/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170622.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, June 22, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 124
Headlines
201 WEST: Bid to Dismiss "Flores" Partly Granted
ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: KPH Healthcare Hits Overpriced Propranolol
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Overpriced Ursodiol
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Overpriced Pravastatin
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: "Hayes" Suit Moved to E.D. California
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: "Hayes" Suit Moved to E.D. California
ADVANCED MICRO: Bid to Dismiss "Dickey" Partly Granted
AKORN INC: KPH Suit Asserts Lidocaine/Prilocaine Price-Fixing
AMERICAN RAILCAR: "Covington" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMERICAN RECOVERY: Faces "Wheeler" Suit in N.D. New York
APACHE CORPORATION: Faces "Lanier" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
APPLIED MATERIALS: Stewart Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
ARKANSAS: Faces "Mondy" Suit in Eastern District of Arkansas
ASADERO LA FOGATA: "Maza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ASSET RECOVERY: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lamb" Suit Claims
AVINGER INC: "Grotewiel" Suit Moved to N.D. California
BLUE CROSS: "Chaney" Sues Over Denied Claims for Treatment
BRANDI'S HOPE: Miss. Ct. Conditionally Certifies "Birdie" Class
BROKEN YOLK: Faces "Hyatt" Suit in Middle District of Florida
BUSINESS TEXTER: Sent Unsolicited Messages, Action Claims
BYRON'S HOT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Martinez" Says
CALIFORNIA, USA: Ray Moves to Certify Class of Homecare Workers
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Faces "Shum" Suit in Calif. Super. Court
CENTRALIA CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Trainor" Suit in S.D. Illinois
CERNER CORPORATION: Court Certifies TSAs Class in "Crawford" Suit
CFS2 INC: "Gutman" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces New Class Action on Expanding Overtime Pay
CONCHETTA INC: "Colon" Suit Sent to Arbitration
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Faces "Wendy" Suit in M.D. Tennessee
DASSAULT FALCON: "Coates" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
DR. REDDY'S: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Divalproex Price-fixing
DZ RESTAURANTS: Faces "Kiler" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
EI DU PONT: Cook Moves for Conditional Certification Under FLSA
EOS CCA: Faces "Mingo" Suit in Western District of New York
FCA US: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Victorino" Denied
FIVE GUYS: Faces Potential Class Action Over FCRA Violations
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Cryer Seeks Cert. of Plan Participants Class
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: "Roldan" Suit Moved to C.D. California
GC SERVICES: Faces "Cahill" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
GREAT VIRTUALWORKS: "Burton" Seeks Wages for Off-the-Clock Work
HEALTHCARE NATIONAL: Able Home's Cert. Bid Nixed; Hearing July 19
HOMELAND VINYL: Faces "Brewer" Suit in District of New Jersey
HUNTINGTON DEBT: Faces "Gumani" Suit in District of Minnesota
IC SYSTEM INC: Cornette Moves to Certify Class & Two Sub-Classes
ISPRING WATER: Faces "O'Sullivan" Suit in N.D. Georgia
J. CREW: Class Action Needs to Be Amended, Court Rules
JOHNSON MARK: Faces "Walker" Suit in District of Utah
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Denied
KROGER CO: Hardesty Moves to Certify Class of CoRE Recruiters
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Seeks to Dismiss Class Action on Pricing
LGI HOMES: Selby Seeks Certification of Office Managers Class
LI FENG: Faces "Zhang" Suit in Southern District of New York
MCAFEE INC: Software Customers Can Claim Settlement Payments
MDL 2438: Court Denies Class Certification Bid
MILLER STARK: Certification of Class Sought in "Zolandz" Suit
MOMS IN MOTION: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Larue" Suit
MRS BPO: Faces "Kraus" Suit in Eastern District of New York
MURRAY GOULBURN: ACCC Wants Filed Case Heard Before Class Action
NATIONAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Al" Suit
NATIONS RECOVERY: Faces "Shirley" Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sued in California Over Unsolicited Calls
NCC BUSINESS: Faces "Sorrentino" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
NETFLIX INC: M. DuDash Named Lead Plaintiff in "Ziolkowski"
NEUROTROPE INC: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
NEW ORLEANS, LA: "Anderson" Class Certification Vacated
NEXTEP FUNDING: Prayitno Seeks Certification of Three Classes
NORTH POINT: Court Denies Pecor's Bid to Certify Class of Dancers
OREGON: Judge Sides with Class Action Members on State Motions
ORGAN LAW OFFICES: "Hardegree" Suit Asserts FLSA Breach
PARAMOUNT TRANSPORTATION: Herrera Moves to Certify Class of LAE
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Mroszczak" Suit in W.D. New York
PLUCKERS INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Johns" Suit Says
PREMIER DERMATOLOGY: Smith's Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing on Sept. 6
PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Faces "Patton" Suit E.D. New York
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
RANBAXY INC: Meijer Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Automated Calls
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Faces Blackfeet Suit in D. Colorado
ROCHE HOLDING: "Biondolillo" Hits Stock Drop from Drug Combo
SECURED RESOLUTIONS: Faces "Turner" Suit in W.D. New York
SIROB IMPORTS: Guevar Moves to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
SOULCYCLE INC: Judge Denies Dismissal Motion
SPORTSMAN FISHER: Nail Wants to Notify Servers Class Under FLSA
STELLAR COLLECTION: Faces "Caceres" Suit in E.D. New York
SURFSTITCH: Very Likely to Settle Class Action
SYDELL GROUP: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
TAYLOR, MI: Judge Dismisses Class Action Related to Overtaxing
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
TILE SHOP: Court Gives Final Approval to $9.5MM Class Settlement
TILE SHOP: Court Approves $915K in Attorney's Fees, Costs
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D. New York
VAN RU CREDIT: Faces "Farrell" Suit in E.D. New York
WINDSOR SURRY: Faces "Torch" Suit in District of Oregon
*********
201 WEST: Bid to Dismiss "Flores" Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NICOMEDES FLORES, a/k/a Pablo, and CRISOFORO
CAMPOS, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, Plaintiffs, v. 201 WEST 103 CORP., d/b/a Buchetta, IANO
CORP., d/b/a Acqua, 886 AMSTERDAM AVENUE CORP., d/b/a Arco Caf??,
994 COLUMBUS AVENUE CORP., d/b/a Isola, 3143 BROADWAY CORP., d/b/a
Bettolona, 1600 AMSTERDAM AVENUE CORP., d/b/a Coccola, 412
AMSTERDAM CORP., d/b/a Bettola, SEBASTIANO CAPPITTA, DANIELE
FIORI, and FRANCESCA FIORI, Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 2233 (KPF)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part the Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss
and denied as moot their motion to strike.
Plaintiff Flores brought this collective and class action on March
25, 2016. Under the FLSA, the Plaintiffs seek to recover from
Defendants unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees and costs. Under the NYLL, they seek
to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
"spread of hours" premiums, statutory penalties, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.
On June 3, 2016, the Defendants filed a letter motion for a
conference to discuss their contemplated motion to dismiss
Plaintiff Flores's pleading. A conference was held on June 28,
2016. Pursuant to the Court's discussion with the parties at that
conference, Plaintiffs Flores and Campos filed the Complaint on
July 25, 2016. Plaintiff Campos previously had consented to sue
under the FLSA on June 21, 2016.
On Aug. 8, 2016, the Defendants filed a letter motion for a second
conference to discuss their contemplated motion to dismiss. In
light of the Court's discussions with the parties at the June 28,
2016 conference, their motion for a conference was denied.
Instead, the Court set a briefing schedule for their motion.
The Moving Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on Sept. 12,
2016. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this motion on
Oct. 26, 2016. The Moving Defendants filed their reply on Nov. 9,
2016.
The Galvez Declaration that is the subject of the Defendants'
motion to strike was filed months later, on May 12, 2017. They
filed their letter motion to strike the Declaration on May 15,
2017. The Plaintiffs opposed the letter motion on May 18, 2017,
and the Defendants filed a reply on May 19, 2017.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)6) and to strike
Telesforo Reyes Galvez's declaration in support of the Plaintiffs'
opposition to the Defendants' motion.
Because the Plaintiffs do not dispute the Moving Defendants'
contention that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with
regard to these Defendants, and indeed consent to the dismissal of
these claims, the Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims against 1600 Amsterdam Avenue Corp., doing
business as Coccola, and Francesca Fiori is granted.
With regard to Daniele Fiori, the Court finds at this stage that
the Plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded that Fiori was their
employer. While the Court might deem this alone little more than
a conclusory allegation tailored to the tests of employer control,
the Court notes that the Plaintiffs have also pleaded that Fiori
was "a manager at 'Buchetta' and directly supervised Plaintiffs"
in that capacity. Drawing all inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor
as it must at this stage, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have
plausibly pleaded that Fiori had formal control over them, such
that he was the Plaintiffs' employer for purposes of the FLSA.
Hence, the Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims against Daniele Fiori is denied.
The Court was able to resolve the Defendants' motion without
considering the Galvez Declaration or either of the Plaintiffs'
Declarations, which the Court agrees with that the Defendants are
outside the Court's purview at this stage. Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion to strike the Galvez Declaration is denied as
moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at
Docket Entries #40 and #50. The remaining parties are directed to
provide the Court with a joint status letter and proposed case
management plan on June 28, 2017, so the Court may determine how
this case will proceed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/cMrb9W from Leagle.com.
Nicomedes Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig,
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.
Nicomedes Flores, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC.
Crisoforo Campos, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC.
201 West 103 Corp., Defendant, represented by Jeffery Alan Meyer -
- jmeyer@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman, Dolowich & Voluck LLP & Aaron
Nathaniel Solomon -- asolomon@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman Dolowich &
Voluck LLP.
Iano Corp., Defendant, represented by Jeffery Alan Meyer, Kaufman,
Dolowich & Voluck LLP & Aaron Nathaniel Solomon, Kaufman Dolowich
& Voluck LLP.
886 Amsterdam Avenue Corp., Defendant, represented by Jeffery Alan
Meyer, Kaufman, Dolowich & Voluck LLP & Aaron Nathaniel Solomon,
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck LLP.
994 Columbus Avenue Corp., Defendant, represented by Jeffery Alan
Meyer, Kaufman, Dolowich & Voluck LLP & Aaron Nathaniel Solomon,
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck LLP.
3143 Broadway Corp., Defendant, represented by Jeffery Alan Meyer,
Kaufman, Dolowich & Voluck LLP & Aaron Nathaniel Solomon, Kaufman
Dolowich & Voluck LLP.
Sebastiano Cappitta, Defendant, represented by Jeffery Alan Meyer,
Kaufman, Dolowich & Voluck LLP & Aaron Nathaniel Solomon, Kaufman
Dolowich & Voluck LLP.
Daniele Fiori, Defendant, represented by Jeffery Alan Meyer,
Kaufman, Dolowich & Voluck LLP & Aaron Nathaniel Solomon, Kaufman
Dolowich & Voluck LLP.
412 Amsterdam Corp., Defendant, represented by Jeffery Alan Meyer,
Kaufman, Dolowich & Voluck LLP & Aaron Nathaniel Solomon, Kaufman
Dolowich & Voluck LLP.
ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: KPH Healthcare Hits Overpriced Propranolol
-------------------------------------------------------------
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC,
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd., Pliva, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., UDL
Laboratories, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., Endo
International, PLC, Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc., Breckenridge
Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02550 (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2017),
seeks, on behalf of a class of all persons and entities in the
United States and its territories who indirectly purchased, paid
and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase
price for Defendants' generic Propranolol products, other than for
resale, restitution and/or damages, actual damages, statutory
damages, punitive or treble damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest on such monetary relief, equitable relief in the
form of restitution and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal
profits received, injunction against Defendants, their affiliates,
successors, transferees, assignees, and other officers, directors,
partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons
acting or claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them,
from in any manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the
conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination from further
overpricing.
The lawsuit also seeks costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful restraint of trade, unjust
enrichment, unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable,
deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices and violation of the
Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws protection and unfair
competition statutes.
Defendants control the United States market for generic
propranolol, a beta-blocker used to manage cardiac arrhythmias,
tremors, angina, hypertension, heart rhythm disorders and other
heart or circulatory conditions. Defendants allegedly conspired to
fix the prices of propranolol to eliminate competition.
KPH operates retail pharmacies in the Northeast under the name
Kinney Drugs. It claims it purchased generic propranolol
manufactured by one or more Defendants at supra-competitive
prices.
Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes generic
drugs.
Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Fairfield, New Jersey. It sells
Propranolol Capsules in this District and throughout the United
States.
Endo International PLC is an Irish corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dublin, Ireland and United States
headquarters in Malvern, Pennsylvania. Its subsidiary, Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., sells Propranolol Tablets throughout the
United States.
Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Eatontown, New Jersey. Heritage
sells propranolol tablets throughout the United States. Heritage
is a subsidiary of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., based in Pune,
India.
Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is
called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and
distributor of generic Propranolol Tablets.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 1090 Horsham Road, North Wales,
Pennsylvania 19454. Teva USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
Actavis Elizabeth, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business at 200 Elmora Ave.,
Elizabeth, NJ 07207. Actavis was acquired by Teva in 2016.
Pliva, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place
of business at 72 Deforest Ave. East Hanover, NJ 07936. Pliva is a
subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceutical
company based in the Netherlands.
UDL Laboratories, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business at 1718 Northrock Ct, Rockford,
Illinois 61103. UDL is a subsidiary of Mylan Inc.
Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with
its principal place of business at 6701 Evenstad Drive, Maple
Grove, Minnesota 55369.
Defendants market and sell generic propranolol tablets throughout
the United States. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: 215-923-9300
Fax: 215-923-9302
Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
20 Rahling Circle
P.O. Box 241790
Little Rock, AR 72223
Tel: 501-821-5575
Fax: 501-821-4474
Email: mikeroberts@robetsslawfirm.us
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Overpriced Ursodiol
------------------------------------------------------------
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Actavis Holdco U.S.,
Inc., Lannett Company, Inc. and Epic Pharma, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01875 (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2017), seeks, on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities in the United States and its
territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided
reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for
Defendants' generic Ursodiol, other than for resale, restitution
and/or damages, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or
treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such
monetary relief, equitable relief in the form of restitution
and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received,
injunction against Defendants, their affiliates, successors,
transferees, assignees, and other officers, directors, partners,
agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or
claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them, from in
any manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct,
contract, conspiracy, or combination from further overpricing.
The lawsuit also seeks costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful restraint of trade, unjust
enrichment, unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable,
deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices and for violation of the
Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws protection and unfair
competition statutes.
Defendants control the United States market for generic Ursodiol
or ursodeoxycholic acid, in capsule form, says the complaint. It
is a bile acid that decreases the amount of cholesterol produced
by the liver and absorbed by the intestines and is prescribed for
gallbladder stone dissolution.
Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor
of generic Urdodiol.
Epic Pharma, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Laurelton, New York. Epic markets
and sells generic Ursodiol throughout the United States.
Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc. is a Delaware corporation that has its
administrative headquarters in Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey.
KPH operates retail pharmacies in the Northeast under the name
Kinney Drugs. It claims it purchased generic propranolol
manufactured by one or more Defendants at supra-competitive
prices. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Tel: 215-923-9300
Fax: 215-923-9302
Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
20 Rahling Circle
P.O. Box 241790
Little Rock, AR 72223
Tel: 501-821-5575
Fax: 501-821-4474
Email: mikeroberts@robetsslawfirm.us
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Overpriced Pravastatin
---------------------------------------------------------------
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Actavis Holdco U.S.,
Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Apotex Corp., Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories, Inc., Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, Lupin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Mylan, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-02556, (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2017), is a class action for claims
under federal and state antitrust laws to recover damages and
obtain injunctive and equitable relief for the substantial
injuries Plaintiff and others similarly situated have sustained
against Defendants, arising from their conspiracy to fix,
maintain, and stabilize the prices of generic pravastatin.
Pravastatin is used to reduce the level of low-density lipoprotein
and triglycerides in the blood to lower the risk of stroke, heart
attack and other heart complications.
Actavis PLC is a pharmaceutical corporation with its global
headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and with administrative
headquarters in New Jersey.
Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceutical
company based in the Netherlands.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V. develops, manufactures and
distribute generic pharmaceutical products.
Apotex Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 2400 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 400, Weston,
Florida 33326. Apotex is a subsidiary of Apotex, Inc., a Canadian
company with its principal place of business at 150 Signet Drive,
Toronto, Canada, M9L lT9.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA is a corporation with its
principal place of business at 750 Corporate Drive, Mahwah, New
Jersey, 07430. Glenmark is a subsidiary of Glenmark
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., an Indian company with its principal place
of business at Glenmark House, B.D. Sawant Marg. Chakala, Off
Western Express Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai, India, 400 099.
Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a corporation with its principal
place of business at I I 1 South Calver Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202. Lupin is an Indian company with its principal
place of business at Bl4 Laxami Towers, Branda Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 051, India.
Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with
its principal place of business at 73 Route 31 N, Penningtono New
Jersey, 08534. Zydus is a subsidiary of Zydus Pharmaceuticals
Limited, an Indian pharmaceutical company.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, with
its principal place of business at 107 College Road East,
Princeton, New Jersey, 08540.
KPH operates retail pharmacies in the Northeast under the name
Kinney Drugs. It claims it purchased generic Pravastatin
manufactured by one or more Defendants at supra-competitive
prices. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Tel: 215-923-9300
Fax: 215-923-9302
Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
20 Rahling Circle
P.O. Box 241790
Little Rock, AR 72223
Tel: 501-821-5575
Fax: 501-821-4474
Email: mikeroberts@robetsslawfirm.us
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: "Hayes" Suit Moved to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alvin Hayes, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., the Defendant,
a California corporation, Case No. BCV-17-101019, was removed on
June 12, 2017 from the Kern County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California - (Fresno).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00798-DAD-JLT
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge
Dale A. Drozd.
An Initial Scheduling Conference is set for August 16, 2017, at
9:00 a.m. in Bakersfield, 510 19th Street before Magistrate Judge
Jennifer L. Thurston.
Advanced Drainage designs, manufactures, and markets thermoplastic
corrugated pipes and related water management products for non-
residential, residential, agriculture, and infrastructure
applications in the United States and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230 7502
Facsimile: (818) 230 7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathy H. Gao, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612 2500
Facsimile: (213) 612 2501
E-mail: kgao@morganlewis.com
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: "Hayes" Suit Moved to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alvin Hayes, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., a California
corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BCV-17-101019, was removed on June 12, 2017 from the Kern
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California - (Fresno). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-at-00463 to the proceeding.
Advanced Drainage designs, manufactures, and markets thermoplastic
corrugated pipes and related water management products for non-
residential, residential, agriculture, and infrastructure
applications in the United States and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathy H. Gao, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612 2500
Facsimile: (213) 612 2501
E-mail: kgao@morganlewis.com
ADVANCED MICRO: Bid to Dismiss "Dickey" Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned TONY
DICKEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-04922-HSG (N.D. Cal.), and denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to strike.
Following the Court's previous order granting the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint on Jan. 6, 2017, alleging that the Defendant
misrepresented the number of core processors in its "Bulldozer"
line of central processing units. On the basis of this alleged
misrepresentation, they bring six causes of action against
Defendant: (i) California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (ii)
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (iii) California False
Advertising Law; (4) fraud in the inducement; (5) breach of
express warranty; and (6) negligent misrepresentation.
The Plaintiffs argue in their complaint that the Defendant's
Bulldozer products do not contain eight "cores" as advertised.
According to them, a "core" is able to operate independently from
other cores positioned on a chip, which leads, in turn, to
improved performance. The Bulldozer CPUs, however, contain eight
"sub-processors" that share resources instead. Shared resources
inhibit chips from operating and simultaneously multitasking,
which results in bottlenecks during data processing. Because the
Bulldozer CPUs share resources between two "cores," they
functionally only have four -- rather than eight -- cores.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs claim the products that they purchased
are inferior to the products that Defendant advertised. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's representations regarding
the number of cores on each Bulldozer chip were false. In their
claims against the Defendant, the Plaintiffs seek both monetary
and injunctive relief.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Although it
divides its arguments into fraud-based and non-fraud based claims,
its overarching point is the same for all six claims: the
Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to support their
expectation that its Bulldozer multi-core processors would contain
eight independent cores. The Defendant further argues that the
Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief should be dismissed for
lack of standing.
The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief for lack of standing.
The Court otherwise denied the motion. The Court also denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to strike as moot. The Defendant shall have 21
days from the date of the Order to respond to the complaint. The
Court further set a Case Management Conference for Aug. 1, 2017,
at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland, CA.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/Fm2ViM from Leagle.com.
Tony Dickey, Plaintiff, represented by Stewart Ryan Pollock --
amccall@zlk.com -- Edelson PC.
Tony Dickey, Plaintiff, represented by Amir Cheyenne Missaghi --
missaghi@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Benjamin Scott
Thomassen -- bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., pro hac vice
& Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC,
pro hac vice.
Paul Parmer, Plaintiff, represented by Rafey S. Balabanian,
Edelson PC & Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Edelson P.C..
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew
David Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Edmundo
Clay Marquez -- cmarquez@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP & Kelsey
M. Larson -- klarson@omm.com.
AKORN INC: KPH Suit Asserts Lidocaine/Prilocaine Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Akorn, Inc., Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc, Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Impax
Laboratories, Inc. and Sandoz, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02553 (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2017), seeks, on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities in the United States and its territories who
indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some
or all of the purchase price for Defendants' generic
lidocaine/prilocaine cream, other than for resale, restitution
and/or damages, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or
treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such
monetary relief, equitable relief in the form of restitution
and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received,
injunction against Defendants, their affiliates, successors,
transferees, assignees, and other officers, directors, partners,
agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or
claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them, from in
any manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct,
contract, conspiracy, or combination from further overpricing.
The complaint further seeks costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful restraint of trade, unjust
enrichment, unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable,
deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices and for violation of the
Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws protection and unfair
competition statutes.
Defendants control the United States market for generic
propranolol, a beta-blocker used to manage cardiac arrhythmias,
tremors, angina, hypertension, heart rhythm disorders and other
heart or circulatory conditions, says the complaint. Defendants
allegedly conspired to fix the prices of propranolol to eliminate
competition.
KPH operates retail pharmacies in the Northeast under the name
Kinney Drugs. It claims it purchased generic propranolol
manufactured by one or more Defendants at supra-competitive
prices.
Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Melville, New York. Fougera is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Sandoz, Inc., a Colorado corporation
with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. It
deals in generic pharmaceuticals and bio-similars.
Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Akorn, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Amityville, New York.
Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is
called Global Pharmaceuticals.
Akorn is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures and markets specialized generic and branded
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug products and animal health
products in the United States.
KPH operates retail pharmacies in the Northeast under the name
Kinney Drugs. It claims it purchased Lidocaine/Prilocaine cream
manufactured by one or more Defendants at supra-competitive
prices. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: 215-923-9300
Fax: 215-923-9302
Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
20 Rahling Circle
P.O. Box 241790
Little Rock, AR 72223
Tel: 501-821-5575
Fax: 501-821-4474
Email: mikeroberts@robetsslawfirm.us
AMERICAN RAILCAR: "Covington" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Covington, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Railcar Industries, Inc., Case No.
3:17-cv-00145 (E.D. Ark., June 6, 2017), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary and liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
costs and reasonable attorney's fees for failing to pay Plaintiff
and other similarly situated individuals proper overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.
Defendant operates several manufacturing facilities that serve as
multifaceted railcar production facilities, including the building
of different types of railcars where Plaintiff worked for the
Defendant as a Production Worker. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
AMERICAN RECOVERY: Faces "Wheeler" Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Recovery
Systems-ARS, Inc. The case is captioned as Sean Wheeler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. American Recovery Systems-ARS, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00646-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y., June 15, 2017). The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino.
American Recovery operates as a collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203 7600
Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
E-mail: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
APACHE CORPORATION: Faces "Lanier" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Lanier, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Apache Corporation, Case No. 4:17-cv-01734 (S.D. Tex.,
June 8, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Apache Corporation operates a petroleum and natural gas
exploration and production company headquartered in Houston,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq
Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
litkin@mybackwages.com
jbresler@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
APPLIED MATERIALS: Stewart Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARIA STEWART, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. WELFARE
PLAN, Case No. 3:15-cv-02632-JST (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to
enter an order granting:
1. final approval and certification of the Settlement Classes;
and
2. final approval of the Class Action Agreement to Settle
Claims.
Maria Stewart brought the class action lawsuit against the
Defendant Plan seeking coverage for Speech Therapy to treat
individuals with autism spectrum disorder ("ASD") who were either
age six or older at the time of receipt of speech therapy or were
age five or younger and had speech therapy which exceeded 60
speech therapy visits in a calendar year. After filing suit, the
parties engaged in discussions in an effort to resolve
retrospective class claims.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Plan has agreed
to provide substantial relief to the Plaintiff and the proposed
settlement classes. The Plan will pay Speech Therapy claims,
incurred before Plan modifications effective January 1, 2016,
without application of age-based exclusions or visit limitations.
The Settlement Agreement specifically prevents the Plan from
denying coverage on these two specific grounds.
The Settlement provides relief to the Settlement Classes, which
consists of all individuals who:
(1) (a) have been participants or beneficiaries in the Plan at
any time during the Class Period; (b) who while enrolled
in the Plan received Speech Therapy to treat Autism during
the Class Period and had an Autism diagnosis at the time
of that Speech Therapy; and (c) were either age six or
older at the time of receipt of that Speech Therapy or
were age five or younger and had exceeded 60 Speech
Therapy visits in a calendar year; and either (i)
submitted claims for reimbursement of Speech Therapy to
the Plan and the Claims Processor denied those claims
("Class One"); or (ii) did not submit a claim to the Plan
and were not otherwise reimbursed for the therapy ("Class
Two"); or,
(2) are the parents and guardians of the individuals described
in Paragraph (1) above; or
(3) are the Successors-in-Interest of the individuals
described in Paragraph (1) above.
Applied Materials will pay Class Counsel $70,520 in recognition of
the time and expenses incurred in prosecuting this action.
A Fairness Hearing is currently set for July 13, 2017, at 2:00
p.m.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ghd9iVpZ
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
lkantor@kantorlaw.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicole A. Diller, Esq.
Roberta H. Vespremi, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1312
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: nicole.diller@morganlewis.com
rvespremi@morganlewis.com
ARKANSAS: Faces "Mondy" Suit in Eastern District of Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adrian Messina. The
case is captioned as Elijah Mondy, Jr., Individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated citizens of the City of Helena-West
Helena, Arkansas, the Plaintiff, v. Adrian Messina, Individually
and in his official capacity as Alderman for the City of Helena-
West Helena, Arkansas; Jesse Vescon Hollowell, Jr., Mayor of the
City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas; Helena-West Helena Arkansas,
City of; Wanda Crockett, In her official capacity as Adlerman for
the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas; Ever J Ford, In her
official capacity as Adlerman for the City of Helena-West Helena,
Arkansas; Joe St Columbia, Sr., In his official capacity as
Adlerman for the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas; Christopher
Franklin, In his official capacity as Adlerman for the City of
Helena-West Helena, Arkansas; John Huff, Jr., In his official
capacity as Adlerman for the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas;
Larry J Brown, In his official capacity as Adlerman for the City
of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas; Monica Davis, In her official
capacity as Adlerman for the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas;
Don Etherly, In his official capacity as Adlerman for the City of
Helena-West Helena, Arkansas; and Vivian Holder, In her official
capacity as Adlerman for the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00104-BRW (E.D. Ark., June 14,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Billy Roy
Wilson.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. F. Valley, Esq.
J. F. VALLEY, ESQ., P.A.
Post Office Box 451
Helena-West Helena, AR 72342-0451
Telephone: (870) 619 1750
Facsimile: (870) 619 1760
E-mail: James@jamesfvalley.com
ASADERO LA FOGATA: "Maza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Dardon Maza, on behalf of herself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs v. Asadero La Fogata Corp. and John Sitaras, Case No.
1:17-cv-03441-MKB-VMS (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages due to invalid tip credit,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 108-40
Corona Avenue, Corona, NY 11368. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 465-1124
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
cklee@leelitigation.com
ASSET RECOVERY: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lamb" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Lamb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Asset Recovery Solutions, Inc. and Navient Solutions,
LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04336 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2017), seeks to
put an end to the Defendants' practice of using of an automatic
telephone dialing system to call a telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service without the prior express consent of
the called party.
The Defendants are in the business of collecting consumer debt on
behalf of various creditors, including but not limited to student
loan lenders and servicers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
Facsimile: (312) 726.1093
E-mail: tsostrin@keoghlaw.com
Keith@KeoghLaw.com
- and -
David J. Philipps Esq.
PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
9760 S. Roberts Road Suite One
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Telephone: (708) 974-2900
Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
E-mail: DavePhilipps@aol.com
- and -
Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
225 Pratt Avenue
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 539-9899
Facsimile: (256) 713-0237
E-mail: rsykstus@bondnbotes.com
http://www.bondnbotes.com
AVINGER INC: "Grotewiel" Suit Moved to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lindsay Grotewiel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Avinger, Inc., Jeffrey M. Soinski, Matthew B. Ferguson, Donald A.
Lucas, John B. Simpson, James B. McElwee, James G. Cullen, Thomas
J. Fogarty, Canaccord Genuity, Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC,
Oppenheimer & Co., BTIG, and Stephens, Inc., Case No. 17-CIV-
02240, was removed on June 12, 2017 from the San Mateo Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-03400-JD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge James Donato.
Avinger, a commercial-stage medical device company, designs,
manufactures, and sells image-guided and catheter-based
systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: (650) 493 9300
Facsimile: (650) 565 5100
E-mail: isalceda@wsgr.com
BLUE CROSS: "Chaney" Sues Over Denied Claims for Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Chaney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota,
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-01914 (D. Minn., June 6, 2017), seeks
an award of benefits representing payment for services that should
have been covered by the Defendants, disgorgement of all profits
of Defendants that should have been used to pay plaintiff's
legitimate coverage claims, coverage of all medically necessary
services and any and all other relief related to this action,
including payment of reasonable fees, costs and interest under the
Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.
Chaney and his daughter are beneficiaries of his employer-
sponsored health insurance administered by Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Minnesota. Plaintiff's daughter has struggled with
depression, anxiety disorder, bulimia nervosa, alcohol and drug
abuse and self-harm. In August 2015, at the recommendation of her
therapist and educational consultant, she was admitted into a
behavioral therapy program center that specializes in the
therapeutic treatment of young men and women with comparable
diagnoses. Plaintiff's claims were denied by Blue Cross. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
60 State Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 573-5118
Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Jordan Lewis, Esq.
JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
Telephone: (954) 616-8995
Facsimile: (954) 206-0374
Email: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com
- and -
Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
1068 Virginia Avenue NE
Atlanta, GA 30306
Telephone: (404) 607-8222
Fax: (800) 922-4851
Email: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com
BRANDI'S HOPE: Miss. Ct. Conditionally Certifies "Birdie" Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RENZA BIRDIE, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRANDI'S HOPE COMMUNITY
SERVICES, LLC, and DANNY COWART, Defendants, Civil Action No.
5:17-cv-21-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss.), Judge David C. Bramlette, III, of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, Western Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification, for Approval and Distribution of
Notice.
Birdie, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
commenced this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action
against the Defendants on Feb. 24, 2017. Brandi's Hope is a
Mississippi limited liability corporation operating residential
care facilities for disabled adults. Cowart is the company's
owner and chief executive officer.
Birdie was employed by Brandi's Hope from November of 2014 to May
of 2015 as a Direct Support Professional ("DSP"). Within that
role, Birdie was responsible for providing assistance and care to
disabled adults living in group homes operated by Brandi's Hope.
Because these group homes were staffed at all times, DSPs were
often required to stay with their residents overnight. Birdie
claims that she frequently worked the night shift, which ran 17
hours from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. During these shifts, Birdie
alleges that she was required to "clock out" between 10:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. but remain at the facility throughout the night.
Through the company's "sleep time" policy, she claims that the
Defendants violated the FLSA by requiring her and other similarly
situated DSPs to work in excess of 40 hours a week without
overtime compensation.
Birdie moves for conditional certification requesting that Court-
authorized notice of the collective action be sent to all DSPs or
Direct Care Professionals ("DCPs") employed by the Defendants
since Feb. 24, 2014. While the Defendants do not oppose
conditional certification, they do request that the scope of the
proposed class and accompanying disclosures be limited.
Judge Bramlette granted Birdie's Motion for Conditional
Certification, and conditionally certified the collective class
consisting of all DSPs, or DCPs, employed by the Defendants who
stayed with a client overnight at any time since Feb. 24, 2014.
The Defendants must provide the Plaintiff's counsel with the
names, last known addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and
dates of employment of all potential members of the collective
class, in electronic form, within 14 days of the date of entry of
the Order.
The Plaintiff will submit to the Court, no later than 14 days from
the date of entry of the Order, a proposed notice to potential
class members, revised in accordance with the class conditionally
certified in the Order. Within 14 days of Court approval of the
Notice, the Plaintiff shall send a copy of the approved Notice and
Consent forms to potential class members. Said potential class
members shall submit their consent forms opting-in to this lawsuit
no later than 90 days from the date Notice is mailed.
Judge Bramlette further ordered that the Plaintiff's counsel is
authorized to send a reminder postcard by mail and email to those
potential class members who have not responded 30 days after the
initial notice is mailed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/x5pjNp from Leagle.com.
Renza Birdie, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher William Espy,
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA.
Renza Birdie, Plaintiff, represented by Stacy Gibson --
stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com -- SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC, pro hac vice.
Brandi's Hope Community Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Brent Edward Siler -- brent.siler@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER SNOW
LLP & William Mackin Johnson -- mackin.johnson@butlersnow.com --
BUTLER SNOW LLP.
Danny Cowart, Defendant, represented by Brent Edward Siler, BUTLER
SNOW LLP & William Mackin Johnson, BUTLER SNOW LLP.
BROKEN YOLK: Faces "Hyatt" Suit in Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Broken Yolk,
Inc. The case is entitled as Debra Hyatt, on her own behalf and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
The Broken Yolk, Inc., also known as: Broken Yolk Cafe, a Florida
Profit Corporation; Scott Howard, individually; and Joanne Howard,
the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01372-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla., June
12, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard A.
Lazzara.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, TAMPA P.A.
One Tampa City Center, 7th Floor
201 N Franklin Street
Tampa, FL 33602-5157
Telephone: (813) 223 5505
Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
BUSINESS TEXTER: Sent Unsolicited Messages, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen McWilliams, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Business Texter, Inc., d/b/a
BizTexter, Case No. 0:17-cv-61158-JIC (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2017),
seeks to stop the Defendants from placing cellular telephone SMS
or text messages for purposes of soliciting new customers without
the recipients' prior express consent.
Business Texter, Inc. provides a bulk SMS text message marketing
software system for businesses and companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@pathtojsutice.com
- and -
Scott D. Owens, Esq.
Patrick C. Crotty, Esq.
SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
Hollywood, FL 33019
Telephone: (954) 589-0588
Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
patrick@scottdowens.com
BYRON'S HOT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Martinez" Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Martinez, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees v. Byron's Hot Dog, Inc. d/b/a Byron's Hot
Dogs, and Michael E. Payne, Case No. 1:17-cv-04342 (N.D. Ill.,
June 8, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate Byron's Hot Dogs restaurant located
at 1701 W. Lawrence Avenue in Chicago Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
6232 N. Pulaski Rd., Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (312) 878-1302
E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com
CALIFORNIA, USA: Ray Moves to Certify Class of Homecare Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Trina Ray, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. California Department of
Social Services, and Los Angeles County Department of Public
Social Services, Case No. 2:17-cv-04239-PA-SK (C.D. Cal.), moves
for conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of this collective class:
All people employed by Defendants as homecare workers, home
care providers, or in other similar job titles, through the
In-Home Supportive Services program and in the County of Los
Angeles, who were paid for hours in excess of forty (40) per
week at a rate of less than 1.5 times their regular rate at
any time from January 1, 2015 to February 1, 2016. ("LA IHSS
Homecare Providers").
Trina Ray also asks the Court for authority to distribute judicial
notice. To facilitate notice, the Plaintiff request that within
10 business days of the Court's order, the Defendants shall
provide to her counsel an excel file containing the (1) name, (2)
job title(s), (3) dates of employment, (4) last known address and
telephone number, (5) location of employment, (6) employee number,
(7) social security number (last four digits only), (8) last known
email address, and (9) primary language for all LA IHSS Homecare
Providers. The Plaintiff seeks a 60-day notice period with a
reminder postcard, with notice to be distributed by her counsel
via U.S. Mail and e-mail.
The Court will commence a hearing on July 10, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9iUDDrhY
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
E-mail: helland@nka.com
dbrome@nka.com
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Faces "Shum" Suit in Calif. Super. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Commerce
Club, Inc. The case is captioned as Walter Shum, Ruth Ho, Bonnyawd
Kittladavan, and Maggie Chong, Individuals on Behalf of Themselves
and Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. California
Commerce Club, Inc., A California Corporation, the Defendant, Does
1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC664789 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 12, 2017).
California Commerce owns and operates poker casino. The Company
offers poker tables, dining establishments, pool and sundeck, and
banquet rooms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
316 W. 2 Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 814 4940
CENTRALIA CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Trainor" Suit in S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Larry Gebke.
The case is styled as Corey Trainor, Michael Turner, Terrance
Garrett, James Groleau, Dylan Metzel, and Keverez Tanzy, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. Larry Gebke, Chairman of the Publication Review Committee --
sued individually and in their official capacity
Defendant; Robert C. Mueller, Warden at Centralia CC -- sued
individually and in their official capacity; Monica Christianson,
Mailroom Supervisor -- sued individually and in their official
capacity; and Officer Rovenstein, Internal Affairs Officer at
Centralia CC -- sued individually and in their official capacity,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00627-DRH (S.D. Ill., June 14,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David R. Herndon.
The Centralia Correctional Center is a medium-security state
prison for men located in Centralia, Marion County, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appears pro se.
CERNER CORPORATION: Court Certifies TSAs Class in "Crawford" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Roseann A. Ketchmark granted in part the parties' joint
stipulation to conditionally certify a class in the lawsuit titled
RHONDA CRAWFORD, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CERNER CORPORATION, Case No. 4:17-cv-00015-
RK (W.D. Mo.).
The Plaintiff brought the collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of herself and "similarly situated"
employees of Cerner Corporation. The Plaintiff alleges that she,
along with other Technical Solution and/or Support Analysts in
SolutionWorks and/or AMS2 employed by Cerner, were classified as
salaried exempt associates and were not paid overtime wages for
hours worked over 40 per week in violation of the FLSA.
The parties stipulate to conditional certification of this class:
All Technical Solution Analysts and/or Technical Support
Analysts ("TSAs") employed in Cerner's AMS or SolutionWorks
Organization within the past 3 years who did not sign
Cerner's Mutual Arbitration Agreement.
Having considered the Joint Stipulation to Conditionally Certify a
Class, the record as a whole, and applicable law, the Court grants
the stipulation and conditionally certifies the class identified
in the stipulation.
Within 14 days from the date of the Order, the parties will file a
proposed notice to be sent to the stipulated class. Judge
Ketchmark denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional collective action certification.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WZD7yfIi
CFS2 INC: "Gutman" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Basya Gutman, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. CFS2
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06745 was removed on June 13,
2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
04270 to the proceeding.
CFS2 is a family-owned debt collection company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Igor B. Litvak, Esq.
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Telephone: (646) 796 4905
E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces New Class Action on Expanding Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that a lawsuit
has been filed against Chipotle on June 7, claiming that a federal
ruling expanding overtime pay to its workers is in effect even
after an injunction last year that banned the Labor Department
from enforcing this regulation. The proposed class action lawsuit
was filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey and alleges that
the popular Mexican eatery is responsible for paying time and a
half to employees who work more than the standard 40 years per
week and are earning less than $47,476 per year.
Depending on the outcome of the case, the lawsuit could
potentially mean significant scheduling changes and back pay for
many of Chipotle's employees. It could also have implications
others who would become eligible for overtime pay under the rule.
Chipotle's attorneys argue that the rule took effect as scheduled
on December 1st because the court ordering the injunction hadn't
issued a final decision in the matter or chosen to repeal the
regulation, and the eatery was anticipating being held responsible
for changes. Employers raised the salaries of many workers with
full schedules, adjusted employees' schedules if they were working
too many hours and made other changes to comply with the
regulation.
Some locations decided to stick with their new policies on a "just
in case" basis, but others are choosing to wait until they hear
the final outcome of the case before accepting they are
responsible for changes. Some Chipotle employees in New Jersey
started receiving overtime pay in mid-November for hours worked
over 40 hours a week. The schedules of others have also gotten
more predictable, because employers are no longer being pushed to
work over 40 hours. But, others have noticed only temporary
changes and their supervisors have stopped abiding by the rules
pending a court's decision.
Carmen Alvarez, the lead plaintiff in the suit, is one such
employee that has noticed positive changes, only to have them
taken away. As an assistant manager, Alvarez regularly worked
about 50 hours a week, and she began to receiving additional pay
temporarily, only to have this revoked. By mid-December, a few
weeks after the injunction, Alvarez was switched back to a flat
salary and told she would no longer receive overtime pay. "I was
disappointed when they changed it back because I thought I would
spend more time with my family or at least get rewarded for the
time that we work," she said.
"There's been no finding that the rule is unlawful," said Joseph
Sellers, a partner at the law firm representing Alvarez. "We think
the rule went into effect and that companies should be paying
people overtime." The order was filed in order to give the court
more time to reach a final decision, since The Labor Department
appealed the injunction last December while it was still under the
Obama administration and now the nation has a new president. In
February, the Trump administration asked for more time to
"consider the issues" and decide how to move forward with the
case. It now has until June 30 to file a brief with the court.
The case has been challenged by 21 states and a slew of business
groups, including the Chamber of Commerce. And, attorneys
representing Chipotle workers have also handled other high-profile
cases against employers, so they plan to come prepared for battle.
[GN]
CONCHETTA INC: "Colon" Suit Sent to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JULIEANN COLON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONCHETTA, INC. d/b/a
CLUB RISQUE; RT, 413, INC. d/b/a CLUB RISQUE; TACONY 2008 INC.
d/b/a CLUB RISQUE; CONNIE INNEZZELLI; DEAN M. PAGANO; RONALD
CRUDELE; THEODORE PAGANO JR; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 17-0959 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Robert F. Kelly, Sr.,
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration
and Dismiss the Proceedings, and to Stay Discovery Pending
Determination of the Motion.
On March 2, 2017, Colon filed the present class action alleging
federal and Pennsylvania state wage violations. Specifically,
Colon claims she was an exotic dancer at various entities doing
business as "Club Risque." The essence of her Complaint is that
she and others are entitled to damages because the Defendants
improperly classify exotic dancers as "independent contractors."
Thus, Colon claims that the Defendants have, inter alia, violated
federal and Pennsylvania state law relating to the failure to pay
the applicable minimum wage; failure to pay overtime compensation
in excess of forty hours; improper collection of a portion of tips
the dancers receive from the public; and improper subsidization of
the businesses by requiring a portion of tips to be forfeited to
management and employees who do not regularly receive tips.
On April 11, 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Dismiss the Proceedings, and to Stay Discovery
Pending Determination of the Motion, which relies upon an
arbitration provision contained in a "Performer License and
Temporary Space Lease Agreement." Colon filed a Response in
Opposition, the Defendants filed a Reply Brief, and Colon filed a
Notice of Supplemental Authority.
Judge Kelly held that the parties have shown clear and
unmistakable evidence that they agreed to delegate all threshold
issues regarding arbitrability to the arbitrator. Supreme Court
and Third Circuit precedent dictates that unless a party
challenges the specific agreement to arbitrate arbitrability
(i.e., the delegation clause), the provision is severable from the
remainder of the contract and is valid under Section 2 of the FAA
and enforceable under Sections 3 and 4. Because Colon does not
specifically challenge the delegation clause in the Agreement, it
is fully enforceable under binding precedent. Further, Judge
Kelly finds that the principles of agency and equitable estoppel
are applicable in this matter, and he will order arbitration as to
all the Defendants. Lastly, in light of the Defendants' request
for a stay, he will stay this matter and administratively close it
pending the resolution of arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2017 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/xtL7gM from Leagle.com.
JULIEANN COLON, Plaintiff, represented by GERALD D. WELLS, III --
gwells@cwglaw.com -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP.
CONCHETTA, INC., Defendant, represented by LUKE LIROT, LUKE
CHARLES LIROT, P.A., MARLO PAGANO-KELLEHER, THE PAGANO LAW FIRM &
MATTHEW J. HOFFER, SHAFER & ASSOCIATES PC.
RT, 413 INC., Defendant, represented by LUKE LIROT, LUKE CHARLES
LIROT, P.A. & MARLO PAGANO-KELLEHER, THE PAGANO LAW FIRM.
TACONY 2008 INC., Defendant, represented by LUKE LIROT, LUKE
CHARLES LIROT, P.A. & MARLO PAGANO-KELLEHER, THE PAGANO LAW FIRM.
CONNIE INNEZZELLI, Defendant, represented by LUKE LIROT, LUKE
CHARLES LIROT, P.A. & MARLO PAGANO-KELLEHER, THE PAGANO LAW FIRM.
DEAN M. PAGANO, Defendant, represented by LUKE LIROT, LUKE CHARLES
LIROT, P.A. & MARLO PAGANO-KELLEHER, THE PAGANO LAW FIRM.
RONALD CRUDELE, Defendant, represented by LUKE LIROT, LUKE CHARLES
LIROT, P.A. & MARLO PAGANO-KELLEHER, THE PAGANO LAW FIRM.
THEODORE PAGANO, JR., Defendant, represented by LUKE LIROT, LUKE
CHARLES LIROT, P.A. & MARLO PAGANO-KELLEHER, THE PAGANO LAW FIRM.
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendant, represented by LUKE LIROT, LUKE
CHARLES LIROT, P.A. & MARLO PAGANO-KELLEHER, THE PAGANO LAW FIRM.
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Faces "Wendy" Suit in M.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CoreCivic of
Tennessee, LLC. The case is styled as Snead Wendy, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, formerly known as Corrections
Corporation of America, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00949
(M.D. Tenn., June 15, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Aleta A. Trauger.
CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA),
is a company that owns and manages private prisons and detention
centers and operates others on a concession basis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryant B. Kroll, Esq.
THE BLACKBURN FIRM, PLLC
213 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 254 7770
Facsimile: (615) 895 7272
E-mail: bkroll@wgaryblackburn.com
- and -
Jeffery S. Roberts, Esq.
JEFFREY S. ROBERTS AND ASSOCIATES, PLC
213 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 425 4400
Facsimile: (615) 425 4401
E-mail: jeff@middletninjury.com
- and -
R. Joshua McKee, Esq.
MCKEE LAW LLC
Augusta, ME 04330
Telephone: (207) 620 8294
E-mail: rjm@rjmckeelaw.com
- and -
W. Gary Blackburn, Esq.
THE BLACKBURN FIRM, PLLC
213 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 254 7770
Facsimile: (866) 895 7272
E-mail: gblackburn@wgaryblackburn.com
DASSAULT FALCON: "Coates" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Craig Coates, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. and Dassault Aircraft
Services Corp., Case No. 4:17-cv-03233 (E.D. Ark., June 6, 2016),
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary and liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees for
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. manufactures airplanes and airplane
components related to the air transportation business including
installation, finishing, placement and assembly of airplane
components. Plaintiff worked as a team leader at 3801 East 10th
Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
DR. REDDY'S: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Divalproex Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories,
Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-02551, (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2016), is a class action for claims
under federal and state antitrust laws to recover damages and
obtain injunctive and equitable relief for the substantial
injuries Plaintiff and others similarly situated have sustained
against Defendants, arising from their conspiracy to raise the
prices of Divalproex sodium extended-release tablets and to
allocate markets and customers for this product in the United
States, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.
KPH operates retail pharmacies in the Northeast under the name
Kinney Drugs. It claims it purchased generic Divalproex sodium
extended-release tablets manufactured by one or more Defendants at
supra-competitive prices.
Divalproex ER is a commonly prescribed anticonvulsant indicated
for the treatment of seizures and migraines.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, with
its principal place of business at 107 College Road East,
Princeton, New Jersey, 08540.
Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business located at 30831 Huntwood Avenue,
Hayward, California.
Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place
of business at 1000 Mylan Blvd., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its
principal place of business at TSl Chestnut Ridge Road,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Road, Chestnut Ridge,
New York, 10977. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business at One Ram Ridge
Road, Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977.
Wockhardt Ltd. an international pharmaceutical and biotechnology
company headquartered in Mumbai, India. Wockhardt maintains
manufacturing plants and substantial operations in the United
States, including its wholly-owned subsidiary Morton Grove
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 6 Wheeling Road, Dayton,
New Jersey 08810. Aurobindo is a subsidiary of Aurobindo Pharma
Limited, a corporation based in Hyderbad, India.
Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with
its principal place of business at73 Route 31 N, Pennington, New
Jersey 08534. Zydus manufactures, markets, and sells generic drug
products. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: 215-923-9300
Fax: 215-923-9302
Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
20 Rahling Circle
P.O. Box 241790
Little Rock, AR 72223
Tel: 501-821-5575
Fax: 501-821-4474
Email: mikeroberts@robetsslawfirm.us
DZ RESTAURANTS: Faces "Kiler" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DZ Restaurants, Inc.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DZ Restaurants, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03558 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2017).
DZ Restaurants Inc. operates restaurants in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 465 1188
Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
EI DU PONT: Cook Moves for Conditional Certification Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled KENNETH COOK, JAMES BOTTS,
SHAWN HUNTER, LARRY LACLAIR THOMAS SHORT, GEORGE WILLIS, JAMES
CAHOON and CHRIS PAULLEY, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00909 (M.D. Tenn.), moves for conditional
certification and expedited court-supervised notice to potential
plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to authorize their counsel to notify
all present and former hourly employees, who work or who have
worked at any of E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company's facilities
nationwide and who were paid using the MyInfo payroll system at
anytime since June 2, 2014, of the lawsuit.
All such present and former employees shall have 120 days from the
date the Defendants provide their names and address to the
Plaintiffs' counsel to opt-in to the action and the statute of
limitations is tolled until the close of the notice period, the
Plaintiffs further ask the Court.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hFGrMzQp
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
William Li, Esq.
WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
djn@wmlaborlaw.com
wwl@wmlaborlaw.com
- and -
Charles P. Yezbak, Esq.
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-200
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 250-2000
E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
EOS CCA: Faces "Mingo" Suit in Western District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EOS CCA, Inc. The
case is titled as Rhonda Mingo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EOS CCA, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00545 (W.D.N.Y., June 15, 2017).
EOS CCA, headquartered in Norwell, Massachusetts, is a provider of
customer care and receivables management services. It is the U.S.
Receivables Management Division of the international EOS Group
based in Hamburg, Germany.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203 7600
Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
E-mail: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
FCA US: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Victorino" Denied
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 16cv1617-GPC(JLB) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California denied the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment and ex parte motion to strike.
The Plaintiffs bring this purported class action complaint based
on defects in the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped with a
Fiat C635 manual transmission that cause the vehicles' clutches to
fail and stick to the floor. The Defendant designs, manufactures,
markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells and leases
passenger vehicles, including the Plaintiffs' vehicles. The
Plaintiffs assert that the manual transmission in their vehicles
contains a design defect that causes the clutch pedal to lose
pressure, stick to the floor, and fail to engage/disengage gears.
As a result, the vehicles equipped with the defective manual
transmission experience stalling, failure to accelerate, and
premature failure of the transmission's components.
Victorino purchased a 2014 manual-transmission Dodge Dart on or
about March 22, 2014 while Tavitian purchased his 2013 manual-
transmission Dodge Dart in late November 2012.
On Aug. 15, 2014, the Defendant released STAR Case S1406000001
concerning "Clutch Pedal Does not Return (Remains on the Floor)
After Depressing the Pedal." It instructs technicians to replace
the clutch master cylinder but not the master cylinder reservoir
hose. The same Star Case S1406000001 was re-released on Feb. 26,
2015 and instructs technicians to replace the clutch master
cylinder and the reservoir hose. On Aug. 24, 2015, a third
version of Star Case S1406000001 was re-released.
On Jan. 8, 2016, Service Bulletin 06-001-16 with the Subject,
"Clutch Pedal Operation X62 Extended Warranty" involved the
replacement of the hydraulic clutch master cylinder and reservoir
hose of the two models of vehicles, including the 2013-2014 Dodge
Dart to address a "reduction in clutch pedal stroke." On Aug. 26,
2016, Service Bulletin 06-001-16 REV. A, "Clutch Pedal Operation
X62 Extended Warranty" superseded the prior Service Bulletin to
include additional model year of 2013-2015 Dodge Darts.
According to the Plaintiffs, the X62 Extended Warranty was a
voluntary service action in response to the case of Hardt v.
Chrysler Group LLC, a purported class action filed on Aug. 27,
2014 alleging a transmission defect in 2013-2014 Dodge Dart
vehicles making almost the same allegations concerning the defect
alleged in this case. The parties acknowledge that the X62
Extended Warranty was a voluntary service action implemented by
FCA US to address an issue involving seal-swelling from the use of
a particular kind of leaching plasticizer in a reservoir hose in
the clutch system.
In this case, the Plaintiffs argue that the voluntary service
action, that resulted from the case of Hardt case fixed part of
the problem but not all of it. The Hardt action settled on an
individual basis and the Defendant implemented the X62 Extended
Warranty and related service bulletins purportedly to provide
complete relief to all Class Members concerning the transmission
defect. According to the Plaintiffs, this did not fix the defect
and the Plaintiffs filed this action.
The Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing that the
Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence of a defect in the
clutch master cylinder that allows "debris" to contaminate
internal and external seals but instead the evidence shows that
the symptoms are due to normal wear and tear.
During the pendency of the motion for summary judgment, on June 7,
2017, the Defendant filed an ex parte motion to strike the
Plaintiffs' responses to statement of undisputed material facts
and the declaration of Tarek H. Zohdy. The Plaintiffs filed an
opposition on June 8, 2017.
The Court denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The
Court directed the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint adding
the facts to support the alleged new defect in the slave cylinder
within five days of the filed date of the Order. The Court
further denied the Defendant's ex parte motion to strike. The
hearing date set for June 16, 2017, is be vacated.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/NQKBC6 from Leagle.com.
Carlos Victorino, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett --
Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.
Carlos Victorino, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan L. Lurie --
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Karen Lynn
Wallace -- Karen.Wallace@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Robert Kenneth Friedl -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC & Tarek H. Zohdy --
Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.
Adam Tavitian, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett, Capstone
Law APC, Jordan L. Lurie, Capstone Law APC, Karen Lynn Wallace,
Capstone Law APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl, Capstone Law APC & Tarek
H. Zohdy, Capstone Law APC.
FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott H. Morgan -- smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson
Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice,
Thomas L. Azar -- tazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- Jr., Thompson Coburn
LLP, pro hac vice, William M. Low, Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP &
Edwin Mendelson Boniske -- boniske@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher
& Mack, LLP.
FIVE GUYS: Faces Potential Class Action Over FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR Check, reports that a potential
class action lawsuit brought by a former employee against Five
Guys claims the popular burger chain violated the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and California labor law by conducting
background checks on employees without properly notifying them,
according to a report from BigClassAction.com.
BigClassAction.com reports that the plaintiff, Jeremy R. Lusk,
claims Five Guys "regularly secured credit and background reports
on employees, conducted background checks on potential, current,
and former employees, and used this information to make hiring
decisions without providing clear disclosures."
Lusk claims that Five Guys violated the FCRA -- which promotes the
accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained
in the files of consumer reporting agencies -- and California's
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA) and Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA).
BigClassAction.com reports that Lusk seeks to represent several
classes, including an FCRA class of all current, former and
prospective employees in the United States over the last five
years and ICRAA and CCRAA classes of California workers and
applicants within the last five and seven years, respectively.
The case is Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC et al.,
case number 1:17-cv-00762, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. [GN]
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Cryer Seeks Cert. of Plan Participants Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled MARLON H. CRYER,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the Franklin Templeton 401(k)
Retirement Plan v. FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., the Franklin
Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan Investment Committee, and DOES 1-
25, Case No. 4:16-cv-04265-CW (N.D. Cal.), moves for an order
certifying this class:
All participants in the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement
Plan from July 28, 2010 to the date of judgment. Excluded
from the class are Defendants, Defendants' fiduciaries, and
Defendants' immediate families.
Alternatively, Mr. Cryer asks the Court to certify his claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and his claims for legal relief
under Rule 23(b)(3). He also asks the Court to designate the law
firms, Bailey & Glasser LLP and Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP as co-
lead counsel, and Creitz & Serebin LLP as local and liaison
counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
Mr. Cryer was a participant in the Franklin Templeton 401(k)
Retirement Plan during the proposed class period. He sues on
behalf of the Plan under Section 502(a)(2) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, seeking relief
for the Plan as a whole and, thus, for all of the participants and
beneficiaries in this 401(k) defined contribution and individual
account plan.
The Court will commence a hearing on July 11, 2017, at 2:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dCW7BvZv
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
mboyko@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
Robert A. Izard, 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
mkindall@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Joseph A. Creitz, Esq.
Lisa S. Serebin, Esq.
CREITZ & SEREBIN LLP
250 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 466-3090
Facsimile: (415) 513-4475
E-mail: joe@creitzserebin.com
lisa@creitzserebin.com
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: "Roldan" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mariter Roldan, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Fresenius Medical Care Goldenwest LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Movant, Fresenius Medical Care
North America Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership,
Bio-Medical Applications of California Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Renal Advantage Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Fresenius Medical Care-Eucalyptus LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
BC659479, was removed on June 12, 2017 from the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04341 to the proceeding.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
GC SERVICES: Faces "Cahill" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tiffany Cahill, individually and
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC Services
Limited Partnership, and Does 1-10, Case No. 37-02017-00015181-CU-
MC-CTL, was removed on June 12, 2017 from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01176-GPC-MDD to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.
GC Services is a privately-held outsourcing provider of call
center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Swigart, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233 7770
Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250 1800
Facsimile: (213) 250 7900
E-mail: eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com
GREAT VIRTUALWORKS: "Burton" Seeks Wages for Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hydra Burton, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Great Virtualworks, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 0:17-cv-00063 (E.D. Ky., June 6, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum,
overtime, and contractually-owed wages, in addition to liquidated
damages, fees and costs, and any other remedies for breach of
contractual obligations and for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act.
Great VirtualWorks is a virtual contact center company located at
4100 SW 28th Way, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312, providing
telephone-based customer service, sales service and technical
support to its clients' customers. Plaintiffs worked as home-based
"Independent Business Owners" engaging in telephone-based customer
service, sales service and technical support.
Burton claims to have performed pre-shift work, including booting
up their work computers, while not clocked into Defendant's
timekeeping system, computer troubleshooting activities during
which their time is not logged, post-shift work and attended
meeting and trainings of which was not logged. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Fax: (614) 744-2300
Email: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
155 2nd Street, Suite 4
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
HEALTHCARE NATIONAL: Able Home's Cert. Bid Nixed; Hearing July 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 9, 2017, in the case styled
Able Home Health, LLC v. Healthcare National, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-04322 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve.
The minute entry states that:
-- Initial status hearing is set for July 19, 2017, at 8:30
a.m. in Courtroom 1241;
-- Parties shall refer to Judge St. Eve's Web page at
http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/and file a Rule 26(f) Initial
Status Report by July 14, 2017, as set forth in the
Rule 26(f) Report procedure;
-- If the Defendant has not been served as of July 14, 2017,
the Court will continue the filing date for the Rule 26(f)
Report until the defendant is served;
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied
without prejudice with leave to refile;
-- Defendants are on notice that this is a putative class
action;
-- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue the motion for
class certification is denied as moot; and
-- No appearance is required on the June 26, 2017 notice
motion date.
A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8Oo9MUo7
HOMELAND VINYL: Faces "Brewer" Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homeland Vinyl
Products, Inc. The case is titled as WILLIS BREWER, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
HOMELAND VINYL PRODUCTS, INC., the Defendant, v. Case No. 1:17-cv-
04290 (D.N.J., June 13, 2017).
Homeland Vinyl creates a wide range of residential and commercial
vinyl products including vinyl fence, vinyl deck, and vinyl
railing.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
HUNTINGTON DEBT: Faces "Gumani" Suit in District of Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Huntington Debt
Holdings, LLC. The case is entitled as Bullie Gumani, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Huntington Debt Holdings, LLC, and Central Mediation Services, the
Defendants, Case No 0:17-cv-02065-MJD-BRT (D. Minn., June 15,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael J. Davis.
Huntington Debt Holdings is debt collection company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 770 9707
Facsimile: (651) 704 0907
E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
- and -
Mark L. Vavreck, Esq.
GONKO & VAVRECK, PLLC
401 N. Third Street, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 659 9500
E-mail: mvavreck@cgmvlaw.com
IC SYSTEM INC: Cornette Moves to Certify Class & Two Sub-Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled FAUSTIN CORNETTE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC.,
and MD NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-24454-MGC (S.D.
Fla.), asks that the Court certify a class and two sub-classes of
similarly situated persons.
Mr. Cornette asks the Court to certify his claim under Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act against both the
Defendants for a Class defined as:
Any (i) MD Now patients (ii) with a Florida address (iii)
who were referred to I.C. System for collection (iv) from
whom I.C. System attempted to collect a percentage
collection fee in addition to the principal balance due (v)
for the time period of October 21, 2012 to present.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify his claim under the
Florida Consumer Collection Protection Act against both the
Defendants for a Sub-class defined as:
Any (i) MD Now patients (ii) with a Florida address (iii)
who were referred to I.C. System for collection (iv) from
whom I.C. System attempted to collect a percentage
collection fee in addition to the principal balance due (v)
for the time period of October 21, 2014 to present.
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to certify his claim under the
Federal Debt Collection Practices Act against Defendant I.C.
System for a Sub-class defined as:
Any (i) MD Now patients (ii) with a Florida address (iii)
who were referred to I.C. System for collection (iv) from
whom I.C. System attempted to collect a percentage
collection fee in addition to the principal balance due (v)
for the time period of October 21, 2015 to present.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TFnUsAMr
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Kauffman, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1054 31st Street NW, Suite 230
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 342-2103
E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq
CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 692-6013
Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
E-mail: darren@cloorg.com
DCard@Consumerlaworg.com
ISPRING WATER: Faces "O'Sullivan" Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against iSpring Water
Systems, LLC. The case is captioned as Timothy O'Sullivan,
individually and on half of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. iSpring Water Systems, LLC, a Domestic limited
liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02237-WSD (N.D.
Ga., June 15, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
William S. Duffey, Jr.
iSpring Water is a private limited company based out of Atlanta,
Georgia that specializes in reverse osmosis for a wide range of
applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
HURT STOLZ, P.C. - ATH. GA
345 West Hancock Avenue
Athens, GA 30601
Telephone: (706) 395 2750
Facsimile: (866) 766 9245
E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com
J. CREW: Class Action Needs to Be Amended, Court Rules
------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye, writing for Legal News Line, reports that a class
action lawsuit against J. Crew will need to be amended before it
will be considered, a recent decision by a U.S. district court
judge stated.
The decision was the response to a request to dismiss the case.
In the complaint, plaintiff Dana Delman claimed J. Crew misled
consumers with what seemed to be discounted products but turned
out not to be so.
The issue was with the J. Crew Factory website, which lists Valued
At prices along with Your Price, which the court stated may
confuse consumers.
"The goods offered for sale on the Factory website were
specifically manufactured for sale on the Factory website to
resemble those items sold at J. Crew's higher priced stores, but
are of inferior quality," wrote Judge Michael Fitzgerald, of the
Central District of California.
"Despite the promise of a discount implicit in the comparison
between the Valued At and Your Price sales prices, J. Crew is in
fact selling the goods available on the Factory website at full
price."
The order indicates that Delman hired an expert to look into the
claims by J. Crew that the Valued At price was what other
retailers were offering for similar type of products. The expert
was not able to find comparable prices at other retailers.
Delman originally filed the lawsuit on Dec. 13 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Central California. The
defendants filed to dismiss the case in March, and Delman filed
her opposition to the dismissal on April 10.
The court wrote in its decision that the motion was partially
granted and partially denied.
"Plaintiff's theory regarding defendant's allegedly deceptive
advertising is viable as currently pled, and plaintiff has
standing to pursue her claims for injunctive relief," the court's
opinion states.
Yet, the court noted that Delman did not "allege sufficient facts"
and that she failed to give appropriate notice to the defendants.
However, Fitzgerald wrote that failure did not require the
dismissal of the case. Instead, he stated that Delman should file
an amended complaint.
"If, 30 days after the notice is served upon defendants neither
party has filed notice that defendants have abated their allegedly
improper conduct, plaintiff's CLRA claims as alleged in the
forthcoming second amended complaint shall become operative," the
court stated. [GN]
JOHNSON MARK: Faces "Walker" Suit in District of Utah
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson Mark LLC.
The case is entitled as Trisha Walker, On behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Johnson Mark LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00098-DB (D. Utah, June 13, 2017). The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dee Benson.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON + MURFF
290 25th St Ste 102
Ogden, UT 84401
Telephone: (801) 392 9324
E-mail: therondmorrison@gmail.com
- and -
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
2633 E Indian School Rd Ste 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 900 1288
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Seattle denied the Defendants motion to
dismiss the case captioned In re: JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case
No. C16-1069RSM (W.D. Wash.).
This is a putative class action filed on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Juno common stock
between June 4, 2016, and Nov. 22, 2016, seeking to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Lead Plaintiff Gilbert Hoang Nguyen and named plaintiff Jiayi Wan,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, bring this action against Juno and the individual
Defendants Hans E. Bishop, Steven D. Harr, and Mark J. Gilbert.
The Plaintiffs allege that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants repeatedly touted positive results from an incomplete
preliminary Phase I trial for JCAR015, and recklessly failed to
tell investors that patients were dying from the toxic side
effects associated with JCAR015 in the Company's Phase II/ROCKET
trial that the Company initiated in the third quarter of 2015.
In December 2015, Juno decided to introduce a combination of two
chemotherapies, cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, to eradicate a
patient's existing T-cells before the injection of JCAR015 into
the patients enrolled in the Phase II/ROCKET trial. It claimed
that the combination would increase the efficacy of the Phase
II/ROCKET trial.
On July 7, 2016, the Defendants disclosed that the FDA had
instructed the Company to halt the trial after one patient had
died in May of 2016 and two more patients died thereafter. On
this news, Juno's stock price fell by more than 30%. Juno then
delayed the launch date of JCAR015 to 2018, impacting its ability
to be the first to market a Car-T therapy for Acute Lymphoblastic
Leukemia.
On July 12, 2016, after telling the FDA that it was the
fludarabine combined with JCAR015 that led to the deaths, the
Defendants convinced the FDA to lift the hold and enroll patients
in the Phase II/ROCKET trial by utilizing only cyclophosphamide as
a preconditioning regimen to attack a patient's existing T-cells.
Upon the market learning that the hold had been lifted, the price
of Juno common stock rose 9.4%, closing at $30.42 on July 13, 2016
from its previous day closing price of $27.79.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants in this case
reaped over $15 million from sales of Juno stock during the Class
Period, and that these sales were dramatically out of line with
their previous sale of Juno stock.
The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss arguing that the
Plaintiffs fail to plead certain necessary elements of their
securities claims. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that their
pleading is adequate to satisfy the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and Rule 9(b).
Having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the
record, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/fW6OKW from Leagle.com.
Man Nguyen, Movant, represented by Clifford A. Cantor.
Gilbert Hoang Nguyen, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANATZ LLP, pro hac vice,
Joseph Alexander Hood -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- II, POMERANTZ LLP,
pro hac vice, Leigh Handelman Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com --
POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri -- ojafri@pomlaw.com --
POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice & Clifford A. Cantor.
Goce Veljanoski, Plaintiff, represented by Janissa Ann Strabuk --
jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Jeffrey C. Block -
- jeff@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, pro hac vice, Joel
Fleming, BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, pro hac vice & Kim D. Stephens --
kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS.
Liberata Paradisco, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Calvert
Turner -- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER
PLLC.
Jiayi Wan, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
POMERANATZ LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Alexander Hood, II, POMERANTZ
LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -
- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice & Clifford A. Cantor.
Gilbert Hoang Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick V.
Dahlstrom, POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice & Clifford A. Cantor.
Juno Therapeutics Inc, Defendant, represented by Drew Liming --
dliming@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac
vice, Ignacio E. Salceda -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Joni Ostler -- jostler@wsgr.com -
- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Nina F. Locker -
- nlocker@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac
vice & Gregory Lewis Watts -- gwatts@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI.
Hans E Bishop, Defendant, represented by Drew Liming, WILSON
SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Ignacio E. Salceda,
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Joni Ostler,
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Nina F. Locker,
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice & Gregory Lewis
Watts, WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI.
KROGER CO: Hardesty Moves to Certify Class of CoRE Recruiters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Hardesty, Madeline Hickey, and Derek Chipman
move the Court for class certification of their Ohio wage claims
in the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH HARDESTY, et al., Individually and
on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE KROGER CO., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00298-TSB (S.D. Ohio).
The Ohio class is defined as:
All employees classified as recruiters, who; i) were
employed at Kroger's Center of Recruiting Excellence
("CoRE") in Blue Ash, Ohio, at any time from the beginning
of the CoRE's operations in 2014 to December 1, 2016, and
ii) worked in excess of forty (40) hours during any given
workweek.
As former CoRE Recruiters, who worked in excess of 40 hours a week
during the requisite time period, Named Plaintiffs Joseph
Hardesty, Madeline Hickey, and Derek Chipman are all members of
this proposed class.
The Named Plaintiffs also ask the Court to approve their attached
notices to be sent to the Ohio class and to require that Defendant
Kroger supplement the putative class member list previously
produced with any updated contact information, together with any
additional individuals, who have since become employed as CoRE
Recruiters.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1Vl0LXJr
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter A. Saba, Esq.
Joshua M. Smith, Esq.
Sharon Sobers, Esq.
STAGNARO, SABA & PATTERSON CO., L.P.A.
2623 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 533-2701
Facsimile: (513) 533-2711
E-mail: pas@sspfirm.com
jms@sspfirm.com
sjs@sspfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David K. Montgomery, Esq.
Ryan M. Martin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
PNC Center, 26th Floor
201 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 898-0050
Facsimile: (513) 898-0051
E-mail: David.Montgomery@jacksonlewis.com
Ryan.Martin@jacksonlewis.com
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Seeks to Dismiss Class Action on Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Groves, writing for The Times News, reports that Laboratory
Corporation of America is asking a federal District Court to throw
out a class-action suit filed in March, saying it would mean
having a court set prices for its medical tests, and the
plaintiffs' complaints are too varied for it to be a "class."
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina, alleges LabCorp overcharges patients for
medical tests that their benefit providers didn't cover, calling
it a deceptive trade practice.
In its response, LabCorp counters that "differential pricing" is a
"nearly universal practice" in many industries, including car
dealerships, hotels and airlines, "of selling goods to different
types of buyers at different prices," and is not illegal.
The company claims also that the plaintiffs' request to order
LabCorp not to "engage in the unlawful and inequitable conduct"
alleged in the complaint would mean setting "the prices of more
than [1,000] laboratory services provided across the country to
millions of patients for an indefinite period of time," according
to LabCorp's memo to the court supporting its motion to dismiss
the suit.
LabCorp says the plaintiffs don't claim it charged them for tests
it didn't perform or its work was unsatisfactory, or even that it
denied them information about the cost of tests that weren't
covered, just that they wanted to pay less than they were charged,
and "excessive prices do not constitute unfair or deceptive trade
practices" in any of the plaintiffs' states.
Additionally, the medical testing company points out, the suit
against it claims the company charges individuals prices for tests
"that are frequently more than 10 times greater than fair-market
value rates," but never defines "fair-market rates," and doing so
would mean the court establishing prices for more than 1,000
tests.
So far, there are four named plaintiffs from New York, California,
Tennessee and Maryland, though the suit is open to anyone charged
more individually than LabCorp charges to government health plans
or private insurers. In fact, the law firm filing the suit, Wolf
Popper LLC, which specializes in class-action suits, encourages
anyone who might qualify to contact the firm. The firm is also
suing LabCorp's biggest competitor, Quest Diagnostics, over its
fees, according to PRNewswire.
LabCorp counters these individuals do not have enough in common to
qualify as a "class" under federal law. For instance, three of the
plaintiffs had private insurance, each of which negotiate their
own rates with LabCorp and cover different tests, and the fourth
was covered under Medicare, which sets prices without negotiating
and has a different set of policies. Each also is complaining
about the costs of different tests in different places at
different times, making them unique circumstances.
The suit also charges LabCorp's billing is confusing and keeps
patients from being able to tell they are paying significantly
more than their insurers would have, which the firm called the
ability to "hide the ball."
LabCorp claims the plaintiffs can't show their bills are
deceptive, and the company is not obliged to break out the price
insurers pay for individual tests.
LabCorp, the largest private local employer, according to the
Alamance Chamber, with 2,500 employees, is registered in Delaware
and has its headquarters in downtown Burlington. [GN]
LGI HOMES: Selby Seeks Certification of Office Managers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled LORRIE SELBY AND SONIA
AGUIRRE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LGI HOMES CORPORATE, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-00100-ALM-
KPJ (E.D. Tex.), seek conditional certification pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Court-supervised notice to:
All current and former Office Managers who were employed by
LGI in Texas, Tennessee, Washington, Georgia, Colorado,
Arizona, Oregon, New Mexico, Florida, and North Carolina
from February 13, 2014, to present.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mNoLeBAs
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
Javier Perez, Esq.
SCOTT PEREZ LLP
Founders Square
900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214) 965-9675
Facsimile: (214) 965-9680
E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com
javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com
LI FENG: Faces "Zhang" Suit in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Li Feng Eatery Inc.
The case is styled as Guangli Zhang, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Li Feng Eatery Inc.,
doing business as: Chinese Fast Wok; Chelsea Express NY Inc.,
doing business as: Chinese Fast Wok; First Wok Restaurant, Inc.,
doing business as: Chinese Fast Wok; Jun Kui Zhang, also known as:
Jun-Kui Zhang; Xiu Juan Lee; Juniu Jhu; Lisa He Zhang, also known
as: Lisa H Zhang, also known as: Lisa Zhang, also known as: Lisa
He Chang, also known as: Lisa H Chang, and also known as: Lisa
Chang, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04536 (S.D.N.Y., June 15,
2017).[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
MCAFEE INC: Software Customers Can Claim Settlement Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Schweigert, writing for FOX43, reports that if you are a US
customer who bought McAfee or Intel Security consumer software
between January 10, 2010 and February 10, 2015, you may be
entitled to benefits from a class action settlement, according to
announcement on the settlement's website.
Cash payments and value certificates to eligible class members
began today.
The lawsuits claim that McAfee violated certain California
statutes and common law with regard to its auto-renewal practices
and its advertisements of discounts and reference prices.
Plaintiffs sought restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and costs.
McAfee denies that it did anything wrong.
Both sides agreed to settle to avoid the expenses, inconveniences,
risks, and interferences with ongoing business operations that are
associated with litigation, according to the FAQ section of the
settlement's website.
Only class members in the Auto-Renewal Class are eligible to
receive payments. According to the settlement's website, eligible
customers should have received a notice containing a claim number
beginning with AUT or BOT. Customers who received a notice
beginning with REF are not eligible, the website says. [GN]
MDL 2438: Court Denies Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------
The Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to exclude the Plaintiffs' experts in the
lawsuit captioned In re 5-Hour Energy Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:13-ml-02438-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal.).
Before the District Court is Plaintiffs Marc Adler, Michael Casey,
David Ellis, William Forrest, Ilya Podobedov, Cody Soto, and Donna
Thompson's motion for class certification and Defendants
Innovation Ventures, LLC; Living Essentials, LLC; Manoj Bhargava;
and Bio Clinical Development, Inc.'s motions to exclude experts
Patrick T. Ronaldson and Colin B. Weir, according to a civil
minutes. The District Court finds the matter appropriate for
decision without oral argument.
On August 4, 2011, Plaintiffs Ilya Podobedov, Jordan Moussouros,
and Richard N. James filed the putative class action against
Defendants Innovation Ventures, LLC; Living Essentials, LLC; Manoj
Bhargava; and Bio Clinical Development, Inc. in the District Court
(Podobedov v. Living Essentials, LLC, Case No. CV 11-6408 PSG
(PLAx).
In June 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized a number of cases related to the marketing and sale of
5-hour ENERGY ("5HE") and assigned the matter to the District
Court for consolidated pretrial proceedings. On January 24, 2017,
the District Court issued an order granting in part and denying in
part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
"In sum, the Court is not convinced that the damages model
proposed in this case adequately matches Plaintiffs' theory of
liability. The Court finds the deficit in Plaintiffs' damages
model an additional ground for denying class certification, at
least as it applies to the proposed classes in California,
Missouri, New Jersey, and New Mexico, where statutory damages are
not available," Judge Gutierrez said.
"Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that common issues
predominate over individual inquiries, and so class certification
is not appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3)," Judge Gutierrez
concluded.
A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7tlUYSrK
MILLER STARK: Certification of Class Sought in "Zolandz" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Zolandz moves the Court to certify the class described in
the amended complaint of the lawsuit titled CYNTHIA ZOLANDZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MILLER STARK KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, Case No. 2:16-cv-01163-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the amended
motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.
Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").
The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends. More than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald. See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.
As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kk8cwJrN
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
MOMS IN MOTION: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Larue" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Glen E. Conrad denies the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of the collective action entitled
MARYANN LARUE v. MOMS IN MOTION, INC., Case No. 7:17-cv-00162-GEC
(W.D. Va.).
The case is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
Plaintiff claims that Moms In Motion violated the FLSA by
misclassifying her and others as exempt employees and by failing
to pay overtime compensation.
"Here, plaintiff rests her motion for conditional class
certification entirely upon the unsupported allegations of her
complaint. Without more, the court is unable to grant conditional
certification," Judge Conrad opines. "Plaintiff is afforded the
opportunity to refile the motion, including supporting exhibits,
if plaintiff wishes to do so," Judge Conrad adds.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OrnLLAHC
MRS BPO: Faces "Kraus" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, L.L.C. The
case is captioned as David Kraus and Blima Kraus, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03572 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2017).
MRS BPO is a full service accounts receivable management firm
based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The company's unique combination
of experience, technology, and compliance management processes
allows them to provide industry-leading debt recovery solutions
while enhancing their client's brand and reputation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Telephone: (516) 668 6945
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
MURRAY GOULBURN: ACCC Wants Filed Case Heard Before Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Wilkins, writing for the Sidney Morning Herald, reports
that the competition watchdog is pushing to have its case against
the nation's biggest milk processor Murray Goulburn tried before a
class action threatens to drag the matter out.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched
Federal Court proceedings against Murray Goulburn and its former
chief executive in April over claims they misled and treated
farmers unfairly.
The claims relate to representations made by Murray Goulburn to
its Southern Milk Region dairy farmers about the average farmgate
milk price (FMP) it expected to pay them during financial year
2015/16.
The commission alleges that Murray Goulburn misled farmers into
thinking they would get as high a price as $6.05 for the season
when in fact that was not the case.
Managing director Gary Helou and former chief financial officer
Bradley Hingle were knowingly involved in the behaviour, the ACCC
alleges.
A separate class action was filed in May last year by investors
over allegedly misleading the market ahead of its float last year.
The ACCC said in submissions on June 8 that trying the cases
together would delay proceedings because of significant
differences between the two.
It said the class action related to misleading conduct towards
investors, whereas the ACCC's claim is for unconscionable and
false, misleading or deceptive conduct towards farmers.
Meanwhile, Mr Helou's lawyers said the ACCC's submission had a
"high level of generality" and contained "no details or
particulars".
"[The submission] omits critical information and does not properly
identify the conduct, facts and knowledge relied upon by the
ACCC," they said.
Justice Jonathan Beach has ordered the ACCC file a detailed
statement of claim by July 21.
The ACCC is seeking penalties from former executives rather than
the co-operative in order to avoid any penalty costs flowing on to
farmers.
Mr. Helou and Mr. Hingle face disqualification orders and
penalties of up to $220,000 per breach.
The class action was lodged by investor advocate, Mark Elliott on
behalf of investor John Webster, who will act as lead plaintiff in
the case.
Mr. Helou resigned from the company in April 2016 amid a profit
downgrade in April 2016. He left the top job less than a year
after Murray Goulburn's partial float on the ASX, which raised
$500 million from investors. [GN]
NATIONAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Al" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adel Al moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled ADEL AL, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONAL CREDIT
ADJUSTERS, LLC and REVIVER FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00816-
DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the
motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.
Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").
The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends. More than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald. See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.
As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PQR1y32e
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Denise L. Morris, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
dmorris@ademilaw.com
NATIONS RECOVERY: Faces "Shirley" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nations Recovery
Center, Inc. The case is titled as Edward Shirley, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Nations Recovery Center, Inc. and PYOD, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-
03591-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt.
Nations Recovery provides collection performance for the banking,
commercial, medical and retail service Industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Mauro, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
306 McCall Avenue
West Islip, NY 11795
Telephone: (631) 669 0921
Facsimile: (631) 669 5071
E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sued in California Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:17-cv-03328-KAW (N.D.
Cal., June 8, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message
without prior express consent of the called party.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company operates an insurance company
in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
NCC BUSINESS: Faces "Sorrentino" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCC Business
Services, Inc. The case is titled as Stanley P. Sorrentino and
Howard Hertzovitz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NCC Business Services, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00667-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., June
12, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy J.
Corrigan.
NCC Business is a third party collection agency with offices
across the country assisting creditors with recovering past due
accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Sanders Law, PLLC, Suite 500
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203 7600
Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com
NETFLIX INC: M. DuDash Named Lead Plaintiff in "Ziolkowski"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES ZIOLKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. NETFLIX,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01070-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied Linda Bagley's
motion seeking appointment of herself as Lead Plaintiff and
approval of Levi & Korsinky, LLP, as lead counsel; and granted
Michael DuDash's motion seeking appointment of himself as Lead
Plaintiff and approval of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and Finkelstein
& Krinsk, LLP, as lead counsel.
On March 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed this securities class action
lawsuit individually and on behalf of others who acquired common
stock of Netflix during the period between July 22, 2014 and Oct.
15, 2014, and consequently suffered damages. Also on March 1,
2017, notice of this suit was published in GlobeNewswire. The
complaint asserts claims under Section 10(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) &
78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. The
complaint names the following Defendants: Netflix, its CEO, Reed
Hastings; and its CFO, David Wells.
On May 1, 2017, Bagley's motion and DuDash's motion, the two
competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval
of lead counsel were filed. On May 15, 2017, Bagley filed a
notice of non-opposition with respect to these competing motions
because she appeared not to have the largest financial interest in
the relief sought by the class' as required by the by the PSLRA.
Also on May 15, 2017, DuDash filed an opposition representing that
he was the presumptive lead plaintiff as well as a notice of
unopposed motion. Accordingly, DuDash's motion is now unopposed.
Judge Gilliam denied Bagley's motion and granted DuDash's motion.
DuDash is appointed as Lead Plaintiff for the putative class. KSF
and F&K are approved as lead counsel for the putative class.
Having reviewed the parties' proposed schedule for filing an
amended complaint and a motion to dismiss, the Court set the
following schedule: amended complaint by Aug. 14, 2017; motion to
dismiss by Oct. 13, 2017; opposition by Nov. 27, 2017; reply by
Dec. 27, 2017; hearing on Jan. 11, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.; further
case management conference on April 17, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/o90ywW from Leagle.com.
James Ziolkowski, Plaintiff, represented by David J. Harris, Jr.,
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.
James Ziolkowski, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk --
(jrk@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein & Krinsk, Trenton Ross
Kashima -- trk@classactionlaw.co -- Finkelstein Krink LLP & Ramzi
Abadou -- ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLP.
Netflix, Inc., Defendant, represented by Celine Georges Purcell --
cpurcell@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Keith E.
Eggleton -- keggleton@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, Luke Anthony Liss -- lliss@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati & Rodney Grant Strickland, Jr. --
rstrickland@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
Reed Hastings, Defendant, represented by Celine Georges Purcell,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Keith E. Eggleton, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Luke Anthony Liss, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati & Rodney Grant Strickland, Jr., Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.
David Wells, Defendant, represented by Celine Georges Purcell,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Keith E. Eggleton, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Luke Anthony Liss, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati & Rodney Grant Strickland, Jr., Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.
Linda Bagley, Movant, represented by Adam Christopher McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky, LLP.
Michael J DuDash, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick
Foti LLP.
NEUROTROPE INC: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Hovasse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Neurotrope, Inc., Susanne Wilke, Daniel Alkon and
Charles S. Ramat, Case No. 1:17-cv-04313 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, and failed to
disclose material information concerning the efficacy of its lead
product candidate, Bryostatin-1.
Neurotrope, Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
specializing in the development of therapeutics to treat
neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease. [BN]
The 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
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
hchang@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
NEW ORLEANS, LA: "Anderson" Class Certification Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS ANDERSON, PAMELA DAVENPORT, EVELLE
THOMAS, JUNE HARVEY, JOSEPH WONG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALL PERSON EXPOSED TO CHEMICALS AT 2400
CANAL STREET, v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, No. 2016-CA-1013 (La. App.),
the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, vacated the
trial court judgment granting a class certification and remanded
for further proceedings.
The City of New Orleans is the owner of a building known as the
"City Hall Annex" located at 2400 Canal Street, in New Orleans,
Louisiana. In a Petition for Damages filed on May 12, 2000, the
Plaintiffs claimed to have suffered personal injuries as a result
of their exposure to dangerous levels of hazardous chemicals
including potassium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid and hydrofiboric
acid.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the City was aware that hazardous,
dangerous chemicals were present at the Annex, but nonetheless
ordered petitioners and those similarly situated to work in this
dangerous environment.
The Petition then reiterates that the class action is instituted
pursuant to the provisions of La.C.C.P. Article 591, et seq., by
the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons who have
sustained damages arising or resulting from the circumstances,
events, acts and omissions complained of, specifically, all
persons who sustained harm due to the presence of and exposure to
hazardous chemicals at the building at 2400 Canal Street.
By way of an amending petition filed on April 6, 2001, the
Plaintiffs added Pan Am as a Defendant to this suit, alleging that
the chemicals stored at the Annex were placed there by Pan Am and
that the storage of the chemicals created an unreasonably
dangerous condition for subsequent occupants of the Annex. After
the trial court granted a dilatory exception of vagueness filed by
Pan Am, the Plaintiffs amended their petition to clarify that Pan
Am was the former owner of the Annex and that Pan Am used the
chemicals to clean its printing presses. According to them, the
contamination of the building persisted until the chemicals were
removed in December 1999, although the building remained
contaminated thereafter.
The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Petition on June 22, 2005, to
add Poydras Square, Inc., and New Orleans Centre Associates, a
Louisiana partnership in commendam, as Defendants. In this third
petition, they alleged that Poydras Square owned the property
after Pan Am and that, while Poydras Square did not buy the
chemicals stored at the Annex, it allowed the chemicals to remain
on the property during the period of its ownership, failed to
dispose of them or engage in clean-up measures, and failed to warn
of the dangers associated with the chemicals.
Over the next nine years, the parties filed various pleadings,
including cross-claims, motions for summary judgment and various
other motions. Then, for four days in September and October 2015,
the trial court held a hearing on the issues of class
certification. By judgment dated June 30, 2016, the trial court
granted the Plaintiffs' request for class certification. It is
from this judgment that the City, Pan Am and NID Corp. (the
successor in interest to Poydras Square) timely appealed.
The Court concluded that where the class is not definitively and
specifically identified by the trial court, the objectives of the
class action proceeding cannot be met. Absent a clear class
action definition by the trial court, a judgment cannot be
reviewed on appeal. It therefore vacated the trial court judgment
and remanded for further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/XeFQv8 from Leagle.com.
Roy F. Amedee, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROY F. AMEDEE, JR., 3723 Canal
Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, Jennifer N. Willis --
Jenniferwblaw@bellsouth.net -- William P. Buckley, WILLIS &
BUCKLEY, APC, 3723 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, Counsel
for Plaintiff/Appellee.
Gary J. Gambel, MURPHY ROGERS SLOSS & GAMBEL, 701 Poydras Street,
Suite 400, New Orleans, LA 70139, Antonio M. Clayton, ATTORNEY AT
LAW, 3741 Highway 1 South, Port Allen, LA 70767, Counsel for
Plaintiffs/Appellees.
John A. Stewart, Jr. -- jstewart@bhbmlaw.com -- Brodie G. Glenn --
bglenn@bhbmlaw.com -- BALDWIN HASPEL BURKE & MAYER, LLC, 1100
Poydras Street, Suite 3600, Energy Centre, New Orleans, LA 70163-
2200, Robert B. Gilbreath -- rgilbreath@hptylaw.com -- HAWKINS
PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP, 4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 500,
Dallas, TX 75205, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, NID Corp.
Darryl J. Foster -- dfoster@bradleyfirm.com -- BRADLEY, MURCHISON,
KELLY & SHEA, 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2700, New Orleans, LA
70163, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, Pan-American Life.
Kimlin S. Lee DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, Corwin St. Raymond, ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY, Cherrell S. Taplin, SENIOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY
ATTORNEY, Rebecca H. Dietz, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,
1300 Perdido Street, City Hall - Room 5E03, New Orleans, LA 70112,
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, City of New Orleans.
NEXTEP FUNDING: Prayitno Seeks Certification of Three Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chan-Li Prayitno asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action captioned CHAN-LI PRAYITNO on behalf of plaintiff and
the class members defined below v. NEXTEP FUNDING LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-04310 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against
the Defendant.
The Plaintiff defines three classes:
(1) For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Truth
in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq. ("TILA")
and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. part 1026, by documenting
high-interest consumer loans as leases, plaintiff seeks to
represent a class consisting of (a) all persons in
Illinois, Wisconsin or Indiana (b) who signed a document
similar to that in Appendix A (c) financing the
acquisition of services (d) on or after a date one year
prior to the filing of this action, and on or before a
date 21 days after the filing of this action;
(2) For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the
Illinois Interest Act, 815 ILCS 205/4, and the Illinois
Consumer Installment Loan Act, 205 ILCS 670/1 et seq.,
through the making of disguised high-interest consumer
loans without a license to do so, plaintiff seeks to
represent a class consisting of (a) all persons in
Illinois (b) who signed a document similar to that in
Appendix A (c) financing the acquisition of services (d)
where the annual percentage rate, based on the price of
the services and the payments required, exceeds 9%
(believed to be the case in all transactions) (e) where
the transaction was outstanding on or after a date 2 years
prior to the filing of this action; and
(3) For purposes of Count III, alleging violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, by engaging
in the same conduct that is the subject of Counts I and
II, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a)
all persons in Illinois (b) who signed a document similar
to that in Appendix A (c) financing the acquisition of
services (d) on or after a date 3 years prior to the
filing of this action.
The Plaintiff further asks appointment as class representative and
that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel
for the class.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=g3JljSkx
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
James O. Latturner, Esq.
Julie Clark, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603-1824
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
ccombs@edcombs.com
jlatturner@edcombs.com
jclark@edcombs.com
NORTH POINT: Court Denies Pecor's Bid to Certify Class of Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William C. Griesbach denied the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit captioned KRISTA PECOR,
on behalf of herself and a class of employees or former employees
similarly situated v. NORTH POINT EDC INC., d/b/a North Point
Exotic Dance Club, DAVID NICHOLS, and BILLIE JO RANSOM, Case No.
1:16-cv-01263-WCG (E.D. Wisc.).
Krista Pecor, a dancer at North Point EDC, Inc., d/b/a North Point
Exotic Dance Club, located in Peshtigo, Wisconsin, brought the
putative collective action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated employees against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. She alleges that the
Defendants misclassified her and other exotic dancers at North
Point as independent contractors and failed to pay them the
statutory minimum wage and overtime wages.
In his decision and order, Judge Griesbach opines that Ms. Pecor
has failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis that she is similarly
situated to potential class members.
"Dancers at North Point individually negotiate their agreements
with the club, work variable hours based upon their individual
availability, receive differing levels of compensation based on
factors unique to the dancer, and do not dance exclusively at any
one dance club. These factors demonstrate all the dancers who
work or have worked at North Point are not similarly situated.
Accordingly, Pecor's motion for conditional class certification is
denied," Judge Griesbach ruled.
Judge Griesbach directed the Clerk of Court to place the matter on
the Court's calendar for a telephone conference to address further
scheduling.
A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DR3fCpdd
OREGON: Judge Sides with Class Action Members on State Motions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that a
judge has struck down a number of motions to dismiss a $1.4
billion class-action lawsuit against the Oregon Department of
Forestry, a move that could clear the way for the case to go to
trial next summer.
The June 7 ruling from Linn County Circuit Court Judge Daniel
Murphy came in response to arguments raised at an April 20 hearing
in the lawsuit.
The suit argues that changes in management practices on state
forest trust lands have resulted in declining timber harvests, and
a drop in payments to government entities in the counties that
include the lands. The suit was filed by the Linn County Board of
Commissioners but now also includes about 140 other members in the
class as plaintiffs.
"We moved against 12 of their defenses and we prevailed on all
12," said John DiLorenzo, who represents the plaintiffs in the
class action, which was originally brought by the Linn County
Board of Commissioners. "That means those defenses are no longer
available to the state at trial."
Dilorenzo said Murphy's latest ruling makes it appear, "This case
is destined for trial next summer. I'm looking forward to
vindicating the interests of rural Oregon."
DiLorenzo said that Murphy's previous ruling that the statute of
limitations does not apply was critical.
"Otherwise, we could only seek damages back six years," he said.
"Now, we can go back to when dirt was formed."
The state did not respond to requests for comment.
In the suit, Linn County and other taxing districts assert that
the Oregon Department of Forestry has breached a decades-old
contract to manage some 700,000 acres of state forest lands for
the "greatest permanent value."
About 21,000 acres of those lands are in Linn County and are known
as the Santiam State Forest.
Class members assert that the phrase "greatest permanent value"
should have been interpreted to maximize timber harvests. The
lawsuit charges that for at least 17 years the Oregon Department
of Forestry has increasingly managed those lands by giving other
values, such as recreation or fisheries, greater value and
therefore did not provide the counties and other taxing districts
with an additional $35 million per year.
Although the Oregon Department of Forestry has the authority to
make and change rules regarding timber harvesting and management,
"that does not constitute a defense to the consequential breach of
contract assertion that allegedly flowed from those rules."
That even though the taxing districts involved in the class action
lawsuit have been receiving payments for years without filing a
lawsuit, they still have the right to seek remedies for
nonperformance by the state.
That although the state was working within federal Endangered
Species Act and Clean Water Act regulations, the class action
participants still have the right to allege breach of contract and
that the amount of damages can be calculated.
"There was discussion about the difficulty in proving future
damages in this case in defendant's memorandum," Murphy wrote in a
letter to legal counsel. "The court agrees that this could be a
problem for the plaintiff but it is a question of proof, not of
law."
He added, "Future damages, as plead, assumes that the defendants'
conduct does not change in the future, that they will continue
with the same timber policies as well as in the recent past and
that there will not be any other change of circumstances that
could affect damage (e.g., forest fire, tree disease, etc.)."
Roger Nyquist, chairman of the Linn County Board of Commissioners
said of the judge's decisions, "This is a welcome step toward
resolution of the state's breach of contract with the counties and
other taxing districts."
Attorneys for the state did not immediately return an email
seeking comment.
A status conference in the case will be held on Sept. 14.
The parties are in the discovery phase and are scheduling
depositions. Although a court date has not been scheduled, parties
anticipate the projected three-week trial will occur in late
summer or fall 2018. [GN]
ORGAN LAW OFFICES: "Hardegree" Suit Asserts FLSA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
April Carrico-Hardegree, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Organ Law Offices, P.C., an
Indiana professional corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01858, (S.D. Ind., June 6, 2017), seeks statutory damages, costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by Sec. 1692k(a) of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Organ Law Offices operates a delinquent debt collection business
and attempts to collect debts from consumers in the State of
Indiana. It attempted to collect from Ms. Carrico-Hardegree a
delinquent consumer debt which she allegedly owed to Indianapolis
Sport and Spine.
Defendant's collection demands failed to mention her validation
rights, to whom she had to exercise them or to whom she needed to
make payments, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Philipps, Esq.
Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Tel: (708) 974-2900
Fax: (708) 974-2907
Email: davephilipps@aol.com
mephilipps@aol.com
angiekrobertson@aol.com
- and -
John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
Indianapolis, IN 46227
Tel: (317) 780-8300
Fax: (317) 217-1320
Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com
PARAMOUNT TRANSPORTATION: Herrera Moves to Certify Class of LAE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Herrera and Margaret Raber ask the Court to conditionally
certify the action entitled LYNN HERRERA AND MARGARET RABER, ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PARAMOUNT
TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, R&L
CARRIERS, INC., AN OHIO CORPORATION, AND AFC WORLDWIDE EXPRESS,
INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, D/B/A R&L GLOBAL LOGISTICS, Case No.
2:16-cv-00795-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.), under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and to authorize notice to be sent to the putative class
members:
all Logistics Account Executives who were employed by
Defendants at any time from [three years prior to Order
granting Notice] to October 31, 2016 as a Logistics Account
Executive.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to direct the Defendants to produce
to their counsel within 14 days of the order granting the Motion a
list containing the names, the last known addresses, telephone
numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members, and to
post copies of the Notice at each of the Defendants' 14 locations
in break rooms. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to provide all
individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
Defendants with 60 days from the date the notices are initially
mailed and e-mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hVi4W87A
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Mroszczak" Suit in W.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen
Associates, LTD. The case is captioned as Cynthia Mroszczak,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, LTD., the Defendant,
Case No. 6:17-cv-06380-EAW (W.D.N.Y., June 15, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford.
Phillips & Cohen provides debt recovery services in the United
States and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203 7600
Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
E-mail: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
PLUCKERS INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Johns" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrold D. Johns, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pluckers, Inc. and Pluckers Wing Factory,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00553 (W.D. Tex., June 8, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Defendants operate a Texas-based chain of approximately 20-25
sports bars and restaurants located throughout the State of Texas,
and one additional franchised location in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. Linkin, Esq.
DUGGINS WREN MANN & ROMERO, LLP
600 Congress Avenue, Ste. 1900
P. O. Box 1149
Austin, TX 78767-1149
Telephone: (512) 744-9300
Facsimile: (512) 744-9399
E-mail: rlinkin@dwmrlaw.com
PREMIER DERMATOLOGY: Smith's Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing on Sept. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 7, 2017, in the case titled
Kimberly Smith, et al. v. Premier Dermatology, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-03712 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.
The minute entry states that:
-- Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied without
prejudice as premature;
-- Defendant's oral request to answer or otherwise plead by
July 7, 2017, is granted;
-- status hearing is set for September 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.;
-- by July 14, 2017, the parties shall submit a joint status
report including discovery positions;
-- the case is referred to Magistrate Judge Finnegan for
discovery supervision as well as settlement discussions;
and
-- Magistrate Judge Finnegan shall set deadlines.
A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zP01i1oJ
PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Faces "Patton" Suit E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Bureau
of Collections of Maryland, Inc. The case is styled as Melissa
Patton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Professional Bureau of Collections of
Maryland, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03542 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 13, 2017).
Professional Bureau of Collections of Maryland, Inc. provides
collection services. It offers primary contingency fee
collections.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders
Sanders Law, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203 7600
Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Kopplin, Tina M. Nygaard, Lucinda Slovinski, and Keith D.
Slovinski, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Professional Placement Services, LLC, John and Jane
Does Numbers 1 through 25, Case No. 1:17-cv-00810 (E.D. Wis., June
8, 2017), arises from the illegal practices of the Defendant of
using false, deceptive, and misleading practices, and other
illegal practices, in connection with its attempts to collect
alleged debts from the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
consumers, specifically by failing to identify the creditor of the
debt it sought to collect from the Plaintiff.
Professional Placement Services, LLC regularly collects, and
attempts to collect, defaulted debts incurred, or alleged to have
been incurred, for personal, family, or household purposes on
behalf of creditors using the U.S. Mail, telephone, and Internet.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Heather B. Jones, Esq.
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
Telephone: (973) 379-7500
Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
andrew@sternthomasson.com
heather@sternthomasson.com
RANBAXY INC: Meijer Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Meijer, Inc. and Meijer
Distribution, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Petitioner, v. Ranbaxy Inc., RANBAXY
LABORATORIES, LTD., Ranbaxy U.S.A. Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries Limited, the Respondents, Case No. 3:17-cv-03613, was
removed on June 12, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-11066-NMG to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.
Ranbaxy Inc. manufacturers and distributes prescription, branded,
and over-the-counter drugs in the United States and Canada.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King Of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667 7706
Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Automated Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Johnson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Receivable Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-01635 (E.D. Miss.,
June 8, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing
nonemergency telephone calls to consumers' cellular telephone
numbers by using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice, without the prior express consent
of the consumers, in that Defendant routinely dials wrong or
reassigned telephone numbers that do not belong to the intended
recipients of the calls.
Receivable Solutions, Inc. operates a debt collection company with
offices in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony LaCroix, Esq.
LaCROIX LAW FIRM, LLC
406 W. 34th Street, Suite 810
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 399-4380
E-mail: Tony@lacroixlawkc.com
- and -
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Faces Blackfeet Suit in D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional
Transportation District. The case is entitled as Blackfeet
Lighting and Electrical Technologies, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Regional Transportation
District, a statutory special district and political subdivision
of the State of Colorado, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01425-
MSK (D. Colo., June 12, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger.
The Regional Transportation District, more commonly referred to as
RTD, was organized in 1969 as the regional authority operating
public transit services in eight out of the twelve counties in the
Denver-Aurora-Boulder Combined Statistical Area in Colorado. It
operates over a 2,340-square-mile area, serving 2.87 million
people.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Lezell Woodrow
Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213 0675
Facsimile: (303) 927 0898
E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
ROCHE HOLDING: "Biondolillo" Hits Stock Drop from Drug Combo
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Biondolillo, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Roche Holding AG, Severin
Schwan, and Alan Hippe, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04056 (D.
N.J., June 6, 2017), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees
and other costs and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Roche is a Switzerland corporation with its principal place
executive offices located at Konzern Hauptsitz Grenzacherstrasse
124, CH-4070 Basel, Schweiz. Roche operates in the pharmaceuticals
and diagnostics businesses worldwide. The Company's subsidiary,
Roche Molecular Systems Inc., maintains offices at Building 500,
1080 U.S. Highway 202, Branchburg, NJ 08876. It product,
Herceptin, is used for the treatment of HER2-positive breast
cancer and HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer while Perjeta
is a personalized medicine used in combination with Herceptin for
the treatment of patients with previously untreated HER2-positive
metastatic breast cancer.
According to the complaint, Defendants failed to disclose that the
combination of Perjeta and Herceptin is only marginally more
effective than Herceptin alone in preventing breast cancer.
Roche's trial results showed only a marginal benefit from using
said combination. Perjeta allegedly causes severe diarrhea in some
patients.
On this news, shares of Roche fell $1.76 per share or
approximately 5.12% from its previous closing price to close at
$32.61 per share on June 5, 2017, damaging investors including the
Plaintiff. [BN]
The 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
SECURED RESOLUTIONS: Faces "Turner" Suit in W.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Secured Resolutions,
LLC. The case is titled as Sherry A. Turner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Secured
Resolutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00547 (W.D.N.Y.,
June 15, 2017).
Secured Resolutions is a collection agency firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203 7600
Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
E-mail: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
SIROB IMPORTS: Guevar Moves to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled EDGAR GUEVAR and LOREN M.
GUEVARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SIROB IMPORTS, INC., NICK BOBORIS and PETER BOBORIS,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02895-GRB (E.D.N.Y.), move the Court pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, to certify a class consisting of:
All hourly employees who performed work for Sirob Imports,
Inc. at any time from May 19, 2009 to the present.
The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a subclass consisting
of:
All hourly employees of Sirob Imports, Inc. who were hired
on or after April 9, 2011, and all employees who were hired
before April 9, 2011 who were employed by Sirob Imports,
Inc. until of February 1, 2012.
The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to approve the "New York
Labor Law Class Action Notice" and their proposed notice
procedure.
A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wkpuNlGx
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven John Moser, Esq.
MOSER EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, PC
3 School Street, Suite 207B
Glen Cove, NY 11542
Telephone: (516) 671-1150
Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Keith J. Frank, Esq.
FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO
& TERRANA LLP
333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010
Uniondale, NY 11553
Telephone: (516) 248-1700
Facsimile: (516) 248-1729
E-mail: kfrank@forcellilaw.com
SOULCYCLE INC: Judge Denies Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------
Christopher Crosby, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge won't block a putative class of consumers from
pursuing claims that SoulCycle's membership contracts violate the
state's laws on gyms, finding on June 7 the suit had cured
deficiencies in standing present in the first complaint.
U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton denied SoulCycle Inc.'s
bid to dismiss a putative class action alleging the stationary
cycling studio's contracts fail to include clauses required by
California's Health Studio Services Contract Law notifying
customers of their right to opt out, saying named plaintiff Marko
Cavka had shown the policies, if true, violated the statute.
"SoulCycle's arguments as to why Cavka's allegations are
insufficient are unavailing," Staton wrote. "Nowhere in the terms
and conditions, the rider receipt, or any other document Cavka
alleges he received does SoulCycle inform Cavka of his ability to
cancel his contract and recover his payment."
Cavka's attorney Robert Scott of Newmeyer & Dillion LLP told
Law360 on June 8 that the law was created to keep gym owners from
hoodwinking customers.
"The intent of the statute is to get everything out in the open,
so everyone's on the same page," Scott said.
Cavka alleges he purchased a single $30 class at SoulCycle on its
website in July but had to reschedule and failed to reserve a
class within a designated period, forfeiting his payment to the
company.
While SoulCycle displayed its terms and conditions concerning its
website and mobile app and issued a receipt, Cavka alleges he
never received a full contract, in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law.
Moreover, Cavka alleges the receipt indicated the company doesn't
accept returns or exchanges. Nor does the contract assure that
customers who become disabled can seek a refund or inform
customers of their right, within five business days, to cancel the
contract, the complaint states. As a result, Cavka says he paid
more for the class than it was worth.
Cavka filed suit in August on behalf of a proposed class of
approximately 100,000 consumers comprising anyone who entered into
a similar contract with SoulCycle in the past four years in a
California superior court. Cavka contends that every SoulCycle
customer agreement in California is "void and unenforceable" under
California law.
The case was removed to federal court in September and the
complaint later amended, but then dismissed on the grounds that
Cavka had failed to show how the supposed violations actually
harmed him. The court did not rule on whether to dismiss the case
on subject matter, instead keeping the door open for Cavka to file
an amended complaint.
On June 7, Judge Staton brushed aside the company's argument that
it properly disclosed the right to cancel in its FAQ section,
saying the information was not brought up during the contracting
process.
Judge Staton said Cavka had adequately alleged he would have
"exercised his statutory rights, timely cancelled the contract,
and avoided forfeiting his payment."
She rejected the company's contention that since Cavka become
aware of his rights under California law the suit should be
tossed, saying notice doesn't mean SoulCycle's "continuing
violation of the HSSCL cannot harm him." Instead, Staton said that
knowing about the violation deters him from entering or signing up
for future classes.
"Absent injunctive relief, Cavka lacks assurance that any future
contract he enters into with SoulCycle complies with the law,"
Staton wrote.
Shirli Fabbri Weiss of DLA Piper, counsel for SoulCycle, declined
to comment. Representatives for the company did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.
SoulCycle is represented by Keara M. Gordon, Esq. --
keara.gordon@dlapiper.com -- Colleen M. Gulliver, Esq. --
coleen.gulliver@dlapiper.com -- Katherine J. Page, Esq. --
Katherine.page@dlapiper.com -- and Shirli Fabbri Weiss, Esq. --
shirli.weiss@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper.
Cavka and the putative class are represented by Stephen M.
Hauptman, Esq. -- Stephen.hauptman@ndlf.com -- and Robert Kennedy
Scott, Esq. -- robert.scott@ndlf.com -- of Newmeyer & Dillion
LLP.
The case is Marko Cavka v. SoulCycle Inc., case number 8:16-cv-
01821, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. [GN]
SPORTSMAN FISHER: Nail Wants to Notify Servers Class Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled APRIL NAIL, JORDIN BALLARD,
RICHARD BOYETT, MARK HOPPER v. ROBERT SHIPP, REGINA SHIPP,
SPORTSMAN FISHER HOUSE, LLC d/b/a SHIPP'S HARBOUR GRILL, Case No.
1:17-cv-00195-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), move for collective action
certification and for an expedited Court-supervised notice to
putative class members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to authorize their counsel to notify
all current or former servers, who have worked for the Defendants
at any time since June 7, 2014, which is three years prior to the
filing of the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h3KB19N8
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 250-2000
Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
E-mail: dea@yezbaklaw.com
yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
- and -
Abby M. Richardson, Esq.
RICHARDSON LAW FIRM, LLC
118 North Royal Street, Suite 100
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 338-1695
Facsimile: (251) 338-1698
E-mail: abby@richardsonlawllc.com
STELLAR COLLECTION: Faces "Caceres" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stellar Collection
Services Inc. The case is captioned Lisa Caceres, as individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Stellar Collection Services Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
03537 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2017).
Stellar Recovery is a collection agency with offices in
Jacksonville, Florida and Kalispell, Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
SANDERS LAW, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203 7600
Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com
SURFSTITCH: Very Likely to Settle Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Katie Walsh, writing for AFR Weekend, reports that online retailer
SurfStitch was already struggling to keep its proverbial head
above water. Wave after wave of questionable acquisitions and
negative consumer sentiment had washed half a billion dollars from
the surf and skate wear specialist's market value, when the
shareholder class action hit last month.
The young, homegrown company took just three days to indicate it
might raise the white flag and settle.
And settle, it very likely will.
Not because the case against the company -- whose annus horribilis
(and then some) has seen its share price beat an ugly path down to
7cents, from lofty $2 highs -- is strong, although it may well be.
In March last year, co-founder and chief executive Justin Cameron
shocked the market by resigning just a fortnight after the company
backed away from promising earnings forecasts. Multiple profit
downgrades followed, losses ultimately reaching $18.8 million for
the 2016 fiscal year.
SurfStitch chairman Sam Weiss. The homegrown company was hit with
a shareholder class action last month. Jessica Hromas
Not because the lawsuit threatens to dwarf SurfStitch's $18.9
million market capitalisation, although at an initial $100 million
estimate it has the potential to do so.
The reason we know it will settle if it isn't otherwise dropped is
simple: they all do. And the earlier it happens, the less a
company pays.
No securities class action has ever come to judgment
Almost two decades since Australia's first securities class action
lawsuit -- against insurer GIO for advising shareholders to knock
back an AMP takeover offer that may have doubled returns -- none
of the more than 50 claims brought have made it to judgment.
The vast majority don't make it to trial. Commonly, they are
backed by funders who investigate and finance lawsuits, taking a
cut if successful.
"The economics are simple. The longer that funders wait to receive
returns and the higher their costs in achieving them, the higher
the returns they need to meet their business case," says
Gilbert+Tobin partner Crispian Lynch.
In the US, a claim that settles within two years of the suit being
filed does so for a median of $US5.8 million. That figure
gradually increases as the suit drags on, averaging $US12.7
million at five or more years.
"The anecdotal experience in Australia is the same," says Lynch.
$3.5 billion in settlements
Around half of all class actions -- dominated by shareholder,
product liability and consumer protection matters -- settle within
two years of filing, at roughly one third of the damages claim. To
date, more than $3.5 billion in court-approved settlements have
been reached over the nation's 25-year regime; the estimate for
shareholder actions is $1.3 billion.
Only a handful of shareholder actions are filed each year, but the
growth trajectory and an increasingly sophisticated, hawkish
oversight of company statements, regulatory investigations and
media controversies has companies worried.
"Listed companies in particular face much greater exposure to
class actions today than they did 25 years ago," says Lynch.
"That's consistent with the trend in the US, where 40 per cent or
more of listed companies have been targeted for class actions."
In the US, only 15 of 4500 actions filed since 1996 have gone to
judgment. Settlements are estimated at $US88 billion and insurance
for directors of leading companies costs six times what it might
in Europe.
Partner at law firm Allens, Jenny Campbell, says the fact that so
many class actions settle "should not been seen as indicative of
those claims having merit".
"Settlement is usually a commercial decision made having regard to
the uncertainties, costs and distraction of class action
litigation."
The absence of a final judgment means some important legal
questions are yet to be resolved, creating "risk for both sides"
and acting as a "driver for settlement", Campbell adds. That
includes vexed questions on what to do when multiple plaintiff
lawyers and funders chase the same action.
Quickly raising the white flag
The shareholder class action filed in the Supreme Court of
Queensland against SurfStitch on Tuesday May 23 was not the first
to loom. Gadens law firm revealed it was considering filing
against the embattled retailer a year ago. On June 7, Gadens sent
correspondence to SurfStitch "threatening to commence a further
open class action . . . . apparently on the same basis as the
class action already commenced". In an ASX statement, SurfStitch
said that would be "an abuse of process".
The claim filed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, led by
partner Damian Scattini and backed by litigation funder Vannin
Capital, accuses the company of breaching continuous disclosure
obligations by over-egging profit forecasts and misleading and
deceptive conduct relating to acquisitions.
The next day, the ASX agreed to call a trading halt. By the next
Friday, SurfStitch announced to the market that "amongst other
options, a negotiated settlement ... at a level that would permit
the company's continued financial viability, should be fully
explored and assessed". While "unknown", the level of damages
sought were "likely to be substantial and, as such, material by
comparison to the current market capitalisation of the company",
it said.
The Supreme Court of Queensland judge Peter Applegarth agreed to
put the matter on ice for 14 days while the parties discuss
matters -- including possible settlement terms. They return to
court on June 19.
New funders ride the wave
Isle of Man and UK-based funder Vannin Capital is relatively new
to the Australian scene but already has 15 per cent of its more
than $500 million in funds invested here, mostly in commercial
litigation and plaintiff class actions.
It has entered an increasingly competitive space, where multiple
funders are challenging the traditional dominance of the market
darling IMF Bentham. IMF is still the trusted giant in the space -
- a "known entity", having started in Australia in 2001. Today,
more than half of its $3.2 billion global portfolio is in
Australia and it boasts a 90 per cent success rate, recovering $2
billion.
IMF Bentham CEO Andrew Saker points out that settlements are the
predominant form of resolution of most multi-party actions in
Australia, not just securities class actions.
Saker has a unique perspective given IMF's involvement in many of
the actions over the past 16 years, and to him, the rate of
settlements has something to do with claim selection and merits.
"I agree there must be a correlation to commercial pragmatism, but
also underpinned by the strength of the underlying claim," he
says.
The growth in sophistication and size of funders -- computing
models carefully watch for jumps in share price around an
announcement, for example -- has led to calls to regulate the
industry, requiring adequate capital and licences.
Growth industry for lawyers
Lawyers can only see that growth continuing, particularly since
the Federal Court rubber-stamped what is known as a "common fund
order" in October -- the ability to carve commissions and costs
from the slice of every group member to a class action claim, not
just those signed up to an agreement with funders and lawyers.
Court support for market-based causation -- which in essence means
shareholders do not have to prove they relied on a misleading
statement or omission by a company, it is enough that the price
moved as a result -- also point to a possible increase in
temptation.
Monash University professor Vince Morabito says he does not think
the feared rush to the courts following the Federal Court's common
funds approval will happen, largely because litigation funders
still operate business models requiring a high chance of winning
before they will back a case. Limitations include the unlikelihood
of Australia following the path of the US and allowing lawyers to
charge contingency fees, and an increasing willingness among
courts to challenge the settlement fee cut, not just acting as a
mere rubber stamp.
"Commercial litigation funders are going to be very careful which
class actions they invest in, they're going to keep a check on
what costs are run up by the lawyers running it, [and] I've got
enough confidence in our judges to be able to make sure their
payments are not excessive," Morabito says.
He does not see the trend of shareholders bringing actions
against, in effect, themselves, as irrational.
"An increasing number of institutional investors are becoming
involved in shareholder class actions. Thus they obviously do not
feel that shareholder class actions produce unsatisfactory or
irrational outcomes."
Head of class actions at leading plaintiff law firm Maurice
Blackburn, Andrew Watson, agrees.
"Anyone running that line [about shareholders suing themselves] is
giving the green light to unchecked corporate wrongdoing, while
conveniently ignoring that insurance responds to many claims and
the composition of the holding group also changes," he says.
Deep pockets may push back
Despite the persistent trend of settlements and the SurfStitch
example, Morabito reckons it is "inevitable" that a company will
fight a claim all the way to judgment -- and possibly up to the
High Court.
Morabito has noticed an anecdotal shift in the trend, towards
longer times to reach settlement.
"They're fighting harder than they have in the past. They're not
just saying 'let's just make it go away'," he says.
As happened in the bank fees class action -- when ANZ fought a
consumer protection claim all the way to the High Court,
ultimately winning -- Morabito can see a "deep pocket defendant"
doing the same in a securities action.
"I think we will get to a point where a law firm will say to a
client, 'let's make the High Court decide'."
A win for defendants could make the industry pause. Morabito also
queries whether there will be a dip in activity when the lingering
effects of the global financial crisis die down.
Watson says that despite the growth in shareholder actions they
are still "not by any stretch" the majority.
... and justice for all
And he takes issue with a "theme that sometimes runs through that
the shareholder class actions have somehow distorted the laudable
aims of the system".
Those laudable aims boil down to access to justice, the efficient
resolution of disputes, and private enforcement.
"When the bill for a class action regime was introduced, one thing
the government emphasised was that it would be available for
shareholders of companies engaged in misconduct," he says.
"I've never understood the argument that suggested that somehow or
other we'd be better off if we turned a blind eye to corporate
misconduct that substantially impacts shareholders. In what other
area would we see the best policy outcome is to turn a blind eye
to a breach of the law?"
Every class action needs its lead plaintiffs; for SurfStitch, they
are elderly Sydneysiders Warwick and Leonee Cook, who bought
35,000 shares at various points between November 2015 and May
2016. The action is open to any who bought between August 2015 and
June 2016.
During the start of that period, the company trumpeted sales
spikes and "strong double-digit revenue to continue", including at
its November AGM.
By May 2016, less than two months after its co-founder and CEO
Justin Cameron resigned, the company announced "challenging"
trading conditions that required spending more on advertising, a
reorganisation of management and ultimately a profit downgrade to
$2 to $3 million.
On June 9, it went further: company losses could reach $18.3
million. Ultimately, it booked $18.8 million in losses for the
2016 financial year, a near four-time drop on the previous year.
Critical to the change in fortune was the demise of a multi-
million dollar branding rights and licensing agreement with
surfcam and conditions forecaster Coastalwatch fell over, which
has triggered its own lawsuit involving Coastalwatch and related
company Crown Financial.
Crown Financial managing director Kim Sundell on june 8 questioned
the SurfStitch board over its management of the class action
claims and restructuring efforts, in an open letter.
Since listing in December 2014, SurfStitch had engaged in an
ambitious acquisition run -- online platform Stab, forecasting
network Magicseaweed, video production company Garage
Entertainment and manufacturer Surf Hardware International among
early buys.
The SurfStitch website was offering $20 off first orders and 30
per cent off winter gear -- pants, jumpers and knits. This week
different items get the discount.
If funders, plaintiff and defendant lawyers can settle on nothing
else -- the need for regulation of funders, the role of the
courts, the merits of actions or the balance struck between access
to justice and commercial objectives -- they might at least be
able to agree to keep warm while they try. [GN]
SYDELL GROUP: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sydell Group LLC.
The case is titled as Victor Andrews on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sydell Group LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03556 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2017).
Sydell Group owns, develops, and manages hotels. Its amenities
include a restaurant and a bar. The company was founded in 2006
and is based in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
TAYLOR, MI: Judge Dismisses Class Action Related to Overtaxing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Herndon, writing for The News Herald, reports that a class-
action lawsuit filed against the City of Taylor was tossed out of
court recently as the judge apparently agreed with the city's
attorneys that the suit was "frivolous."
The lawsuit, filed in October, by the Royal Oak-based law firm
Kickham Hanley PLLC, contended that the city had been overtaxing
residents to build an unneeded balance in the water and sewer
fund.
"We will continue to defend the interests of our residents against
unwarranted actions like these," Mayor Rick Sollars said after
learning of the dismissal. "Our residents pay water rates to be
used for the purposes of maintaining and improving our water
system. That's exactly how we use our funds. They are not
collected to be then handed away to line someone's pockets as the
result of an unwarranted lawsuit."
Taylor was just one of many cities that were targeted by similar
suits. Dearborn, Ferndale, Royal Oak, Birmingham, Bloomfield
Township and Westland are some of the other communities that have
had suits filed against them by the firm.
The lawsuit claimed that Taylor's rates are higher than necessary
to finance the actual costs of providing water and sewage disposal
services; that the City has unlawfully included in its rates an
additional charge that is used not to cover actual expenses on
providing water and sewer services, but rather to fund the City's
general governmental obligations; and that the City includes in
its rates an amount to cover the costs the City incurs for the
public fire protection services provided by the water supply
system.
In October when the suit was filed Sollars said Taylor has a very
comprehensive capital improvement plan in place that improves
services to residents throughout the community. Every five years,
Taylor updates a Capital Improvement Plan. The City's most recent
plan in November 2015 identified over $12M of necessary
improvements required to the system. Taylor prepares for such
improvements each year to avoid large assessments to residents.
[GN]
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas Roadhouse,
Inc. The case is captioned as Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Texas
Roadhouse, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03555 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 13, 2017).
Texas Roadhouse is an American chain restaurant that specializes
in steaks and promotes a Western theme. Texas Roadhouse
Corporation is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
TILE SHOP: Court Gives Final Approval to $9.5MM Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND;
ERIE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM; and LUC DE WULF,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC.; ROBERT A. RUCKER; THE
TILE SHOP, INC.; TIMOTHY C. CLAYTON; PETER J. JACULLO III; JWTS,
INC.; PETER H. KAMIN; TODD KRASNOW; ADAM L. SUTTIN; WILLIAM E.
WATTS; ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED; CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC.; CJS SECURITIES, INC.; HOULIHAN LOKEY CAPITAL, INC.;
PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; SIDOTI & COMPANY, LLC; TELSEY ADVISORY GROUP
LLC; and WEDBUSH SECURITIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:14-cv-
00786-ADM-TNL (D. Minn.), Judge Ann D. Montgomery of the United
States District Court for the District Minnesota granted the
Parties' Settlement a final approval and dismissed the action with
prejudice.
The Parties to the class action entered into the Stipulation of
Settlement dated as of Jan. 13, 2017. The Stipulation defines
"Settlement Amount" as $9,500,000 in cash. The "Settlement Fund"
means the sum of $9,500,000, to be paid by Tile Shop and/or the
Insurers on behalf of the Defendants, including any interest
accrued thereon after payment.
Judge Montgomery previously, pursuant to a Memorandum and Order
dated July 28, 2016, certified the Action to proceed as a class
action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Tile Shop common stock between
Aug. 22, 2012 and Jan. 28, 2014, inclusive.
Judge Montgomery appointed Beaver County Employees' Retirement
Fund, Erie County Employees' Retirement System, and Luc DeWulf as
class representatives, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel.
On Jan. 19, 2017, the Court entered the Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice and Settlement
Hearing, which, inter alia: (i) preliminarily approved the
Settlement; (ii) approved the forms and manner of notice of the
Action and Settlement to the Class Members; (iii) directed that
appropriate notice of the Action and Settlement be given to the
Class; and (iv) set a hearing date to consider final approval of
the Settlement.
On May 3, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., Judge Montgomery held a hearing to
determine whether the Settlement was fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class.
Judge Montgomery approved the Settlement, and accordingly
authorized and directed implementation of all terms and provisions
of the Stipulation. Judgment shall be, and is, entered dismissing
the Action with prejudice, on the merits, and without taxation of
costs in favor of or against any Party.
Judge Montgomery will enter separate orders ruling on the Plan of
Distribution and the Fee and Expense Petition. Such rulings shall
not disturb or affect the Order.
There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of Court is
directed to enter final judgment forthwith pursuant to Rule 54(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/hn2hUx from Leagle.com.
Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com --
Chestnut Cambronne PA.
Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Christopher T. Gilroy -- cgilroy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Francis P. Karam --
fkaram@rgrdlaw.com -- Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey D. Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, Jeffrey D. Light -- jeffl@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph F. Russello --
jrussello@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Karl L. Cambronne -- kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com --
Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Kimberly A. Justice -- kjustice@ktmc.com -
- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret E.
Onasch -- monasch@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Mark Samuel Reich -- mreich@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew L. Mustokoff --
mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Michelle M. Newcomer -- mnewcomer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan A. Hasiuk --
nhasiuk@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Paul A. Breucop -- pbreucop@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel H. Rudman --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Stacey M. Kaplan -- skaplan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice & William John Geddish --
wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice.
Erie County Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by
Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Christopher T. Gilroy,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Francis P. Karam,
Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores,
Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Jeffrey D. Light, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP - SD, pro hac vice, Joseph F. Russello, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret E. Onasch, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew L. Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle M. Newcomer, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan A. Hasiuk,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel H. Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Stacey M. Kaplan,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice & William John
Geddish, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.
Luc De Wulf, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Bleichner,
Chestnut Cambronne PA, Christopher T. Gilroy, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Francis P. Karam, Robins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, Jeffrey D. Light, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Joseph F. Russello, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne, PA,
Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Margaret E. Onasch, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro
hac vice, Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Matthew L. Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle M. Newcomer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan A. Hasiuk, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & William John Geddish, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Knoll --
aaron.knoll@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Justin P.
Krypel -- justin.krypel@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Staci L. Perdue -- staci.perdue@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP & Wendy J. Wildung -- Wendy J. Wildung, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Robert A. Rucker, Defendant, represented by Aaron Knoll, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Justin P. Krypel, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Staci L. Perdue, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy J. Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
The Tile Shop, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Knoll, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Justin P. Krypel, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Staci L. Perdue, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy J. Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Timothy C. Clayton, Defendant, represented by Aaron Knoll, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Justin P. Krypel, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Staci L. Perdue, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy J. Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Peter J. Jacullo, III, Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson,
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop &
Weinstine, Matthew C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy
J. Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
JWTS, Inc., Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson, Winthrop &
Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop & Weinstine, Matthew
C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy J. Wildung, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP.
Peter H. Kamin, Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson,
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop &
Weinstine, Matthew C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy
J. Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Todd Krasnow, Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson, Winthrop
& Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop & Weinstine,
Matthew C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy J. Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Adam L. Suttin, Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson,
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop &
Weinstine, Matthew C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy
J. Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
William E. Watts, Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson,
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop &
Weinstine, Matthew C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy
J. Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
TILE SHOP: Court Approves $915K in Attorney's Fees, Costs
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND;
ERIE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM; and LUC DE WULF,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC.; ROBERT A. RUCKER; THE
TILE SHOP, INC.; TIMOTHY C. CLAYTON; PETER J. JACULLO III; JWTS,
INC.; PETER H. KAMIN; TODD KRASNOW; ADAM L. SUTTIN; WILLIAM E.
WATTS; ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED; CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC.; CJS SECURITIES, INC.; HOULIHAN LOKEY CAPITAL, INC.;
PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; SIDOTI & COMPANY, LLC; TELSEY ADVISORY GROUP
LLC; and WEDBUSH SECURITIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:14-cv-
00786-ADM-TNL (D. Minn.), Judge Ann D. Montgomery of the United
States District Court for the District Minnesota granted the Class
Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
Reimbursement of Class Representatives' Costs and Expenses, filed
on March 20, 2017.
The Parties to the class action entered into the Stipulation of
Settlement dated as of Jan. 13, 2017. The Stipulation defines
"Settlement Amount" as $9,500,000 in cash to be paid by Tile Shop
and/or the Insurers on behalf of the Defendants, including any
interest accrued thereon after payment.
The Plaintiffs' counsel requested an attorney fee award of 24% of
the Settlement Fund plus expenses in the amount of $913,028.91, in
addition to the interest earned thereon at the same rate and for
the same period as that earned on that portion of the Settlement
Fund until paid.
Judge Montgomery awarded the following amounts from the Settlement
Fund to Class Representatives as reimbursement for their
reasonable costs and expenses directly related to their
representation of the Class: $3,142.59 to Beaver County Employees'
Retirement Fund, $5,239.10 to Erie County Employees' Retirement
System, and $10,000 to Luc DeWulf.
Judge Montgomery expressly directed the immediate entry of the
Order by the Clerk of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/q0mKXv from Leagle.com.
Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne PA.
Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Christopher T. Gilroy, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Francis P. Karam, Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Jeffrey D.
Light, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph F.
Russello, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Karl L.
Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret E. Onasch,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Samuel
Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew L.
Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice,
Michelle M. Newcomer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Nathan A. Hasiuk, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Paul A. Breucop, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Stacey M. Kaplan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro
hac vice & William John Geddish, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice.
Erie County Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by
Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Christopher T. Gilroy,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Francis P. Karam,
Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores,
Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Jeffrey D. Light, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP - SD, pro hac vice, Joseph F. Russello, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret E. Onasch, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew L. Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle M. Newcomer, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan A. Hasiuk,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel H. Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Stacey M. Kaplan,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice & William John
Geddish, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.
Luc De Wulf, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Bleichner,
Chestnut Cambronne PA, Christopher T. Gilroy, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Francis P. Karam, Robins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, Jeffrey D. Light, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
- SD, pro hac vice, Joseph F. Russello, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne, PA,
Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Margaret E. Onasch, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro
hac vice, Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Matthew L. Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle M. Newcomer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan A. Hasiuk, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & William John Geddish, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Knoll,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Justin P. Krypel, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, Staci L. Perdue, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy J. Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Robert A. Rucker, Defendant, represented by Aaron Knoll, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Justin P. Krypel, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Staci L. Perdue, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy J. Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
The Tile Shop, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Knoll, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Justin P. Krypel, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Staci L. Perdue, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy J. Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Timothy C. Clayton, Defendant, represented by Aaron Knoll, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Justin P. Krypel, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Staci L. Perdue, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy J. Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Peter J. Jacullo, III, Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson,
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop &
Weinstine, Matthew C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy
J. Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
JWTS, Inc., Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson, Winthrop &
Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop & Weinstine, Matthew
C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy J. Wildung, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP.
Peter H. Kamin, Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson,
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop &
Weinstine, Matthew C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy
J. Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Todd Krasnow, Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson, Winthrop
& Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop & Weinstine,
Matthew C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy J. Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Adam L. Suttin, Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson,
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop &
Weinstine, Matthew C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy
J. Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
William E. Watts, Defendant, represented by David P. Pearson,
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Matthew D. Callanan, Winthrop &
Weinstine, Matthew C. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & Wendy
J. Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is entitled as Julian Frankel, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03599 (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2017).
United Collection provides debt collection services for companies
(government, healthcare, utility, financial service,
communication, and student).[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
VAN RU CREDIT: Faces "Farrell" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Van Ru Credit
Corporation. The case is entitled as Nancy Farrell, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Van Ru Credit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03541
(E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2017).
Van Ru provides accounts receivables services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
WINDSOR SURRY: Faces "Torch" Suit in District of Oregon
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Windsor Surry
Company. The case is styled as Robert Torch, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Windsor Surry
Company, d/b/a WindsorONE; Windsor Willits Company d/b/a Windsor;
Mill; and Windsor Holding Company; Case No. 3:17-cv-00918-AA (D.
Oreg., June 12, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon Judge Ann
L. Aiken.
Windsor Surry is a mid-sized organization in the millwork
companies industry located in Dendron, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve D. Larson, Esq.
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 227 1600
Facsimile: (503) 227 6840
E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.
* * * End of Transmission * * *