/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170809.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 9, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 156 Headlines ADVANCED OILFIELD: "Brotherton" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages AETNA INC: Faces Investor Suit Over ACA Marketplace Withdrawal ALDO'S DELI: Faces "Reyes" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Palos" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations ALLIANCE ENERGY: Offshore Employees Class Conditionally Certified AMERICAN QUALITY: "Cross" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls AMERIMEX MUFFLERS: Hernandez Seeks to Certify Mechanics Class ANGEL BRIGHT: "Trevino" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA APPLE-METRO: "Ghee" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ARCONIC INC: Faces "Brave" Securities Suit Over Reynobond PE ASB BANCORP: Faces "Rubin" Lawsuit Over Sale to First Bancorp. ASD SPECIALITY: Eversheds Sutherland Comments on 6th Cir. Ruling BA VICTORY CORP: OT Pay, Paystubs Sought in "Tenegusnay" Suit CAS INC: Shaw, et al. Sue Over Non-payment of Overtime Work CELEDON TRUCKING: Faces "Williams" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation CENTURYLINK: "Petersen" Hits Stock Price Drop CITY CENTER PARKING: "Rios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages COMMUNITY EDUCATION: Giles Seeks Approval of $950,000 Settlement COVISINT CORP: Berg Sues Over Sale to Open Text Corp. CREDIT CONTROL: "Ringgold" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. DESIGNS BY RJR: "Olano" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Rapp" Suit Alleging RESPA Violation DR PEPPER: Webb Sues over "Made from Real Ginger" Label EGS FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed EL MUNICIPIO DE GUAYNABO: Faces Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ELITE LINE: "Prieto" Suit Sues over Wage and Hour Laws FIAT CHRYSLER: Loses Early Bid to Beat Class Cert. in Defect Suit FLORIDA: "Prunty" Suit Seeks Certification of Class FORD MOTOR CO: "Baranco" Sues Over Defective Door Latch FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Court Certifies 401(k) Retirement Plan Class FXCM INC: "Cardi" Files Suit Over Conflict of Interest Issues FYRE MEDIA: Class Action Suits to be Consolidated in New York GLOBAL TEL: Alexander, et al. Sue Under RICO Over ICS System GOB SERVICES: "Brotherton" Action Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages HATFIELD LAWN: "Perry" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA HOLIDAY INN: Labor Trafficking Victims File Class Action HSBC BANK: "Giron" Suit Seeks Certification of Class I.C. SYSTEM: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed IDEAL TAX: "Meyer" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass IPLAY INC: Spearman Sues over Teethers' "BPA Free" Label ISOHAMA JAPANESE RESTAURANT: "Gil" Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit J & M PREMIER: "Santos" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA JPMORGAN CHASE: Vague Collection Notice Disputed by "Hunt" K N M CONSTRUCTIONS: "Trujillo" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Fights Liability Over Account Ease Program LAKE VIEW: Faces "Suts" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ohio Min. Wage Act LG CHEM: Eligible Claimants Can File for Class Settlement Money M.A.C. COSMETICS: Kobbervig Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code MATTRESS FIRM: Court Certifies Class of Drivers in "Blair" Suit MDL 2555: Aug. 18 Hearing on Bid to Certify Consumer Class MEDICAL BUSINESS: "Garrett" Suit Seeks to Certify Class MEDSOLUTIONS INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed MENS WEARHOUSE: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in "Oliver" MERCK & CO: Smith Seeks to Certify Sales Representative Class MICRO MATIC: Doritty Sues Over Age Discrimination in Employment MIDDLESEX CORPORATION: "Myrick" Suit Seeks Class Certification MIDLAND CREDIT: Judge Denies Class Certification in FDCPA Case MIDLAND FUNDING: Janetos' Cert. Class Bid Hrng. Cont'd to Sept. 8 MISSOURI: Court Granted Class Cert. in Postawko, et al. Suit MONSANTO CO: Brown Seeks to Recover Roundup(R)-Related Damages MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Trottier Sues over Federal Securities Laws NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Certification Bid in "Zaklit" Granted NEXT LEVEL: Faces "Scott" Suit Over Use of ATDS to Get Clients NIANTIC: Gamer Files Class Action Over Failed Pokemon Go Festival NICHOLAS CTY, WV: Certification of Class Sought in "Bragg" Suit NOODLES & COMPANY: Court Tosses Data Breach Class Actions OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: "Cox" Labor Suit Alleges Misclassification OHIO: Families of People with Disabilities OK'd to Join Case OHIO PIZZA: Mullins Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers Class ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Berg Files Suit Over Sale to Intact Fin'l. OVERTON RUSSELL: Carpenter Moves for Cert.; Hearing on Sept. 7 PACIFIC BELL: Larson's Bid to Certify Tossed Due to Agreement PARAMOUNT CARE: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class PAUL E WALSH: Faces "Dreasher" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation PREMIUM ASSET: "Navarroli" Suit Seeks Class Certification PUBLIC STORAGE: Faces "Fox" Suit Over Illegal Debits QUINCY PROPERTY: Brasher Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Suit R GUERRERO'S CONSTRUCTION: "Lira" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay RUSK INDUSTRIES: "Lindsey" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay SCOTTS COMPANY: Lawn Technicians Class Certified in "Vasquez" Suit SEARS ROEBUCK: "Greene" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes SERVIS ONE: "Kolenko" Says Policies Undermine Duty to Homeowners SPECIALIZED LOAN: "Mason" Suit Seeks to Certify Class STRONGHEALTH NETWORK: "Castillo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation TALBOTS INC: "Fliegelman" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. TARPON TURTLE: Faces "Rish" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA TIRRENIO INC: "Recarte" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NYLL TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Ferris Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Judge to Toss Drivers' Ride Pricing Suit UNITED INSURANCE: Sued Over Life Insurance Benefits UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Reimbursement Penalties UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Settles Suit With Payments, Vouchers USAA CASUALTY: 8th Cir. Reverses Sanctions for Re-Filing Suit VALLEY COLLECTION: Faces "O'Toole" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation VIZIO: Loses Another Round in Privacy Battle WINN-DIXIE MONTGOMERY: Managers Class Certified in "Chaves" Suit WOLF APPLIANCE: "Garfinkle" Seeks Warranty on Oven Chipping WTRMLN WTR: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Representation ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action * Chancellor Urges Del. High Ct. to Change Derivative Suits Test ********* ADVANCED OILFIELD: "Brotherton" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Brotherton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Oilfield Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00825 (W.D. Pa., June 21, 2017), seeks overtime wages, all available relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Prompt Pay Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Advanced Oilfield provides critical completion and production related services to oil and gas companies throughout the United States including construction, maintenance, trucking and roustabout services. Advanced Oilfield currently has locations and operations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, North Dakota and Colorado. Brotherton worked for Advanced Oilfield as a rig welder at their Claysville, Pennsylvania location but also performing jobs in Ohio. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: 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: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com AETNA INC: Faces Investor Suit Over ACA Marketplace Withdrawal -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that Aetna Inc. was slapped with a putative class action in Pennsylvania state court on July 25 alleging that it cost investors $1.7 billion by withdrawing from Affordable Care Act insurance exchanges to make good on threats aimed at coercing government approval of its now-defunct merger with Humana Inc. The Allegheny County Employees' Retirement Fund said that Aetna's stock fell by more than two percent in January after a federal judge issued an opinion concluding that the insurer had used threats of withdrawal from ACA exchanges as leverage to seek favorable treatment from federal officials tasked with reviewing its then-pending $37 billion deal to acquire Humana. The investors added that the company's decision to make good on its threats had also closed the door on potential profits it could have reaped by participating in the exchanges. "Aetna has sustained and will continue to sustain significant damages, including financial harm and loss of goodwill," the investors said in their complaint. "Perhaps most concerning of all, by pulling out of exchanges where the company's on-exchange plans were making money, Aetna insiders chose to forgo corporate profits simply to make good on their wrongful threats to the government." According to the complaint, Aetna announced last August that, after what it cast as a "thorough business review," it was withdrawing from public insurance exchanges in 11 of the 15 states, including in Pennsylvania, where it offered plans. What the complaint said the insurer did not reveal in making its withdrawal announcement, however, was that the decision came after repeated threats from Aetna officials that its participation in the ACA exchanges was contingent on the government's approval of the Humana merger. The complaint pointed to comments that Aetna chairman and CEO Mark Bertolini included in a letter to the Department of Health & Human Services in July 2016 threatening that the insurer would "immediately take action [to] reduce our 2017 exchange footprint" in the event the government sued to enjoin the Humana deal. Despite the threats, the Department of Justice, along with eight individual states, filed suit later that month to enjoin Aetna's acquisition of Humana. U.S. District Judge John Bates pulled back the curtain on Aetna's alleged gambit in January as he issued a decision enjoining the merger and chiding the insurer for making its withdrawal decision not for business reasons "but instead to follow through on the threat that it made earlier." This, the investors said on July 25, sent Aeta's stock tumbling $3.33 per share and erased $1.7 billion worth of market capitalization. Aetna has been hit with at least one other derivative suit -- coming in January in Connecticut federal court on behalf of a union benefit fund -- over the federal court's conclusions regarding the insurer's withdrawal decision. That case was voluntarily withdrawn in April, according to court records. A representative for Aetna declined to comment when contacted on July 25, and an attorney for the investors did not immediately return a message from a reporter. The stockholders are represented by Eric Zagar, Esq. -- ezagar@ktmc.com -- and Kristen Ross, Esq. -- kross@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, and Ned Weinberger, Esq. -- nweinberger@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP. Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available. The case is Allegheny County Employees' Retirement Fund v. Mark Bertolini et al., case number 170702608, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. [GN] ALDO'S DELI: Faces "Reyes" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- GEREMIAS REYES and GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA COLLECTIVE, Plaintiffs, v. ALDO'S DELI & BAGELS CORP. d/b/a ALDO'S DELI, ADAM'S DELI ON THE CORNER CORP. d/b/a ADAM'S DELI, ADAM'S DELI ON THE CORNER II CORP. d/b/a ADAM'S DELI, LAZARO HERRERA and FRANCISCO MACARENO-VAZQUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-04201 (E.D.N.Y., July 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminated in a willful failure and refusal to pay them (i) the proper minimum wage; and (ii) overtime premium at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate for work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek; and (iii) the unpaid wages due to time shaving. The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, allegedly, a subclass of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs who were tipped employees comprised of employees including delivery persons, also suffered from Defendants' failure and refusal to pay them the proper minimum wage. The Defendants operate three delicatessens. Plaintiff GEREMIAS REYES was hired by Defendants to work as a delivery person. The case was filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees, including delivery persons, cashiers, stock persons, general helpers, counter persons, cooks, food preparers and dishwashers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel.: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Palos" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- KRYSTAL PALOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly- situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALL AMERICAN HOMECARE AGENCY INC., and ALBERT ISAKOV, in his individual and corporate capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05360 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2017), alleges violations of (1) the overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act, (2) the minimum wage and overtime requirements under New York Labor Law ( "NYLL"), (3) the wage statement and notice requirements of NYLL; and (4) the prohibition against taking deductions from wages under NYLL. Plaintiff Krystal Palos is an intake coordinator. The case was filed on behalf of "intake coordinators, home health aides, personal care aides, consumer directed personal assistant program workers, and consumer directed personal assistant services workers". All American Homecare Agency provides skilled and non-skilled home health care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ariel Y. Graff, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 401 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 571-2000 Fax: (212) 571-0505 Email: ari@ottingerlaw.com ALLIANCE ENERGY: Offshore Employees Class Conditionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DAVID DEARMOND, v. ALLIANCE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-02222-LMA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Lance M. Africk conditionally certifies a class of: "all current and former hourly paid offshore employees who attended a safety meeting who worked for Defendant Alliance Energy Services, LLC at any location throughout the United States from three years prior to the date of this order to the present". The Court said, "Defendant shall provide counsel for plaintiff with the names, positions, dates of employment, all personal addresses, telephone numbers (home and mobile) and all personal email addresses for the class members ("class list"). Defendant shall provide such information in a format, to be agreed upon by the parties, within ten days of the date of this order. The Plaintiff's counsel shall mail a copy of the "notice of rights" and "consent form" attached to their motion via regular U.S. Mail and via electronic mail to all persons contained on the class list within ten days of receiving the class list. Simultaneous with the first mailing, plaintiff's counsel shall send a text message to the class members with a link to the notice of rights and consent form. Thirty days after the first mailing, plaintiff's counsel shall send a reminder notice consisting of the notice of rights and consent form via mail, email, and text message to all class members who have not opted into this case. Class members shall also be given the option to execute their consent forms electronically online. All consent forms shall be returned to plaintiff's counsel, who in turn will be responsible for filing them with the Court. The class members shall have 60 days from the date of the mailing of the notice to file their notice of consent opting-in to this lawsuit as plaintiffs, unless good cause is shown to merit extending the deadline." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ydhJPtyV AMERICAN QUALITY: "Cross" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Cross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Quality Remodeling, Inc. and Ziv Hajaj, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01271 (S.D. Cal., June 21, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendants used an automated dialer to market its home improvement services, notes the complaint. Cross registered his phone number on the national "Do Not Call Registry" yet received calls from the Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. Kevin Lemieux, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26 Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com kevin@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com AMERIMEX MUFFLERS: Hernandez Seeks to Certify Mechanics Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned HECTOR HERNANDEZ and GERARDO JACOBO, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERIMEX MUFFLERS AND BRAKES 6, INC., and LEONARDO MARTINEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07513 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: 1. conditionally certify Count I as a collective action and permit Plaintiffs to mail notice of the lawsuit to: "all individuals who worked between July 26, 2014 and October 1, 2016 at one of 12 car repair shops owned by Martinez and whose paycheck stubs show that they were not paid one-and-a-half times their regular rate for all hours over forty in at least one workweek"; 2. approve a proposed notice; 3. direct Defendants to produce, in a computer-readable format, within fourteen days, the names, social security numbers, last-known addresses, and telephone numbers of all putative class members as well as copies of their paycheck stubs; and 4 allow a two-month opt-in period from the date of mailing of the notice. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, allege that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay them one-and-a-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kBKOpKcZ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Piers, Esq. Juliet V. Berger-White, Esq. Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq. HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD. Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 580 0100 ANGEL BRIGHT: "Trevino" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ LINDA TREVINO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ANGEL BRIGHT HOME HEALTH, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00262 (S.D. Tex., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Linda Trevino brings this action individually and on behalf of all employees who worked for Angel Bright Home Health, Inc., and were paid hourly but did not receive overtime, during the past three years. Angel Bright is an individual and family services company located in 5866 S Staples St, Corpus Christi, Texas, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452 1279 Facsimile: (361) 452 1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlwaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com APPLE-METRO: "Ghee" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Kendall Ghee and Yang Shen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Apple-Metro, Inc., a New York corporation, 42nd Apple LLC, doing business as Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar a New York corporation and Broadway Apple, LLC doing business as Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar, a New York corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01554, originally file on March 20, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 28, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05723-JPO to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge J. Paul Oetken. Apple-Metro Inc. is the New York Metropolitan Area franchisee for Applebee's (TM) Neighborhood Grill and Bar.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1008 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: anne@leelitigation.com - and - C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew B Lustigman, Esq. OlshanFromeWolosky LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 451-2300 Fax: (212) 451-2222 Email: alustigman@olshanlaw.com - and - Scott Allen Shaffer, Esq. OlshanFromeWolosky LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 451-2300 Email: sshaffer@olshanlaw.com ARCONIC INC: Faces "Brave" Securities Suit Over Reynobond PE ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL BRAVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARCONIC INC., KENNETH J. GIACOBBE, and KLAUS KLEINFELD, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05312 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2017), was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic securities between February 28, 2017 and June 26, 2017, both dates inclusive. The case alleges that Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Arconic knowingly supplied its highly flammable Reynobond PE polyethylene) cladding panels for use in construction; (ii) the foregoing conduct significantly increased the risk of property damage, injury and/or death in buildings constructed with Arconic's Reynobond PE panels; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Arconic's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Arconic Inc. is a global provider of lightweight multi-material solutions, focused on the aerospace market in addition to serving the automotive, industrial gas turbine, commercial transportation, and building and construction markets. The Company also provides titanium, aluminum, nickel-based super alloy, and specialty alloy solutions.[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 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com Email: ahood@pomlaw.com Email: hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ASB BANCORP: Faces "Rubin" Lawsuit Over Sale to First Bancorp. -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL RUBIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASB BANCORP, INC., SUZANNE S. DEFERIE, PATRICIA S. SMITH, JOHN B. GOULD, JOHN B. DICKSON, LESLIE D. GREEN, KENNETH E. HORNOWSKI, STEPHEN P. MILLER, LAWRENCE B. SEIDMAN, ALISON J. SMITH, WYATT S. STEVENS, and KENNETH J WRENCH, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00410 (W.D.N.C., July 14, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to First Bancorp. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $175 million. Allegedly, the Registration Statement, which recommends that ASBB stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's financial projections, relied upon by ASBB's financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., in its financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by KBW in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; (iii) the background process leading up to the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) KBW's conflicts of interest. ASBB is the holding company for the Asheville Savings Bank, S.S.B.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Ward Black, Esq. Nancy Meyers, Esq. WARD BLACK LAW 208 West Wendover Avenue Greensboro, NC 27401 Phone: (336) 510-2104 Fax: (336) 510-2181 Email: jwblack@wardblack.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 ASD SPECIALITY: Eversheds Sutherland Comments on 6th Cir. Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Fuchs, Esq., and Lewis Weiner of Eversheds, Esq., at Sutherland (US) LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that what is seemingly a growing divide between circuits has developed on the appropriate standard for assessing ascertainability in federal class actions, including Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions. Ascertainability, the implied requirement in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that there be a means of determining class membership in a proposed class action. Courts have disagreed on the appropriate standard for assessing ascertainability. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has articulated a "heightened" ascertainability standard requiring not only that a class be defined with reference to objective criteria, but also that plaintiffs put forward a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition. The Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, however, have all expressly declined to apply a "heightened" ascertainability standard, and instead require only that a class be defined with reference to objective criteria. While this trend towards a lower ascertainability standard may seem to provide an easier path to class certification for TCPA plaintiffs, several recent decisions have signaled that even under a lower standard, courts are unwilling to accept unreliable proof of class membership in TCPA class actions. On July 11, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification in a TCPA case involving junk faxes, upholding a district court ruling that the lack of logs or other records reflecting successful facsimile transmissions rendered plaintiffs' proposed class of fax recipients unascertainable. In the case, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. ASD Specialty Healthcare Inc., No. 16-3741 (6th Cir. July 11, 2017), plaintiffs had moved to certify a class of fax recipients, proposing that individual affidavits, attesting to receipt of the fax, could be used to determine class membership. In affirming the district court denial of certification, the Sixth Circuit found that in the absence of fax logs demonstrating who actually received a facsimile, objective criteria for determining class membership did not exist. The court specifically noted that fax recipients could not realistically be expected to remember receiving a one-page fax sent years prior, and therefore relying on self-serving affidavits was not an objective means to ascertain class membership. The Sixth Circuit also found that reliance on individual affidavits raised commonality and predominance questions, because assessing the veracity of the affidavits would necessarily require individualized "mini-trials." Just a week prior to the Sixth Circuit's decision in Sandusky, the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri reached a similar holding in St. Louis Heart Center Inc. v. Vein Centers for Excellence Inc., 4:12-cv-00174 (July 5, 2017), decertifying a class of fax recipients on ascertainability grounds. St. Louis Heart Center concerned the alleged transmittal of unsolicited faxes sent on behalf of Vein Centers, a physician marketing firm. Although fax logs reflecting successful transmissions were unavailable, a class of all individuals who were sent a fax by Vein Centers was certified by the court in 2013. Following clarification from the Eighth Circuit in McKeage v. TMBC, LLC, 847 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2017), that the makeup of a class must be determined by "objective criteria," the district court reversed course, denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's motion for decertification. The court found that in the absence of fax logs, plaintiffs had failed to identify "objective criteria" through which the class could be identified. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that potential class members could sign affidavits or claim forms in response to a notice that would go out after the case was resolved, finding, similar to the Sixth Circuit, that it would be difficult to determine whether recollections of having received a fax years ago were valid. Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also weighed in on the issue, affirming a district court's denial of class certification on ascertainability grounds in a TCPA case where call logs did not exist. In Leyse v. Lifetime Entm't Servs., Inc., No. 16-1133-cv, 2017 WL 659894 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2017), plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Lifetime for allegedly violating the TCPA by making a series of unlawful, prerecorded telephone calls. Plaintiffs proposed identifying class members through affidavits from individuals who would testify to receipt of the calls, because logs of the call recipients did not exist. The district court concluded -- and the Second Circuit affirmed -- that this was not an ascertainable way to identify class members given "(1) no list of the called numbers existed; (2) no such list was likely to emerge; and (3) [ ] proposed class members could not realistically be expected to recall a brief phone call received six years ago or . . . to retain any concrete documentation of such receipt." These decisions illustrate that even under a "lower" ascertainability standard courts still require some objective means of determining class membership. In the TCPA context, this may mean requiring logs that illustrate who received a call or fax. At a minimum, these cases provide a new tool for companies defending TCPA cases in which logs or other records are lacking. With the ongoing wave of TCPA litigation, the standard for ascertainability will continue to be a key issue in many new and ongoing cases. [GN] BA VICTORY CORP: OT Pay, Paystubs Sought in "Tenegusnay" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Tenegusnay, on behalf of himself and the Class, Plaintiff, v. BA Victory Corp. and Ismael Alba, Defendants, Case No. 155654/2017 (N.Y. Sup., June 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, compensation for off-the-clock work, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a restaurant under the trade name "Buenos Aires," located at 513 E 6th Street, New York, New York 10009. Tenegusnay worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher until April 8, 2017. Defendants allegedly have no time-keeping facilities in place and do not issue wage statements, thus failing to account for Plaintiff's overtime. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 CAS INC: Shaw, et al. Sue Over Non-payment of Overtime Work ----------------------------------------------------------- JACOB SHAW, MITCHELL ROSIERE, AND ALFRED JACQUES individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAS, Inc. d/b/a KBRwyle and d/b/a Wyle Cas; KBRWYLE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a KBRwyle and d/b/a CAS Group; and KBR, INC d/b/a KBRwyle and d/b/a CAS Group, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv- 00142 (S.D. Tex., July 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants are violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its employees, including the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members, who perform Field Service Representative (also referred to as RAID Maintenance/Operators) tasks at one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours within a workweek. Defendants have further allegedly violated the FLSA by misclassifying Mitchell Rosiere as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements while he was employed by Defendants as a C-RAM Site Lead.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 13590 Ranch Road 12 Wimberley, TX 78676 Phone: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com daniel@morelandlaw.com CELEDON TRUCKING: Faces "Williams" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- LEON WILLIAMS, III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CELEDON TRUCKING SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00563-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., July 13, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff routinely worked over forty (40) hours in a given workweek; however, he was not compensated at a rate of time and one-half for those overtime work hours, rather, he was paid at a rate of time and one-half for his overtime work hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a truckload shipping company, offering storage, transportation, distribution and logistical solutions. Plaintiff was employed as non-exempt shuttle driver and in this capacity performed "spotting services" or logistical services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher W. Espy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC 4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39211 Phone: 601-718-2087 Fax: 601-718-2102 Email: cespy@forthepeople.com CENTURYLINK: "Petersen" Hits Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------- Larry Allen Petersen, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Centurylink, Inc., Glen F. Post, III, R. Stewart Ewing, Jr. and David D. Cole, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04579, (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Centurylink is accused of adding services or lines to customer accounts without customer approval. On June 16, 2017, a former CenturyLink employee claimed she was fired for blowing the whistle on the Company's high-pressure sales culture that allegedly left customers paying millions of dollars for accounts they didn't request. On this news, the company's stock price fell $1.23 per share, or 4.5%, to close at $25.72 per share on June 16, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff owns Centurylink securities and lost substantially. CenturyLink is an integrated communications company that provides local and long-distance voice, broadband, Multi-Protocol Label Switching, private line, Ethernet, colocation, hosting, data integration, video, network, public access, Voice over Internet Protocol, information technology and other ancillary services. CenturyLink, Inc. is incorporated in Louisiana and its headquarters are in Monroe, Louisiana. CenturyLink's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "CTL." Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com CITY CENTER PARKING: "Rios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- JESSE RIOS, an individual, ANTHONY DE LOS ANGELES, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY CENTER PARKING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC670147 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation under labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay wages for all hours worked, including for hours worked in excess of eight hours a day or 40 hours a week; failed to pay minimum wages; failed to pay overtime compensation due; failed to provide the Parking Lot Attendants with timely and accurate wage and hour statements; failed to pay compensation in a timely manner upon their termination or resignation; failed to maintain complete and accurate payroll records; and failed to indemnify the Parking Lot Attendants for all necessary expenditures or losses. City Center Parking was established in Portland in 1955 and has operated as an active parking management company for 60 years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas W. Falvey, Esq. Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Armand R. Kizirian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547 5200 Facsimile: (818) 500 9307 E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com mike.falveylaw@gmail.com armand.falveylaw@gmail.com - and - Marcus A. Mancini, Esq. MANCINI & ASSOCIATES 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 600 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 783 5757 Facsimile: (818) 783 7710 COMMUNITY EDUCATION: Giles Seeks Approval of $950,000 Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled AARON GILES, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04863-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move to Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a settlement class; 2. preliminarily approving class action settlement reached between the parties; 3. approving the notice of class action settlement; 4. appointing class counsel and the class representatives; and, 5. setting the final approval hearing. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fkHaCXZe Under the terms of the proposed Stipulation of Settlement, Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed that all class-action claims in this case will be fully and finally resolved for a settlement amount of $950,000 in exchange for a release of all Released Claims by each Class Member who does not opt out. Furthermore, Plaintiffs shall receive, subject to the Court's approval, compensation in the following amounts as Class Representative Enhancements for their services and participation as Class Representatives: $10,000 each to Aaron Giles and Paul Jimenez. These Class Representative Enhancements are to be paid exclusively from the Maximum Settlement Fund. Additionally, the Parties have agreed that, subject to the Court's approval, Berenji Law Firm, APC, shall receive an award of attorneys' fees in an amount equal to 30% of the Maximum Settlement Fund and costs not to exceed $10,000. The attorneys' fees and costs amount is to be paid exclusively from the Maximum Settlement Fund. Defendant does not oppose the amount of attorneys' fees and costs award. Given the work performed and benefit provided to the settlement class and for purposes of this settlement, the award is reasonable and should be approved. Moreover, the Parties have agreed that the costs of the claims administration, up to $15,000, will be paid out of the Maximum Settlement Fund. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shadie L. Berenji, Esq. BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 855 3270 Facsimile: (310) 855 3751 E-mail: berenji@employeejustice.law COVISINT CORP: Berg Sues Over Sale to Open Text Corp. ----------------------------------------------------- Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Covisint Corporation, John F. Smith, Bernard M. Goldsmith, William O. Grabe, Dave Hansen, Sam Inman III, Andreas Mai, Jonathan Yaron, Open Text Corporation and Cypress Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12000 (E.D. Mich., June 21, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Covisint Corporation by Open Text Corporation and Cypress Merger Sub, Inc. The lawsuit further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and other further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Covisint Corporation will be acquired by Open Text Corporation and Cypress Merger Sub, Inc. where shareholders of Covisint will receive $2.45 in cash for each share of Covisint common stock. Defendants have allegedly locked up the deal and have precluded other bidders from making successful competing offers for the company. The complaint said the merger consideration is inadequate considering that the intrinsic value of the Company is materially in excess of the amount offered thus denying Plaintiff their right to share proportionately and equitably in the true value of the Company's valuable and profitable business and future growth in profits and earnings. Covisint provides an open, developer-friendly, enterprise-class cloud platform to facilitate the rapid development and deployment of Internet of Things, Identity Management and B2B collaboration solutions. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq. ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC 14950 East Jefferson Ave., Suite 170 Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230 Tel: (313) 821-5905 Fax: (313) 821-5906 Email: Anthony@aldplc.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 CREDIT CONTROL: "Ringgold" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Raymond D. Ringgold, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control Services, Inc. doing business as Credit Collection Services d/b/a Credit Collection Services, Defendant, Case No. 604545/2017 was removed on July 28, 2017, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04464 to the proceeding. Credit Control Services, Inc. is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff appeared PRO SE. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq. Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 88 Pine Street 21st Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 376-6433 Fax: (212) 376-6490 Email: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com DESIGNS BY RJR: "Olano" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- RAMONA OLANO, the Plaintiff, v. DESIGNS BY RJR, LTD. d/b/a RANDI RAHM ATELIER and RANDI RAHM, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05703 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Plaintiff and the collective class work or have worked as sample makers at Designs by RJR, Ltd. located in New York City owned by Randi Rahm. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated current and former non-exempt workers who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, and specifically, the collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. 216(b), to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the FLSA that occurred at Designs owned and controlled by Rahm in New York, NY. The Plaintiff and the FLSA collective also bring this action under the Wage Theft Protection Act for the Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws. Rahm has owned, maintained control, oversight and the direction of Designs in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323 6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Rapp" Suit Alleging RESPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ EUGENIA RAPP, on behalf of herself and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00801-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va., July 14, 2017), challenges Ditech's practice of allegedly furnishing information to consumer reporting agencies regarding disputed payments after it receives a notice of error on credit reports of consumers. The case alleges violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC is a mortgage loan servicing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7572 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com DR PEPPER: Webb Sues over "Made from Real Ginger" Label ------------------------------------------------------- ARNOLD E. WEBB JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., and DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17- cv-00624-RK (W.D. Mo., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and all other remedies the Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff brings this consumer protection and false advertising class action lawsuit against Defendants, based on Defendants' false and misleading business practices with respect to the marketing and sale of its Canada Dry Ginger Ale. The Defendants has labeled, packaged, and marketed the Product as being "Made from Real Ginger," indicating that the Product contains ginger. However, independent testing by a laboratory determined that the Product does not contain a detectable amount of ginger. Therefore, unbeknownst to consumers, the Product was and continues to be falsely advertised because the Product does not contain a detectable amount of ginger, despite Defendants' representations. Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Product, reasonably relying on Defendants' deceptive representation about the Product, and believing that the Product contained a detectable amount of ginger. Had Plaintiff and other consumers known that the Product did not contain a detectable amount of ginger they would not have purchased the Product or would have paid significantly less for the Product. Therefore, Plaintiff and consumers have suffered injury in fact as a result of Defendants deceptive practices. Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. is an American soft drink company, based in Plano, Texas. Formerly called Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages, on May 5, 2008, it was spun off from Britain's Cadbury.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim E. Dollar, Esq. DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876 2600 Facsimile: (816) 221 8763 E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com EGS FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER GAJEWSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EGS FINANCIAL CARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01055-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this 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 a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xbaBFpuv 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 EL MUNICIPIO DE GUAYNABO: Faces Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ CYNTHIA PAGAN PRORRATA, ANIBAL JIMENEZ, DANIEL CUMBAS APONTE, ROBERTO SANTOS TORRES, CARLOS MORALES FIGUEROA, LUIS ORTIZ OJEDA, and their respective conjugal partnerships, Plaintiffs, vs. EL MUNICIPIO DE GUAYNABO, PUERTO RICO, INSPECTOR WILFREDO MARTINEZ HERNANDEZ, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv- 01961 (D.P.R., July 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to properly pay Plaintiffs for all time actually worked in violation of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute, Puerto Rico Code. Plaintiffs worked as hourly paid, non-exempt canine unit police officers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jane Becker Whitaker, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER P.O. Box 9023914 San Juan, PR 00902-3914 Phone: 787-754-9191 Fax: 787-764-3101 Email: janebeckerwhitaker@yahoo.com janebeckerwhitaker@gmail.com - and - Jean Paul Vissepo Garriga, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER PO Box 3671116 San Juan, PR 00936 Phone: 787 633-9601 Email: jp@visseppolaw.com ELITE LINE: "Prieto" Suit Sues over Wage and Hour Laws ------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL PRIETO and MICHAEL SEGURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ELITE LINE SERVICES, INC, a Florida Corporation, formerly doing business in California as Elite Line Services, a limited liability company; MARLA MATLOCK, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC67048 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief against the defendants for violating wage and hour laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay all bonuses earned, failed to pay overtime wages for all hours worked, failed to account for earned non-discretionary bonuses when calculating overtime pay, failed to provide duty-free meal periods and failing to pay all premium pay due, including the full statutory premium for reported missed meal periods; failed to provide duty-free rest periods and failed to pay all premium pay due; failed to reimburse for business expenses incurred; failing to provide itemized, compliant and accurate wage statements; and failed to timely pay all wages owed upon separation of employment. Elite Line provides airport facility equipment operation and maintenance services to a range of international and regional airports. The company offers planned and corrective maintenance services for in-line baggage handling systems, passenger boarding bridges, ground support equipment, facilities, and airport vehicle fleets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee R. Feldman, Esq. Stuart E. Cohen, Esq. FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES, APC 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207 8500 Facsimile: (310) 207 8515 E-mail: lee@fbo-law.com stuart@fbo-law.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Loses Early Bid to Beat Class Cert. in Defect Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge on July 25 denied Fiat Chrysler's bid to prevent class certification in a putative class action from Dodge Dart owners over alleged clutch defects, shooting down arguments that the plaintiffs' counsel is inadequate because they didn't address a settlement offer with their clients. In May, FCA US LLC filed a motion to deny class certification, saying that the plaintiffs in the suit couldn't meet adequacy requirements under Rule 23 standards because they didn't convey a settlement offer from FCA to their clients. But the plaintiffs' counsel, which had yet to file a motion for certification, argued in response that the court should deny the pre-empetitve motion, saying that FCA never communicated a valid settlement offer. The purported offer wasn't classwide, and was contingent upon settling in another case, their response said. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel denied FCA's motion to deny class certification in a 13-page order, saying a failure to communicate a settlement offer doesn't render counsel inadequate. The plaintiffs' counsel from Capstone Law APC have a long history of working on class actions, including those in the automotive arena, and have proven they are committed to representing their clients, the judge said. "Here, plaintiffs' counsel's failure to communicate defendant's settlement offer was contrary to California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-510, which raises a question as to counsels' integrity and trustworthiness to represent the interests of the class," the judge said. "However, there were reasons, albeit incorrect, why plaintiffs' counsel did not believe they needed to communicate the settlement offer. Based on the record to date, the court cannot conclude that plaintiffs' counsel's conduct creates a 'serious doubt' on their integrity and trustworthiness as representatives for the class." Jordan Lurie of Capstone Law APC, who represents the plaintiffs, told Law360 that Judge Curiel reached the correct decision in denying FCA's motion. "We also appreciate the court's acknowledgement that Capstone Law has 'diligently prosecuted the case with vigor and expended substantial resources in doing so,'" he said, quoting the order. "We are continuing to vigorously litigate this case, focusing our efforts on class certification." The denial of FCA's motion to deny class certification follows Judge Curiel's June decision denying the automakers' motion for summary judgment this past June, which also allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Named plaintiffs Carlos Victorino and Adam Tavitian are seeking to represent a nationwide and California class of drivers who own or lease certain 2013 to 2016 Dodge Dart models equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission. They claim the vehicles' transmission contains a defect in the clutch master cylinder that causes the clutch pedal to lose pressure, stick to the floor and fail to engage or disengage gears. According to the court's history of the case, FCA's lawyers sent the plaintiffs' counsel an email in February with the subject line "Settlement," saying they could end the case for $40,000 -- a $10,000 award for Tavitian and Victorino, plus two more in an unrelated putative class action against the company. The plaintiffs' counsel didn't respond to the email, and Tavitian and Victorino weren't aware of the offer when they were deposed in April, according to Judge Curiel's history of the case. July 25's opinion looked at other cases with similar situations, with Judge Curiel concluding that a lack of notification to the clients about the offer doesn't render the plaintiffs' counsel inadequate. "Based on a review of the cases that have denied class certification, failure of counsel to communicate a settlement offer, itself, does not demonstrate inadequacy of counsel under Rule 23(a)(4) and Rule 23(g)," he said. Attorneys for FCA didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on July 26. The drivers are represented by Karen L. Wallace, Esq. -- Karen.wallace@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. -- Jordan.laurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. -- tarek.zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Cody R. Padgett, Esq. -- Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- of Capstone Law APC. FCA is represented by Edwin M. Boniske, Esq. -- eboniskewlow@higgslaw.com -- and William M. Low, Esq. -- wlow@higgslaw.com -- of Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP and by Kathy W. Wisniewski, Esq. -- kwisniewskitazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. -- sdaunoytazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- and Thomas L. Azar Jr., Esq. -- tazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson Coburn LLP. The case is Victorino et al. v. FCA US LLC, case number 3:16-cv- 01617, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] FLORIDA: "Prunty" Suit Seeks Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT R. PRUNTY, ET AL, PRO SE (AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED), the Plaintiffs, v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DESOTO COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL; THE AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION, ET AL & THE JACK NICKLAUS MIAMI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ET AL, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00291-UA-CM (M.D. Fla.), Mr. Prunty asks the Court to certify a class of all persons who: "are African American Parents and their children of Public School age occupying the Desoto County School District from grades K Thru 12, who received Federal I.E.P. Contracts by U.S. Mails for at least the past (5) years". There are 611 Black or African American students in Arcadia, Florida School System and roughly 300 Parents representing these Children bringing the potential Class total to 911 persons. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RwIynjg2 The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorney for School District of Desoto County: Jeffrey Jensen, Esq. UNICE, SALZMAN JENSEN PA Patriot Bank Building, Second Floor 1815 Little Road Trinity, FL 34655 Attorney for Healthcare Administration: Anne Mc Donough, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100 Tampa, FL 33602 5242 Attorney for Jack Nicklaus Miami Children's Hospital: Glen P. Falk, Esq. WAAS, HERNANDEZ, CORTINA, SOLOMON & BONNER 135 San Lorenzo Ave., Ste 500 Coral Gables, FL 33146-1872 FORD MOTOR CO: "Baranco" Sues Over Defective Door Latch ------------------------------------------------------- David Baranco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company, Lincoln Motor Company, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03580 (N.D. Cal., June 21, 2017), seeks damages, restitution and disgorgement of monies acquired illegally, injunctive and declaratory relief, repair or replacement of defective door latch switches on concerned vehicles, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other relief resulting from breach of express and implied warranty and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers' Legal Remedies Act. Baranco purchased a 2013 Ford Edge in Santa Clara, California. Within a week of his purchase, said vehicle's "open door" alarm kept on lighting up, leading to the doors not automatically locking and the battery running low. Ford Motor Company sells, markets, distributes and services Ford and Lincoln vehicles in California and throughout the United States. It is the parent company of Lincoln Motor Company. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Camille S. Bass, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 338-1100 Fax: (619) 338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com cbass@bholaw.com - and - Courtney L. Davenport, Esq. THE DAVENPORT LAW FIRM LLC 18805 Porterfield Way Germantown, MD 20874 Tel: (703) 901-1660 Email: courtney@thedavenportlawfirm.com FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Court Certifies 401(k) Retirement Plan Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MARLON H. CRYER, individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan, the Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN TEMPLETON RESOURCES, INC.; and THE FRANKLIN TEMPLETON 401(k) RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-04265-CW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Claudia Wilken certifies a class of: "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' beneficiaries, and Defendants' immediate families. The Court said, "The Plaintiff's request for leave to file under seal A to his Motion is denied. Plaintiff shall refile the exhibit without any redactions or withdraw it from consideration. FRI's request for leave to file under seal portions of its Opposition and supporting exhibits is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Plaintiff's severance agreement. It is denied as to (1) the Willard report and its exhibits and (2) the ADR agreement. It is denied without prejudice to resubmission in accordance with this Order and the Local Rules as to (1) portions of FRIs Opposition that refer to the Willard report, ADR agreement and severance agreement and (2) portions of the declaration of Sharon Geary that refer to the ADR and severance agreements". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N3kXTU1E FXCM INC: "Cardi" Files Suit Over Conflict of Interest Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur P. Cardi, Bikram Randhawa, Mark Govers, Steven Plunger, and Rosimara Tadrous, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FXCM Inc., Forex Capital Markets, LLC, FXCM Holdings, LLC, Dror Niv, William Ahdout, John Dittami and Effex Capital, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 04699, (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2017), seeks compensatory damages including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, equitable and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief resulting from conflict of interest and violations of the Commodities Exchange Act. FXCM is an online provider of foreign exchange trading and related services to over 175,000 active retail accounts globally. Effex was an FXCM-backed startup firm that was created and financed by FXCM. Dittami created an algorithmic trading system that could make markets to FXCM's customers and replace or compete with the independent market makers on FXCM's No Dealing Desk Platform. FXCM allegedly created Effex as a separate stand-alone company to operate its new algorithmic trading system that Dittami built in order to conceal FXCM's economic interest in Effex from customers, regulators and investors. FXCM continued to own the trading system, finance the business and maintain a 70% interest in all profits of Effex through discrete contractual arrangements. Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com FYRE MEDIA: Class Action Suits to be Consolidated in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Paula Parisi, writing for Variety, reports that Fyre Media class action lawsuits in four states appear destined for consolidation in New York based on the indication of a panel of federal judges who heard geographical arguments on July 26 in Los Angeles. The case is moving on dual criminal and civil tracks as aggrieved parties pursue remedy from promoters of the ill-fated Bahamian concert series, which was to have begun in April. Meanwhile, a trio of investors filed to force the beleaguered Fyre Media into involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which was of interest to the multi-district litigation judges in L.A., as was the fact that none of the central defendants -- Fyre principals Billy McFarland and Jeffrey Atkins (Ja Rule) nor the Fyre corporation -- have responded to any of the class action suits, putting them at risk for entry of default judgments against them. McFarland, who on June 30 was arrested in New York on criminal wire fraud charges and was represented by a public defender at his bond hearing pending release, has retained the pricey Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to defend him in the criminal case. Fyre Festival Organizer Billy McFarland Released From Jail on $300,000 Bond Representatives for the defense did not appear at July 27's civil hearing in Federal Court for the Southern District of California, where a panel of six judges heard arguments for why the six separate class action cases should be consolidated in either New York, California, or Florida. The majority interested parties argued in favor of a Manhattan venue -- Federal Court for the Southern District of New York. Based on the fact that the defendants and potential investor defendants are based in Manhattan, the judicial panel also seemed to lean to Gotham, but will issue a formal decision. The court can either order the class actions consolidated to a specific venue, or direct the plaintiffs to decide among themselves, in which case majority opinion also favors New York. Representing plaintiff Daniel Jung in a $100 million class action suit, Geragos & Geragos argued to keep the federal class actions in Los Angeles where the firm is headquartered, based on the fact that they represent the majority of plaintiffs, at about 500, and which they project will swell to more than 1,000 and possibly as many as 3,000, since clients have contacted the firm on behalf of themselves and friends. The law firm of Levy & Levy argued to consolidate in Florida, which gained no traction and made for some comic relief. Asked by Judge Charles R. Breyer -- a silver-haired jurist who bears a striking resemblance to his brother, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, "Why Florida?," attorney Chad Levy said, "Because everything happened in the Bahamas," prompting Breyer to quip, "I think the point is nothing happened in the Bahamas," sparking laughter and the additional rejoinder, "But if the case is transferred there, I'm willing to sit." And Judge David Proctor jumped in with, "We have a Fire Island in New York, too." For the defendants, the situation is no laughing matter, though it was much remarked upon in the hallways that McFarland, whose finances appear to be in disarray, managed to come up with the funds to secure the Boies firm, best known for David Boies' representing Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election vote recount case argued before the Supreme Court. It is believed attorney Randall Jackson has been assigned to McFarland. In addition to other civil investor lawsuits totaling millions, the trio of financiers who pressed the Chapter 7 bankruptcy claim on Fyre Media in New York on July 7 -- John Nemeth, Raul Jimenez, and Andrew Newman -- said they sunk $530,000 into the company based on fraudulent misrepresentations of adequate capitalization and rosy financial forecasts. Talk of the Chapter 7 petition prompted discussion of the fact that if Fyre is bankrupt there will be no spoils for the beleaguered plaintiffs, raising the "doe" defendants, or Fyre Media "participant investors," some of whom appear to have deep pockets. Judge Sarah Vance, panel chair, asked, "Why would investors invest in something they knew wasn't ready for primetime?," adding, "I don't know how they're going to be defendants." While that casually tossed-off opinion has no legal weight, as insight into bench-think it could bode ill for plaintiffs trying to squeeze funds from a stone. Geragos counsel Ben Meiselas said Vance wasn't taking into account the standard of "recklessness," which could potentially expose participant investors to liability. [GN] GLOBAL TEL: Alexander, et al. Sue Under RICO Over ICS System ------------------------------------------------------------ ELIZABETH R. ALEXANDER, JOHN P. ALEXANDER, MARY SESSUMS, SANDRA GLASSMIRE, JAI GIBSON, SHARON JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of all the others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION, CHRISTOPHER EPPS, SAM WAGGONER AND DEFENDANTS DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00560-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss., July 13, 2017), asserts claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The case alleges that Mr. Epps, Mr. Waggoner and GTL knowingly and intentionally conspired to devise schemes using overt acts such as bribery, kickbacks, unfair and deceptive trade practices, misrepresentation, fraud, concealment, money laundering, fraudulent use of "sole-source" contracts when competitive bidding was required (for the provision, installation and management of Inmate Calling Services system), and other wrongful conduct, all with the intended purpose and effect of overcharging and bilking the Plaintiffs for inmate calling services. GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION -- http://www.gtl.net/-- offers integrated information technology solutions for the corrections market.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wilson H. Carroll, Esq. WILSON CARROLL, PLLC 3520 Old Canton Road Jackson, MS 39216 Phone: 601-953-6579 Fax: 888-505-0012 Email: wilson@wilsoncarroll.com - and - Bradley S. Clanton, Esq. CLANTON LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O Box 4781 Jackson, MS 39296 Phone: (601) 487-1212 Fax: (866) 421-9918 Email: brad@clantonlawms.com Website: http://www.clantonlawms.com GOB SERVICES: "Brotherton" Action Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Brotherton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. G.O.B. Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00537 (E.D. Ky., June 21, 2017), seeks overtime, liquidated damages, fees and costs, and any other remedies for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. G.O.B. Services performs civil and mechanical construction for oil and gas companies of the North Eastern regions of the United States. Brotherton worked for G.O.B. Services as a Rig Welder from approximately January 2014 through October 2014 and worked throughout Southern and Eastern Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, 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: rderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com HATFIELD LAWN: "Perry" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Jodi Perry, 298 W. Hillsdale Ln., Holland, Ohio 43528, the Plaintiff, v. Hatfield Lawn & Landscape, LLC, 8354 W. Central Avenue, Sylvania, Ohio 43560; and Victoria Hatfield, 2715 Spring Water Drive, Toledo, Ohio 43617, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv- 01584-JJH (N.D. Ohio, July 27, 2017), is a collective action complaint against Defendants for their failure to pay employees overtime wages seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Hatfield Lawn is full-service landscaper with landscaping services throughout the Toledo Ohio area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, Ohio 43207 Telephone: (614) 949 1181 Facsimile: (614) 386 9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, Ohio 43207 Telephone: (614) 704 0546 Facsimile: (614) 573 9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com HOLIDAY INN: Labor Trafficking Victims File Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Norman Transcript reports that Legal Aid at Work, Equal Justice Center, and the ACLU of Oklahoma have filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of workers recruited from the Philippines to work at a hotel and restaurant in Oklahoma. Plaintiffs claim they were induced to pay high recruitment fees with the false promise of fair wages and free room and board and allege they were paid less than promised, threatened with harm, and denied the food, lodging, and transportation promised. Instead of the wages promised, the plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they were paid so little that they could not cover their expenses in Oklahoma, much less send money home to family members or repay the funds they borrowed to pay the recruiters. Among the defendants are the operators of a Holiday Inn Express, a Montana Mike's Steakhouse, and the Water Zoo and related businesses in Clinton, Oklahoma. "This suit seeks to hold these Western Oklahoma businesses accountable for claims of human trafficking," said Brady Henderson, Legal Director for ACLU of Oklahoma. "The sort of exploitation alleged is this complaint is incredibly serious and can stand in conflict with workers' most basic rights." Plaintiffs Madelyn Casilao, Harry Lincuna, and Allan Garcia are seeking class action status for the case. According to their complaint, Walter Schumacher, Carolyn Schumacher, Hotelmacher LLC, and their other businesses received federal Department of Labor certifications for H-2B visas for more than 110 workers in 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2014. The complaint alleges violations of U.S. anti-trafficking laws and breach of the employment contracts that were entered into with the workers or for the benefit of the workers. [GN] HSBC BANK: "Giron" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned RAMIRO GIRON, NICOLAS J. HERRERA, ORLANDO ANTONIO MENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, LIMITED, a foreign company; HSBC BANK USA, N.A., a national banking association; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-08869-ODW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will moved the Court on September 11, 2017 for an order to: 1. certify that this action is maintainable as a class action; 2. certify a class persons of: "all individuals or entities who invested and lost money after September 30, 2013 with any of the WCM777 entities by transferring or having their money transferred to one of the WCM777 accounts at HSBC Hong Kong. For purposes of this class definition, an individual or entity lost money only if the amount of money that the individual or entity received from WCM777, including any return on investment, commissions, fees or any other payments, was less than the amount of the individual's or entity's money invested with WCM777. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of his or her immediate family, the Defendants, along with their respective parents, subsidiaries and/or affiliates. Also excluded from this class are the legal representatives, heirs, successors and attorneys of any excluded person or entity, and any person acting on behalf of any excluded person or entity; and 3. certify these individual plaintiffs as representatives of the plaintiff class and their counsel of record as counsel for the plaintiff class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M1HYsyXP The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter C. Ward, Esq. Christopher H. Hagen, Esq. Steven M. Nunez, Esq. WARD & HAGEN, LLP 440 Stevens Avenue, Suite 350 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: (858) 847 0505 Facsimile: (858) 847 0105 - and - Julio J. Ramos, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JULIO J. RAMOS 35 Grove Street, Suite 107 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 948 3015 Facsimile: (415) 469 9787 I.C. SYSTEM: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled PETER LOVELAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01054-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this 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 a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=csNjID10 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 IDEAL TAX: "Meyer" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled MELISSA MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IDEAL TAX SOLUTIONS, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01617-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 22, 2017, for an order to: a. certify a TCPA Class consisting of: "all persons within the United States who had or have a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who received at least one text message from Defendant or its agent between September 1, 2012 and September 1, 2016, with their prior express consent"; b. certify a TCPA Sub-Class consisting of: "all persons within the United States who had or have a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who received at least one text message from Defendant or its agent between September 1, 2012 and September 1, 2016, with their prior express consent and called the number in the text message"; and c. appoint Plaintiff as Class Representatives, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sd8dQwIM The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com IPLAY INC: Spearman Sues over Teethers' "BPA Free" Label -------------------------------------------------------- DUSTY SPEARMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IPLAY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-at-00757 (E.D. Cal., July 27, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and restitution of any ill-gotten gains due to Defendant's acts and practices. This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of Green Sprouts Cooling Teethers (the "Teethers") in the United States. The Defendant markets the Teethers for the purpose of "sooth[ing] gums and promot[ing] oral development" for infants "3+ months" that are actively growing teeth. Defendant represents on the front of the product packaging that the Teethers are "BPA free": Contrary to Defendant's representation, however, laboratory testing has shown that the Teethers do in fact contain BPA. Laboratory testing commissioned by Plaintiff's counsel detected and extracted 702 nanograms of BPA from a Teether. The presence of BPA in a product used in infants' mouths is a health concern, especially in products designed for oral use by teething infants. For example, by analogy, California law prohibits the sale of "any bottle or cup that contains bisphenol A, at a detectable level above 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), if the bottle or cup is designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food, or beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or cup by children three years of age or younger." Cal. Health & Safety Code section 108940. While the Teethers are not specifically addressed by this statute, it is notable that they contain 702 times as much BPA as allowed by law for infants' bottles and cups. And BPA in teethers is more dangerous than in bottles and cups because they are designed to be sucked and chewed on by infants for hours each day during teething, when babies often experience inflamed and swollen gums. I play designs, manufactures, and sells natural baby products. It offers feeding products that include bottles and sippys, food preparation products, and dishes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300 4455 Facsimile: (925) 407 2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com scott@bursor.com - and - Michael T. Fraser, Esq. THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C. 4120 Douglas Blvd., No. 306-262 Granite Bay, CA 95746 Telephone: (888) 557 5115 Facsimile: (866) 212 8434 E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net ISOHAMA JAPANESE RESTAURANT: "Gil" Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit --------------------------------------------------------------- Abel Gil and Ismael Juarez, on behalf of themselves and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, v. Isohama Japanese Restaurant (NY), Inc. d/b/a Isohama and Choi Lan Chang, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04676 (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, compensation for off-the-clock work, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs worked as delivery persons for Defendants' Japanese restaurant, "Isohama" located at 1666 3rd Avenue, New York, NY 10028. Defendant allegedly failed provide proper notice to employees of their tipped credit minimum wage rate and the proper overtime rate, maintain records of tips earned by employees, maintain a proper tip pool and provide proper wage statements showing deductions for tip credit allowance as required under New York State Law. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 J & M PREMIER: "Santos" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN JOSE MIRANDA SANTOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. J & M PREMIER SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22822-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant knowingly violated the law by engaging in a uniform practice where it failed to pay their employees for overtime hours, the Complaint says. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are entitled to be paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately September 2017 through June 1, 2017. While employed by the Defendants, Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours each week. At the time of his termination, Defendant paid Plaintiff an hourly wage of $19.00, regardless of the number of hours the Plaintiff worked. J & M Premier provides transportation services available to the oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A. 1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307 Miami, FL 33135 Telephone: (786) 441 8909 Facsimile: (786) 523 0610 E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Vague Collection Notice Disputed by "Hunt" ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Donald Hunt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61230 (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2017), seeks statutory damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred in this action, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest and any other relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On January 28, 2013, Defendant sent a Notice of Intent to Foreclose in connection with Plaintiff's consumer loan that went into default starting with Hunt's payment due in December 1, 2012. Defendant declared the full amount payable under the Note and Mortgage to be due and payable, thereby accelerating the mortgage and maturing all future monthly payments into one lump sum plus interest immediately due, thus making monthly payments no longer an option or a requirement applicable to Plaintiff despite Defendant's language that Plaintiff pay the "Total Monthly Payments" as indicated by their Notice which makes it contradictory. Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Kline, Esq. JONATHAN KLINE, P.A. 2761 Executive Park Dr. Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 888-4646 Facsimile: (954) 888-4647 E-mail: emailservice@jklawfl.com K N M CONSTRUCTIONS: "Trujillo" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR M. TRUJILLO and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. K N M CONSTRUCTIONS CORP., HECTOR GRANADOS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22834-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked an average of 58 hours a week for Defendant and was paid an average of $18.00 but was never paid the full extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff claims the half-time overtime rate for each hour worked above 40 in a week. The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the FLSA as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSA. KNM is a full service general contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Fights Liability Over Account Ease Program ------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that Kohl's Department Stores Inc. on July 27 urged a Pennsylvania federal judge to find it could not be held liable in a putative class action over an allegedly worthless program allowing forgiveness of certain debt on credit cards issued by the retailer. Ballard Spahr LLP attorney Martin Bryce Jr. told U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone during oral arguments in Philadelphia that the so-called Kohl's Account Ease program was part of a contract between cardholders and lenders Chase Bank NA and, later, Capital One Financial Corp. and that the retailer could not be held liable merely as an agent. "Where KAE is concerned, there is no underlying contract between Kohl's and any named plaintiff," he said as he pushed for summary judgment in the case. "By its express terms, it does not define Kohl's as being a party." Kohl's is fighting a 2015 lawsuit alleging that it breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by charging for the KAE program despite the fact that many customers -- including those who were disabled, retired, unemployed, self-employed or employed part-time -- were ineligible to benefit from it. Even if customers were eligible for benefits, the lawsuit said, Kohl's customers are unlikely to file a claim because the companies "failed to meaningfully apprise those class members of the program." The Kohl's credit card program was originally offered through Chase Bank NA before being taken over by Capital One, also a defendant in the case, in April 2011, according to court records. In addition to arguing that Kohl's was not a party to the cardmember agreement, Bryce also said the claim was time-barred because the lead plaintiff, Valerie Tantlinger, first signed up for KAE and was charged for the program all the way back in March 2007. "There's no dispute about when Ms. Tantinger opened her accounts and enrolled in KAE and was charged for KAE," he said. Lee Shalov, an attorney with McLaughlin & Stern LLP representing the plaintiffs, countered that the statute of limitations did not begin to run when Tantlinger first signed up for the product because Capital One failed to get authorization for the KAE charges both after it took over Chase's portfolio and as it continued to make changes to the program. "The conduct that they engaged in, which forms a critical element of our claim, occurred in 2012 and onwards in the sense that they began undertaking efforts to change terms in the KAE rider," he said. He also argued that Kohl's should be considered a party to the cardmember agreement based on the fact that the retailer benefitted financially from the contract and was a party in negotiating its terms and conditions. "It supports the idea that either Kohl's is a party or, even if it's a nonparty, that there's at the very least a question of fact as to whether or not it should be bound by the cardmember agreement," Shalov said. The judge took the matter under advisement. Kohl's and Capital One are represented by Martin Bryce Jr., Daniel McKenna and Michael Kunz of Ballard Spahr LLP. The plaintiffs are represented by Lee Shalov and Wade Wilkinson of McLaughlin & Stern LLP, Patrick Howard of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC, and the Law Office of Angela M. Edwards. The case is Jennifer Gordon et al. v. Kohl's Department Stores Inc. et al., case number 2:15-cv-00730, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN] LAKE VIEW: Faces "Suts" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ohio Min. Wage Act -------------------------------------------------------------- WAYNE SUTS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE LAKE VIEW CEMETARY FOUNDATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01477 (N.D. Ohio, July 13, 2017), alleges that Lake View was aware that its Memorial Advisors performed Off The Clock Work and worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, but provided them with "comp time" for this work instead of paying overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case also raises claims for violation of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Lake View owns and operates the Lake View Cemetery. Suts was first hired by Lake View as a Memorial Advisor in or around July of 2015. The Memorial Advisor position is primarily an inside sales position.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris P. Wido, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: chris.widow@spitzlawfirm.com LG CHEM: Eligible Claimants Can File for Class Settlement Money --------------------------------------------------------------- Theresa Seiger, writing for WPXI reports that if you bought a cellphone, laptop, tablet computer or power tool anytime between 2000 and 2011, you might be entitled to part of a $45 million class action settlement. Three manufacturers of lithium-ion cylindrical batteries have settled a class action lawsuit that claimed they fixed battery prices for more than 10 years, according to the Columbus Ledger- Enquirer. LG Chem, Hitachi Maxell and NEC Corporation agreed to pay out $44.95 million to consumers who bought electronics that use lithium-ion cylindrical batteries between Jan. 1, 2000, and May 31, 2011. Laptops, cellphones, tablets, camcorders, cordless power tools and replacement batteries are among the items that use the batteries. Eligible claimants lived in the United States between 2000 and 2011 and bought the electronics either for themselves or for businesses. People who bought electronics to resell them are not eligible for settlement money. Consumers can file claims online until Nov. 29. No receipt is needed to prove the purchase was made, WXIX reported. The amount each claimant gets from the settlement will be determined after Nov. 29 and depends on how many claims are made and court approval. [GN] M.A.C. COSMETICS: Kobbervig Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- JILL KOBBERVIG and KELLIANN KAHOLOKULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC670041 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages for lost wages and benefits, fines, penalties, disgorgement, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and all other nonexempt employees were not given rest breaks as required by law, not paid time-and-a-half for all work in excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week, not paid their full wages owed at each regular pay period, not given accurate wage statements, not paid all wages upon the end of their employment, subject to a hostile work environment based on disability and gender, and otherwise not treated in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bill H. Seki, Esq. Andrew C. Pongracz, Esq. Ashlee P. Clark, Esq. SEKI, NISHIMURA & WATASE, LLP 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213)481 2869 Facsimile: (213)481 2871 E-mail: aporigracz@snw-law.com MATTRESS FIRM: Court Certifies Class of Drivers in "Blair" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jay C. Zainey grants the motion to certify class submitted in the lawsuit captioned PERRY BLAIR, On Behalf of Himself and Other Persons Similarly Situated v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC. and LARRY R. PACK ENTERPRISES, INC., and LARRY PACK, Case No. 2:16-cv-14119-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.). The Motion to Certify Class is granted as the parties have stipulated to conditionally certify the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the order. After considering the Parties' Joint Stipulation Regarding Notice to Potential Class Members, the Court conditionally certifies a class of: All individuals who worked or are working as a driver or driver's helper for Larry R. Pack Enterprises, Inc. and who provided services to Mattress Firm, Inc. from September 2013 to the present. Judge Zainey approves the Notice and Consent Form attached as "Exhibit A" to the Joint Stipulation. Judge Zainey notes that this Order is being issued with reservation of and without prejudice to the rights, claims, defenses and objections of the parties, and with the right of the Defendants to file a Motion to Decertify the Class. Within 15 days of this Order, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff's counsel the following information: (a) the names of the Class Members and the dates they performed services for Defendants; and (b) each Class Member's current/last known mailing address. Within 30 days of this Order, Plaintiff's counsel will mail the agreed Notice and Consent Form to all persons on the Class List. The Class Members will have 60 days from the date of the initial mailing of the Notice to file their Consent opting into this lawsuit as plaintiffs. In the event an Opt-in Plaintiff later withdraws his or her consent, Plaintiff agrees to immediately file the withdrawal notice with the Court. Plaintiffs, who file their Consents after the deadline, may join this case only by consent of all parties or by court order upon good cause shown. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PA3ekOha MDL 2555: Aug. 18 Hearing on Bid to Certify Consumer Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit re: COCA-COLA PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (No. II), Case No. 4:14-md-02555-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August 18, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., for an order to: a. certify a class within each of the States of California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Florida: "all persons who purchased Coca-Cola's Coke product that: (1) lists phosphoric acid on the ingredients list but does not state that the product contains artificial flavoring and/or chemical preservatives; (2) includes the label statement "no artificial flavors. no preservatives added. since 1886."; and/or (3) includes the label statement "original formula". The following persons are expressly excluded from the classes: 1. Defendants and its subsidiaries and affiliates; 2. all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the proposed Class; 3. governmental entities, and 4. the Court to which the cases is assigned and its staff. b. appoint Plaintiffs George Engurasoff, Joshua Ogden, Paul Merritt, Thomas Woods, Michelle Marino, Ronald Sowizrol, Yocheved Lazaroff, and Rachel Dube as class representatives; c. appoint the firms of Barrett Law Group, P.A. and Fleischman Law Firm, PLLC and as class counsel for all MDL purposes; and Pratt and Associates as local class counsel for all MDL purposes. d. order the parties to meet and confer and present to this Court, within 30 days of an order granting certification, proposed notice to the certified class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I7efSqzN The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith M. Fleischman, Esq. Joshua D. Glatter, Esq. June Park, Esq. FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 565 Fifth Avenue, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 880 9571 Facsimile: (917) 591 5245 E-mail: keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com jglatter@fleischmanlawfirm.com jpark@fleischmanlawfirm.com - and - John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq. Richard Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834 2488 Facsimile: (662) 834 2628 E-mail: Dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com rrb@rrblawfirm.net MEDICAL BUSINESS: "Garrett" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled DERRICK GARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAVID M. BLASKOVICH, P.C., DAVID M. BLASKOVICH, and MEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00087 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves for class certification of: "all persons similarly situated in the State of Illinois from whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent medical debt, upon which Defendants sent a letter within one year of the filing of this Complaint to 28 days after, which failed to indicate the current creditor to whom a debt is owed, or attempted to collect interest, or threatened to assess attorney fees, or included any notice of a person's right to dispute a debt without disclosing that a written dispute is required in order to trigger Defendants' obligation to send verification of a debt". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4zJJaIgN The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Wood, Esq. Celetha C. Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757 1880 Facsimile: (312) 265 3227 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com MEDSOLUTIONS INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DR. ROBERT GERBER, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiffs, v. MEDSOLUTIONS, INC., and CARECORE NATIONAL, LLC both doing business as EVICORE HEALTHCARE, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:17-cv-05553 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify classes as follows: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act: "class consisting of (a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. par. 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants, promoting their goods or services (d) with respect to which defendants do not have evidence of consent or an established business relationship prior to sending the fax"; For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act: "class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants, promoting their goods or services (d) with respect to which defendants do not have evidence of consent or an established business relationship prior to sending the fax. For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, and Count IV, alleging trespass to chattels: "class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants, promoting their goods or services (d) with respect to which defendants do not have evidence of consent or an established business relationship prior to sending the fax". The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this 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 a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=prTu1Plh 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 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 MENS WEARHOUSE: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in "Oliver" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ANTHONY OLIVER, the Plaintiff, v. THE MENS WEARHOUSE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01100-TJH-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., entered an order to vacate Plaintiff's motion to certify class, pursuant to the joint report filed on February 27, 2017. The Plaintiff will file a renewed motion for class certification no later than January 11, 2018. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kpB5gI4h MERCK & CO: Smith Seeks to Certify Sales Representative Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled KELLI SMITH, KANDICE BROSS, RACHEL MOUNTIS, and KATE WHITMER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated female employees, the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME, CORP., and INTERVET, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-02970-MAS-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "female Sales Representative employed by Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and/or Intervet, Inc., in "M" grades M05 through M09 or in "S" grades S1 or S2 in the United States for at least one day on or after September 28, 2009". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bEiqNzwz The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah K. Marcuse, Esq. FEISTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Fourth Avenue Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 Pittsburg, PA 15219-1639 Telephone: (412) 281 8400 Facsimile: (412) 281 1007 E-mail: dmarcuse@fdpklaw.com lmiller@fdpklaw.com - and - David Sanford, Esq. Aimee Krause Stewart, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 499 5201 Facsimile: (202) 499 5199 E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com astewart@sanfordheisler.com MICRO MATIC: Doritty Sues Over Age Discrimination in Employment --------------------------------------------------------------- DIANE DORITTY, JOSEPHINE FLETCHER, KAREN CARR, DEBRA SLATON and BRYAN SLATON, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICRO MATIC USA, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01679-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2017), was filed on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees over the age of 40 who were terminated because of their age. Defendant is accused of engaging in a pattern of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Florida Civil Rights Act. Defendant, Micro Matic USA, Inc., manufactures and supplies beer keg valves and dispensing equipment in over 120 countries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Phone: (727) 822-1111 Fax: (727) 898-2001 Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com sonia@theFLlawfirm.com MIDDLESEX CORPORATION: "Myrick" Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MARSHALL MYRICK, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE MIDDLESEX CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00261-JDW- MAP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to: 1. certify a subclass of: "all natural persons residing in the United States, who applied for an employment position with Defendant or any of its subsidiaries, and as part of this application process were the subject of a consumer report obtained by Defendant to whom Defendant did not provide a copy of the consumer report as stated at 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) at least five business days before the date the employment decision is first noted in Defendant's records, and to whom Defendant did not provide a written summary of Fair Credit Reporting Act rights as stated at 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii) at least five business days before the date the employment decision is first noted in Defendant's records; 2. appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. appoint counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=74MgZst0 The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com mk@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric R. Thompson, Esq. Robin Taylor Symons, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 3900 Miami, FL 33131 MIDLAND CREDIT: Judge Denies Class Certification in FDCPA Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Bauer, writing for Inside Arm, reports that on July 24 a federal judge in Illinois denied a request to certify a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case against Midland Credit Management, In. (Midland) as a class action. The case is Hernandez v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Case No 15-cv-11179, U.S.D.C. Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division). Background On September 30, 2015, Midland served Daniel Hernandez with a summons and a copy of a complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Six days later, on October 5, 2015, defendant sent him a letter (the October 5 letter), which began: "We have been notified that you have been served with a copy of a lawsuit commenced against you on the account referenced above. We are contacting you in an effort to resolve the matter voluntarily. If we are not able to resolve the matter voluntarily, we intend to seek a judgment against you, which may then be enforced in accordance with applicable state law. Charges may continue to accrue on this account until the account is satisfied, and we may have incurred additional costs in connection with the lawsuit. Thus, the amount we may be willing to accept in settlement of the lawsuit may be greater than the total present balance. We are not obligated to renew this or any other settlement offer. Please contact us at toll-free (866) 300-8750 to obtain an exact payoff amount or to discuss resolution of your account. Depending on your circumstances, we can provide a reasonable payment plan or other accommodations as appropriate, but we need to hear from you or the lawsuit will proceed." On December 11, 2015 plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit against Midland. The lawsuit alleged that that the October 5 letter ran afoul of several FDCPA prohibitions, including 15 U.S.C. 1692e, which declares that "[a] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt." Plaintiff brought a motion for class certification. In his motion, plaintiff emphasizes one of his FDCPA theories: under Illinois law, statutory court costs are not available before defendant obtains a judgment, so the October 5 letter falsely and misleadingly implied (or perhaps even more than implied, according to plaintiff) that defendant had a right to collect court costs when it sent the letter. Plaintiff asked the court to certify a single class defined as: All persons in the State of Illinois to whom, during the one year prior to the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and continuing through the resolution of this matter, Defendant sent one or more letters or other communications similarly [sic] in the form of the October 5th Letter in an attempt to collect a non-business debt, which letter was not returned as undeliverable by the Postal Service. The court denied the motion to certify the class. The motion was heard and decided by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall, United States District Court Judge. The memorandum and order is a mere 9 pages. Judge Gottschall wrote: "To certify a class, this court "must find that each requirement of Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) is satisfied as well as one subsection of Rule 23(b)." Because he is the party seeking certification, Plaintiff bears the burden to persuade the court by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed class meets Rule 23's certification requirements. "Rule 23 has long been interpreted as implicitly requiring a class to be defined "clearly and based on objective criteria." Courts sometimes use the shorthand term "ascertainability" to refer to this requirement. As written, the class definition includes an amorphous group of people who received communications "similarly in the form of the October 5th Letter," including, potentially, phone communications. Indeed, as defendant points out, plaintiff adverts to the possibility of false and misleading telephone conversations in his motion for class certification. The class definition plaintiff proposes has an additional ascertainability problem: its only time limitation is the conclusion of this litigation. Rule 23(c)(1) gives the court discretion to alter a class definition, but the court should not shift to itself the plaintiff's burden to define the class objectively. The court therefore leaves to plaintiff the task, if he wishes, of attempting to redefine the class in an ascertainable fashion. Because plaintiff has failed to show that the proposed class's composition is ascertainable using objective criteria, the court ends its Rule 23 analysis and denies plaintiff's motion to certify. (Emphasis added by insideARM.) insideARM Perspective This case may be far from over. It appears that the court has left open the possibility that the plaintiff could suggest an alternative class definition. Going back to the letter sent by Midland that is the genesis of this litigation -- insideARM is curious as to what purpose the October 5 letter served and why it was sent in the first place. A collection lawsuit was already filed (Judge Gottschall's memorandum and order indicated that the collection litigation was filed on November 4, 2014 -- 11 months prior to the October 5 letter). Clearly the lawsuit had already sent the message to the consumer that Midland would like the account resolved. In retrospect, it seems the letter only created exposure by including language that the plaintiff's attorneys felt ran afoul of the FDCPA. In this instance, the old expression -- "Less is More" might apply. [GN] MIDLAND FUNDING: Janetos' Cert. Class Bid Hrng. Cont'd to Sept. 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on July 25, 2017, in the case styled Mary Janetos, et al. v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04490 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification is entered and continued to September 8, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.; and -- Motion hearing set for July 28, 2017, is stricken; no appearance required. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d7pRmOOZ MISSOURI: Court Granted Class Cert. in Postawko, et al. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL POSTAWKO, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04219-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "all those individuals in the custody of MDOC, now or in the future, who have been, or will be, diagnosed with chronic HCV,2 as that term is defined medically, but who are not provided treatment with direct acting antiviral drugs. The Court said, "Defendants' remaining arguments, some of which are mischaracterized as demonstrating that the class is "overbroad," are again merits arguments not relevant to class certification: that Plaintiffs have not established that everyone with HCV actually "needs" DAA drug treatment or that all patients diagnosed with HCV have suffered an injury due to Defendants' policies. These are not the issues presented at the class certification stage. The cases that Defendants cite relate to summary judgment motions or cases in which the courts reached the merits of the plaintiffs' claims -- whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to an inmate's particular medical needs and whether certain treatments were warranted. Again, Plaintiffs are not challenging individualized treatment decisions related to their own unique characteristics or contraindications. Rather, they are challenging Defendants' systemwide policies of denying consideration for DAA drug treatment based on allegedly arbitrary and/or nonmedical reasons, and these policies apply generally to all members of the class. Plaintiffs are not merely disagreeing with a doctor's course of treatment or medical decision as to a particular person. They are attacking the constitutionality of Defendants' MDOC-wide policies and procedures applicable to all inmates with chronic HCV. Regardless, such arguments are premature. "In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met." Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974). Arguments about the appropriateness of certain treatments or how these policies are, in fact, applied to class members may be relevant to a future motion for summary judgment or at trial. But, these arguments have no impact on the availability of class certification, as they do not go to the Rule 23(b)(2) inquiry or establish that the class is somehow overbroad. For the previous reasons, the putative class is appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(2)". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=746X2QSr MONSANTO CO: Brown Seeks to Recover Roundup(R)-Related Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BROWN, Sr., Individually v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00632 (W.D. Mich., July 12, 2017), is an action for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Mr. Brown maintains that Roundup(R) and glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and is the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brion B. Doyle, Esq. VARNUM LLP Bridgewater Place, P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 Facsimile: (616) 336-7000 E-mail: bbdoyle@varnumlaw.com MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Trottier Sues over Federal Securities Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK TROTTIER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MRV COMMUNICATIONS, INC., KENNETH TRAUG, ROBERT PONS, MARK J. BONNEY, JEANNIE H. DIEFENDERFER, BRIAN BELLINGER, JEFFREY TUDER, ADVA OPTICAL NETWORKING, ADVA NA HOLDINGS, INC., and GOLDEN ACQUISITION CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05581 (C.D. Cal., July 27, 2017), seeks to enjoin a tender offer and proposed transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual Defendants' violations of these laws. The Plaintiff brings this action as a public stockholder of MRV Communications, Inc. against the members of MRVC's Board of Directors for their violations of Federal Securities Laws. On July 2, 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement by which ADVA NA Holdings, Inc. and Golden Acquisition Corporation, would acquire the Company through a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of MRVC for $10.00 per share in cash (Proposed Transaction). The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $69 million. On July 17, 2017, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer, set to expire on August 11, 2017, and filed a Schedule TO-T with the SEC. That same day, Defendants filed a Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement (Recommendation Statement) with the SEC in connection with the Tender Offer and Proposed Transaction. The Recommendation Statement is materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material information about the background of the merger. Without all material information, MRVC stockholders cannot make an informed decision regarding the exchange of their shares in the Tender Offer. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(d)(4) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as stockholders need such information in order to make a fully-informed decision regarding tendering their shares in connection with the Proposed Transaction. MRV is a communications equipment and services company based in Chatsworth, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 291 2420 Facsimile: (415) 484 1294 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Certification Bid in "Zaklit" Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ALFRED ZAKLIT ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-02190- CAS-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "all individuals who, from October 23, 2014 to May 2016, while physically present in California and using a cellular device with a California area code, participated for the first time in an outbound telephone conversation with a representative of Defendant or their agents who were recording the conversation without first informing the individual that the conversation was being recorded". The Court denies as moot Nationstar's motion to exclude Borlin's testimony, declaration, and opinions. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8SqFNrTN The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adrian Bacon, Esq. Asaf Asaganov, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S Beverly Blvd., Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 The Defendants are represented by: Eric Kemp, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398 3344 Facsimile: (415) 956 0439 E-mail: ek@severson.com NEXT LEVEL: Faces "Scott" Suit Over Use of ATDS to Get Clients -------------------------------------------------------------- DAN SCOTT, an individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEXT LEVEL FUNDING, LLC, dba Bizfi, a Delaware limited liability company; MERCHANT CASH AND CAPITAL, LLC, dba Bizfi, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00119-DBP (D. Utah, July 14, 2017), alleges that Defendant willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by causing unsolicited calls to be made to Plaintiff and other class members' telephones through the use of an auto-dialer and/or artificial, pre-recorded or artificial voice message. Defendants made or caused to be made unauthorized calls to Plaintiff's telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system or pre-recorded voice for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff. In response to Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all calls using ATDS to cellular telephones without express written authorization, and to cease all calls to individuals that have asked to be placed on Defendants' internal do-not-call list. Defendant Next Level is a company that provides alternative and traditional financing for small to medium sized businesses in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather M. Sneddon, Esq. John A. Bluth, Esq. Kassidy J. Wallin, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 West Broadway, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035 Phone: (801) 534-1700 Fax: (801) 364-7697 Email: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com jbluth@aklawfirm.com kwallin@aklawfirm.com NIANTIC: Gamer Files Class Action Over Failed Pokemon Go Festival ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBS reported that a gamer who traveled to Chicago for the failed Pokemon GO Festival is now suing organizers. The California man filed a class-action lawsuit, claiming the festival did not deliver on promises. The event at Grant Park was plagued by numerous issues, including long lines and glitches with the app. The maker of Pokemon GO and sponsor of the festival, Niantic, has apologized and offered refunds. But the lawsuit seeks reimbursement of travel expenses for people who came from out of state, or out of the country, for the event. Pokemon GO is an "augmented reality" game that people play using their smart phone. [GN] NICHOLAS CTY, WV: Certification of Class Sought in "Bragg" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Robert Bragg v. Jonathan Sweeney, Prosecuting Attorney for Nicholas County, William Nunley, Sheriff of Nicholas County, B.J. Holdren, Deputy Sheriff for Nicholas County, Case No. 2:17-cv-03693(S.D.W.V.), seeks certification of a class of similarly situated persons, being those State of West Virginia persons that have had their property seized by virtue of the West Virginia Contraband Forfeiture Act. Mr. Bragg tells the Court that he has the assistance of an inmate legal clerk in preparing the action. He contends that the class is based on the fact that the West Virginia Contraband Forfeiture Act is unconstitutional in violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ws6CfYZG The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Huttonsville Correctional Center, in Huttonsville, West Virginia, appears pro se. NOODLES & COMPANY: Court Tosses Data Breach Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Edward McAndrew, David Stauss and Gregory Szewczyk of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado recently dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit filed by financial institutions relating to a 2016 data breach that involved hundreds of Noodles & Company (Noodles) restaurants. The court's decision addresses two important issues in data breach class actions: choice of law and the economic loss doctrine. In 2016, Noodles was the victim of a cyberattack that targeted customers' credit and debit card information. Four credit unions that had customer financial data possibly compromised by the data breach filed putative class actions against Noodles that were subsequently consolidated in the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs alleged that as a result of the data breach, they had to cancel and reissue bank cards, close and reopen customer accounts, respond to customer inquiries about the breach, monitor accounts for and investigate any fraudulent activity, and refund unauthorized charges. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory relief. In January 2017, Noodles moved to dismiss the class actions for failure to state a claim. They argued that the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiffs' negligence-based claims and that the corollary declaratory judgment claim could not stand alone. Last week, the Colorado district court agreed. The court first had to decide which state's tort law to apply. Looking to the plaintiffs' home states (Colorado, Oregon, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa), they applied Colorado law because each state had adopted the economic loss doctrine and there was no "outcome determinative conflict between the potentially applicable bodies of law." The court then concluded that the plaintiffs' negligence claims were barred under the economic loss doctrine, which "generally forbids recovery in tort for pure financial losses caused by a defendant's negligence in its performance of a contractual duty." Those claims were barred in this instance, the court held, even though there was no bilateral contract between Noodles and the plaintiffs. Instead, Noodles' contractual duties and the plaintiffs' remedies were contained in the "series of contracts governing plaintiffs' payment-card networks." When a customer swipes a credit or debit card at Noodles, the payment request is routed through a payment-card network governed by a "bank-card association"--the largest of which are Visa and MasterCard. The transaction is then sent electronically to the customer's "issuing bank," which is the financial institution that issued the credit or debit card to the customer. After the issuing bank authorizes the transaction, Noodles notifies its "acquiring bank," which processes credit and debit payments for Noodles. The acquiring bank forwards funds to Noodles to satisfy the transaction, and it is then reimbursed by the customer's issuing bank. Bank-card associations have sets of rules that directly regulate issuing and acquiring banks, which are passed on through issuing banks' agreements with cardholders and acquiring banks' agreements with merchants. However, merchants and issuing banks typically do not have any direct bilateral contracts. The bank-card associations' rules require merchants like Noodles to abide by certain procedures in handling cardholders' financial information, including the requirement that Noodles comply with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). This set of standards includes a list of 12 "best practices" incorporating dozens of specific directions on how to maintain secure payment- card processing systems and protect cardholder data. The court explained that the duties allegedly breached--namely, the secure handling of cardholders' financial information--were contained in this network of interrelated contracts, including the requirement that Noodles comply with PCI DSS. The court made clear that "[it] makes no difference that Noodles & Company's contractual duties arise from a web of interrelated agreements coordinated by Visa and MasterCard rather than bilateral contracts between the merchant and plaintiffs." The court also noted that the plaintiffs could have voluntarily entered into contracts with Noodles to allocate the risk of payment-card fraud, but did not do so. The court's opinion emphasizes the importance of thoroughly understanding how agreements with and between vendors and processors address rights and obligations in the event of a data breach. Indeed, companies should fully understand how interrelated agreements may impact their ability to recover losses incurred as a result of a third party's data breach. Companies then should take the necessary steps to insulate themselves from losses, whether through additional indemnity agreements or cyber insurance coverage. [GN] OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: "Cox" Labor Suit Alleges Misclassification ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-at-00537 (E.D. Cal., July 13, 2017), alleges that Defendant has misclassified its Well Site Managers as independent contractors and did not pay them any statutorily required overtime compensation pursuant to both Federal and California law. The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. Occidental Petroleum Corporation is an international oil and gas exploration and production company with operations in the United States, the Middle East and Latin America. Plaintiff Robert Cox was employed as a non-exempt Well Site Manager at Occidental Petroleum Corporation's Elk Hills operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. Brian G. Lee, Esq. YOON LAW, APC One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 612-0988 Fax: (213) 947-1211 - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com OHIO: Families of People with Disabilities OK'd to Join Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Rita Price, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that dozens of Ohio families now have a voice in the court battle between the state and a legal advocacy group for people with disabilities. Chief U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. granted motions on behalf of more than 100 guardians who have asked in recent months to intervene in the case, seeking a seat at the table in what could be a years-long argument over where Ohioans with developmental disabilities live and work. "This litigation is complex and important," Sargus wrote. "Excluding individuals with disabilities who will be directly impacted is not the appropriate way to make this case less complex." The legal advocacy group Disability Rights Ohio sued the state last year, saying it violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act by leaving thousands of people stuck in institutions -- or puts them at risk of moving to one -- because they can't get the support they need to live and work in their communities. Disability Rights filed the lawsuit on behalf of six named plaintiffs, but wants it to proceed as a class action. Guardians opposing the lawsuit fear that their family members could be harmed by sweeping decisions that ultimately reduce or cut funding to so-called intermediate care facilities, or residential centers with eight or more residents. Many people with severe disabilities, they say, cannot have their complex medical and behavioral needs met in community houses and apartments. "There is a long fight ahead, but he's given us a position in the fight so that we can protect our loved ones," parent Caroline Lahrmann said of the judge's decision. "We are grateful for that." Lahrmann's 17-year-old twins, Henry and Elizabeth, were born with profound disabilities and function at less than a 1-year-old's level. She said it's unfair to endanger their home at the Heinzerling Foundation in Columbus, where they do well, living safely and comfortably. Sargus also granted a motion by the Ohio Association of County Boards of Developmental Disabilities to intervene as a defendant. Although the lawsuit was filed against the state, Sargus agreed that any change will affect local boards. The association is pleased to have "a seat at the negotiating table in this important lawsuit," Bridget Gargan, the association's executive director, said in an emailed statement. "As the primary funders and managers of services to people with developmental disabilities in Ohio, county boards will offer valuable perspectives to the court as it considers the issues raised by both plaintiffs and defendants." In an emailed statement, Disability Rights said plaintiffs filed the lawsuit "to uphold the rights of Ohioans with developmental disabilities to have the opportunity to live and work in their communities with the supports they need." At least 2,500 people who now live in institutions have asked for community services, many others don't know their options, and thousands more are on waiting lists for services. "This problem is what the lawsuit seeks to correct," Disability Rights said. [GN] OHIO PIZZA: Mullins Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Paul Mullins, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Southern Ohio Pizza, Inc., et al, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00426-SJD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to: 1. conditionally certify a collective action consisting of: "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked for Defendants at any Southern Ohio Pizza, Inc. Domino's Pizza location from August 1, 2014 to present"; 2. approve the Plaintiffs' proposed notice of the action; 3. order Defendants to provide name and contact information for all potential Collective members; 4. authorize Plaintiffs to send the notices via first class mail, email, and text message; 5. require Defendants to post the notice in their work locations; and 6. authorize putative Collective members to opt in by using an electronic signature. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v3VKLwl9 The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Berg Files Suit Over Sale to Intact Fin'l. --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Onebeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., Lowndes A. Smith, T. Michael Miller, Reid T. Campbell, Morgan W. Davis, Lois W. Grady, Ira H. Malis, G. Manning Rountree, Patrick A. Thiele, Kent D. Urness, Intact Financial Corporation and Intact Bermuda Holdings Ltd., Intact Acquisition Co. Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-02155, (D. Minn., June 21, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. by Intact Financial Corporation, Intact Bermuda Holdings Ltd. and Intact Acquisition Co. Ltd.; and rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the acquisition. The Plaintiff further seeks costs of this action including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief for violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. will be acquired by Intact Financial Corporation and Intact Acquisition Co. Ltd. where shareholders of OneBeacon will receive $18.10 per share in cash. Defendants have allegedly locked up the deal and have precluded other bidders from making successful competing offers for the company. Moreover, the merger consideration is inadequate considering that the intrinsic value of the Company is materially in excess of the amount offered thus denying Plaintiff their right to share proportionately and equitably in the true value of the Company's valuable and profitable business and future growth in profits and earnings, says the complaint. OneBeacon offers a range of specialty insurance products sold through independent agencies, regional and national brokers, wholesalers and managing general agencies. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 - and - Adam Altman, Esq. Douglas B. Altman, Esq. ALTMAN & IZEK 901 North Third Street, Suite 140 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 335-3700 E-mail: adam@altmanizek.com OVERTON RUSSELL: Carpenter Moves for Cert.; Hearing on Sept. 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting certification of the class defined in the amended complaint of the lawsuit titled JARED CARPENTER and MARISA MULTARI, on Behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OVERTON, RUSSELL, DOERR & DONOVAN, LLP, Case No. 1:17-cv-00180-DJS (N.D.N.Y.). The Court will commence a hearing on September 7, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Amended Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wMeDJqHS The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Arleo, Esq. ROBERT L. ARLEO, ESQ. P.C. 380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 551-1115 Facsimile: (518) 751-1801 E-mail: robertarleo@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul G. Ferrara, Esq. COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC 500 Plum Street, Suite 300 Syracuse, NY 13204-1401 Telephone: (315) 422-1152 Facsimile: (315) 422-1139 E-mail: pgf@ccf-law.com PACIFIC BELL: Larson's Bid to Certify Tossed Due to Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Vince Chhabria terminates the motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit captioned KEITH LARSON, et al. v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-04858-VC (N.D. Cal.). "The motion for conditional certification is terminated in light of the parties' agreement to vacate the hearing on conditional certification and address issues of Fair Labor Standards Act notice with cross-motions for Rule 23 class certification and Fair Labor Standards Act collective decertification," according to the order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0231gBuK PARAMOUNT CARE: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled LANIECE BROWN on behalf of herself individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. PARAMOUNT CARE SERVICES and GAIL ANN CHAMPAGNE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00620 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to approve a notice to the class of "similarly situated" aggrieved employees. Laniece Brown filed this collective action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid wages that were wrongfully denied to her and similarly situated Caregivers. Two other current and former employees of Defendants joined this lawsuit. Plaintiff now moves for conditional certification and seeks authorization to mail a Court-approved notice to the potential class members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=muORE6wN The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778 8182 Facsimile: (832) 778 8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com PAUL E WALSH: Faces "Dreasher" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN DREASHER, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PAUL E. WALSH TRUCKING, INC., a Florida Corporation, and PAUL WALSH, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-01288-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act because Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, performed services for Defendants for which no provisions were made by Defendants to properly pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, for all overtime hours worked. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and those similarly situated, were allegedly not paid time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per work week during one or more work weeks. Defendant is a delivery company. Plaintiff worked as a piece rate truck driver.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mathew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 867-4791 Email: mgunter@forthepeople.com PREMIUM ASSET: "Navarroli" Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled NICHOLAS NAVARROLI, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members described below, and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. NICHOLAS NAVARROLI, the Plaintiffs, v. PREMIUM ASSET SERVICES LLC, and SCOTT CASS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-05483 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom Premium Asset Services, LLC, attempted to collect a debt, (c) 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". The Plaintiffs further ask that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin be appointed counsel for the class. According to the complaint, Defendants have been attempting to collect from Plaintiff a debt consisting of a First Savings Credit Card obtained and used for personal, family or household purposes and not for business purposes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SxRg5agF The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. Michelle A. Alyea, 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: courtecl@edcombs.com PUBLIC STORAGE: Faces "Fox" Suit Over Illegal Debits ---------------------------------------------------- ANN FOX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PUBLIC STORAGE and DOES 1-10, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:17-cv-05187 (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2017), allegedly results from the illegal actions of Defendants debiting Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from Plaintiffs. Additionally, Defendant failed to properly disclose the price changes, thereby violating California Business & Professional Code. The case alleges violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and the California Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute California Business & Professional Code. Defendant is engaged in the business of selling storage solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com QUINCY PROPERTY: Brasher Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned APRIL R. BRASHER AND RICHARD M. ORENCIA CHAD O. LEBOW, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated as collective representative under and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs, v. Quincy Property, LLC, doing business as "Welcome Inn" and Welcome Inn Hotel Management, Inc. And Vandiver Motel, doing Business as Welcome Inn Columbia, Welcome Inn Columbia, Jefferson Property, doing business as Extended Stay by Welcome Inn County Line Properties I LLC, doing business as Welcome Inn American Motels LLC, doing business as Welcome Inn B&W Investment Properties LLC, doing business as Holiday Apartments Springfield Welcome Inn, and BRETT BURGE, KENNETH LOGAN, QUENTIN KEARNEY, JOE WIMBERLY, as individuals under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv- 03022-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: 1. certify the Fair Labor Standards Act Collective and allow an opt-in period of 90 days; 2. order all Defendants to produce the full names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and last date(s) of performance of all potential putative class members who worked for Defendants, and the last known work and home physical and email addresses and phone numbers of all salaried employees who worked for Defendant from January 28, 2014 to the present, no later than two weeks after the date of the entry of the Order; 3. approve a notice based on a form to be submitted by the parties; and 4. approve transmittal of the Notice to members of the class via US Mail, email, and text message. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gg60vJCv The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin ILL 60177 Telephone: (630) 464 9675 Facsimile: (630) 206 0889 E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com attorneyireland@gmail.com R GUERRERO'S CONSTRUCTION: "Lira" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- David Lira, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. R. Guerrero's Construction, LLC and Roberto Guerrero, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00114, (N.D. Tex., June 21, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for overtime and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, claims of illegal tip pooling, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and interest pursuant to the California labor Code, the Unfair Business Practices provision of the California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Defendants, a Texas construction company, employed Plaintiff and Class Members as framers who are paid a base hourly rate. Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without overtime premium. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Collin Wynne, Esq. Tim Newsom, Esq. YOUNG & NEWSOM, PC 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Tel: (806) 331-1800 Fax: (806) 398-9095 Email: jyoung@youngfirm.com collin@youngfirm.com tim@youngfirm.com RUSK INDUSTRIES: "Lindsey" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Marion Lindsey, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rusk Industries (d/b/a Everdry Waterproofing), Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03719 (N.D. Ohio, June 21, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation as well as for liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio labor laws. Defendant is a waterproofing company that provides basement waterproofing services to residential customers throughout Ohio. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in their Bucyrus, Ohio location from February 2016 to May 2017. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com SCOTTS COMPANY: Lawn Technicians Class Certified in "Vasquez" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Darrin P. Gayles grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary class certification and to permit court supervised notice to employees of their opt-in rights pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit entitled RICARDO VASQUEZ and ANTONIO ERVIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 0:17-cv-60344-DPG (S.D. Fla.). The Court conditionally certified this class: All current and former "lawn care technicians" (a.k.a. "territory service representatives") employed by The Scotts Company, LLC; EG Systems, Inc.; TruGreen, Inc.; and TruGreen Limited Partnership and all other current and former employees of The Scotts Company, LLC; EG Sys-tems, Inc.; TruGreen, Inc.; and TruGreen Limited Partnership performing substantially similar duties to lawn care technicians who worked more than forty hours in one or more workweeks of their employment and who were paid one-half of their regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty hours in those workweeks during the period of January 17, 2014, through [DATE OF ORDER] at any of The Scotts Company, LLC; EG Systems, Inc.; TruGreen, Inc.; and TruGreen Limited Partnership's locations in the United States. Judge Gayles rules that within 14 days of the date of this Order, (i) the parties shall meet and confer and shall file a joint proposed Notice of Lawsuit which conforms to the above-defined class, as well as a joint proposed Consent to Join Form which contains an area for the opt-ins to write in their job title, the location where they worked, and their start and end dates, and (ii) the Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiffs a computer readable data file containing the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all members of the conditional collective action. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bllx2eIP SEARS ROEBUCK: "Greene" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled NINA GREENE and GERALD GREENE, the Plaintiffs, v. SEARS PROTECTION COMPANY, SEARS, ROEBUCK and Co. and SEARS HOLDINGS Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02546 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for certification of two classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gsqdkTlE The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Benjamin M. Mather, Esq. Andrew J. Belli, Esq. KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS, P.C. Two Commerce Square, Suite 3900 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735 8700 E-mail: dgross@kcr-law.com bmather@kcr-law.com abelli@kcr-law.com - and - Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Lori A. Fanning, Esq. Kathleen E. Boychuck, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332 3400 E-mail: MMiller@millerlawllc.com LFanning@millerlawllc.com KBoychuck@millerlawllc.com SERVIS ONE: "Kolenko" Says Policies Undermine Duty to Homeowners ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN KOLENKO and JACKIE BARHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SERVIS ONE, INC. d/b/a BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00183- AJS (W.D. Pa., July 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant has fallen far short of meeting its obligation to accurately communicate and fairly interact with homeowners, and has instituted policies and practices that actively undermine Defendant's duty to homeowners. For one, says the complaint, Defendant has a quota system for its employees that prioritizes contacting as many borrowers as possible instead of taking the time necessary to determine what is right for a specific borrower. Defendant's scripts, allegedly, prevent its employees from trying to work on flexible solutions for borrowers or fixing any inaccuracies with borrower accounts. Furthermore, Defendant did not incentivize Defendant's employees to help homeowners make their payments or figure out inaccuracies associated with borrower accounts, the Plaintiffs assert. Defendant Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI Financial Services, Inc. is a mortgage servicer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carlsonlynch.com kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com - and - Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. THE KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C. Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 792-6676 Email: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com SPECIALIZED LOAN: "Mason" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled MARCUS MASON, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, the Plaintiff, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05607 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "(a) all individuals (b) who obtained bankruptcy discharges (c) and were then sent by Specialized Loan Servicing (d) a letter to the Complaint, (e) which letter was sent at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action". The Plaintiff further asks the Court 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=Pz3XOZ88 The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Tara L. Goodwin, 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: courtecl@edcombs.com STRONGHEALTH NETWORK: "Castillo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ SULEIDY CASTILLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. STRONGHEALTH NETWORK, PLLC and MANUAL A. GONZALEZ, M.D., individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22615- MGC (S.D. Fla., July 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at time and one half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. STRONGHEALTH NETWORK, PLLC is a health care provider. Plaintiff performed non-exempt duties as a medical technician.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A. 1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307 Miami, FL 33135 Phone: (786) 441-8909 Fax: (786) 523-0610 E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com TALBOTS INC: "Fliegelman" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Lynette Fliegelman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Talbots, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 56-2017- 00496659 (Cal. Super., May 17, 2017), was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 21, 2017, and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04576. Complaint purports to bring claims under the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law under California's Business and Professions Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under the California Civil Code arising from a discounting scheme in Defendant's retail outlet in Camarillo, California. [BN] Plaintiff is represented pro se. Defendant is represented by: Stephanie A. Sheridan, Esq. Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq. Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP 333 Bush Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-2834 Telephone: (415) 781-7900 Facsimile: (415) 781-2635 Email: stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com anthony.anscombe@sedgwicklaw.com meegan.brooks@sedgwicklaw.com TARPON TURTLE: Faces "Rish" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- BRITT RISH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TARPON TURTLE GRILL & MARINA, LLC, and ERIC WEBBER, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01688-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla., July 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act because Plaintiff was regularly required to work in excess of forty (40) hours a workweek but was not paid overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. Defendants also allegedly failed to keep accurate time records as required by the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Phone: (727) 822-1111 Fax: (727) 898-2001 Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com kmoran@theFLlawfirm.com TIRRENIO INC: "Recarte" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- SANTOS RECARTE, on behalf of himself, FLSA COLLECTIVE PLAINTIFFS, and THE CLASS, Plaintiffs, v. TIRRENIO, INC., d/b/a/ SCARAMELLA'S RISTORANTE, NILDE SCARAMELLA, and VINCENZO SCARAMELLA, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-05351-CS (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff's rights by paying him on a salary basis, in violation of the New York Labor Law. Also, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek during his employment by Defendants, but Defendants never paid him overtime premium for hours that he worked in excess of forty (40), as required under Fair Labor Standards Act and the NYLL. Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant doing business under the trade name "Scaramella's Ristorante." Plaintiff, SANTOS RECARTE, was hired by Defendants to work as a cook for Defendants' "Scaramella's Ristorante" restaurant. The case was filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees, including but not limited to waiters, busboys, runners, servers, food preparers, cooks, line-cooks, porters, dishwashers, bartenders and barbacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Ferris Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned RICHARD FERRIS, on behalf of himself and a class, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., and CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03703 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action may proceed as a class action against defendants on behalf of a class and a subclass. The class includes (a) all individuals (b) who were sent a letter by Convergent (c) seeking to collect a student loan allegedly held by a "National Collegiate Trust" (d) which disclosed that the "current creditor" was "Chase" (e) and whose letter were sent at any time between the period beginning March 28, 2015, and ending April 18, 2016. The subclass includes all class members who received such a disclosure in the first communication they received from Convergent. Defendant Convergent represents that the class consists of 62,206 persons. The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fmbQuVLc The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com The Defendant is represented by: Morgan Ian Marcus, Esq. James Kevin Schultz, Esq. Daniel W. Pissani, Esq. James Kevin Schultz, Esq. SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL 1545 Hotel Cir S Ste 150 San Diego, CA 92108-3426 Telephone: (619) 296 2018 Facsimile: (619) 296 2013 E-mail: mmarcus@sessions.legal jschultz@sessions.legal dpisani@sessions.legal jschultz@sessions.legal - and - Charity A. Olson, Esq. CHARITY A. OLSON, PC 2723 S State St. No. 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222 517 E-mail: colson@olsonlawpc.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Judge to Toss Drivers' Ride Pricing Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports an attorney for Uber asked a California federal judge on July 27 to toss a putative class action alleging its upfront pricing model breaches its contract with drivers, saying their employment agreement clearly describes the payment plan and that it frequently benefits drivers who'd otherwise make less off promotional pricing. Lead plaintiff Martin Dulberg claims Uber Technologies Inc.'s pricing model -- which charges passengers a fare before their ride even begins based on projections, but pays drivers based on the distance and time actually driven -- cuts into drivers' earnings and violates the terms of their employment contract. But Uber attorney Jonathan R. Bass of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP told U.S. District Judge William Alsup that the pricing arrangement is what's laid out in the contract, and that it often benefits drivers. He said, for example, that when Uber offers promotional discounts meant to entice new riders, the driver still makes what he otherwise would have based on fare and distance calculations. Similarly, when a rider requests an Uber Pool -- a service in which passengers going in the same direction share a ride for a reduced rate -- can't find additional riders, the driver doesn't suffer by only making the discounted rate from one customer. "His complaint and his theory that we breached that contract is that he didn't get anything additional to what the contract promises, because sometimes the preset fare turns out to be higher than the distance and time calculation," Bass said. "While I appreciate counsel's consulting about how we can best run our business, our concern is how we can best attract and retain riders." Dulberg's complaint, filed in February, alleges that under that upfront pricing model, the ride-hailing giant charges passengers a fare before their ride even begins, but Uber bases that fare on an aggressive and often inflated projection of the distance and time involved in a particular ride. The driver is entitled to a set percentage of the fare as laid out in the driver agreements, but Uber pays based on a calculation of the distance and time actually driven, which can often be less than what the customer actually paid, allowing Uber to pocket the difference, according to Dulberg's complaint. On July 27, Dulberg's attorney, Andrew Dressel of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, told the judge the contract doesn't allow Uber to charge riders one fare and calculate a different fare for drivers, even when the difference between the two fares benefits the drivers. "Uber's business model is very simple. It takes a booking fee service fee, that's been their model until last year, when they switched to this upfront billing model," he said. "What's really at issue here is fare -- established fare and actual fare that is charged the drivers. They have to be paid based on fare offered the riders." Dulberg's attorney declined to comment. Representatives for Uber did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Uber is represented by Jonathan R. Bass, Esq. -- jbass@coblentzlaw.com -- Susan K. Jamison, Esq. -- sjamison@coblentzlaw.com -- Clifford E. Yin, Esq. -- cyin@coblentzlaw.com -- and Sean P.J. Coyle, Esq. -- scoyle@coblentzlaw.com -- of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP. Dulberg is represented by Paul B. Maslo, Esq. -- pmaslo@napolilaw.com -- and Andrew Dressel, Esq. -- adressel@napolilaw.com -- of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC. The case is Dulberg v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., case number 3:17-cv-00850, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] UNITED INSURANCE: Sued Over Life Insurance Benefits --------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a woman has filed a class action lawsuit against United Insurance Company of America and its subsidiary, Kemper Corporation, for alleged breach of contract. Sarah Armstrong filed the complaint on June 22 in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging the defendants failed to pay her life insurance benefits after her father died. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges the failure to pay is the result of a decades-long practice at the company, which has resulted in underpayment of benefits to potentially thousands of other policyholders. The plaintiff seeks all benefits due, including unpaid benefits, interest, court costs and any further relief this court grants. She is represented by Harvey J. Barnett, Esq. -- hbarnett@sperling-law.com -- Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. -- ekelly@sperling-law.com -- and Nathan A. Shev, Esq. -- nshev@sperling-law.com -- of Sperling & Slater P.C. in Chicago. Cook County Circuit Court case number 2017CH08670 [GN] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Reimbursement Penalties ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, on her own behalf, on behalf of her husband, JOHN DOE, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO., OXFORD HEALTH PLANS, LLC, OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NY), INC., and OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04160 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants are violating legal duties they owe to health insurance plan participants and beneficiaries by improperly discriminating against them and their providers. Specifically, Defendants have imposed and continue to impose arbitrary reimbursement penalties on psychotherapy rendered by psychologists and master's level counselors (and thus on the lion's share of psychotherapy and office-based mental health treatment). These penalties are neither equally imposed on office- based medical/surgical care nor grounded in actual provider quality/expertise. The policies violate federal and state mental health parity laws and provider anti-discrimination statutes and are inconsistent with the terms of the relevant insurance plans administered by Defendants, says the complaint. Defendant operates health insurance companies throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. Anant Kumar, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212.704.9600 Fax: 212.704.4256 Email: dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com akumar@zuckerman.com - and - Carlos Angulo, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202.778.1800 Fax: 202-822-8106 Email: cangulo@zuckerman.com - and - Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Phone: 310.598.3690 Ext: 101 Fax: 888.975.1957 Email: mbendat@psych-appeal.com - and - John W. Leardi, Esq. Vincent N. Buttaci, Esq. Paul D. Werner, Esq. BUTTACI LEARDI&WERNER LLC 103 Carnegie Center, Suite 323 Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: 609-799-5150 Fax: 609-799-5180 Email: jwleardi@buttacilaw.com vnbuttaci@buttacilaw.com pdwerner@buttacilaw.com UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Settles Suit With Payments, Vouchers -------------------------------------------------------------- Emi Nakahara, writing for Daily Bruin, reports that the University of California announced a settlement to a class action lawsuit on July 24 that would provide payments and vouchers to certain customers who purchased items from UCLA on-campus stores and medical center cafeterias. A lawsuit filed in March alleged that customers who bought products at Associated Students UCLA stores or cafeterias in Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center or UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica received receipts that displayed more than the last five digits of their credit or debit card numbers, which violates the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The UC Regents, who disputes the validity of the allegations, agreed to pay $400,000 in settlement funds, as well as settlement certificates worth up to $450,000 to certain customers with receipts that display more than the last five digits of their credit or debit card number. UCLA officials said in a statement that both parties have agreed to the resolution to the matter, subject to the approval of the court. Customers with receipts dating from Aug. 1, 2015 to Oct. 10, 2016 known as Subclass A, can receive a one-time payment of up to $50. Customers with receipts dating from Feb. 10, 2012 to July 25, 2016 known as Subclass B, can receive a settlement certificate worth up to $20 that can be used to purchase items in on-campus stores. Individuals must submit a form online or through mail to the settlement administrator by Sept. 7 in order to receive the payment. [GN] USAA CASUALTY: 8th Cir. Reverses Sanctions for Re-Filing Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander M. Smith, Esq., at Jenner & Block LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the Eighth Circuit reversed an order by the Western District of Arkansas (Holmes, J.) imposing sanctions on counsel who voluntarily dismissed a putative class action immediately before they re-filed the action and sought approval of a class settlement in Arkansas state court. Although the district court concluded that counsel for the putative class stipulated to the dismissal for the "improper purpose of seeking a more favorable forum" and used "properly attached federal jurisdiction as a mid-litigation bargaining chip," the Eighth Circuit found that counsel's conduct was proper because "a reasonable lawyer would have had a colorable legal argument that a stipulation of voluntary dismissal . . . is permissible in a case in which the class has not yet been certified." The Eighth Circuit began its discussion by analyzing whether a stipulated dismissal of a putative class action for the purpose of re-filing in state court violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), which governs voluntary dismissals of actions. The court held that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court approval pursuant to "a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared," authorized the plaintiffs' counsel to dismiss the federal lawsuit even when the dismissal was entered "for the specific purpose of refiling in another court." Relying primarily on a Second Circuit case, Wolters Kluwer Financial Services, Inc. v. Sciadvantage, 564 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009), the court concluded that the plaintiffs' counsel had the "unfettered right" to dismiss the action pursuant to a stipulation and that "[t]he reason for the dismissal is irrelevant under Rule 41(a)(1)." The Eighth Circuit then considered whether Rule 23(e), which requires court approval in order to dismiss or settle the claims of a certified class, barred counsel for the putative class from dismissing the lawsuit for the purpose of re-filing and seeking settlement approval in state court. Although the court expressly declined to hold that Rule 23(e) applies only to class actions that had already been certified, it held that there was a colorable legal argument that Rule 23(e) only applies to certified class actions and accordingly did not serve as a basis for sanctions. While the court acknowledged earlier Eighth Circuit precedent holding that Rule 23(e) applies "even if a class has not yet been certified," the court nonetheless noted that the 2003 amendments to Rule 23 arguably limited its scope to encompass only those cases where a class had been certified. In so doing, the court also rejected the proposition that the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") barred a stipulation of dismissal for the purpose of re-filing an un-certified class action in state court. Whether or not CAFA was intended "to prevent state court abuse of absent class members," the court reasoned, "nothing in CAFA altered the 2003 amendment to Rule 23(e)." Adams v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., --- F.3d ---- (8th Cir. 2017) [GN] VALLEY COLLECTION: Faces "O'Toole" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAMERON O'TOOLE, Plaintiff, v. VALLEY COLLECTION SERVICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02332-ESW (D. Ariz., July 14, 2017), was filed on behalf of Plaintiff, and on behalf of all others similarly situated who allegedly received a debt collection letter from Defendant that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The language of the letter allegedly overshadowed, weakened, and failed to comply with, the notice required by the FDCPA because it attempted to limit the rights available to Plaintiff in a manner that creates a contradiction that would confuse the least sophisticated consumer into disregarding his or her rights pursuant to the validation notice required in the FDCPA. Valley Collection Service, LLC offers debt collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 265-3332 Fax: (602) 230-4482 Email: david@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com VIZIO: Loses Another Round in Privacy Battle -------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for Media Post, reports that handing another defeat to smart TV company Vizio, a judge on July 25 refused to dismiss class-action allegations that the company violated the federal wiretap law by sharing information about consumers with ad-tech companies and data brokers. "Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Vizio intercepts the 'content' of electronic communications by using its automatic content recognition software to gather samples of the programs consumers watch," U.S. District Court Judge Josephine Staton in Santa Ana, California wrote. The battle centers on allegations that Vizio tracks TV viewers by default, and then shares data with companies that send targeted ads to people's phones, tablets and other devices. The first video privacy lawsuit against the company was filed in late 2015, less than one week after ProPublica published a report about the company. Staton also rejected Vizio's argument that the matter shouldn't proceed as a class action. The company argued that starting in late 2015, smart TV purchasers agreed to mandatory arbitration of disputes. But Staton ruled that Vizio's argument was premature, given that there were still unanswered questions about the arbitration agreements. "No discovery has taken place about has taken place about the how these agreements were presented to Smart TV purchasers, whether Vizio's arbitration agreements differed over time, and what fraction of class members may be bound," she wrote. Earlier this year, Staton refused to dismiss claims that Vizio also violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act -- a 1988 law that prohibits video providers from disclosing personally identifiable information about people's video-viewing history. Vizio has asked Staton for permission to immediately appeal that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That request is backed by the Data and Marketing, which says in court papers that the case will "have a direct impact on DMA and its members." Staton has not yet ruled on that request. The Federal Trade Commission recently brought a separate enforcement action against Vizio for allegedly engaging in an unfair practice by tracking consumers. The FTC also alleged that Vizio deceived consumers by failing to adequately explain its data practices. The company agreed to settle the charges by paying $2.2 million to the FTC and the state of New Jersey, which filed a complaint about the company. [GN] WINN-DIXIE MONTGOMERY: Managers Class Certified in "Chaves" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jay C. Zainey grants the motion to proceed as a collective action, for court-authorized notice, and for court- ordered disclosure of names and addresses filed in the lawsuit titled KATHY CHAVES v. WINN-DIXIE MONTGOMERY, LLC, Case No. 2:16- cv-01933-JCZ-DEK (E.D. La.). The class of potential opt-in plaintiffs entitled to notice is defined as: all individuals who worked or are working for defendant, Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC, in its retail supermarket operations as mid-level managers from March 7, 2013, until the date of the resolution of the present action, and who are or were eligible for overtime pursuant to the FLSA. Judge Zainey orders that the proposed revised "FLSA Notice" attached as an exhibit to the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification will be amended to reflect the correct Defendant "Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC." Judge Zainey also rules that no later than 30 days after the date of this Order, the Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff's Counsel a complete list of the names, current addresses, dates of employment, and dates of termination of all workers employed by the Defendants from March 7, 2013 to the present who fall within the class definition. The time period within which potential opt-in plaintiffs may opt- in is 90 days, Judge Zainey rules. The 90-day opt-in period will begin to run on the date that the Defendant provides a complete list of the names, addresses, and dates of employment and termination of potential class members. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qcP5yIvD WOLF APPLIANCE: "Garfinkle" Seeks Warranty on Oven Chipping ----------------------------------------------------------- Barry Garfinkle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wolf Appliance, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03753 (E.D. N.Y., June 21, 2017), seeks an award of statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, to enjoin Defendant from marketing and selling the concerned defective ovens while corrective measures are undertaken, disgorgement of illegally obtained profits, restitution, reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, negligent misrepresentation and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Wolf manufactures and markets household cooking appliances under the Wolf brand name, including ovens, electric cooktops, outdoor grills, warming drawers, electric chimneys, steamers, fryers and accessories. In May 2012, Plaintiff first purchased a Wolf 30-inch E Series double oven, model number DO30-2FS-TH, from Kieffer's Appliances in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Within a little over a year of operating the oven under normal household conditions, the blue porcelain interior finish of one of the oven cavities began to chip after utilizing the self-clean function and shortly chipping occurred in the other oven cavity. Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Vincent M. Serra, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com vserra@rgrdlaw.com WTRMLN WTR: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Representation ------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Cabellero, writing for Bevnet Live, reports that cold- pressed juice company WTRMLN WTR is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the brand is deceiving consumers by overstating the amount of watermelon juice in its core product and claiming that its products are not pasteurized or heated. In a complaint filed against parent company World Waters LLC and World Waters Holdings, LLC, in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York on July 8, attorneys for lead plaintiff Michael Pizzirusso argue that WTRMLN WTR's product labels, in describing the liquid with the words "cold pressed juiced watermelon," falsely represent that it consists of only watermelon juice. The proposed suit alleges violations of New York consumer protection laws, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud. WTRMLN WTR's flagship product is a high pressure processed blend of watermelon juice and organic lemon juice. The brand currently has five SKUs: original, Cherry, Ginger, Lemon and Lime. By separately listing "watermelon flesh" and "watermelon rind" as ingredients, rather than using just "watermelon" or "watermelon juice," the complaint posits that the company aims to deceptively "crowd out" the non-watermelon ingredients and "evoke a stronger connection to the fruit than other watermelon-based products." The complaint also cites issues related to WTRMLN WTR's use of the terms "cold pressed" and "cold pressured" to describe some of its products. WTRMLN WTR's original and Cherry varieties, for example, are referred to as "cold pressed," while the Ginger, Lime and Lemon flavors are "cold pressured." The two terms, attorneys say, are confusingly similar in appearance, sound, and the manner in which they are presented on packaging, and as such the two processes could be reasonably interpreted as being indistinct from each other. By not explicitly stating that the product has been high pressure processed, as on similar juice products cited in examples, the complaint asserts that WTRMLN WTR implies that the juice is just cold-pressed and undergoes no further treatment. The complaint argues that "Because cold pressed juice is the name established by common usage for juice sold after only being cold pressed, "Cold Pressed Juice[d]" and "Cold Pressure Juice[d]" are false, deceptive and misleading names and descriptions for the Products." Finally, the plaintiff's attorneys affirm that WTRMLN WTR misleads its customers by stating on its website that its products are not pasteurized or heated, when in fact the contents of the bottles increase in temperature during high pressure processing. In response to the query "Is WTRMLN WTR pasteurized?" in the "Frequently Asked Questions" section of its website, the response reads: "No. WTRMLN WTR is never heated. It is produced using a High Pressure Process (HPP) that protects the enzymes and nutrients, but eliminates the micro-organisms." The complaint noted that the definition of pasteurization has evolved over time to include both thermal and nonthermal processes by which food safety is achieved, but that reasonable consumers, including the plaintiff, are not aware that pasteurization can be achieved without heat. The document reads, "Defendants' failure to accurately and non- deceptively label the Products is misleading in its own right and when considered in light of comparably manufactured products which are not labeled deceptively." The plaintiff is seeking class certification, injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The class is defined as all consumers who purchased any WTRMLN WTR products at any time during the period within the applicable statute of limitations. Representatives for WTRMLN WTR did not respond to a request for comment on this story. [GN] ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Zebra Technologies Corporation ("Zebra Technologies" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: ZBRA) concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between March 17, 2015 and May 9, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the firm prior to the September 25, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. You can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713- 1033, or you can e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com. No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Zebra Technologies issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that it understated its income taxes through the end of 2015, under accrued certain 2015 estimates, in particular with respect to its sales commission plan, and overstated the net realizable value of trade receivables acquired in connection with its acquisition of Motorola's Enterprise division. Zebra Technologies also failed to disclose the impact of material weaknesses identified in its internal controls and procedures over financial reporting and disclosure, which caused the misstatements and rendered the Company's financial guidance for 2015 and the first and second quarters of 2016 materially false and misleading. On May 10, 2016, Zebra Technologies announced disappointing financial results for its first quarter of 2016, stating that "first quarter results [were] below . . . expectations, with lower sales and earnings reflecting the continuation of a cautious enterprise spending environment." On the same day, the Company filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the first quarter of 2016, which confirmed that Zebra Technologies found defects in its internal controls in 2015 that had impaired its ability to accurately forecast its pretax income and deferred taxes. Upon release of this news, shares of Zebra Technologies fell in value materially, which caused investors harm according to the Complaint. Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, Esquire, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. Contacts Lundin Law PC Brian Lundin, Esq. Telephone: 888-713-1033 Facsimile: 888-713-1125 brian@lundinlawpc.com http://lundinlawpc.com/[GN] * Chancellor Urges Del. High Ct. to Change Derivative Suits Test ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, wrote that Corporate defendants are not going to like this. Not one bit. Chancellor Andre Bouchard of Delaware Chancery Court is proposing a change in Delaware law that will allow shareholders to maintain derivative suits against corporate board members even if a previous suit raising the same allegations has been dismissed in a different jurisdiction. If the Delaware Supreme Court adopts Chancellor Bouchard's proposal -- which he advanced in a highly unusual decision in long-running derivative litigation against Wal-Mart board members - defendants won't be able to stamp out multi-jurisdictional breach of duty litigation just by winning in one court. Before plaintiffs' lawyers get too excited about the prospect of filing serial derivative suits to force settlements from litigation-weary board members, they'd better be prepared for a fight over Chancellor Bouchard's proposal. Defendants are going to lobby the Delaware Supreme Court to stick with precedent holding that Delaware derivative suits are precluded when other courts have already tossed parallel claims by different shareholders. If the state justices side with Chancellor Bouchard, you can expect defendants to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Delaware is at odds with two federal circuits on a matter of constitutional law. The writer stated, "You're probably wondering why I keep referring to Chancellor Bouchard's opinion as a "proposal." It's because his Wal-Mart decision, issued on July 24, is actually styled as a recommendation that the Delaware Supreme Court adopt a new rule that, according to the chancellor, will both protect the constitutional due process rights of shareholders with derivative claims and advance Delaware's policy of discouraging plaintiffs from racing to the courthouse with underdeveloped claims. "The chancellor made his recommendation in response to a remand order from the Delaware Supreme Court last January in the Wal-Mart case, which alleges that board members breached their duty to shareholders in their response to allegations of bribery by corporate executives in Mexico. As you may recall, Bouchard had dismissed the Delaware derivative suit in May 2016, holding that under Delaware Supreme Court precedent from 2013's Pyott v. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, the case was precluded by the previous dismissal of parallel claims by shareholders who sued Wal-Mart directors in federal court in Arkansas. "In the January remand order, the state justices instructed Chancellor Bouchard to reconsider the constitutional due process rights of the Delaware Wal-Mart plaintiffs in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Smith v. Bayer, which held that plaintiffs in a consumer class action were not precluded from attempting to certify a class in state court after a federal judge had already denied class certification in a case brought by a different plaintiff. Specifically, the Delaware justices posed this question to Bouchard: "In a situation where dismissal by the federal court in Arkansas of a stockholder plaintiff's derivative action for failure to plead demand futility is held by the Delaware Court of Chancery to preclude subsequent stockholders from pursuing derivative litigation, have the subsequent stockholders' due process rights been violated?" That question was prompted by a theory advanced by Vice-Chancellor Travis Laster in dicta in In re EZCorp, a January 2016 decision. Laster hypothesized that shareholders with derivative claims are like the class action plaintiffs in the Supreme Court's Smith case: They're not bound by previous rulings unless they were parties to those rulings. In the class action context, Laster said, the bright line for preclusion is class certification, because certification makes all class members parties to the case. Derivative litigation, of course, isn't a class action. But it is representative litigation, since shareholder plaintiffs seek the right to stand in the shoes of the corporation to bring claims against board members. So the analog in derivative litigation to class certification, according to Vice-Chancellor Laster, is when a shareholder obtains authorization to proceed on behalf of the corporation. That permission can come from a court denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the suit or from the board itself when directors either authorize the litigation or decline to defend it. Chancellor Bouchard viewed his assignment in the Wal-Mart remand as an instruction to decide whether the Delaware Supreme Court should adopt Laster's EZCorp test. The chancellor said it should, based on the similarities between class actions and derivative suits, the "realities of derivative litigation," and Delaware policy priorities. The chancellor acknowledged that no other court has found shareholders have a due process right to relitigate derivative claims when parallel claims by a different shareholder have already been dismissed. In fact, the chancellor discussed decisions by the 1st and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that held precisely the opposite. (The 9th Circuit's decision is Arduini v. Hart, in 2014; the 1st Circuit's is 2007's In re Sonus.) Bouchard also examined the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in Taylor v. Sturgell, which addressed preclusion and the due process rights of non-party plaintiffs. All of those decisions, Bouchard said, focused their due process analysis on whether plaintiffs in the second litigation were adequately represented in the case that resulted in the preclusive judgment. But he said that in derivative litigation, unlike class actions, courts don't rigorously probe the adequacy of representation until it may be too late. "As a practical matter, the first time a court may evaluate the adequacy of a named plaintiff's representation in a derivative action is when it applies the issue preclusion test in a subsequent case," wrote Bouchard (who, remember, was a practicing lawyer until he was named chancellor in 2014). "What is lost in this back-end form of adequacy review is the ability for courts to compare the qualities of competing representatives and to choose the best representative for the corporation and stockholders up- front, on a clean slate." Wal-Mart's lawyers at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher had argued that derivative suits and class actions are so substantially different that it's wrong to attempt to apply the Smith v. Bayer class certification test. Chancellor Bouchard said that he sees "significant similarities between class and derivative actions." He also cited a 2008 opinion by Delaware Chief Justice Leo Strine, then a vice-chancellor, in which Strine said that derivative actions "should be seen for what they are, a form of class action." (Strine, for what it's worth, is recused from the Delaware Supreme Court's consideration of the Wal-Mart case because he presided over the Chancery Court proceedings until he was elevated to the high court.) Wal-Mart also argued that the EZCorp test would subject defendants to an endless series of derivative claims by different shareholders. Under the EZCorp analysis, Wal-Mart said, new plaintiffs could keep filing derivative suits even if defendants won dismissal after dismissal. Bouchard agreed that judicial efficiency and resources are a policy consideration. But he said the principles of comity and stare decisis would still ward off repeat derivative litigation. "The experience of this court suggests that when one stockholder fails to establish demand futility, rarely does another stockholder file a substantially similar complaint simply to try again," the chancellor wrote. "What can and does happen is that a second stockholder plaintiff will file a more refined complaint with more particularized allegations or more tailored legal theories after doing additional homework, such as obtaining corporate books and records through a Section 220 proceeding. In these cases, the second court presumably would be understandably cautious about following earlier rulings in cases brought by less prepared stockholders." In the end, Chancellor Bouchard didn't really answer the question of whether the due process rights of the Wal-Mart shareholders who sued in Delaware were violated by his original decision to dismiss their suit as precluded. He said the Delaware Supreme Court must first decide whether to accept his recommendation and adopt the EZCorp test. If the state justices agree with him, Bouchard said, the high court must remand the Wal-Mart case again so he can decide dismissal on the merits. So what's next? Wal-Mart said in a statement that it is looking forward to the next round of proceedings. It seems as though that means briefing at the Delaware Supreme Court, where I expect a lot of amicus action. This is a big deal for both sides of the shareholder bar. The Delaware Wal-Mart plaintiffs are represented by Stuart Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer. He didn't respond to my email request for comment. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *