consolidated case stemming from a half- dozen lawsuits filed between April 2016 and July -- involves nearly identical claims, seeks identical relief and involves the same nationwide and Florida subclasses as the Florida case. After discussing the move with the Florida drivers, both sides agreed that moving the Florida suit to New Jersey would be appropriate, Volkswagen said. In early May, U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares ruled that Volkswagen can't force the plaintiffs in the New Jersey case into arbitration because the automaker wasn't actually a party to the arbitration agreement car owners signed with Volkswagen dealerships. He also refused to dismiss the vast majority of the drivers' first consolidated complaint, which was filed in August. The vehicle owners, who hail from 22 states, including Florida, seek to represent anyone in the U.S. who bought or leased a 2008 through 2013 model year Volkswagen or Audi vehicle with one of two types of 2-liter diesel engines. The Florida drivers listed models including Volkswagen Beetles, Golfs, Jettas, Passats, Rabbits, Routans, Tiguans and Touaregs, as well as Audi A3s, A4s, A5s, A6s, A7s, Q3s, Q5s and Q7s. The timing chain system synchronizes the moving parts within an engine, and if it fails, the engine may lose power or fail, possibly resulting in expensive repairs or parts replacements. The alleged defect is in the part of the chain that keeps it at the proper level of tension. Part of the mechanism that keeps the chain taut during startup can fail, causing the chain to jump and ruin other parts of the engine, the drivers said, claiming Volkswagen knew about the defect, or should've known, for six years. Although most of the New Jersey suit remains intact, Judge Linares did dismiss a breach of contract claim that the drivers abandoned, an Arkansas negligent misrepresentation claim that's not recognized by that state and an Ohio subclass allegation that Volkswagen violated the state's Sales Practices Act. Regarding the Ohio claim, the judge found that the automaker wasn't given sufficient notice that its conduct was deceptive, but gave the drivers a chance to amend their claim. Neither side could be reached for further comment on May 25. Volkswagen is represented by Myron Shapiro, Esq. -- mshapiro@rumberger.com -- of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PA and by Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq. -- jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- and Michael B. Gallub, Esq. -- MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com -- of Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC. The Florida plaintiffs are represented by Peter Prieto, Esq. -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- John Gravante, Esq. -- jgravante@podhurst.com -- Matthew P. Weinshal, Esq. -- mweinshall@podhurst.com -- and Alissa Del Riego, Esq. -- adelriego@podhurst.com -- of Podhurst Orseck PA. The New Jersey plaintiffs are represented by Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman PC, Thomas P. Sobran PC, Mazie Seater Katz & Freeman LLC, McCuneWright LLP, Seeger Weiss LLP and Baron & Budd PC. The cases are Artola, et al., v. Aktiengesellschaft, et al., case number 1:17-cv-21296, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and In re: Volkswagen Timing Chain Product Liability Litigation, case number 2:16-cv-02765, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] VOLKSWAGEN: Italian Court OKs Class Action Over Emissions Tests --------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reports that an Italian court has opened the way for a class action lawsuit against automaker Volkswagen over its emissions scandal. Altroconsumo, a consumer rights organization, said a tribunal in Venice gave it the go-ahead to file the lawsuit. Altroconsumo said the lawsuit would include all affected cars from the Volkswagen group, including Audi, Skoda and Seat brands. In 2015, it was discovered that some Volkswagen diesel cars had software that allowed them to cheat on U.S. emissions tests. The German company says about 11 million cars worldwide are fitted with the software. Altroconsumo said 650,000 of them are in Italy and that 30,000 people are interested in taking part in the lawsuit. It hasn't been proven that Volkswagen cheated in European tests, which are less stringent and being revised. [GN] WASHINGTON: Settles Suit Over Denied Healthcare for $55-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Becker, writing for KOIN, reports that thousands of people who worked for the State of Washington could be getting sizable checks in the mail. The checks are part of a $55 million payout from a class action lawsuit filed against Washington's healthcare authority. The suit found that some part time employees of the state were improperly denied healthcare benefits as far back as 2003. The lawsuit was filed 11 years ago by Doug Moore, who worked seasonally at the Emerald Downs racetrack. He noticed substitute teachers had won a suit to receive year round healthcare and he seemed to be in the same situation as them. It took a few years to gather information because so many state agencies were making the same mistake, and the lawsuit was filed in 2006. It compelled the state legislature to change the code in 2010 to make all part time employees eligible for healthcare. "That feels pretty good," Moore said. "I'm glad we made a difference." Those part time employees will get $618 for every month they were employed without healthcare. "There's many class members who are going to receive tens of thousands of dollars from the settlement," said Stephen Festor, the plaintiff's attorney said. "Every class member will receive a minimum of $1,800 and there's many class members who are going to receive tens of thousands of dollars from the settlement." The plaintiff is only getting about $3,500 back, but the lawsuit has about 7,000 members, some of whom were denied 40, 50 or 60 months of healthcare. "It's not a large settlement for me personally but I'm glad that the people that probably can really use that money are gonna get that money back," Moore said. "I'm sure a lot of them don't even really realize it's coming so it'll be a nice surprise for them." Someone with 60 months on their claim would be getting a check for $37,000 in the payout. [GN] WAYSIDE AUTO BODY: "Robles" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Santiago Acosta Robles, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wayside Auto Body, Inc. and Christopher Benson, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03180 (E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid spread-of- hours premium and statutory penalties pursuant to the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Christopher Benson owns and operates Wayside Auto Body, an automotive repair shop in 139-23 Queens Boulevard, Jamaica, New York 11435 where Plaintiff worked as a sander, car preparer and general helper. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 WEST COAST: Faces "Cross" Lawsuit Alleging Privacy Invasion ----------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Cross, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. West Coast Center, LLC d.b.a., Green World Pro, Yossi Ohayon, and/or Imane Haddada a.k.a. Imane Bytton, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01076-AJB-BGS (May 24, 2017), accuses Defendants of negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone to market solar systems., in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Kevin Lemieux, Esq., Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com kevin@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com WINGS OVER: Faces Suit Over Wage Act Violations ----------------------------------------------- Jeremy Hartley writing for Centre Daily Times reports that a group of former delivery drivers have filed a class-action suit against a State College takeout restaurant. According to the court documents, Jacob Wilson, Ty Carts, Lewis Grove, Colin Krieger and Branden Ronald filed the suit against Wings Over Happy Valley and its owner, Steven Moreira. The claim seeks "overtime and relief" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Wings Over Happy Valley is located at 244 W. Hamilton Ave. in the State College borough. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, and alleges that wages were taken from the plaintiffs "pursuant to an illegitimate, unlawful and unapproved 'tipping pool' during the course of their duties as delivery drivers." The suit covers the named plaintiffs and "on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals." Under FLSA and the minimum wage act, employers are expected to pay $7.25 an hour except for any tipped employee, court documents said. Using a "tip credit," employees may pay a tipped employee below minimum wage as long as "all tips received by such employee have been retained by the employee." An exception to this credit is an authorized tip pool, the suit said, in which employers may direct tipped employees to share tips among employees who regularly receive tips. As delivery drivers, the plaintiffs drove their personal vehicles for the restaurant and received pay rates based on the tip credit, court documents said. The restaurant, according to the suit, routinely required all delivery workers to "tip out" about 8 percent of their tips to provide compensation to kitchen workers. Kitchen workers are not regularly tipped employees, the suit said, claiming that the restaurant violated the FLSA and minimum wage act by wrongfully retaining the plaintiff's wages to avoid paying kitchen workers "an appropriate wage." It's the plaintiff's belief that the restaurant was able to pay kitchen workers the standard market rate without requiring their tips. The suit covers all delivery drivers employed by the restaurant over the last three years, court documents said, which could cover up to 50 individuals. Moreira could not be reached for comment. [GN] The case is Jacob Wilson, Ty Carts, Lewis Grove, Colin Krieger, Branden Ronald, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Wings Over Happy Valley MDF, LLC (d/b/a Wings Over Happy Valley) and Steven C. Moreira, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00915 (M.D. Pa., May 24, 2017). Plaintiffs are represented by: David B. Consiglio, Esq. David S. Gaines, Jr. MILLER, KISTLER & CAMPBELL 720 South Atherton Street, Suite 201 State College, PA 16801 Tel: (814) 234-1500 Fax: (814) 234-1549 Email: dconsiglio@mkclaw.com dgaines@mkclaw.com WIX.COM INC: Faces "Williams" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN M. WILLIAMS and SAMUEL R. MURPHY individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. WIX.COM, INC., Serve at: The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00434 (W.D. Mo., May 26, 2017), alleges that WIX repeatedly sends unsolicited text messages to Plaintiffs' cellular telephones in order to drive consumer traffic to its website www.wix.com, which encourages consumers to sign up for a WIX account and to use and purchase various web-design and webhosting related products and services in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant WIX.com Inc. markets and sells various web-design and web-hosting related products and services to consumers and businesses throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari N. Rodopoulos MO, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 1800 Kansas City, MO 64105-5171 Phone: (816) 256-3582 Fax: (816) 337-4243 Email: ari@woodlaw.com - and - William C. Kenney MO, Esq. BILL KENNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 1101 Walnut Street, Suite 102 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816) 842-2455 Fax: (816) 474-8899 Email: bkenney@billkenneylaw.com * Anapol Weiss Atty Provides Insight Into World of Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. -- jfantini@anapolweiss.com -- at Anapol Weiss, in an article for The Legal Intelligencer, wrote that class action and mass tort lawsuits are universally recognized as high- stakes litigations. Given the publicity following the slew of eye popping settlements and jury verdicts generated over the past two decades, such a response is understandable. Everyone is familiar with the astronomical settlements and verdicts obtained in recent years in the cases involving Vioxx, Yaz, NFL concussion, the Volkswagen emission scandal, Pinnacle hips, Stryker hips, and "kids-for- cash." While the public and media focus on the awards and parties involved, they often ignore the fact that these cases, which regularly last in excess of five years, involve clashes between the titans of the legal profession debating some of the most hotly contested factual, scientific, legal and procedural issues courtrooms have ever seen. Over my career, I have had the opportunity to represent clients in both class action and mass tort litigations. Attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants in these types of cases recognize the benefits of having a large number of injured people aggregated in a single forum, which allows the matters to proceed in an extremely efficient manner helping to facilitate the timely resolution of the numerous claims. While class actions and mass torts share many similarities, they are not the same and have very unique and significant distinctions. In class actions, the injured parties have suffered similar harm (injuries or damages) which arise from the same conduct on the part of the defendants. This allows for the filing of a class action lawsuit instead of the filing of various individual lawsuits, for oftentimes relatively small damage amounts, on behalf of a group of individuals that are treated together as one. Common examples of class action lawsuits are those involving civil rights, environmental and employment discrimination claims. Procedurally, after plaintiffs satisfy the requirements under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23, or the governing state rule, the class is deemed "certified." After the class is certified, the case proceeds on issues common to all class members and all of the potentially injured parties must be notified and provided with an opportunity to participate or "opt-out" of the case. Once a settlement or verdict is reached, regardless of the circumstances and individual facts, class members receive a share of the verdict or settlement that as closely as possible approximates their proportionate share of the total monetary award. The central difference between a mass tort and class action is that in a mass tort each of the plaintiffs has filed an individual lawsuit, which may involve varying legal claims and causes of actions, based upon the facts and evidence of their specific circumstance. The filing of various lawsuits arising from the same occurrence in jurisdiction throughout the country could theoretically result in judicial pandemonium as separate courts may issue conflicting rulings resulting in varying awards. In order to avoid these unfavorable outcomes and discourage forum shopping, while seeking to conserve resources of the parties and the court through the eliminations of duplicative discovery and pretrial matters, various lawsuits are consolidated or centralized for management between one or more courts without consideration for personal jurisdiction over the parties. While state rules vary for each jurisdiction, plaintiffs or defendants can file a motion or petition for consolidation of the various individuals' lawsuits in a mass tort proceeding so long as the actions involve common questions of fact. This is typically accomplished on the federal level by filing a petition with the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation (JPML) seeking to form a multidistrict litigation (MDL), although the panel has the authority to form an MDL on its own initiative. The JPML is tasked with determining which federal actions involve common questions of fact and are ripe to be transferred for pretrial proceedings to a single district court and judge that has been determined to be the most appropriate to handle these matters. Once an MDL or mass tort is formed, the judge overseeing the litigation typically approves a standard short-form complaint and a plaintiff fact sheet which helps facilitate a streamlined pleadings and discovery processes. Thereafter, case management orders are entered establishing deadlines for each of the individual cases in the litigation; including defendants' document production, production of experts' reports, fact and 'expert witnesses' depositions, and dispositive motion practice. A huge benefit in these consolidated litigations is that information is permitted to be shared between attorneys and clients. Although mass tort cases can arise from large scale disasters, sales practices or other improper actions, by far the two most common mass torts are those involving pharmaceuticals and medical devices. In order to help resolve an entire mass tort docket, the parties engage in case-specific fact and expert discovery in a number of bellwether cases, which are designed to be cases that involve factual and legal issues that are representative of the entire inventory, and then that specific case is taken to jury for a verdict. While these test cases provide valuable insight into the value of the case for both parties, they are not binding on other cases in the litigation. As a result, it is common for multiple bellwether trials to be conducted, with greatly differing verdicts. If a global settlement is ultimately reached, the settlement amounts for each plaintiff varies depending on the specific facts in each case. Class action and mass tort actions are some of the most complex and hard fought cases. One thing I have learned over my career is that while the attorneys involved often make it look simple, mass tort and class actions are anything but a "get rich quick" venture. With a great deal at stake, defendants adopt aggressive strategies by pouring enormous amount of resources into litigation while refusing to settle. To counter these strategies, plaintiffs attorneys are forced to devote significant financial resources and people power to deal with the all but guaranteed extensive motion practice, numerous expert witnesses, and voluminous document production and retention necessitating the need for multiple depositions domestically and internationally, into litigations that could very well last a decade while yielding no return on investment. [GN] * Fairness in Class Action Act Would Lead to MDL Litigation Reform ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Britt, Esq., at Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports in addition to it taking a swipe at class actions, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017 (the "Fairness in Class Action Act"), would lead to multi-district litigation reform (MDL), limiting its reach in federal court. Like class actions, multi-district litigations, or MDLs, can pose a tremendous threat to corporate defendants caught in their crosshairs. They pose their own set of challenges, though: unlike class actions that bring in a group of unnamed plaintiffs under one single case, MDLs collect a group of individual cases under one consolidated pretrial proceeding in a single forum. Generally, a sampling of these cases are then chosen for "bellwether" trials tried by the MDL judge, the outcome of which gives the parties an idea of what a settlement range for the cases should look like. If a settlement isn't reached, the remaining cases--which may number in the thousands--are tried, either in the MDL court or in the court where the case would have been venued but for the MDL. It is not hard to see the opportunity for enormous cost and enormous exposure in cases where this mechanism is used. While MDLs pose some hurdles to plaintiffs that class actions do not--for starters, members of an MDL actually need to file their own case, and (in theory at least) cannot passively await an award--they, like class actions, also aggregate plaintiffs in a way that can blow up manageable claims into company-threatening disputes. Recent headline-making judgments in MDLs show that, unlike most class actions, MDLs are threatening for another reason: each individual case can result in a multi-million dollar verdict. Additionally, MDLs can linger for years longer than individual or class actions--over 50 of the currently pending MDLs were established before 2010. A Universal Lone Pine Order One of the issues that confront defendants in MDLs is that once they gain momentum, there is the potential for unscrupulous plaintiffs to file individual cases (which may involve little more than paying a filing fee and filling out a short-form complaint, which can be a form that the plaintiff's basic information is plugged into), even with tenuous claims for relief, on the theory that if the defendants settle, there is the chance for a payout without the need to make a showing of injury or causation. This creates other issues with MDL case management, such as cases selected to be bellwether trials that get dismissed before trial when plaintiffs cannot scrounge evidence backing their claims, leaving the parties and the court without the barometer that these early trials are supposed to provide. One way that courts have addressed these problems is by the use of Lone Pine orders--case management orders that require plaintiffs to "put up or shut up" by providing some evidence to support their claims in order to keep their individual case live. This can take the form of requiring expert affidavits spelling out how the plaintiff was injured by defendant's conduct, which may require details such as how plaintiff was exposed to defendant's product and providing a medical explanation for plaintiff's injury. These orders can be tremendously helpful to defendants in MDLs--by creating an obligation for plaintiffs to present some evidence in support of their claims, subject to review by the defendants and by the court, they can weed out some of the thinner cases that may otherwise be swept into an MDL. For that reason, industry groups like the Chamber of Commerce have pushed hard for the aggressive use of Lone Pine orders in these proceedings. But there are (at least from a defense perspective) problems with the current Lone Pine regime. One is that they are completely discretionary -- federal courts overseeing MDL cases can enter Lone Pine orders under their broad power to oversee their cases, but need not do so. Another is that even where these orders are entered, that may not happen until case management problems have already reared their head, or until the parties are already in the midst of settlement negotiations. The Fairness in Class Action Act would change that. It would require any plaintiff in an MDL to: "make a submission sufficient to demonstrate that there is evidentiary support (including but not limited to medical records) for the factual contentions in plaintiff's complaint regarding the alleged injury, the exposure to the risk that allegedly caused the injury, and the alleged cause of the injury." In short, it would make Lone Pine mandatory. In addition to doing so, it would make Lone Pine mandatory at the outset: plaintiffs would need to make this showing within 45 days after joining the MDL (either by transferring in, or by directly filing in, the MDL). Courts would need to evaluate this showing within 90 days after that deadline, and dismiss cases that fail to make a sufficient showing--a dismissal that would become with prejudice (i.e., permanent) if plaintiffs did not supplement their evidentiary showing within 30 days of dismissal. While this may substantially increase the burden on the judiciary -- again, some of these MDLs have thousands of individual cases -- it may also result in these cases having more merit, and being more reliable indicators of the strength of the claims against defendants. Limiting Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees Another step the Fairness in Class Action Act would take if approved in its current form would be a reduction in the amount of attorneys' fees that a plaintiff's attorney could collect in a personal injury action in an MDL. The Fairness in Class Action Act requires that such a plaintiff "shall receive not less than 80 percent of any monetary recovery obtained for those claims by settlement, judgment, or otherwise," subject to any medical lien in place related to those claims. This would of course have the effect of limiting any attorneys' fees to no more than 20% of the recovered amount -- a sharp reduction from what many plaintiffs' attorneys currently provide in their fee agreements, which may be 30% or more. While supporters of this bill may point to the efficiencies in the MDL mechanism to show why plaintiffs' attorneys should not expect a full 30%+ contingent fee payment from each plaintiff that settles in an MDL, this would still plainly diminish the incentive for plaintiffs' attorneys to bring these claims in the first place. Prospects for Passage? It bears repeating that the Fairness in Class Action Act is a long ways from becoming law, and there are elements of the bill that may be stripped out even if it proceeds (such as the limitations on attorneys' fees provisions, or certain disclosure requirements that would be added for class action plaintiffs). But with Republican control of Washington, it bears watching because it shows how that party views class actions and MDLs that have become major risks for business interests. With groups like the Chamber of Commerce pushing for these judicial reforms, there is a strong likelihood that some elements of these reforms will pass in the next two years. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Pneumo Abex Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Landreth, as Executrix of the Estate of Bobby Joe Vickery appeals from summary judgments by the Caldwell Circuit Court which dismissed its asbestos-related claims against Pneumo Abex, LLC, Brake Supply Company, Inc., Eaton Corporation, and ArvinMeritor, Inc. Abex and Brake Supply filed protective cross-appeals to preserve their potential rights of apportionment who were also granted summary judgment but who are not parties to the Estate's appeal. On the direct appeal, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, first finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a special commissioner to make recommendations on discovery issues. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals agrees with the trial court that the Estate failed to present sufficient evidence that the decedent was exposed to asbestos dust manufactured or sold by the defendants, or that the exposures were a substantial cause in causing the decedent's injury. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for Abex, Brake Supply, Eaton, and Arvin-Meritor. As a result, the issues raised in the cross-appeals are moot. Hence, the Court of Appeals affirms in Appeal No. 2015-CA-000006-MR, and dismisses Cross- Appeals Nos. 2015-CA-000140-MR & 2015-CA-000141-MR. The cases are TIFFANY LANDRETH, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BOBBY JOE VICKERY, Appellant, v. BRAKE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.; PNEUMO ABEX, LLC; EATON CORPORATION; AND ARVINMERITOR, INC., Appellees. AND PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, Cross-Appellant, v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; AND TIFFANY LANDRETH, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BOBBY JOE VICKERY, Cross-Appellees. AND BRAKE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.; AND PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, Cross-Appellants, v. FORTNER L.P. GAS COMPANY, INC.; AND TIFFANY LANDRETH, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BOBBY JOE VICKERY, Cross-Appellees, Nos. 2015-CA-000006-MR, 2015-CA- 000140-MR, 2015-CA-000141-MR (Ky. App.). A full-text copy of the Opinion dated June 2, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/Qy49sj from Leagle.com. Joseph D. Satterley, Paul J. Kelley, Paul J. Ivie, Louisville, Kentucky, Hans Poppe, Louisville, Kentucky, Briefs for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Tiffany Landreth, Executrix of the Estate of Bobby Joe Vickery. Paul J. Kelley, Esq. -- pkelley@satterleylaw.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, Oral Argument for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Joseph P. Hummel, Esq. -- jhummel@lynchcox.com -- Berlin Tsai, Esq. -- btsai@lynchcox.com -- W. Thomas Rump, IV, Esq. -- trump@lynchcox.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, Brief for Appellee Arvinmeritor. Joseph P. Hummel, Louisville, Kentucky, Oral Argument for Arvinmeritor. Ridley M. Sandidge, Jr., Esq. -- rsandidge@rwsvlaw.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, Brief and Oral Argument for Appellee Eaton Corporation. Briefs for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Pneumo Abex, LLC, were prepared by: J. Christian Lewis, Esq. THE GLENN ARMENTOR LAW CORPORATION 300 Stewart St. Lafayette, LA 70501 Tel: (337)233-1471 Fax: (337)233-5655 Reagan Simpson, Esq. -- rsimpson@yettercoleman.com -- Houston, Texas, Oral Argument for Pneumo Abex, LLC. Palmer G. Vance, II, Esq. -- gene.vance@skofirm.com -- Matthew R. Parsons, Esq. -- matt.parsons@skofirm.com -- Lexington, Kentucky, Briefs for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Brake Supply Company, Inc. Palmer G. Vance, II, Lexington, Kentucky, Oral Argument for Brake Supply. Willard B. Paxton, Princeton, Kentucky, Brief and Oral Argument for Cross-Appellee Fortner LP Gas Co., Inc. Brief and Oral Argument for Genuine Parts Company: Patrick W. Gault, Esq. NAPIER GAULT SCHUPBACH & STEVENS, PLC 730 W. Main Street, Suite 400 Louisville, KY 40202 Tel: (502) 855-3802 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Savoie" to State Court Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- The matter in LORITA M. SAVOIE, v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO., ET AL, SECTION: J(3), Civil Action No. 15-1220 (E.D. La.), is on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which vacated this Court's previous Order and Reasons granting a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs, Lorita Savoie, et al. Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an order and reasons dated June 2, 2017, denying the motion to remand. According to Judge Barbier, the Defendants have satisfied the third factor in Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), for purposes of removal by demonstrating that the federal government was aware of the dangers of asbestos at the time of the alleged exposure. The affidavit of Danny Joyce states that the federal government was fully knowledgeable about the hazards of asbestos and that Avondale did not possess any more information on this subject than the government. In his second affidavit, Thomas McCaffery also avers that the Navy was aware of the health effects as early as 1943. Finally, Defendants submit the excerpted deposition testimony of Dr. Richard Lemen, a retired Assistant Surgeon General of the United States. Dr. Lemen testified that the federal government had been collecting literature related to the health effects of asbestos since the 1930s. With this evidence, the Defendants have made a colorable showing that the government was aware of the dangers of asbestos and that Avondale was not responsible for presenting its own warning, the judge held. A full-text copy of the Order dated June 2, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/e3cnsP from Leagle.com. Lorita M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement. Lorita M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Marcia Savoie Medlin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Craig M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Tania Savoie Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Rodney A Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Greta Savoie Boudoin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Dale J Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel & Clement, Dylan A. Wade, TMG Consulting, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey. Eagle Inc, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Owens Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Travis Brendon Wilkinson, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, XThird Party Defendant, represented by Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Uniroyal, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. McCarty Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Uniroyal, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey. 3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Sophia L. Lauricella, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. McCarty Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Se Plaintiff Directed to Amend Asbestos Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pro se plaintiff Johnson Carter brought a proposed civil action, under federal diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, in which he alleges that the defendants are liable under state law for his exposure to asbestos. As Carter has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis without payment of an initial partial filing fee, his complaint is ready for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an order dated June 5, 2017, a full-text copy of which is available at https://is.gd/7nABJN from Leagle.com, holding that Carter may not proceed unless he files an amended complaint that explain (1) what happened to make him believe he has a legal claim; (2) when it happened; (3) who did it; (4) why; and (5) how the court can assist him in relation to those events. The case is JOHNSON CARTER, Plaintiff, v. HENRY CARLSON'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-230-wmc (W.D. Wis.). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Metalclad Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jay Wanlass filed suit against numerous defendants based on alleged exposure to friable asbestos. Defendant Metalclad Insulation Corp. moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Wanlass appeals from the judgment. The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two, in a decision dated June 6, 2017, a full-text copy of which is available at https://is.gd/k9DjVE from Leagle.com, affirmed. The case is JAY WANLASS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, No. A143616 (Cal. App.). ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims vs. Owens --------------------------------------------------------------- In JANET PECHER, Individually and as Special Administrator for the Estate of Urban Pecher, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Nos. 16- 1799, 16-2376, 16-2377, 16-2378, 16-2379, 16-2380 (7th Cir.), the six cases consolidated on appeal all involve claims related to asbestos exposure over thirty years ago at a single Marshfield, Wisconsin plant which produced fire doors. While complex on the surface, and involving bulky appendices and appeals of separate orders, the thrust of the appeal is quite simple: the claims at issue are covered by the exclusive remedy provisions of Wisconsin's Worker's Compensation Act, Wis. Stat. Section 102.03(2). The Plaintiffs attempt to get around this bar by recharacterizing their injuries as occurring off the job. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit find these arguments are unavailing and finds the claims against Owen- Illinois claims as frivolous. As a result, the Seventh Circuit affirms the multiple rulings of the district court dismissing the claims against both defendants on appeal and denying reconsideration. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated June 6, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/CIKiXA from Leagle.com. Robert H. Riley, Esq. -- rriley@rshc-law.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Robert G. McCoy, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Matthew J. Fischer, Esq. -- mfischer@rshc-law.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Edward Casmere, Esq. -- ecasmere@rshc-law.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Joshua Douglas Lee, Esq. -- jlee@rshc-law.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Smitha Chintamaneni, Esq., for Defendant-Appellee. Brian O'Connor Watson, Esq. -- bwatson@rshc-law.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Tanya Dearman Ellis, for Defendant-Appellee. Jason P. Eckerly, for Defendant-Appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shell Owes Duty to Protect Family Member --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff and appellant Wanda L. Beckering appealed a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Shell Oil Company in a premises liability action. Beckering's late husband was a Shell employee. Beckering alleged she developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers that her husband inadvertently carried home on his work clothing, which she laundered. In a prior decision in this matter (Beckering v. Shell Oil Company (Nov. 21, 2014, B256407) [nonpub. opn.] (Beckering I)), guided by Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 (Campbell), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three, concluded that based upon the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 factors, a premises owner has no duty to protect a family member from secondary exposure to asbestos resulting from contact with a family member who wore asbestos-contaminated work clothes home. Accordingly, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. The Supreme Court granted review and ultimately transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate the decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132. Guided by Kesner, the California Court of Appeals now concludes Shell did owe Beckering a duty and therefore reverses the grant of summary judgment. The case is WANDA L. BECKERING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, No. B256407 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Opinion dated June 2, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/ey4xCn from Leagle.com. Plaintiff and Appellant is represented by: H. W. Trey Jones, Esq. Stephanie M. Taylor, Esq. Mark A. Linder, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 10866 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Nixon Peabody, Jennifer A. Kuenster, Esq. -- jkuenster@nixonpeabody.com -- Ross M. Petty, Esq. -- rpetty@nixonpeabody.com -- Lauren M. Michals, Esq. -- lmichals@nixonpeabody.com -- and Aaron M. Brian, Esq. -- abrian@nixonpeabody.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Affirms Remand of PI Suit to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant-appellant Crane Co. appeals the decision and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York remanding the action filed by Alton Chapman and Francis Chapman to New York state court following removal pursuant to the "federal officer removal statute," 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). Crane makes two principal arguments: (1) Crane argues that the district court erred in remanding the case because there was original subject matter jurisdiction at the time; and (2) Crane argues that, even assuming the court lacked original jurisdiction, the district court abused its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The district court concluded that the Chapmans had abandoned "any and all claims arising from asbestos exposure which are alleged to have occurred at any government facility, effectively excis[ing] any claim on which a government-contractor defense could be premised and thereby extinguish[ing] the basis on which this action was originally removed." Crane argues that an abandonment or disclaimer of claims does not constitute a "dismissal" of claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted that it was clear that the federal claims had been abandoned, and the district court explicitly recognized the claims were no longer in the case. Hence, federal question jurisdiction no longer existed. Alternatively, Crane asserts that the district court should have retained jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. This avenue, according to the Second Circuit, is also unavailing, given that "when diversity of citizenship is the basis of removal, diversity must exist not only at the time the action was filed in the state court, but also at the time the case is removed to federal court." Hence, to sustain removal based on diversity, Crane had to demonstrate that diversity of citizenship existed both at the time of the filing of the Chapmans' original complaint and at the time of removal, the Second Circuit pointed out. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the Chapmans had abandoned their claims giving rise to original jurisdiction; it was still an early stage of the proceedings and discovery was not complete; no dispositive motions had been decided; and interests of comity militated in favor of remand because the case was predominately a matter of state law, potentially implicating unsettled questions of state law, the Second Circuit held. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Second Circuit concluded. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The appeals case is ALTON CHAPMAN, FRANCIS CHAPMAN, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. CRANE CO., Individually and as Successor to Pacific Valves, Defendant-Appellant, CBS CORPORATION, successor by merger to CBS Corporation, FKA Viacom Inc., FKA Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Elliott Company, Foster Wheeler, L.L.C., Jenkins Valces, Inc., Weinman Pump & Supply Co., Riley Power Inc., Defendants, No. 16-933-cv (2d Cir.). A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 31, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/dMfmDI from Leagle.com. MICHAEL J. ROSS (Nicholas P. Vari, on the brief), K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Angela DiGiglio, K&L Gates LLP, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant. PIERRE RATZKI, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Faces PI Claims at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------ Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to face asbestos- related claims alleging various injuries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII. "The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. "The average cost per case to resolve cases during the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, was immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/k5Ggnq ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation still defends itself against various lawsuits regarding asbestos-related injuries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "The Corporation has been named in a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos. To date, the Corporation has not been found liable for or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case. The Corporation believes its minimal use of asbestos in its past operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. The Corporation maintains insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and believes adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/flQGKT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Ongoing in 2 Suits vs. Dixie Group ------------------------------------------------------------- The Dixie Group, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that discovery is still ongoing in two mesothelioma-related lawsuits filed against multiple parties including the Company. The Dixie Group states, "The Company is one of multiple parties to two lawsuits, both filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Sandra D. Watts, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 and styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-374. "Each lawsuit entails a claim for damages to be determined in excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed by the Company. "Discovery in both matters is ongoing, and tentative trial dates have been set. The Company has denied liability, is defending the matters vigorously and is unable to estimate its potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/INiIRE ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 33,600 Claims Pending at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation had around 33,600 asbestos-related claims pending as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. CBS Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use. "Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. "As of March 31, 2017, the Company had pending approximately 33,600 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 33,610 as of December 31, 2016 and 35,040 as of March 31, 2016. During the first quarter of 2017, the Company received approximately 860 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 870 claims. The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. "In 2016, the Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance and taxes were approximately US$48 million. In 2015, as the result of an insurance settlement, insurance recoveries exceeded the Company's after tax costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims by approximately US$5 million. The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses. "The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has remained generally flat in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/01hMKD ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has US$152MM Liability at Mar31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc estimated its asbestos-related net liability to be US$152 million as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The amount was recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's consolidated statements of financial position. Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. "As of March 31, 2017, the Company's estimated asbestos related net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's consolidated statements of financial position is US$152 million. The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial position is comprised of a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of US$540 million, of which US$35 million is recorded in other current liabilities and US$505 million is recorded in other noncurrent liabilities. "The Company also maintains separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial position of US$388 million, of which US$57 million is recorded in other current assets, and US$331 million is recorded in other noncurrent assets. Assets include US$33 million of cash and US$258 million of investments, which have all been designated as restricted. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at March 31, 2017 is US$97 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/XveHGh ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Defends 2 Asbestos Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Haynes International, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that it is defending itself, together with a number of other manufacturer defendants, against two actions alleging that asbestos in its facilities harmed the plaintiffs. Haynes International states, "The Company believes that it has defenses to these allegations and that, if the Company were to be found liable, the cases would not have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/etnLBg ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Faces 325 U.S. Cases at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Around 325 asbestos-related cases are still pending against General Cable Corporation in the United States as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "We have been a defendant in asbestos litigation for the past 29 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by us. As of March 31, 2017, we were a defendant in approximately 325 cases brought in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In the three months ended March 31, 2017, 19 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the calendar year 2016, 84 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the last 29 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. As of March 31, 2017, 50,962 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the three months ended March 31, 2017, 4 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2016, 50,958 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 325 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of our product. "As of March 31, 2017, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 169 cases. In 60 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about US$544 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 107 other cases pending in state and federal district courts, plaintiffs seek approximately US$430 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In two cases, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of US$20 million. In addition, in relation to these 169 cases, there are claims of US$271 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non- malignant injuries. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately US$4.4 million and as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, had recovered approximately US$0.4 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount of US$4.0 million, as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 represents our best estimate in order to cover resolution of current asbestos-related claims. "The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are: (1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims that may be filed in the future. "Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from the plaintiff's counsel. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, aggregate settlement costs were US$9.9 million and US$9.8 million, respectively. For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and April 1, 2016, settlement costs totaled US$0.1 million. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, aggregate litigation costs were US$27.4 million and US$27.1 million, respectively. For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and April 1, 2016, the costs of administering and litigating asbestos claims totaled US$0.3 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/ePlhsZ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,580 Cases at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 1,580 cases were outstanding at March 31, 2017, for which Standard Motor Products, Inc., may be responsible for any asbestos-related liabilities in connection to its former brake business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof. At March 31, 2017, approximately 1,580 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2017, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately US$21.1 million. "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement values. "The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2016. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from US$31 million to US$47.7 million for the period through 2059. The change from the prior year study was a US$2.3 million decrease for the low end of the range and a US$3.4 million decrease for the high end of the range. The decrease in the estimated undiscounted liability from the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects our actual experience over the prior twelve months, our historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. "Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required. Based upon the results of the August 31, 2016 actuarial study, a favorable adjustment to the asbestos liability was not recorded in our consolidated financial statements as the difference between our recorded liability and the liability in the actuarial report at the low end of the range was not material. "Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in loss from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to range from US$42.7 million to US$78.6 million for the period through 2059." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/nuPqb5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: WABTec Still Faces PI Claims at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------- Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation continues to face asbestos-related bodily injury claims filed in the United States, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "Claims have been filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products." "During the first three months ended months of 2017, there were no material changes to the information described in the Form 10-K." In its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed on February 28, 2017 with the SEC, the Company said, "Most of these claims have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation ("RFPC"), and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC. "Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/zynvfr ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Accrues US$8MM Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., had accrued liability of US$8 million for asbestos suits at March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company also deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets related to asbestos suits at March 31, 2017. On the other hand, subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million for asbestos suits and deferred US$7 million as asbestos-related regulatory assets at March 31, 2017. The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. "At March 31, 2017, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years. These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss. "In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/VCFQVs ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Faces 55 Rupture Suits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), continues to face around 55 lawsuits related to CECONY's steam main in midtown Manhattan which ruptured in July 2007, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company stated, "It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. Approximately fifty-five suits are pending against the company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover the company's costs to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the suits. In the company's estimation, there is not a reasonable possibility that an exposure to loss exists for the suits that is materially in excess of the estimated liability accrued. At March 31, 2017, the company has accrued its estimated liability for the suits of US$25 million and an insurance receivable of US$25 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/VCFQVs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Has 5,800 Claims Pending at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, had around 5,800 pending asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017. The Company said, "Maremont Corporation manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. "Maremont had approximately 5,800 pending asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016. Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits, seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product. For these reasons, the total number of claims filed is not necessarily the most meaningful factor in determining Maremont's asbestos-related liability. "Maremont engaged Bates White LLC ("Bates White"), a consulting firm with extensive experience estimating costs associated with asbestos litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against Maremont. Although it is not possible to estimate the full range of costs because of various uncertainties, Bates White advised Maremont that it would be possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the cost of the probable settlement and defense costs of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims, based on historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. "As of September 30, 2016, Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of US$70 million to US$83 million. After consultation with Bates White, management recognized a liability of US$70 million as of each of March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016 for pending and future claims over the next ten years. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Maremont. Maremont has recognized incremental insurance receivables associated with recoveries expected for asbestos-related liabilities as the estimate of asbestos-related liabilities for pending and future claims changes. "Maremont has historically had insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims. The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities was US$29 million and US$32 million as of March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016, respectively. The receivable is for coverage provided by one insurance carrier based on a coverage-in-place agreement. Maremont currently expects to exhaust the remaining limits provided by this coverage sometime in the next ten years. The difference between the estimated liability and insurance receivable is primarily related to exhaustion of settled insurance coverage within the forecasted period. "Maremont maintained insurance coverage with other insurance carriers that management believes also covers indemnity and defense costs. During fiscal year 2013, Maremont re-initiated lawsuits against these carriers, seeking a declaration of its rights to coverage for asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2016, the dispute related to these insurance policies was settled. As a part of this settlement, on December 12, 2015, Maremont received US$17 million in cash, of which US$5 million was recognized as a reduction in asbestos expense and US$12 million was recorded as a liability to the insurance carrier as it is required to be returned to the carrier if additional asbestos liability is not incurred. During the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, Maremont recognized an additional US$9 million of the cash settlement proceeds as a reduction in asbestos expense. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2017, the company recognized the remaining US$3 million of the cash settlement proceeds as a reduction in asbestos expense. The settlement also provides additional recovery for Maremont if certain future defense and indemnity spending thresholds are met. "The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could change significantly from its past experience, due, for example, to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of plaintiffs' law firms, jurisdictions and diseases; legislative or regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims; or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial condition and results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/1XMW9e ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Still Faces Suits at April 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits regarding Rockwell International products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017. The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. Rockwell had approximately 2,600 and 3,200 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as defendants at March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016, respectively. "A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products. Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. "The company engaged Bates White to assist with determining whether it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. As of September 30, 2016, Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of US$60 million to US$75 million. After consultation with Bates White, management recognized a liability for the pending and future claims over the next ten years of US$60 million as of each of March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Rockwell. "Rockwell has insurance coverage that management believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance retentions, for a significant portion of these claims. In 2004, the company initiated litigation against certain of these carriers to enforce the insurance policies. During the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, the company executed settlement agreements with two of these carriers, thereby resolving the litigation against those particular carriers. Pursuant to the terms of one of those settlement agreements, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016 the company received US$32 million in cash from an insurer, of which US$10 million was recognized as a reduction in asbestos expense, and US$22 million was recorded as a liability to the insurance carrier as it is required to be returned to the carrier if additional asbestos liability is not ultimately incurred. During the first six months of fiscal year 2017, Rockwell recognized an additional US$8 million of the cash settlement proceeds as a reduction in asbestos expense. Pursuant to the terms of a second settlement agreement, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016 the company recorded a US$12 million receivable to reflect expected reimbursement of future defense and indemnity payments under a coverage-in-place arrangement with that insurer. In addition to the coverage provided from the settlement agreements executed during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, the company continues to maintain a receivable of US$6 million related to a previously executed coverage-in-place arrangement with other insurers. The insurance receivable for Rockwell's asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$27 million as of each of March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016. Included in these amounts are insurance receivables of US$9 million as of each of March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016, which are associated with policies in dispute and have been fully reserved. "The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to predict. The future litigation environment for Rockwell could change significantly from its past experience, due, for example, to changes in the mix of claims filed against Rockwell in terms of plaintiffs' law firms, jurisdictions and diseases; legislative or regulatory developments; Rockwell's approach to defending claims; or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial condition and results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/1XMW9e ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Defends PL Suits at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Manitex International, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that it has been named as a defendant in several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability lawsuits. The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/LKAj3c ********* 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *