/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170830.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 30, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 171 Headlines ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Mass. Over False Company Reports ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action AK CAFE: Faces "Perez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA, NYLL APPLE INC: Bag-Search Class Action Now in Calif. Supreme Court APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Faces "Abouzied" Securities Class Suit APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ARYZTA LLC: Barnes Sues Over Unlawful Use Over Biometric Data ASJ CONSTRUCTION: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Lopez" Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Exclusive Stock Loan Market Control BANK OF AMERICA: Large Investment Banks Sued Over Collusion BARCLAYS BANK: Sept. 22 FX Settlement Approval Hearing Set BAY AREA: Faces "David" Suit Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work BLUE APRON: Bottini & Bottini Files Securities Class Action BROWN HARRIS: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D.N.Y. CARECENTRIX INC: Bid to Permit Class Discovery in "Hapka" Denied CDI CORP: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Proposed Nova Merger CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Hertzovitz" Suit in E.D. of New York CHH BEAUTY: Faces "Kebede" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CJ & J: Faces "Bowman" Suit Alleging Improper Classification CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Sued Over Proposed Sale to Constellation CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Bronstein, Gewirtz Sues Over Sale COMPREHENSIVE HOME: Advanced Rehab Alleges Violation of JFPA CONSOLIFI: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Vaccaro" Suit Claims CONVERGYS CORP: 5th Cir. Denies Bid to Enforce NLRB's Order CREDENCE RESOURCE: Faces "Zamora" Suit Over Automated Calls CREDICO (USA): "Rodriguez" Suit Plaintiffs Seek to Issue Notice DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Da Silva Says DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: "Kryszkiewicz" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas DENNY'S BEER: Faces "Bailey" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws DEUTSCHE BANK: Nov. 9 Euroyen Settlement Fairness Hearing Set DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Orbea Files Class Action in New Jersey EDISON INTERNATIONAL: To Pay at Least $7.5MM in ERISA Row ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces "Bettis" Suit Under Securities Act FANEUIL INC: Faces "Marshall" Class Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. FERGUSON, MO: Court Disqualifies Counsel in Jailing Practices Suit FERGUSON, MO: City's Law Firm DQ'd for Conflict of Interest FORD MOTOR: Settles Sexual Harassment Claims at Chicago Plants FORTERRA INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action FULL TILT: Lawsuit Refiled in California After Federal Dismissal FUNDBOX INC: Faces TCPA Class Action GENE BY GENE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cole" Class Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Won" Suit in N.Y. Over Defective Vehicles GENWORTH FINANCIAL: November 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set GOLDMAN SACHS: Hit With Class CA Over Racial Discrimination HAJOCA CORP: Faces "Tinoco" Suit in C.D. of Calif. HUMANA INSURANCE: Removes "Wiener" Class Suit to W.D. Kentucky INDIANAPOLIS: Faces Class Action Over Ban Targeting Homeless JACOBS ENGINEERING: "Kritch" Suit Removed to C.D. California JAMOS FUND: Oct. 26 Final Settlement Hearing Set JC PENNEY: Seeks 10th Circuit Review of Orders in "Cavlovic" Suit LA PARK: Faces "Leisner" Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices LAMI PRODUCTS: Wins Joint Bid to Facilitate Notice in Vaughn Suit LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Faces "Mey" Suit in N.D. of West Va. LOTUS BY JOHNNY: Faces "Nguyen" Class Suit in C.D. California MARYLAND: Court Dismisses Medicaid Eligibility Suit MDL 2795: Asks JPML to Transfer 8 Class Suits to Minnesota MERSCORP INC: Dismissal of Recording Statutes Suit Affirmed MIDLAND CREDIT: Hernandez Renews Bid to Certify Class Under FDCPA MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in "Rawa" MUNGER FARMS: Faces "Covington" Employment Suit in California NAVIENT CORP: Faces "Travis" Suit in E. Dist. of New York NEDBANK: South African Banks Could Face R60MM Class Action Suit NESTLE WATERS: Faces Suit Over 'Spring Water' Labeling NETFLIX: Price Hike Sparks CA Lawsuit From Quebec Law Firm NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Demasco" Suit in E.D. of New York OUT OF SITE: Judgment on Pleadings in "Mendelhall" Granted RAYONIER ADVANCED: Robbins Geller Files Class Action RESORT MARKETING: Settles Free Cruise Robocall Class-Action ROCKET FUEL: Faces "Bushansky" Lawsuit Over Sale to Sizmek Inc. RP MARTIN: November 10 Euroyen Settlement Fairness Hearing Set PATRIOT DRILLING: "Woloszyn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. affirmed bankruptcy court judgment PRECISION DEMOLITION: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Castro" Suit PRESTONE PRODUCTS: Faces CA Over Vehicle Damage Caused by Product PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC: Hit With Potential Class Action PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: McCracken Appeals D. Colo. Order to 10th Cir. PW BISHOP: Knepp Seeks to Recover OT and Minimum Wages Under FLSA ROTOR HOLDINGS: Cohn Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ROYAL PLAINVIEW: Romero Files Class Suit in E.D. of New York SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Appeals Order in "Benoit" PFOA Suit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Beture Sues Over Galaxy Note 4 Defects SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Faces "Pike" Suit in C.D. of Cal. SCICLONE PHARMA: Faces "Sciabacucchi" Suit Over Silver Merger SELECT STAFFING: Faces "Joseph III" Suit in C.D. of Calif. SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Suit Says SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Faces "Lafferty" Suit in New Jersey SIBANYE GOLD: Silicosis CA Lawsuit 'Being Handled' Out Of Court SK FOODS: Court Issues Final Judgment as to Ingomar, Los Gatos SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Nassiri" STRATEGIC HOTELS: Faces "White" Suit in N.D. of Calif. SUPPORTBUDDY INC: Accused by "Ramirez" Suit of Placing Malwares SYMPHONY HEALTHCARE: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Suit Claims THYME & BASIL: "Rolando" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages U.S. BANCORP: Dodges Proposed Class Action Over Pay UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle 'Refer-A-Friend' Class Action WAFFLE HOUSE: 11th Cir. Vacates Denial of Arbitration in "Jones" WANTAGH BAGELS: Faces "Garcia" Suit in E.D. of New York WELLS FARGO: Preston Sues Over Forced, Unnecessary Auto Insurance WEST LIBERTY: Daniels Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces "Andreozzi" Suit Over "Defective" Joists WILSON COUNTY, KS: Oct. 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set WRIGHT TREE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Merriman" Suit Says XEROX BUSINESS: 9th Cir. Certifies Question to Wash. High Court ZTO EXPRESS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action ********* ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Mass. Over False Company Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Hui Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acacia Communications, Inc., Murugesan Shanmugaraj, and John F. Gavin, Case No. 1:17-cv-11518 (D. Mass., August 16, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, says the complaint, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing declining demand for its products from important customers; (2) that the Company's manufacturing quality control system was inadequate; (3) that, as a result, the Company's manufacturing process was causing certain of the Company's units to be unsaleable; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Acacia's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Acacia Communications, Inc. is engaged in the business of delivering high-speed coherent optical interconnect products that transform communications networks, relied upon by cloud infrastructure operators and content and communication service providers, through improvements in performance and capacity and a reduction in associated costs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, 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 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Acacia Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:ACIA) ("Acacia" or the "Company") securities during the period between August 11, 2016, and July 13, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until October 13, 2017 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Acacia securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that Acacia's manufacturing and quality control processes were deficient and were likely to disrupt the Company's manufacturing and impact revenues. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Acacia securities purchased on or after August 11, 2016 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415- 6616. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. [GN] AK CAFE: Faces "Perez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ EFRAIN BATEN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against AK CAFE OF NEW YORK LLC (d/b/a BABYLON HOOKAH LOUNGE), ALI BABA'S TERRACE INC. (D/B/A ALI BABA'S TERRACE), ALI BABA'S TURKISH CUISINE INC. (D/B/A ALI BABA'S TURKISH CUISINE), and ALI RIZA DOGAN, Defendants, Case No: 1:17- cv-05931 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff performed non-delivery, non-tipped functions in addition to his regular duties. Plaintiff allegedly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Babylon Hookah Lounge is a bar/restaurant owned by Ali Riza Dogan. Plaintiff was employed as a kitchen helper and dishwasher and ostensibly as a delivery worker.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 APPLE INC: Bag-Search Class Action Now in Calif. Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Gareth Corfield, writing for The Register, reports Apple may have to pay its employees extra for time it spends rifling through their personal belongings at work, if it loses a long-running lawsuit that is now in front of the Californian Supreme Court. The American state's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is kicking the thorny question of whether employees are entitled to pay while they stand around waiting for the firm's bag-fondlers -- defined as shop managers and security staff -- to poke around in their belongings. According to the appeals court's latest ruling, handed down on August 16, the key question that the state supremes must answer is this: Is time spent on the employer's premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages or bags voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as "hours worked" within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7? Apple employees have long complained about Cupertino's policy of rummaging through their belongings each and every time they leave the firm's shops. In 2013 hacked-off shop floor workers Amanda Friekin, Taylor Kalin, Aaron Gregoroff, Seth Downling and Debra Speicher filed the class action suit against Apple, complaining that Tim Cook's firm's treatment of them was "embarrassing", "demeaning" and "disturbing". Shop staff were required to clock off before finding a manager or a security guard to go through their belongings in the hope of discovering stolen iStuff. The policy is intended to reduce "shrinkage", the well-known phenomenon where commodity goods are stolen by staff in the supply and distribution chain. "Employees receive no compensation for the time spent waiting for and undergoing exit searches, because they must clock out before undergoing a search. Employees who fail to comply with the Policy are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination," noted the appeals court, which explained: "California law provides no clear answer to the certified question." Apple concedes that its staff are under its "control" in the time between clocking off and letting their bosses poke through their handbags and so on but says this does not amount to "hours worked" for employment law purposes. It also says that the search is not compulsory "because the employees may avoid a search by declining to bring a bag or package to work". The case is due to be certified in the California Supreme Court within the next week. As Californian appeal judges Susan Graber, Michelle Friedland, and Consuelo Marshall said in their judgement, "the consequences of any interpretation of the Wage Order will have significant legal, economic, and practical consequences for employers and employees throughout the state of California." [GN] APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Faces "Abouzied" Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- MONA ABOUZIED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC., CHIHHSIANG (THOMPSON) LIN, and STEFAN J. MURRY, Defendants, Case No: 4:17-cv- 02399 (S.D. Tex., August 5, 2017), was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock and/or call options of Applied Optoelectronics or sold put options of Applied Optoelectronics from July 13, 2017 through August 3, 2017, both dates inclusive. Defendants allegedly violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a major customer was reducing its purchases of the Company's 40G receivers; (2) the loss of this major customer's business would have a severe negative impact on the Company's financial performance; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Defendant Applied Optoelectronics develops and manufactures advanced optical products which are the building blocks for broadband and fiber access networks primarily for Internet data center, cable television (CATV), and fiber-to-the- home (FTTH) networking endmarket.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Dean Gresham, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Rd, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com - and - . Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Ludwig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, Case No. 4:17-cv-02512 (S.D. Tex., August 16, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, notes the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a major customer was reducing its purchases of the Company's 40G receivers; (ii) the loss of this major customer's business would have a severe negative impact on the Company's financial performance; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Optoelectronics' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. develops and manufactures advanced optical products which are the building blocks for broadband and fiber access networks primarily for Internet data center, cable television (CATV), and fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) networking end market. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 643-6011 Facsimile: (281) 254-7789 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com ARYZTA LLC: Barnes Sues Over Unlawful Use Over Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Jamel Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aryzta, LLC and Automatic Data Processing, Inc., Case No. 2017-CH-11312 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 17, 2017), seeks to put a stop to Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive biometric data. Aryzta, LLC is a global supplier of baked foods for the foodservice, retail, and restaurant industries. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. is a provider of human resource management software and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Sydney Janzen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com sjanzen@edclson.com - and - David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dtish@fishlawfinn.com jkunze@fishlawfinn.com ASJ CONSTRUCTION: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Lopez" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned LIDIO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. ASJ CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC and ALFONSO SANCHEZ, Case No. 2:17-cv-02241-SM-KWR (E.D. La.), moves for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in" plaintiffs. The action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or practice" pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KMlZ14UM The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com whbeaumont@gmail.com eaw@beaumontcostales.com BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Exclusive Stock Loan Market Control -------------------------------------------------------------- Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System, Orange County Employees Retirement System, and Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bank Of America Corporation; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Merrill Lynch L.P. Holdings, Inc.; Credit Suisse AG; Credit Suisse Group AG; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Credit Suisse First Boston Next Fund, Inc.; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC; Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P.; J.P. Morgan Chase & CO.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; J.P. Morgan Prime, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Strategic Securities Lending Corp.; J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Morgan Stanley; Morgan Stanley Capital Management, LLC; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Prime Dealer Services Corp.; Strategic Investments I, Inc.; UBS Group AG; UBS AG; UBS Americas Inc.; UBS Securities LLC; UBS Financial Services Inc.; Equilend LLC; Equilend Europe Limited; and Equilend Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-06221 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to prevent the emergence of efficient all-to-all electronic trading platforms in the stock loan market, to boycott emerging platforms and force customers to boycott them, to cut off emerging platforms' access to clearing organizations, to jointly purchase and mothball emerging platforms and their intellectual property, and to jointly prohibit real-time price disclosures. The Defendants operate a financial service company in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com - and - Kit A. Pierson, Esq. Julie G. Reiser, Esq. Richard A. Koffman, Esq. David A. Young, Esq. Robert W. Cobbs, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408 4699 E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com jreiser@cohenmilstein.com rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com dyoung@cohenmilstein.com rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com - and - Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Sascha N. Rand, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. Thomas J. Lepri, Esq. Thomas Popejoy, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com sascharand@quinnemnuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com thomaspopejoy@quinnemanuel.com - and - Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com BANK OF AMERICA: Large Investment Banks Sued Over Collusion ----------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Hardy, writing for Des Moines Resgister, reports that Iowa's biggest public employee pension plan is among three plaintiffs suing some of the nation's largest investment banks, claiming the Wall Street giants have colluded to maintain exclusive control of the $1-trillion-plus stock loan market. Together with the Orange County Employees Retirement System and the Sonoma County Employees Retirement Association, the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System filed a federal class action suit on August 16 in the Southern District of New York. Known as IPERS, the Iowa fund has more than 350,000 members, including state, city, county and school district employees, plus former Iowa public employees and retirees. The lawsuit claims that six investment banks -- Bank of America, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and UBS -- "took collective, illegal action to boycott, attack and acquire multiple entities who tried to increase competition and lower costs in the stock loan market." When contacted by the Des Moines Register on August 17, each of the six banks declined to comment on the lawsuit. IPERS officials would not comment on the litigation but did release a statement on August 17. "IPERS is proud of its role in leading this lawsuit and its efforts to get compensation for investors damaged by the lack of competition and transparency in the stock lending market," spokeswoman Judy Akre said in a statement. "IPERS has a fiduciary duty to advocate for IPERS' participants and beneficiaries, and protecting them from investment banks' collusion and anti- competitive behavior is in accordance with that duty." The suit contends that since at least 2009 the banks violated antitrust laws by conspiring to overcharge investors and obstructing efforts to create competitive electronic exchanges that would benefit stock lenders and borrowers. Plaintiff's attorney Michael Eisenkraft, Esq. -- meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein said the banks have colluded to pocket higher profits, depriving "investors of money that should flow to retirees, families and other hard- working Americans." "This retirement fund supports thousands of thousands of retirees. So anything that hurts the fund hurts them," Eisenkraft told the Register. "The pension funds are making money. They're just not making as much money as they should because of this practice." Unlike other financial markets, the suit claims that the stock loan market has not kept up with technological advancements. Without a central marketplace, borrowers and lenders face an "opaque" system that requires intermediaries, known as prime brokers. The six investment banks named in the suit are the nation's dominant prime brokers, it claims, controlling 60 percent of revenues in that market. The suit says the IPERS fund has "lent significant volumes of stock," to the defendants and their stock borrower clients since 2009. The suit says banks have prevented participants from accessing marketplaces where they could benefit from direct trading and secure the best prices. Borrowers and lenders are essentially trading securities blindly, he said, in the dark on the true cost of transactions and fees. "All you know is what the middleman is going to give you or charge you," Eisenkraft said. Neither IPERS nor the plaintiff's attorney would say which party identified the issue with Iowa's pension funds. But attorneys say the class action case has the potential to spark wider reform of the nation's financial markets. "I can tell you that we've been investigating this case for months and months and months," Eisenkraft said. [GN] BARCLAYS BANK: Sept. 22 FX Settlement Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Legal Notice To All Persons in Canada Who, Between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013, Entered Into an FX Instrument*, Either Directly or Indirectly Through an Intermediary, and/or Purchased or Otherwise Participated in an Investment or Equity Fund, Mutual Fund, Hedge Fund, Pension Fund Or Any Other Investment Vehicle that Entered into an FX Instrument. *FX Instruments includes FX spot transactions, outright forwards, FX swaps, FX options, FX futures contracts, options on FX futures contracts, and other instruments traded in the FX Market Settlements May Affect Your Rights. Please Read this Notice Carefully This notice is about class actions relating to Foreign Exchange ("FX") transactions. The Plaintiffs, Joseph S. Mancinelli, Carmen Principato, Douglas Serroul, Luigi Carrozzi, Manuel Bastos, and Jack Oliveira in their capacity as The Trustees of the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada and Christopher Staines, in Ontario, and the Plaintiff Christine Beland, in Quebec, have undertaken legal procedures under applicable laws related to class actions against the following defendants: Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Canada, Bank of America, National Association, Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (Canada), Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays Capital Canada Inc., BNP Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America, Inc., BNP Paribas (Canada), BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citibank Canada, Citigroup Global Markets Canada Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities (Canada) Inc, Deutsche Bank AG, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Canada Inc., HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC North America Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Bank Canada, JPMorgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Bank Canada, J.P. Morgan Canada, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Canada Limited, Royal Bank of Canada, RBC Capital Markets LLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, RBS Securities Inc., The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc., Societe Generale S.A., Societe Generale (Canada), Societe Generale, Standard Chartered plc, UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC and UBS Bank (Canada). The Ontario action is brought on behalf of anyone in Canada, while the Quebec action is brought on behalf of anyone in Quebec who, between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013, entered into an FX Instrument either directly or indirectly through an intermediary, and/or purchased or otherwise participated in an investment or equity fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, pension fund or any other investment vehicle that entered into an FX Instrument (the "Class"). An "FX Instrument" includes FX spot transactions, outright forwards, FX swaps, FX options, FX futures contracts, options on FX futures contracts, and other instruments traded in the FX Market. What are the settlements benefits? Settlements have been reached with Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. and Barclays Capital Canada Inc. (collectively, "Barclays"); HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC North America Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Bank Canada (collectively, "HSBC"); The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, RBS Securities Inc., The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. (collectively, "RBS"); Standard Chartered plc ("Standard Chartered"); The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (Canada) (collectively, "BTMU"); and Societe Generale S.A., Societe Generale (Canada) and Societe Generale (collectively, "SocGen" and, together with Barclays, HSBC, RBS, Standard Chartered, and BTMU the "Settlement Agreements"). The Settlement Agreements, if approved and their conditions fulfilled, will settle, extinguish and bar all claims relating in any way to or arising out of the Proceedings against Barclays, HSBC, RBS, Standard Chartered, BTMU, and SocGen. If the Settlement Agreements are approved, Barclays has agreed to pay $19,677,205.88, RBS has agreed to pay $13,220,000, HSBC has agreed to pay $15,500,000, Standard Chartered has agreed to pay $900,000, BTMU has agreed to pay $450,000, and SocGen has agreed to pay $1,800,000 (the "Settlement Amounts") to settle the class action and to provide cooperation to the plaintiffs in order to continue the case against the other defendants. The settlements are a compromise of disputed claims and Barclays, RBS, HSBC, Standard Chartered, BTMU, and SocGen do not admit any wrongdoing or liability. Prior settlements with UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC and UBS Bank (Canada) (collectively, "UBS"); BNP Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America, Inc., BNP Paribas (Canada), and BNP Paribas (collectively, "BNP"); and Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Canada, and Bank of America National Association (collectively "Bank of America"), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (collectively, "Goldman Sachs"); JPMorgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Bank Canada, J.P. Morgan Canada, JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association (collectively, "JPMorgan"); and Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citibank Canada, and Citigroup Global Markets Canada Inc. (collectively, "Citi") totalling $55,200,000 were approved by the courts. At this time, the Settlement Amounts will not be distributed to the Class. Rather, the Settlement Amounts will be paid into an interest bearing account for the benefit of the Class and may be used in part to fund the disbursements and any adverse costs awards made in the case. What is this case about? These actions allege that beginning at least as early as 2003 and continuing through 2013, the Defendant Banks conspired with each other to fix prices in the FX Market. It is alleged that the Defendant Banks communicated directly with each other to coordinate their: (i) fixing of spot prices; (ii) controlling or manipulating FX benchmark rates; and (iii) exchanging key confidential customer information in an effort to trigger client stop loss orders and limit orders. It is alleged that the Defendant Banks' alleged conspiracy affected dozens of currency pairs, including the U.S. and Canadian dollar (USD/CAD) currency pair, which is one of the world's highest volume trading currency pairs. Due to the importance of spot prices, it is alleged that the Defendant Banks' alleged conspiracy impacted all manner of FX Instruments, including those trading both over-the-counter and on exchanges. Are you included? You are included in this lawsuit if: -- you are a Person in Canada who, between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013, entered into an FX Instrument[1] either directly or indirectly through an intermediary, and/or purchased or otherwise participated in an investment or equity fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, pension fund or any other investment vehicle that entered into an FX Instrument and you did not opt-out of the action on or before December 5, 2016. [1] "FX Instruments" includes FX spot transactions, outright forwards, FX swaps, FX options, FX futures contracts, options on FX futures contracts, and other instruments traded in the FX Market. Who are the lawyers who represent the class? The law firms of Sotos LLP, Koskie Minsky LLP, Siskinds LLP, and Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman represent the Plaintiffs and the class in the Ontario action and Siskinds Desmeules, s.e.n.c.r.l. represent the Plaintiff and the class in the Quebec action ("Class Counsel"). The lawyers will be paid on a contingency fee basis. Hearing to Approve Settlement Agreements and Disbursements Reimbursement Request Hearings will be held during which Class Counsel will seek the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreements (The "Approval Hearings"). Class Counsel will not be seeking approval of its fees at this time but will do so at a later stage in the litigation. The hearing before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will be held on September 18, 2017 at 10:00AM (ET) at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario. The hearing before the Quebec Superior Court will be held on September 22, 2017 at 10:00AM at the Quebec City Court house, 300, Jean Lesage boulevard, Quebec City, Quebec. At the Approval Hearings, the Courts will determine whether the Settlement Agreements are fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the Class. At the hearings, Class Counsel will also seek court approval of its request for expense reimbursement. Class Counsel will be requesting the disbursements to be deducted directly from the Settlement Amounts. All members of the proposed Class may attend the Approval Hearings and ask to make submissions regarding the proposed settlements. Persons intending to object to one or more of the Settlement Agreements should provide their objection in writing to Class Counsel at the address below by September 8, 2017. What are your options? Take no Steps: You do not have to do anything to stay in the class action. The opt-out period has expired. If you opted out, you cannot rejoin the class action. If any benefits, including settlement funds, become available for distribution to the Class, you will be notified about how to ask for a share. You will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you will not be able to sue the Defendant about the legal claims in this case. Object to the Settlement Agreement or Class Counsel Disbursements: If you want to object to the proposed settlements with Barclays, RBS, HSBC, Standard Chartered, BTMU, and/or SocGen or the payment of Class Counsel's expenses, you should do so by setting out your objection in writing addressed to the FX Class Counsel at the address below. More Information? Go to www.kmlaw.ca/fxclassaction or call toll-free 1- 855-595-2624 or write to Class Counsel at fxclassaction@kmlaw.ca. Interpretation If there is a conflict between the provisions of this notice and any of the Settlement Agreements, the terms of the Settlement Agreement(s) will prevail with respect to that (these) Settling Defendant(s). DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE AND BY THE QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT BAY AREA: Faces "David" Suit Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work ----------------------------------------------------------- EKUGBERE "DAVID" BAZUNU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. BAY AREA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No: 4:17-cv-02391 (S.D. Tex., August 4, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and class members did not receive bona fide meal break periods. Instead, they were required and permitted to work off-the-clock for Defendant during their meal break periods and were not paid for such time in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bay Area Regional Medical Center is a medical facility. Plaintiff and class members worked as hourly paid Registered Nurses.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Todd Slobin, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 Email: tslobin@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net BLUE APRON: Bottini & Bottini Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Bottini & Bottini, Inc., a law firm specializing in securities class action litigation, has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. pursuant to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The lawsuit -- pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York -- seeks to recover damages under the federal securities laws for those who purchased Blue Apron stock. Investors who have incurred losses in are urged to contact the firm immediately at fab@bottinilaw.com or (858) 914-2001. Bottini & Bottini is representing clients on a contingency fee basis. You may obtain additional information concerning the action on our website, www.bottinilaw.com. If you purchased shares of Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. and would like to assist with the case as a lead plaintiff, you must, no later than October 16, 2017, request that the Court appoint you a lead plaintiff of the proposed class. The lawsuit charges that Blue Apron violated the Securities Act of 1933 because the Registration Statement failed to disclose that: (1) rather than continue to significantly increase spending on advertising, Blue Apron had already decided to significantly reduce spending on advertising in Q2 2017, which would hurt sales and profit margins in future quarters; (2) that Blue Apron was already experiencing adverse on-time in-full rates, meaning orders were not arriving on time or with all the ingredients needed, which was hurting customer retention; and (3) that the Company had run into delays in Q2 2017 with its new factory in Linden, New Jersey. Subsequent to the IPO, Blue Apron's stock declined immediately, declining below $5 per share less than two months after the IPO -- a decline of 50% from the IPO price. If you wish to join the litigation or discuss your interests in this lawsuit, contact Frank A. Bottini of Bottini & Bottini at (858) 914-2001 or -- fab@bottinilaw.com [GN] BROWN HARRIS: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brown Harris Stevens NYS, LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brown Harris Stevens NYS, LLC, Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLC and Terra Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06356 (S.D. N.Y., August 22, 2017). Defendants are engaged in the real estate industry. The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CARECENTRIX INC: Bid to Permit Class Discovery in "Hapka" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court, District of Kansas, issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Permit Putative Class Discovery in the case captioned SARAH HAPKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARECENTRIX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-2372-CM-KGG (D. Ks.). Plaintiff alleges that Wage and Tax Statements belonging to her and other employees of Defendant were stolen from Defendant by an unknown third party. Plaintiff contends that Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and the Class to exercise reasonable care in obtaining, securing, safeguarding, deleting and protecting Plaintiff and Class members' personal and tax information within its control from being compromised, lost, stolen, accessed and misused by unauthorized persons. A fraudulent tax return was subsequently filed in Plaintiff's name. She contends she continues to be at a heightened risk for tax fraud and identity theft. The District Court previously denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, finding that Plaintiff had sufficiently plead duty, breach, and causation. Defendant brings the present motion requesting permission to send a simple, voluntary questionnaire to putative class members. Defendant contends the information sought is relevant, necessary, cannot be discovered without putative class member discovery, and can be discovered without imposing any significant burden on the putative class members. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure neither prohibited nor sanctioned explicitly putative class discovery. The general rule is that discovery requests to absent class members are generally disfavored. The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Defendant argues that it must be allowed to conduct discovery into whether the injuries and damages suffered by putative class members are similar to that suffered by the proposed class. Defendant essentially contends this is necessary to evaluate the typicality element of the certification issue to determine if Hapka is typical of the class she claims to represent. Defendant's contention that it is necessary to be allowed discovery at this stage in the proceedings regarding the damages and potential fears of all putative class members is unfounded. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish the necessity of receiving the requested information, particularly at this stage of the proceedings. Defendant's motion is, therefore, denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybpwuly7from Leagle.com. Sarah Hapka, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander T. Ricke, Stueve - ricke@stuevesiegel.com - Siegel Hanson LLP. Sarah Hapka, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett J. Vahle - vahle@stuevesiegel.com - Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, J. Austin Moore - moore@stuevesiegel.com - Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Norman E. Siegel - siegel@stuevesiegel.com - Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP. CareCentrix, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jacqueline M. Whipple - jacqueline.whipple@gmail.com - Dentons US, LLP, Jason R. Scheiderer - jason.scheiderer@dentons.com - Dentons US, LLP & Wade P.K. Carr, Dentons US, LLP. CDI CORP: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Proposed Nova Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Louis Scarantino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CDI Corp., Joseph L. Carlini, Michael J. Emmi, Walter R. Garrison, Lawrence C. Karlson, Ronald J. Kozich, Anna M. Seal, Albert E. Smith, Barton J. Winokur, Nova Intermediate Parent, LLC, and Nova Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03700-MAK (E.D. Penn., August 17, 2017), is brought on behalf of all CDI Corp., to enjoin Nova Intermediate Parent, LLC's tender offer to acquire all of CDI's outstanding stock for $8.25 per share in cash. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that CDI's stockholders approve the Proposed Transaction and tender their shares in the Tender Offer. However, the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding, among other things: material information regarding the Company's financial projections and the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc. ("Houlihan Lokey"); material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the Company's Board members; and material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of Houlihan Lokey. The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest CDI's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy the Defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied. CDI Corp. and its subsidiaries are providers of solutions based on skilled technical and professional talent. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Hertzovitz" Suit in E.D. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit Services LLC. The case is styled as Howard Hertzovitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Central Credit Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04913 (E.D. N.Y., August 21, 2017). Central Credit Services is a collection agency that has been in business since 1987.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CHH BEAUTY: Faces "Kebede" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Fantahun Kebede, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated individuals v. CHH Beauty, Inc., Chong Hwang, and Kyoung Hwang, Case No. 8:17-cv-02352-PWG (D. Md., August 16, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay retail/sales workers overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate beauty stores located at 1153 E. University Boulevard; Takoma Park, Maryland and 6062 Greenbelt Road; Greenbelt, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy D. Rachlin, Esq. JDKATZ, P.C. 3 Bethesda Metro Center Suite 500 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (240) 743-5410 Facsimile: (301) 951-0147 E-mail: jeremy@jdkatz.com CJ & J: Faces "Bowman" Suit Alleging Improper Classification ------------------------------------------------------------ ALLEN BOWMAN and TATYANA HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. CJ & J DAVIS, INC., Defendant, Case No: 3:17-cv-01633-JJH (N.D. Ohio, August 4, 2017), alleges that Defendant improperly classified Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals as independent contractors, and did not withhold any state or federal taxes from their compensation. As a result of this improper classification, Defendant also did not compensate Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class for overtime hours at a rate of one and one- half times their regular rate of pay. The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well and the applicable wage and hour laws and regulations set forth in Ohio Revised Code. Defendant is in the business of providing home healthcare services. Defendant also owns and operates several group homes in which they provide such services. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a home health aide.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: John D. Franklin, Esq. Kera L. Paoff, Esq. WIDMAN & FRANKLIN, LLC 405 Madison Avenue, Suite 1550 Toledo, OH 43604 Phone: 419.243.9005 Fax: 419.243.9404 CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Sued Over Proposed Sale to Constellation ----------------------------------------------------------- Ronald F. Kinsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clubcorp Holdings, Inc., John A. Beckert, Douglas H. Brooks, Eric L. Affeldt, Janet Grove, Jeff Lamb, Lou J. Grabowsky, Emanuel R. Pearlman, Margaret Spellings, William E. Sullivan, and Simon M. Turner, Case No. 2:17-cv-02198-RFB-PAL (D. Nev., August 16, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of ClubCorp Holdings, Inc. to enjoin the proposed sale of the Company to Constellation Club Parent, Inc. and Constellation Merger Sub, Inc. and, together with Parent, affiliates of Apollo Management VIII, L.P. for an equity value of approximately $1.1 billion. According to the complaint, Clubcorp filed a Proxy Statement on a Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Clubcorp stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: material information regarding the Company's financial projections, which were prepared by Company management and relied upon by Jefferies LLC and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, the Company's financial advisors, the financial analysis performed by Jefferies and Wells to support their opinions on the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, and the background of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest Clubcorp's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied. Clubcorp Holdings, Inc. owns and operates private golf and country clubs and private business clubs in North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Gayan, Esq. KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD LLP Wells Fargo Tower 17th Floor 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 385-6000 - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 E-mail: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com - and - Vincent S. Wong, Esq. VINCENT WONG LAW OFFICES 39 East Broadway, Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: (212) 349-4999 CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Bronstein, Gewirtz Sues Over Sale ---------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the District of Nevada against ClubCorp Holdings, Inc. ("ClubCorp" or the "Company") (NYSE: MYCC) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo"). Such investors are encouraged to learn more about this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/mycc. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC On July 9, 2017, ClubCorp "has entered into a definitive agreement with affiliates of certain investment funds (the "Apollo funds") managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC (together with its consolidated subsidiaries, "Apollo") (APO), a leading global alternative investment manager, pursuant to which the Apollo funds will acquire all of the outstanding shares of ClubCorp for $17.12 per share in cash, or approximately $1.1 billion. The all-cash transaction represents a premium of approximately 30.7% over ClubCorp's closing stock price on July 7, 2017." A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you are a ClubCorp shareholder and wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/mycc. You may also contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] COMPREHENSIVE HOME: Advanced Rehab Alleges Violation of JFPA ------------------------------------------------------------ ADVANCED REHAB AND MEDICAL, P.C., a Tennessee corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly- situated persons, Plaintiff, v. COMPREHENSIVE HOME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Tennessee corporation, AMEDISYS, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMEDISYS SP-TN, L.L.C., AMEDISYS TENNESSEE, L.L.C., , HHC, L.L.C. d/b/a AMEDISYS HEALTH CARE, Tennessee limited liability companies, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No: 1:17-cv-01149-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn., August 4, 2017), alleges that Defendants have sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff and the proposed Class in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act, including, but not limited to, the facsimile transmission of two unsolicited advertisements on or about September 1, 2016 and December 28, 2016.[BN] Comprehensive Home Healthcare Services, Inc. offers medicare home care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin C. Aaron, Esq. Charles F. Barrett, Esq. NEAL AND HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-244-1713 Fax: 615-726-0573 Email: baaron@nealharwell.com cbarrett@nealharwell.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Phone: (847) 368-1500 Fax: (847) 368-1501 Email: Bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com CONSOLIFI: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Vaccaro" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- David Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consolifi, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:17-cv-06117 (C.D. Cal., August 17, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of placing calls to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services using an automatic telephone dialing system without prior express consent. Consolifi operates a debt consolidation company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com CONVERGYS CORP: 5th Cir. Denies Bid to Enforce NLRB's Order ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, issued an Opinion granting Convergys Corporation's application for review of National Labor Relations Board order and denying the NLRB's application for enforcement of the order in the appeals case captioned CONVERGYS CORPORATION, Petitioner Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Cross-Petitioner, No. 15-60860 (5th Cir.). The National Labor Relations Board determined that Convergys violated the National Labor Relations Act both by requiring job applicants to sign a class and collective action waiver and by subsequently seeking to enforce the waiver. Convergys seeks review of the Board's determination, arguing that it conflicts with our binding case law. Convergys requires job applicants to sign an agreement that includes the following waiver: I further agree that I will pursue any claim or lawsuit relating to my employment with Convergys (or any of its subsidiaries or related entities) as an individual, and will not lead, join, or serve as a member of a class or group of persons bringing such a claim or lawsuit. Despite having signed this agreement, a Convergys employee brought class and collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims against the company in the District Court for the Eastern District of Mississippi. Convergys sought to enforce the waiver agreement by filing a motion to strike these claims. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended a finding that Convergys had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, relying on the Board's prior decision in D. R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB 2277, No. 184 (2012). Section 7 of the NLRA provides: Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title. The court has already rejected the Board's position that Section 7 guarantees a right to participate in class or collective actions, holding that the use of a class or collective action is a procedure rather than a substantive right. The opinion on which the dissenting opinion relies is Altex Ready Mixed Concrete Corp. v. NLRB, 542 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1976). This case provides an example of a concerted activity in the litigation context, holding that a union's filing of a civil action is protected by the NLRA. It does not hold that the phrase "other concerted activities" contemplates participation in class and collective actions. Section 7's guarantee of the right to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of other mutual aid or protection, 29 U.S.C. Section 157, does not include a right to participate in class and collective actions. Accordingly, abrogation of the asserted right to participate in class and collective actions was not abrogation of a Section 7 right and therefore does not constitute an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1). Contrary to the determination of the Board, Convergys did not engage in an unfair labor practice for purposes of Section 8(a)(1) by requiring applicants to sign a waiver or by seeking to enforce the waiver. The Fifth Circuit grants Convergys's application for review of the NLRB order and deny the Board's cross-application for enforcement of the order. A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's August 7, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9xb6cpwfrom Leagle.com. Linda Dreeben, 1099 14th St. N.W.Washington, DC 20570-0001, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner. Martha Elaine Kinard, Nlrb819 Taylor St Rm 8 A24Fort Worth, TX, 76102-6107, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner. Kira Dellinger Vol, 1015 Half St SE, Washington, DC 20570 for Respondent Cross-Petitioner. Lynda Hill, 150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1900, Nashville, Tennessee 37201, for Petitioner Cross-Respondent. Daniel L. Hubbel, 400 East Eighth St 4, Traverse City, MI 49686, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner. Richard F. Griffin, Jr., for Respondent Cross-Petitioner. Rotimi Solanke, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner. Mark A. Potashnick, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner. Jennifer Rose Asbrock, for Petitioner Cross-Respondent. Gregoire Sauter, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner. George E. Yund, for Petitioner Cross-Respondent. CREDENCE RESOURCE: Faces "Zamora" Suit Over Automated Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Denis Robert Zamora, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Credence Resource Management, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01985 (D. Col., August 17, 2017), is brought on behalf of all persons within the United States who received any telephone call from the Defendant or its agent or employee to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or with an artificial or prerecorded voice, which call was not made for emergency purposes or with the recipient's prior express consent. Credence Resource Management, LLC operates a collections and business process services company in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah T. McEahern, Esq. Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 1525 Josephine St. Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (303) 731-5493 Facsimile: (800) 635-6425 E-mail: sm@westcoastlitigation.com josh@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 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Mike Cardoza, Esq. CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION 548 Market St # 80594 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 488-8041 CREDICO (USA): "Rodriguez" Suit Plaintiffs Seek to Issue Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- Deandre Stovall and Crystal Hamilton Peterson, two of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MANTE RODRIGUEZ, VALERIE MORALES and DEANDRE STOVALL, and CRYSTAL HAMILTON PETERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CREDICO (USA) LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01221-LB (N.D. Cal.), move the Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for notice to be issued to similarly situated individuals of the Plaintiffs' claims against Credico. The Plaintiffs want to send notice to other workers, who have provided face-to-face marketing services for Credico's clients nationwide and were classified as employees, who may wish to recover their wages in this collective action by notifying them of the pendency of the case. The Plaintiffs have brought the collective action seeking to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court will commence a hearing on October 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CXNhVK8L The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Jill Kahn, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com jkahn@llrlaw.com - and - Matthew Carlson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary St., Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 630-2651 E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Da Silva Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENER DA SILVA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., a Florida Corporation; GMRI, INC., a Florida Corporation; YARD HOUSE USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; YARD HOUSE NORTHRIDGE LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-05663-ODW-E (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2017), accuses the Defendants of, among other things, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, and failure to provide required meal periods and rest periods. Based in Orlando, Florida, Darden Restaurants, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates full-service restaurants in the United States and Canada. As of June 27, 2017, it owned and operated approximately 1,700 restaurants under the Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's brands. GMRI, Inc., formerly known as General Mills Restaurants Inc., owns and operates a network of fresh grill and wine bars in the United States. GMRI's wine bars offer custom flatbreads, mini indulgences, lunch and dinner menus, bar menus, private dining services, chef's table menus, and alternative menus; and various organic and biodynamic wines. GMRI, Inc. YH USA is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. YH Northridge is a Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Tagore Subramanian, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com tagore@maternlawgroup.com dbass@maternlawgroup.com DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: "Kryszkiewicz" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on July 7, 2017, captioned Jamie Kryszkiewicz, individually and in her capacity as Next of Friend of Natasha Bernd Kryszkiewicz v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-11252, was transferred on August 16, 2017 from the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02180-K to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the Pinnacle Hip Replacement System ("Pinnacle Device'), with sales of the device beginning in 2001. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Ciporkin, Esq. John Mark Dickison, Esq. LAWSON & WEITZEN, LLP 88 Black Falcon Avenue, Suite 345 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-4990 Facsimile: (617) 439-3987 E-mail: rciporkin@lawson-weitzen.com mdickison@lawson-weitzen.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael V. Powell, Esq. Seth Michael Roberts, Esq. LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 Telephone: (214) 740-8520 Facsimile: (214) 740-8800 E-mail: mpowell@lockelord.com sroberts@lockelord.com - and - Jessica D. Miller, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1440 New York Ave NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 371-7850 Facsimile: (202) 661-0525 E-mail: Jessica.Miller@skadden.com DENNY'S BEER: Faces "Bailey" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- RACHAEL BAILEY, HILLARY MAGUIRE and DIANE KNEPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DENNY'S BEER BARREL PUB, INC. d/b/a DENNY'S BEER BARREL PUB, DENNIS F. LIEGEY, SR., and DENNIS F. LIEGEY, JR. Defendants, Case No: 3:17- cv-00142-KRG (W.D. Pa., August 4, 2017), alleges that Defendants utilized a tip credit with respect to Plaintiffs, and implemented a mandatory tip pooling arrangement for Plaintiffs. Defendants, however, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, related federal regulations and Pennsylvania wage and hour laws with respect to the application of such tip credit and the creation and application of the mandatory tip pool. The case alleges violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, as well as common law claims of conversion and unjust enrichment. Denny's owned and operated a restaurant. Ms. Bailey was employed as a server at Denny's.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq Steve T. Mahan, Esq. MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2041 Herr Street Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624 Phone: (717) 238-5707 Fax: (717) 233-8133 Email: dcummings@mwcfirm.com lweisberg@mwcfirm.com smahan@mwcfirm.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Nov. 9 Euroyen Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Notice of Class Action Settlements If you transacted in Euroyen-Based Derivatives1 from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, then your rights will be affected and you may be entitled to a benefit. This Notice is only a summary of the Settlements and is subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreements2 and other relevant documents. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in connection with two separate proposed settlements with Settling Defendants Deutsche Bank AG and DB Group Services (UK) Ltd. (collectively, "Deutsche Bank") and with Settling Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, and J.P. Morgan Securities plc (collectively, "JPMorgan") in the actions titled Laydon v. Mizuho Bank Ltd., et al., 12-cv-3419 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.) and Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd., et al. v. UBS AG, et al., 15-cv-5844 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.). The separate settlements with Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan (collectively, the "Settlements") are not settlements with any other Defendant and thus are not dispositive of any of Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining Defendants. The Settlements have been proposed in two class action lawsuits concerning the alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate for Japanese Yen ("Yen LIBOR") and the Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate ("Euroyen TIBOR") from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. The Settlements will provide $148 million to pay claims from persons who transacted in Euroyen- Based Derivatives from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim and Release form to potentially get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from the Settlements, or object to them. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this Notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlements. Who Is Included? You are a member of the "Settlement Class" if you purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-Based Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) the Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a defendant; and (ii) the United States Government. Contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-Based Derivatives. If you are not sure you are included, you can get more information, including the Settlement Agreements, Mailed Notice, Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and Release, and other important documents, at www.EuroyenSettlement.com ("Settlement Website") or by calling toll free 1-866-217-4453. What Is This Litigation About? Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, manipulated or aided and abetted the manipulation of Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of Euroyen-Based Derivatives. Defendants allegedly did so by using several means of manipulation. For example, panel banks that made the daily Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR submissions to the British Bankers' Association and Japanese Bankers Association respectively (collectively, "Contributor Bank Defendants"), such as Deutsche Bank AG and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., allegedly falsely reported their cost of borrowing in order to financially benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions. Contributor Bank Defendants also allegedly requested that other Contributor Bank Defendants make false Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR submissions on their behalf to benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions. Plaintiffs further allege that inter-dealer brokers, intermediaries between buyers and sellers in the money markets and derivatives markets (the "Broker Defendants"), had knowledge of, and provided substantial assistance to, the Contributor Bank Defendants' foregoing alleged manipulations of Euroyen-Based Derivatives in violation of Section 22(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec 25(a)(1). For example, Contributor Bank Defendants allegedly used the Broker Defendants to manipulate Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of Euroyen-Based Derivatives by disseminating false "Suggested LIBORs," publishing false market rates on broker screens, and publishing false bids and offers into the market. Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories, including federal antitrust law, the Commodity Exchange Act, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law. Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan have consistently and vigorously denied Plaintiffs' allegations. Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan each entered into a Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs, despite believing that it is not liable for the claims asserted against it, to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation, thereby putting this controversy to rest and avoiding the risks inherent in complex litigation. What Do the Settlements Provide? Under the Settlements, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $77 million and JPMorgan agreed to pay $71 million into separate Settlement Funds. If the Court approves the Settlements, potential members of the Settlement Class who qualify and send in valid Proof of Claim and Release forms may receive a share of the Settlement Funds after they are reduced by the payment of certain expenses. The Settlement Agreements, available at the Settlement Website, describe all of the details about the proposed Settlements. The exact amount each qualifying Settling Class Member will receive from the Settlement Funds cannot be calculated until (1) the Court approves the Settlements; (2) certain amounts identified in the full Settlement Agreements are deducted from the Settlement Funds; and (3) the number of participating Class Members and the amount of their claims are determined. In addition, each Settling Class Member's share of the Settlement Funds will vary depending on the information the Settling Class Member provides on their Proof of Claim and Release form. The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case to case. If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a Proof of Claim and Release form, you could get more money. How Do You Ask For a Payment? If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may seek to participate in the Settlements by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release to the Settlement Administrator at the address provided on the Settlement Website postmarked no later than January 23 2018. You may obtain a Proof of Claim and Release on the Settlement Website or by calling the toll-free number referenced above. If you are a member of the Settlement Class but do not timely file a Proof of Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreements if the Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreements. If you timely submitted a Proof of Claim and Release pursuant to the class notice dated June 22, 2016 ("2016 Notice") related to the $58 million settlements with Defendants R.P. Martin Holdings Limited, Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd., Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citibank Japan Ltd., Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc., HSBC Holdings plc, and HSBC Bank plc, you do not have to submit a new Proof of Claim and Release to participate in these Settlements with Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan. Any member of the Settlement Class who previously submitted a Proof of Claim and Release in connection with the 2016 Notice will be subject to and bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreements with Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan, unless such member submits a timely and valid request for exclusion, explained below. What Are Your Other Options? All requests to be excluded from the Settlements must be made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice and must be postmarked to the Settlement Administrator no later than October 5 2017. The Settlement Notice, available at the Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or object. All requests for exclusion must comply with the requirements set forth in the Settlement Notice to be honored. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the Settlement Agreements and can independently pursue claims at your own expense. However, if you exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Funds or otherwise participate in the Settlements. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in these cases on November 9 2017, to consider whether to approve the Settlements and a request by the lawyers representing all members of the Settlement Class (Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.) for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than one-fourth of the Settlement Funds for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement, and for reimbursement of their costs and expenses in the amount of no more than approximately $300,000. The lawyers for the Settlement Class may also seek additional reimbursement of fees, costs, and expenses in connection with services provided after the Fairness Hearing. These payments will also be deducted from the Settlement Funds before any distributions are made to the Settlement Class. You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not have to. For more information, call toll free 1-866-217-4453 or visit the website www.EuroyenSettlement.com. 1 "Euroyen-Based Derivatives" means (i) a Euroyen TIBOR futures contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"); (ii) a Euroyen TIBOR futures contract on the Tokyo Financial Exchange, Inc. ("TFX"), Singapore Exchange ("SGX"), or London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (iii) a Japanese Yen currency futures contract on the CME; (iv) a Yen LIBOR- and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based interest rate swap entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (v) an option on a Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based interest rate swap ("swaption") entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (vi) a Japanese Yen currency forward agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; and/or (vii) a Yen LIBOR- and/or Euroyen TIBOR- based forward rate agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S. 2 The "Settlement Agreements" means the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Deutsche Bank entered into on July 21, 2017 and the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with JPMorgan entered into on July 21, 2017. DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Orbea Files Class Action in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Orbea, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC and LVNV Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06250-SDW-LDW (D. N.J., August 18, 2017). Dynamic is a full service debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Tel: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com EDISON INTERNATIONAL: To Pay at Least $7.5MM in ERISA Row --------------------------------------------------------- Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge on August 16 said that Edison International was liable for breaching its fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to workers who claimed that the utility chose unnecessarily expensive retirement plans, accepting an agreement that leaves Edison on the hook for at least $7.5 million in damages. U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson found that Edison International was liable for the actual loss in excessive fees paid in a suit from a class of employees of Midwest Generation LLC, a subsidiary of Edison International unit Edison Mission Group Inc. The workers said that Edison chose 17 mutual funds in connection with the workers' 401(k) plan, but purposely selected the more expensive "retail class" fund shares instead of the wholesale "institutional class" shares, which come at a lower cost to the investor. Edison and the plaintiffs agreed that $7.5 million in damages is owed for the period between 2001 and January 2011, the order said, adding that damages covering 2011 to the present will be calculated according to the plan's overall returns. The judge wrote that a prudent fiduciary would have invested in the lower cost institutional class shares for all the 17 funds at issue. The judge rejected the utility's argument that it could choose the higher cost shares that had revenue sharing -- which helped offset the defendants' administration fees -- because it notified the plan participants that revenue sharing was available. "The court finds that no prudent fiduciary would purposefully invest in higher cost retail shares out of an unsubstantiated and speculative fear that if the plan settlor were to pay more administrative costs it may reallocate all such costs to plan participants," the judge wrote. The decision on August 16 came after 10 years of litigation, including a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court. Along the way, the former 10-count excessive fee suit was winnowed, with Judge Wilson dismissing all of the claims except plaintiffs' allegations that certain mutual funds were chosen to maximize the amount of revenue sharing for the benefit of the company and not that of plan participants. The ERISA suit made its way back to the trial court via a December decision by an en banc Ninth Circuit that vacated a ruling by Judge Wilson saying that the workers' claims were time-barred, because the funds at issue were selected by Edison prior to the six-year statute of limitations on the ERISA claims. Judge Wilson's decision was initially affirmed by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, but then vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court held in May 2015 that plan fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor investments and that claims coming within six years of an alleged breach of that duty are valid. Jerome J. Schlichter of Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Law360 on August 17 that he was pleased that on the 10th anniversary of the lawsuit's filing, the court ruled that the plaintiffs can get damages under the formula they suggested. "This case has gone through the unanimous favorable ruling in the Supreme Court, and then a unanimous en banc ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and we will continue as long as we have to," he said. Edison and Southern California Edison, another defendant in the suit, said in a statement that they are reviewing the judgment. "The funds in question have not been part of the offerings for employees since 2011 and the litigation has not raised any questions regarding the appropriateness of the current portfolio of funds," the statement said. "Edison International and Southern California Edison understand the importance of their 401(k) plan to employees' retirement goals. We have consistently provided a wide array of high-quality investment options in the 401(k) plan." The plaintiffs are represented by Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. -- jschlichter@uselaws.com -- Michael A. Wolff, Esq. -- mwolff@uselaws.com -- and Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. -- kstruckhoff@uselaws.com -- of Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP. Edison is represented by Brian D. Boyle, Esq. -- brianboyle@omm.com -- Catalina J. Vergara, Esq. -- catalinavergara@omm.com -- and Christopher B. Craig, Esq. -- christophercraig@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The case is Glenn Tibble et al. v. Edison International et al., case number 2:07-cv-05359, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces "Bettis" Suit Under Securities Act ------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY W. BETTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION f/k/a ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHRISTOPHER A. HOLDEN, WILLIAM A. SANGER, CLAIRE M. GULMI, and RANDEL G. OWEN, Defendants, Case No: 3:17-cv-01112 (M.D. Tenn., August 4, 2017), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Envision securities between March 2, 2015 and July 21, 2017, both dates inclusive. The complaint says 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) EmCare routinely arranged for patients who sought treatment at in-network facilities to be treated by out-of-network physicians; (ii) EmCare accordingly billed these patients at higher rates than if the patients had received treatment from in-network physicians; (iii) the Company's statements attributing EmCare's Class Period growth to other factors were therefore false and/or misleading; (iv) Envision's EmCare revenues were likely to be unsustainable after the foregoing conduct came to light; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Envision's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Envision Healthcare Corporation provides health care services. The Hospital offers surgery, pharmacy, medical imaging, emergency care, and other related health care services.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES 40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200 P. O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: 615.248.2828 Fax: 866.816.4116 Emails: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, 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 - 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 FANEUIL INC: Faces "Marshall" Class Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Marshall and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Faneuil Inc., a Delaware corporation, ALJ Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2017-00216580-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 31, 2017), is brought over alleged employment-related issues. Faneuil, Inc., a Delaware corporation, provides outsourcing support services to public and private sector clients. The Company offers technology-enabled in-person and automated services. ALJ Holdings Inc. is a Delaware corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq. CAPSTONE LAW, APC 1875 Century Park E, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com FERGUSON, MO: Court Disqualifies Counsel in Jailing Practices Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig has disqualified a law firm representing the city of Ferguson in a proposed class action involving the city's policies and practices of jailing individuals for failure to pay money owed from traffic and other municipal offenses. Fleissig found that attorneys at Pitzer Snodgrass have a conflict of interest because the firm hired attorney Ryan McGinty, Esq. -- mcginty@pspclaw.com -- who had previously represented the plaintiffs in municipal matters that form the basis of the current litigation, the Aug. 7 ruling states. The ruling further notes that the city also is represented by attorneys at Lewis Rice in St. Louis and stayed proceedings for 21 days to allow Ferguson time to obtain new counsel "if it so desires." According to the ruling, attorneys at ArchCity Defenders and others filed suit on behalf of plaintiffs on Feb. 8, 2015. At the time, McGinty was employed as an attorney with ArchCity Defenders and worked there through Jan. 5 of this year. The plaintiffs presented evidence that McGinty represented at least four of the 11 named plaintiffs while working at ArchCity Defenders in matters at the city's municipal court, including the particular matters that involve the current claims. The Pitzer firm had entered its appearance on behalf of Ferguson on March 2, 2015, and it hired McGinty on April 6 of this year. While the Pitzer firm presented evidence that McGinty has worked exclusively in the firm's asbestos litigation group, a practice group "totally separate" from the municipal practice group, that he was "totally excluded" from accessing the files related to the city litigation and that computer records showed that he did not access or attempt to access the city files, Fleissig nonetheless disqualified Pitzer attorneys Peter Dunne, Esq. -- dunne@pspclaw.com -- Robert Plunkert, Esq. -- plunkert@pspclaw.com -- and Jessica Diamond, Esq. -- diamond@pspclaw.com --. "[A]lthough the Court does not lightly enter this decision to partially deprive the City of its choice of counsel, the Court has a duty 'to maintain public confidence in the legal profession and to ensure the integrity of judicial proceedings,'" Fleissig wrote. [GN] FERGUSON, MO: City's Law Firm DQ'd for Conflict of Interest ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsels in the case captioned KEILEE FANT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF FERGUSON, Defendant, No. 4:15-CV-00253-AGF (E.D. Mo.). This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify defense counsel, Peter J. Dunne, Robert T. Plunkert, Jessica L. Diamond, and their law firm of Pitzer Snodgrass, P.C. (Pitzer firm), based on a conflict of interest. The motion to disqualify arises from the Pitzer firm's hiring of attorney Ryan McGinty, who previously represented Plaintiffs in municipal matters giving rise to the current litigation. The 11 named Plaintiffs in this putative class action assert claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, arising out of the City's policies and practices of jailing individuals for failure to pay money owed from traffic and other municipal offenses. Plaintiffs have presented evidence that McGinty represented at least four of the 11 named Plaintiffs during this time in matters in the City's municipal court, including the particular municipal matters giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims in the case. McGinty was hired by the Pitzer. The Pitzer firm has presented evidence that McGinty has been employed exclusively in the firm's asbestos litigation group, a practice group "totally separate" from the municipal practice group in which Dunne and Plunkert are employed and which has been handling this putative class action. The decision to grant or deny a motion to disqualify an attorney rests in the discretion of the district court. However, because courts also have the duty to maintain public confidence in the legal profession and to ensure the integrity of judicial proceedings, any legitimate doubts must be resolved in favor of disqualification. To establish a conflict of interest: a movant must prove: "(1) the attorney had a former attorney-client relationship with the movant; (2) the interests of the attorney's current client are materially adverse to the movant's interests; and (3) the current representation involves the same or a substantially related matter as the attorney's former representation of the movant. There is no dispute with respect to the first and second elements. The Court finds, and McGinty has not disputed, that McGinty had an attorney-client relationship with at least four of the named Plaintiffs in the municipal matters giving rise to the Plaintiffs' claims in this case against the City, and the City's interests are materially adverse to Plaintiffs' interests. Regarding the third element, neither McGinty nor the City has contested that this case and the municipal matters in which McGinty represented Plaintiffs are "substantially related." Given that Plaintiffs' claims in this case arise directly from, and are based on the City's conduct in, the municipal matters, the Court concludes that a substantial relationship exists. Therefore, McGinty would be prohibited from representing the City here, the Court concludes. Imputation of McGinty's Conflict to the Pitzer Firm: Rule 4- 1.10(a) A literal reading of Rule 4-1.10(a) precludes any of the Pitzer firm's lawyers from representing the City because McGinty alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rule 4-1.9(a), the Court says. The premise of Rule 4-1.10(a) is that a firm of lawyers is essentially one lawyer for purposes of the rules governing loyalty to the client [and] that each lawyer is vicariously bound by the obligation of loyalty owed by each lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated." Rule 4-1.10 cmt. [2]. Neither the text of the rule nor any comment thereto indicates that an ethical wall or screen would alter the rule's application. Indeed, the only time a wall or screen is mentioned is in Comment [4] to the rule, which states that the rule does not apply where the person prohibited from involvement in the matter is a non- lawyer, such as a paralegal or legal secretary, but that such persons ordinarily must be screened from any personal participation in the matter to avoid communication to others in the firm of confidential information that both the non-lawyers and the firm have a legal duty to protect. This comment does not suggest that a wall or screen would limit the imputation of a lawyer's conflict to his firm. Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify Peter J. Dunne, Robert T. Plunkert, Jessica L. Diamond, and the law firm of Pitzer Snodgrass, P.C., from representing Defendant in this matter is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y95kne5jfrom Leagle.com. Keilee Fant, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS. Keilee Fant, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ernest Tomback - andrew.tomback@whitecase.com - WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier - atsier@whitecase.com - WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz - larry.cranemoscowitz@whitecase.com - WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer - margaret.spicer@whitecase.com - WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy - smurphy@whitecase.com - WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. Roelif Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. Allison Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. Herbert Nelson, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS C>, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. Alfred Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. Anthony Kimble, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. Donyale Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. Shameika Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. Daniel Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. Ronnie Tucker, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. Tonya DeBerry, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew Ernest Tomback, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K. Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice. City of Ferguson, Missouri, Defendant, represented by Aarnarian (Apollo) D. Carey - acarey@lewisrice.com - LEWIS RICE, LLC, Maurice B. Graham, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C. & Ronald A. Norwood - rnorwood@lewisrice.com - LEWIS RICE, LLC. FORD MOTOR: Settles Sexual Harassment Claims at Chicago Plants -------------------------------------------------------------- Alexia Elejalde-RuizContact, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Ford Motor Co. has agreed to pay up to $10.1 million to settle racial and sexual harassment claims at two Chicago-area plants, a move that could allow it to avoid a class-action lawsuit being pursued in federal court. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the settlement after an investigation gave it reasonable cause to believe that Ford personnel harassed female and black employees at its Chicago assembly and stamping plants, and retaliated against them when they complained. Such conduct violates the Civil Rights Act, the agency said. Ford said in a statement that it "chose to voluntarily resolve this issue without any admission of liability with the EEOC to avoid an extended dispute," and is committed to a "zero-tolerance, harassment-free work environment" at all its facilities. "Ford conducted a thorough investigation and took appropriate action, including disciplinary action up to and including dismissal for individuals who violated the company's anti- harassment policy," the statement read. But Chicago attorney Keith Hunt, who is representing more than 30 women in a harassment lawsuit against the carmaker, is incensed by what he calls a "backroom deal" to circumvent the class-action process. "I don't think it goes far enough, and I don't think that it has provided any meaningful change in the plant environment and will do nothing to protect women," Hunt said of the EEOC agreement. His lawsuit, filed in 2014 in Chicago federal court, seeks to certify a class that would include all women who worked at the plants since 2012. The two plants have about 1,500 female employees currently, he said. [GN] FORTERRA INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP filed a class action on behalf of investors who purchased Forterra, Inc. ("Forterra" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FRTA) securities between October 18, 2016 and August 14, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Forterra investors have until October 13, 2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion. To obtain information or participate in the class action, please visit the Forterra page on our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/forterra-inc. Investors suffering losses on their Forterra investments are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to -- shareholders@glancylaw.com. -- The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's initiatives were not producing organic growth; (2) that, as such, the Company was not likely to experience organic growth; (3) that the Company was experiencing increased pricing pressures, operational problems at manufacturing plants, and rising bad debt expenses; (4) that the Company had material weaknesses in internal controls over inventory accounting; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Forterra's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of Forterra during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than October 13, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to -- shareholders@glancylaw.com, -- or visit our website at http://glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] FULL TILT: Lawsuit Refiled in California After Federal Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Haley Hintze, writing for Flushdraw, reports that from the annals of pernicious attorneys trying to wrest money from defendants by fatiguing said defendants and the US legal system in general comes the latest filing -- or rather, re-filing -- of a class-action suit against the original Full Tilt Poker and several prominent individuals long associated with that site. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two defendants, former Full Tilt Poker players Lary Kennedy and Greg Amatoy. This latest lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles on Monday, August 14th. The lawsuit was filed by California attorney Cyrus Sanai, who has represented Kennedy and Amatoy while continuing to file class-action lawsuits against the collected Full Tilt entities, corporate and individual, stretching all the way back to 2009. Named as defendants in this rendition of the same ol' damned lawsuit are Chris Ferguson, Howard Lederer, Phil Gordon, Andy Bloch, Phil Ivey, John Juanda, Erick Lindgren, Erik Seidel, Mike Matusow, Allen Cunningham, Gus Hansen, Patrik Antonius, all part- owners of the original Full Tilt Poker's various corporate entities. Many of those entities are re-named here as corporate defendants, including: Tiltware LLC, Pocket Kings Ltd., Kolyma Corporation A.V.V., Pocket Kings Consulting Ltd., Filco Ltd., Vantage Ltd., Ranston Ltd., Mail Media Ltd., Oxalic Ltd., and Orinic Ltd. These are included despite the reality that they haven't existed for years, all assets of the former Full Tilt Poker having been seized by the US government and sold to then-PokerStars parent Rational Group in 2012, as part of that site's settlement with US authorities. Also named as defendants in this latest action are California attorney Ian Imrich, the Law Offices of Ian Imrich APC, law firm Cozen O'Connor, French investor Bernard Tapie, and Tapie's umbrella investment entity, Group Bernard Tapie. Several of these defendants and corporate entities were added as defendants years after the filing of the first case on behalf of Kennedy and Omotoy, back in 2009. The lawsuit seeks $900 million in damages, plus interest dating back to last decade. The monetary claims include specific amounts of $10 to Omotoy and $120,000 to Kennedy, who years ago was involved in a controversial situation involving the banning of her account and the confiscation of funds therein. The remainder of the $900 million-plus would be awarded to the presumptive class, less significant attorney's fees payable to Sanai. There is, however, a lot more to this story. The filing of this case in California comes after the nearly-identical federal case was dismissed just over one month ago, on July 14th. Sanai, the attorney representing Kennedy and Omotoy, also filed a motion on August 11th to have the federal case's presiding judge, George H. Wu, to alter his own judgment in the case, which was to dismiss the case. Wu's ruling duly noted that while Full Tilt Poker had indeed conducted illegal online gambling business, the lawsuit offered no specificity as to any damages. Wrote Wu, "In the end, the Court still finds the TAC deficient for the reasons stated in its July 6th Tentative Ruling and in its earlier decisions. Specifically, the Court is unpersuaded that moving Defendants directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs' injuries through 'rake' collection underlying the allegedly illegal gambling business, based on factual allegations in the Third Amended Complaint. The injuries directly and proximately linked to any "illegal gambling business" were criminally prosecuted, successfully so, and were the subject of civil forfeiture action in alternative forums -- and even there the civil RICO claims were dismissed for lack of direct and proximate causation." In response, Sanai not only filed the federal motion asking Wu to vacate his own order, and then order new briefings and oral arguments. The case was moved to federal court in 2010 and has since seen over 220 filings, the large majority being motions, joinders and memoranda of various sorts filed by Sanai. Here's the kicker: The third amended complaint (TAC) in the federal case is almost identical to the state-level case filed by Sanai in California earlier this week. The plaintiffs, defendants, and damages sought are exactly the same; in fact, the latest California filing includes page after page after page of allegations copied word for word from the federal case in which Wu ruled last month. Given that that federal case is in essence the same case that was removed from California to the US's federal system back in 2010, this very arguably is an attempt by Sanai to retry a case already ruled upon in California via its removal to the federal system. While it is technically true that some defendants were added to the original case after its removal to the federal system, the original California filing allowed for that via its inclusion of up to 60 "John Doe" defendants. Another supposed difference might be that the federal case lists six causes of action, including a federal RICO (racketeering) allegation, whereas the latest California filing lists just five. However, that's comically transparent: Action causes five and six of the just-ruled-upon federal case, including the RICO allegations, were simply combined, word for word, as Count Five (Relief Under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200) in the Cali case. This latest California filing still includes comical present-tense allegations regarding various aspects of the original Full Tilt Poker's operations. While it's easy to see that stuff being carried forward in the federal matter, it's . . . oh . . . six years out of date in this week's California filing. Whether this is as quickly tossed out as it deserves to be remains to be seen, and that's despite the widespread antipathy and disgust much of the poker world (including this writer) has for the majority of the people behind the Full Tilt Poker. Cyrus Sanai, the attorney representing Kennedy and Omotoy, has been in trouble for similar legal shenanigans on other occasions. Sanai and his younger brother, Fredrik, both faced sanctions in a case involving the Sanais' parents and the sale of disputed property following what must have been a highly bitter separation. Fredrik Sanai ended up being disbarred in two states (Washington and Oregon) over the pair's ongoing and frivolous filings, which angered multiple judges forced to preside over the case. Older brother Cyrus, being licensed to practice in California, was not officially involved in the case, but repeatedly and in conjunction with Fredric, violated the judge's orders. A lengthy opinion offered during Fredric Sanai's disbarment proceedings before the Washington State Supreme Court -- written and agreed to by four of that court's judges -- is a marvel of insight into how the Sanais have conducted their legal business. It is absolutely worth a read by anyone seeking to understand the motivations behind this continuing case. Some excerpts: "Fredric obtained his license to practice law in Washington so that he could represent his mother. His brother, Cyrus Sanai, is also a lawyer and has also represented Viveca. While only Fredric's conduct is before us, Fredric and Cyrus have often worked together even when instructed not to do so. As Judge Joseph A. Thibodeau of the Thurston County Superior Court observed, 'although Cyrus and Fred[]ric have never been permitted to be part of this particular case, and that ruling has been upheld in a number of appellate courts, that they're, in essence, acting in concert with each other.'" "On behalf of [their mother] Viveca and others, Fredric and Cyrus filed multiple complaints alleging wiretap violations by [their father] Sassan in state and federal courts in Washington and California. All of these claims were dismissed as baseless. In the wiretap claims they sought over $9 million in damages and, based upon that claim for damages, attempted to get prejudgment injunctive relief to enjoin the sale of the very same property upon which they had been filing baseless lis pendens. Judge Zilly, among other things, observed that 'Fredric Sanai's failure to properly serve the subpoena was willful and in bad faith' and noted that the plaintiffs had, amongst them, already been sanctioned around $130,000 in both federal and state courts. Ex. 252 at 5, 14. Judge Zilly stated, '[h]owever, Plaintiffs persist in their misconduct. Plaintiffs' conduct shows that they will not respond to sanctions. Clearly no other sanction the Court might impose, except dismissal itself, would be effective in remedying this misconduct.' Ex. 252, at 14. On November 4, 2005, the case was dismissed and Viveca and Fredric were sanctioned a total of $273,437." "In another unchallenged finding of fact, the discipline board found that Fredric and Cyrus (among others) sued their father in federal and state courts for allegedly wiretapping their calls. Initially, they asked for $1 million in damages; that ballooned to $16 million after the case had been dismissed or transferred multiple times. Fredric and Cyrus used that suit as a basis to file lis pendens on their father's property, even after being told in no uncertain terms by Judge Zilly that they were not to do so. FOF 103 ("`Each of the plaintiffs herein shall cease and desist from taking any further action whatsoever to delay or obstruct the sale of the aforesaid real property.'" (quoting Ex. 207)). Merely five days later, Fredric filed another lis pendens. In ordering contempt sanctions, Judge Zilly wrote that Fredric and Cyrus 'have made a mockery and are making a mockery of the legal system.'" "Fredric has an unprecedented record of engaging in abusive and vexatious practices by filing baseless lawsuits and endless motions and appeals (often in direct violation of court orders) in courts up and down the West Coast." Here's another marvel of a read, this one more directly involving Cyrus. Subjectively, this latest refiling, of what is essentially the same action in the Full Tilt Poker matter, appears to be another example of the same familial behavior. It's also worth noting that Sanai served as attorney representing yet another plaintiff in a large case involving Full Tilt Poker, that brought on behalf of Florida-based Cardroom International back in 2010. [GN] FUNDBOX INC: Faces TCPA Class Action ------------------------------------ Louie Torres, writing for Penn Record, reports that a Pennsylvania man alleges a San Francisco company has been unlawfully calling him for telemarketing purposes. James Everett Shelton filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Fundbox Inc. alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff received a telemarketing call on his cellphone from the defendant on June 21 and again on June 23. The plaintiff holds Fundbox Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly used an automatic telephone dialing system and contacted the plaintiff without his prior express written consent. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks to enjoin the defendant, damages, court costs and any further relief the court grants. He is represented by Clayton S. Morrow of Morrow & Artim PC in Pittsburgh. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case number 2:17-cv-03301-RBS [GN] GENE BY GENE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cole" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Michael Cole filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Michael Cole v. Gene by Gene, Ltd., Case No. 1:14- cv-00004-SLG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, Juneau. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Michael Cole purchased a DNA testing kit from http://www.familytreedna.com/,a Web site operated by Gene by Gene. Testing kits include a cheek swab used to collect DNA samples and an optional release form to authorize the sharing of the customer's name and e-mail address with his or her genetic matches. When testing is complete, Family Tree e-mails its customers a web link where they may view their results, locate genetic matches, and research their ancestral origins. Months later, after receiving excessive junk e-mail, Mr. Cole searched the Internet for his e-mail address and found it on a Web site called "Rootsweb." He alleges that he then learned his DNA test results had been publicly disclosed. Mr. Cole initiated this action alleging that its sharing of his DNA test results violated Alaska's Genetic Privacy Act. The appellate case is captioned as Michael Cole v. Gene by Gene, Ltd., Case No. 17-80160, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner MICHAEL COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: John Aaron Lawson, Esq. Ryan D. Andrews, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 N. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-9730 E-mail: alawson@edelson.com randrews@edelson.com Defendant-Respondent GENE BY GENE, LTD., a Texas limited liability company, DBA Family Tree DNA, is represented by: Matthew Wojcik, Esq. Holly Brauchli, Esq. BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1810 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 292-8930 E-mail: Matt.wojcik@bullivant.com holly.brauchli@bullivant.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Won" Suit in N.Y. Over Defective Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jones Won, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, and General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04819 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017), seeks redress for the defective vehicles the Defendants sold and the deceptive manner in which the Defendants have marketed and continues to market them. The Defendants operate a company that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com GENWORTH FINANCIAL: November 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP regarding the Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YOR In re GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC. CLASS ACTION SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Master File No. 1:14-cv-02392-AKH CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PURCHASERS OF THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC. ("GENWORTH") DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 3, 2011 THROUGH APRIL 17, 2012, INCLUSIVE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on November 15, 2017, at 4:00 p.m., before the Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14D, New York, NY 10007-1312, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the principal amount of $20,000,000.00, plus accrued interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Class Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and Class Representatives' expenses in connection with this Litigation should be approved. IF YOU PURCHASED PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF GENWORTH DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 3, 2011 THROUGH APRIL 17, 2012, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Genworth Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404003, Louisville, KY 40233-4003, or on the internet at www.Genworth2017SecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail postmarked no later than November 22, 2017, or submitted electronically no later than November 22, 2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than October 25, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All members of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class in response to the Notice will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense application must be mailed or delivered to each of the following recipients, postmarked no later than October 25, 2017: To the Court: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 To Class Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP DOUGLAS BRITTON 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 To Defendants' Counsel: DENTONS US LLP REID L. ASHINOFF 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 To Defendants' Counsel: PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Class Counsel at the address listed above or by an e- mail to Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP at djr@rgrdlaw.com or Labaton Sucharow LLP at settlementquestions@labaton.com. The Claims Administrator also maintains a website with copies of settlement-related documents, pleadings, and other documents filed in the Litigation at www.Genworth2017SecuritiesSettlement.com. DATED: August 22, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GOLDMAN SACHS: Hit With Class CA Over Racial Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Weissner, writing for Reuters, reports that a black banker in Goldman Sachs Group Inc's (GS.N) personal wealth management unit filed a lawsuit on August 16 accusing the firm of steering top clients to her white colleagues and denying her promotions because of her race. Rebecca Allen in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan said Goldman's virtually all-white senior leadership team favors white bankers for promotions and lucrative accounts, so they earn more than black coworkers. "Simply put, Goldman Sachs does virtually nothing to hire, promote or develop black talent, instead focusing its efforts on retaining and promoting white employees to positions of leadership," Allen said in the complaint. Goldman in a statement said the claims were meritless. "Our success depends on our ability to maintain a diverse employee base and we are focused on recruiting, retaining and promoting diverse professionals at all levels," the company said. Allen, who was hired in 2012, said that last year she was removed from an account she had worked on for three years by a Goldman partner, Christina Minnis. Allen says her supervisor met with Minnis about the decision and said she made racist and anti- Semitic comments about Allen, who is also Jewish. Minnis is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Allen's lawyers at New York City law firm Wigdor said in a statement that they believed other black Goldman employees would come forward with similar claims. "We can expose what is really happening behind the closed doors with regard to the denial of opportunity for entrance and advancement for qualified black individuals," the lawyers said. Wigdor is also representing a group of non-white current and former employees of Fox News Network LLC (FOXA.O) who say in a lawsuit in New York state court that they were belittled and marginalized because of their race. Fox has denied the claims. Allen's lawsuit comes as Goldman Sachs is facing proposed class action claims in the same court in Manhattan accusing the firm of discriminating against women in pay and promotions. Goldman has denied the claims and in June appealed a judge's decision rejecting its bid to dismiss part of the case. In August 16's lawsuit, Allen says her male colleagues were assigned to more lucrative accounts. But her legal claims stem only from alleged discrimination based on her race and religion. The case is Allen v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:17-cv-06195. [GN] HAJOCA CORP: Faces "Tinoco" Suit in C.D. of Calif. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hajoca Corporation. The case is styled as Jose Tinoco, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hajoca Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-04924 (C.D. Cal., August 21, 2017). Hajoca Corporation engages in the distribution of plumbing, heating, and industrial supplies in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. HUMANA INSURANCE: Removes "Wiener" Class Suit to W.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------------- Humana Insurance Company removed on July 31, 2017, the lawsuit captioned RUSSEL L. WIENER v. HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY from the Jefferson Circuit Court, Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00458-JHM-DW to the proceeding. On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff Russel Wiener filed a Class Action Complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Kentucky. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff's claim arises out Humana's alleged denial of coverage for treatment services his son received at an outdoor behavioral therapeutic program. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Humana's denial breaches the protections of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. Humana is a corporation whose principal place of business is in DePere, Wisconsin. Humana provides life, health, and accident insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Sparks, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA 150 E. Fourth Street, 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 629-9417 Facsimile: (513) 241-8259 E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com - and - Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 NE 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone: (954) 616-8995 Facsimile: (954) 206-0374 E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Angela L. Edwards, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP 101 South Fifth Street, Suite 2500 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 581-8017 Facsimile: (502) 581-8111 E-mail: angela.edwards@dinsmore.com - and - Andrew M. Federhar, Esq. Jessica A. Gale, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 2425 E. Camelback Road, Suite 850 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 333-5430 Facsimile: (602) 333-5431 E-mail: afederhar@spencerfane.com jgale@spencerfane.com INDIANAPOLIS: Faces Class Action Over Ban Targeting Homeless ------------------------------------------------------------ Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a homeless man represented by the American Civil Liberties Union sued Indianapolis on August 17 over the city's recent declaration of an emergency and prohibition on lying on the public sidewalk or congregating under certain underpasses. On Aug. 4, the city of Indianapolis allegedly distributed a notice around the city and under four underpasses where homeless people tend to congregate declaring an emergency. The notice also stated that all belongings had to be cleared from the underpasses within four days, according to a lawsuit filed on August 17 in Indianapolis federal court by lead plaintiff Maurice Young. Approximately 67 homeless people regularly slept under these underpasses, the complaint states, until city personnel physically removed them and their possessions on Aug. 8. Since then, Indianapolis police officers have allegedly informed homeless persons standing or sitting under the subject overpasses that they are not allowed to congregate there due to the declared emergency. Young, a homeless man, says he was told by police that he could not sit under the railroad bridges, but claims that other non- homeless persons have congregated under the same overpasses without police interference. His class-action lawsuit alleges that the homeless ban violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. He is represented by attorneys with the ACLU of Indiana. "Maurice Young, who is frequently in the Indianapolis downtown area, would like to be able to stand or sit on these sidewalks, without in any way obstructing pedestrian or other traffic, to rest and obtain shelter from the elements," the complaint states. Young asserts that the city's use of the term "emergency" is so vague that it cannot support the infringement of homeless persons' right to sit or stand on public city sidewalks. "He is now prohibited from doing so inasmuch as the City of Indianapolis has prohibited homeless persons from even stopping in these areas because of its declaration of an emergency," the complaint continues. Young is represented by Kenneth Falk, Gavin Rose and Jan Mensz with the ACLU of Indiana. A spokesperson for the city of Indianapolis did not immediately respond on August 17 to an email request for comment sent after business hours. The ACLU's Falk said in a statement that, "The Supreme Court has repeatedly invalidated attempts to prohibit persons from gathering for innocent purposes." "The right to do so does not depend on a person's housing status. The Constitution guarantees everyone equal protection under the law," he said. [GN] JACOBS ENGINEERING: "Kritch" Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The putative class action lawsuit titled James Kritch v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., et al., Case No. BC665997, was removed on July 31, 2017, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-05666-SVW-MRW to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from alleged employment discrimination. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. provides technical, professional, and construction services. The Company offers project services that include engineering, architectural, interiors, design, planning, and related services, as well as planning, scheduling, procurement, estimating, cost engineering, project accounting and delivery, safety, and other support services.[BN] Plaintiff James Kritch, as an individual on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented by: Jessica Sun Choi, Esq. Michael S. Morrison, Esq. ALEXANDER KRAKOW AND GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 394-0888 Facsimile: (310) 394-0811 E-mail: jchoi@akgllp.com mmorrison@akgllp.com - and - Michael Ross Parker, Esq. M R PARKER LAW PC 21700 Oxnard Street Suite 2080 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 334-5711 Facsimile: (818) 394-6448 E-mail: michael@mrparkerlaw.com Defendant Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Betsy Johnson, Esq. Ted Allan Gehring, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: betsy.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com ted.gehring@ogletree.com - and - Thomas B. Song, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC Park Tower 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-7900 Facsimile: (714) 754-1298 E-mail: thomas.song@ogletreedeakins.com JAMOS FUND: Oct. 26 Final Settlement Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------ In the action entitled, Bailey, et al. v. JAMOS Fund I, LP, et al, Case No. 10-CI-03403, which is pending in Division Six of the Jefferson Circuit Courthouse, the Court has set a hearing date for final approval of the parties' settlement for October 26, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in Division 6 of the Jefferson Circuit Courthouse. The Court will consider whether to approve the Settlement and award attorneys' fees and costs. JAMOS Fund I, LP, and Jamos Capital, LLC, purchased certificates of delinquency on properties where the owner failed to timely pay taxes, and the Jamos Entities retained the Attorney Defendants to collect the debt owed to pay off the certificate. In collecting this debt, attorneys' fees and interest were charged that the Class Representatives allege were unearned, unreasonable, and in violation of the law. The Jamos Entities and the Attorney Defendants deny the allegation and any wrongdoing, and the Court has not made a final decision either way. Plaintiffs believe the Class might have won more money than the settlement amount had the case gone to trial, but substantial delays and risks would have occurred, including the risk of the suit not being certified as a class action. The Jamos Entities and the Attorney Defendants believe that the claims asserted in the case are without substantial merit and that the Plaintiffs may have recovered nothing if there had been a trial, but there has been no trial. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the cost and uncertainty of a trial and appeal, and the people affected will get compensation and other settlement benefits promptly. The Class Representatives and the Class Counsel believe that the settlement is best for all Class Members. The "Settlement Class" includes the following subclasses: -- Damages Subclass All persons who, at any time during the Class Period from October 13, 2008, through the present day, had a certificate of delinquency against his, her or its property within the Commonwealth of Kentucky purchased by the Jamos Entities, or a subsidiary, agent, partner or assignor thereof, as to which the Jamos Entities assessed (1) the statutory maximum of prelitigation attorneys' fees; and/or (2) interest for the month in which the certificate of delinquency was purchased, and who actually paid such fees and/or interest. -- Injunctive Relief Subclass All persons who, at any time during the Class Period from October 13, 2008, through the present day, had a certificate of delinquency purchased against his, her or its property within the Commonwealth of Kentucky by the Jamos Entities, or a subsidiary, agent, partner or assignor thereof, as to which the Jamos Entities assessed (1) the statutory maximum of prelitigation attorneys' fees; and/or (2) interest for the month in which the certificate of delinquency was purchased, and who did not pay such fees or interest, but against whom a claim for such fees or interest remains outstanding. To resolve claims of all Settlement Class Members, the Attorney Defendants have agreed to pay approximately $1 million to the Settlement Class, and the Jamos Entities have agreed to cease any attempts to collect additional unpaid amounts, which total approximately $1.5 million. Defendants also will make a payment of $10,000.00 to each of the Class Representatives to resolve their claims and also in recognition of their efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class. Class Counsel: Ballinger Law, PLLC 3610 Lexington Road Louisville, KY 40207 Tel: 502-426-3215 - and - The Poppe Law Firm 8700 Westport Road, Suite 201 Louisville, KY 40242 Tel: 502-895-3400 Settlement Administrator: Bailey v. JAMOS Fund Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217-8091 Tel: 866-217-4459 Additional information on the Settlement is available at: http://www.jamosfundsettlement.com/ JC PENNEY: Seeks 10th Circuit Review of Orders in "Cavlovic" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., appeals from (i) the Magistrate Judge's July 14, 2017 Order denying J.C. Penney's Corporation, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration, and (ii) the District Court's August 8, 2017 Order denying J .C. Penney Corporation, Inc.'s Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) in the lawsuit titled Ann Cavlovic v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02042-JAR-TJJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings the putative class action against the Defendant, asserting claims for violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act and unjust enrichment. She alleges the Defendant's advertisements of its "original," "regular," "former," and "sale" prices and their corresponding price discounts are fraudulent and deceptive. The appellate case is captioned as Ann Cavlovic v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Case No. 17-3174, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Ann Cavlovic is represented by: Ashley Scott Waddell, Esq. WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC 2600 Grand, Suite 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 914-5365 Facsimile: (816) 817-8500 E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com - and - Bryce B. Bell, Esq. Mark W. Schmitz, Esq. BELL LAW, LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 886-8206 Facsimile: (816) 817-8500 E-mail: bryce@BellLawkc.com ms@belllawkc.com - and - Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 12 East California Avenue, Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 E-mail: reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com - and - W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 6810 FM 1960 West Houston, TX 77069 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Ryan C. Hudson, Esq. Scott B. Goodger, Esq. REX A. SHARP, PA 5301 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com rhudson@midwest-law.com sgoodger@midwest-law.com Defendant-Appellant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., is represented by: Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7658 Facsimile: (213) 229-6658 E-mail: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com - and - Mark A. Perry, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 887-3667 Facsimile: (202) 530-9696 E-mail: MPerry@gibsondunn.com - and - Christina M. Pyle, Esq. Michael S. Hargens, Esq. Taylor Brooke Concannon, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 4801 Main Street, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 983-8000 Facsimile: (816) 983-8080 E-mail: christina.pyle@huschblackwell.com michael.hargens@huschblackwell.com taylor.concannon@huschblackwell.com - and - Christopher A. Smith, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105-3441 Telephone: (314) 480-1836 Facsimile: (314) 480-1505 E-mail: chris.smith@huschblackwell.com LA PARK: Faces "Leisner" Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Leisner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. La Park La Brea A, LLC, Apartment Investment and Management Company d/b/a Aimco, Inc., Case No. BC672796 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 17, 2017) arises out of the Defendants' unlawful practice of misrepresenting the quality and type of amenities, including free gym classes and a gourmet coffee bar, provided at their apartment complexes in order to induce consumers into renting apartments at a premium rate, when in fact they have no intention to continue delivering the Amenities during the terms of the consumers' leases once entered into. The Defendants operate an apartment community in the Miracle Mile District, Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com LAMI PRODUCTS: Wins Joint Bid to Facilitate Notice in Vaughn Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Joan A. Lenard granted the parties' joint motion to facilitate notice & reschedule mediation in the lawsuit styled KATHLEEN VAUGHN, individually & On behalf of all similarly situated v. LAMI PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-20326-JAL (S.D. Fla.). The Joint Motion is granted as follows: (1) The Court's Order Referring Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman is vacated; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Facilitation of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 is granted; (3) Pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Court appoints Plaintiff's counsel from the law firm of Morgan & Morgan to serve as class counsel; (4) Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the Court approves the "Notice" attached as Exhibit "A" to the Joint Motion; (5) Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days a list of all putative class members as defined by the parties in a readable electronic format; (6) Plaintiffs shall mail the agreed notice via U.S. Mail within 14 days of receiving the list of the putative class members; (7) The putative class members shall have 45 days to join the action; (8) Defendant shall provide class data to Plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days of the close of the opt-in period; (9) The mediation presently scheduled for August 31, 2017, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with Hunter Hughes, Esq., shall be rescheduled until a date to be determined no later than sixty (60) days after the close of the notice period; (10) Plaintiff's counsel shall file with the Court an Amended Proposed Order Scheduling Mediation within ten (10) days of the close of the notice period; (11) Defendant's Motion to Strike Opt-in Notices Filed by Sandra Darrow and Ramon Vaughn is denied without prejudice; (12) Defendant's Motion to Strike Opt-in Notice filed by Jeannie Parks is denied without prejudice; (13) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is denied without prejudice; and (14) In the event that the Parties' mediation does not result in a settlement, Defendant may refile its Motions within 14 days following the mediation. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=APBpjClX LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Faces "Mey" Suit in N.D. of West Va. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Livefree Emergency Response, Inc. The case is styled as Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Livefree Emergency Response, Inc. doing business as: Life Beacon and MMHTC Medwatch Limited doing business as: Medwatch USA, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00131-FPS (N.D. W.V., August 18, 2017). LiveFree Emergency Response Inc. develops a GPS powered medical alarm system for seniors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. Broderick & Paronich, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 738-7080 Email: anthony@broderick-law.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Broderick & Paronich, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 738-7080 Email: ted@broderick-law.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. Bailey & Glasser, LLP - Charleston 209 Capitol St. Charleston, WV 25301 Tel: (304) 345-6555 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com - and - Jonathan R Marshall, Esq. Bailey & Glasser LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Tel: (304) 345-6555 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Email: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - Matthew P McCue, Esq. Law Office of Matthew P. McCue 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Tel: (508) 655-1415 Fax: (508) 319-3077 Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net - and - Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq. Bailey & Glasser, LLP - Charleston 209 Capitol St. Charleston, WV 25301 Tel: (304) 345-6555 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Email: rdonovan@baileyglasser.com LOTUS BY JOHNNY: Faces "Nguyen" Class Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- Long Nguyen, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public, Thuy Tran, and Luong Tran, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public v. Lotus by Johnny Dung Inc., formerly known as: Jade Lotus Way, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv- 01317-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2017), is brought over fraud- related claims. Lotus by Johnny Dung Inc., formerly known as Jade Lotus Way, Inc., is a California corporation headquartered in Fountain Valley, California. The Company sells and distributes Lotus cosmetic and dietary supplement products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dennis P. Riley, Esq. Rena E. Kreitenberg, Esq. MESISCA RILEY AND KREITENBERG LLP 800 West 6th Street, 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 623-2300 Facsimile: (213) 623-6600 E-mail: dpriley@mrklawyers.com rek@mrklawyers.com - and - Mike N. Vo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MIKE N. VO 17910 Skypark Circle, Suite 103 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 221-8238 Facsimile: (844) 394-0129 E-mail: mvo@mikevolaw.com MARYLAND: Court Dismisses Medicaid Eligibility Suit --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court, District of Maryland, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction the case captioned WICOMICO NURSING HOME, as assignee and/or authorized representative of Margaret Smith, Peggy Outten, Ruby Bounds, Shirley Hackett, Carol Snyder, and William Soil, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOURDES R. PADILLA, in her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Human Services, and DENNIS R. SCHRADER, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Health, Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-16-1078 (D. Md.). Pending before this Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Defendants' Motion). In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants have violated federal law by failing to timely issue Medicaid eligibility determinations as required under the federal Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396(a)(8) and 1396(a)(1), and its implementing regulations, 42 C.F.R. Section 435.912 and 42 C.F.R. Section 435.930. Plaintiffs also allege that the "systematic unjustified delays in processing of Medicaid applications at MDHS and MDH constitutes unlawful discrimination" in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12101. Defendants assert that they are entitled to state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and, thus, that this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction When a governmental entity challenges jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. The district court is to 'regard the pleadings' allegations as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment. Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of a complaint and not to resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses. The Eleventh Amendment provides that, the Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Eleventh Amendment immunizes states, state agencies, state instrumentalities, and state officials sued in their official capacities from suit by private parties in federal court. This exception to sovereign immunity is based on the notion, that a State officer who acts in violation of the Constitution is stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 160, 28 S.Ct. 441. Notwithstanding the Facilities' assertion that they are seeking prospective relief, they are unable to demonstrate how the relief sought in this suit on behalf of these residents can be characterized as prospective" so as to fall within the Young exception. In sum, as the relief which the Facilities seek is not prospective in nature, they are unable to avail themselves of the Young exception, and the Secretary Defendants are entitled to state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction must be granted. Defendants argue that even if they were not entitled to state sovereign immunity, the Facilities have not alleged a plausible claim that the residents' due process rights were violated. While the Facilities challenge the manner in which defendants processed the residents' applications, it cannot be said that a meaningful opportunity to challenge defendants' actions was unavailable to the residents so as to give rise to a possible due process violation. To the contrary, the First Amended Complaint alleges that four of the resident Margaret Smith, Shirley Hackett, Carol Snyder, and William Soil -- did avail themselves of the state administrative process. The fact that these residents (or the other residents who did not file administrative appeals) did not seek further relief through the state administrative and judicial processes does not give rise to a procedural due process claim in federal court. Thus, even if plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint were properly before this Court which it is no they fail to state a plausible claim that their due process rights were violated. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y95kne5jfrom Leagle.com. Wicomico Nursing Home, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen C. Morris, Schutjer Bogar. 116 Defense Highway, Suite 300Annapolis, MD 21401-7047. Wicomico Nursing Home, Plaintiff, represented by Katie Z. Van Lake, pro hac vice. Oakview SNF, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen C. Morris, Schutjer Bogar & Katie Z. Van Lake, SB2, pro hac vice. Anchorage Nursing, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen C. Morris, Schutjer Bogar & Katie Z. Van Lake, SB2, pro hac vice. Brooke Grove Foundation, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen C. Morris, Schutjer Bogar & Katie Z. Van Lake, SB2, pro hac vice. Lourdes R. Padilla, Defendant, represented by Hilma J. Munson, Maryland Office of the Attorney General. Dennis R. Schrader, Defendant, represented by Michael Lee Bouyea, Office of the Attorney General. MDL 2795: Asks JPML to Transfer 8 Class Suits to Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc., and some of its commonly-managed subsidiaries -- the Defendants in the multidistrict litigation styled In re: CenturyLink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litigation, MDL No. 2795 -- move the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to enter an order: (1) transferring to a single district court certain actions, as well as any lawsuits that may be subsequently filed, asserting identical or related claims, and (2) consolidating those actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings. CenturyLink recommends that the Panel transfer and consolidate these matters to the Hon. Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, who is currently presiding over one of the nine actions. CenturyLink is the third-largest phone carrier in the U.S., providing phone, Internet and video services to millions of customers. The Motion is filed on behalf of these eight CenturyLink Defendants: CenturyLink Communications, LLC; Embarq Minnesota, Inc., wrongly named as CenturyLink Embarq Minnesota Inc.; CenturyLink, Inc.; CenturyLink Public Communications, Inc.; CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc.; CenturyTel of Idaho, Inc.; CenturyTel of the Gem State, Inc.; and Embarq Florida, Inc. The CenturyLink Defendants are parties to nine virtually identical class-action lawsuits filed in nine different states, asserting claims based on similar billing disputes, brought by the same law firm in California on behalf of 14 plaintiffs. The actions were filed in nine federal courts: (1) District of Arizona, (2) Central District of California, (3) District of Colorado, (4) Middle District of Florida, (5) District of Idaho, (6) District of Minnesota, (7) District of Nevada, (8) District of Oregon, and (9) Western District of Washington. Fourteen plaintiffs, all alleging to be phone and Internet service customers of CenturyLink, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries have filed overlapping class-actions lawsuits alleging overcharging and improper billing. The actions allege the same core facts: that CenturyLink had a uniform policy or practice to increase customer bills by charging for services customers did not order. The CenturyLink Defendants contend that consolidation will (1) avoid encumbering multiple federal courts (and counsel) with duplicative work, including the same affirmative defenses, discovery efforts, and class-action issues, and will (2) avoid the risk of inconsistent results.[BN] Defendants CenturyLink, Inc. and its Subsidiaries are represented by: Douglas P. Lobel, Esq. David A. Vogel, Esq. COOLEY LLP 11951 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190-5656 Telephone: (703) 456-8000 Facsimile: (703) 456-8100 E-mail: dlobel@cooley.com dvogel@cooley.com MERSCORP INC: Dismissal of Recording Statutes Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga County, issued an Opinion affirming the lower court's dismissal of the complaint captioned STATE OF OHIO ex rel. JAMES R. FLAIZ, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO, et al., Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. MERSCORP, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 2016-G-0079 (Ohio App.). Appellants, James R. Flaiz, et al., appeal from the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas dismissing their complaint filed against appellees, MERSCORP, Inc., et al., for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Geauga County, Ohio and Brown County, Ohio, filed suit against appellees, MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS) alleging appellees violated Ohio law by failing to record assignments in Ohio county recorders' offices when they assigned mortgages as part of their securitization process, thereby avoiding Ohio's alleged mandatory recording statutes. The trial court issued its judgment granting appellees' motion to dismiss. In rendering its decision, the court analyzed the language of both R.C. 5301.25 provides, in relevant part: "A mortgage may be assigned or partially released by a separate instrument of assignment or partial release, acknowledged as provided by section 5301.01 of the Revised Code. The separate instrument of assignment or partial release shall be recorded in the county recorder's official records. The county recorder shall be entitled to charge the fee for that recording as provided by section 317.32 of the Revised Code for recording deeds." The court went on to observe that "the purpose of recordation has never been understood to supplement property taxes by making every landowner, mortgagee, pay a fee for a service he doesn't want. Recording is a valuable service, provided usually for a modest fee but provided only to those who think the service worth the fee. In light of these, the appellate court holds that neither R.C. 5301.25 nor R.C. 5301.32 impose a duty to record mortgages or assignments. The appellate court recognizes, however, the trial court found that recordation was not mandatory because the subject statutes failed to state who must record the document and when it shall be recorded. Implicit in the recording statutes at issue is the recognition that the mortgagee or the assignee would be the party to record the instrument because recordation functions to protect these parties. To wit, if the purpose of the recording statute is to give notice to the public of liens and, as a result, protect and prioritize the lien holder, it follows the lien holder would be the individual who has the burden of filing, if it chooses to enjoy the security of public filing. Moreover, it also follows that a mortgagee or assignee who desires the protection and security of recordation would file the respective lien as efficiently as possible to obtain the statutory protections that result from placing the public on notice of its interest. As a result, the appellate court finds the trial court's rationale in dismissing appellants' complaint to be wanting; because, however, the appellate court concludes the language, purpose, and context of the statutes under consideration demonstrate appellees were not obligated to record the instruments, the appellate court agrees with the trial court's conclusion that appellants have failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellants' remaining issues, relating to the trial court's dismissal of their unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and public nuisance claims are all based on the entitlement to fees and are therefore moot and without merit. For these reasons, the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. A full-text copy of the appellate court's August 7, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y85ojhylfrom Leagle.com. James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecutor; Bridey Matheney and Katherine A. Jacob, Assistant Prosecutors, Courthouse Annex, 231 Main Street, Suite 3A, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Plaintiff-Appellant, James R. Flaiz, Prosecuting Attorney of Geauga County, Ohio). Jeffrey S. Goldenberg - jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, 1 West Fourth Street, 18th Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Christian A. Jenkins, Minnillo & Jenkins Co., LPA, 2712 Observatory Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45208; and Patrick J. Perotti, Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., 60 South Park Place, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellant, Jessica Little, Prosecuting Attorney of Brown County, Ohio). Jeremy Gilman and Kari B. Consiglio - kbconiglio@vorys.com - Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, 200 Public Square, #2300, Cleveland, OH 44114; and Robert M. Brochin - bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300, Miami, FL 33131 (For Defendants-Appellees, Merscorp, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.). Nelson M. Reid - nreid@bricker.com - and Daniel C. Gibson - dgibson@bricker.com - Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., 100 South Third Street, Columbus, OH 43215; and Mary Beth Hogan - mbhogan@debevoise.com - Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (For Defendant-Appellee, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.). Dale H. Markowitz - DMarkowitz@tddlaw.com - and Todd C. Hicks, Thrasher - THicks@tddlaw.com - Dinsmore & Dolan, 100 Seventh Avenue, #150, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Defendant-Appellee, Home Savings & Loan of Youngstown). Thomas M. Hefferon and Joseph F. Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter, 901 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20001; and Bryan T. Kostura - bkostura@mcglinchey.com - and Barbara F. Yaksic - byaksic@mcglinchey.com - McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, 25550 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 406, Cleveland, OH 44122 (For Defendants- Appellees, Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, N.A., Individually and as Successor-By-Merger to Lasalle Bank National Association; CCO Mortgage Corporation; RBS Citizens, N.A.; RBS Securities, Inc.; and Everbank). Amanda Martinsek - amanda.martinsek@icemiller.com - and Marquettes D. Robinson - mrobinson@trzlaw.com - Thacker Robinson Zinz, LPA, 2330 One Cleveland Center, 1375 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114; and Thomas Panoff - tpanoff@mayerbrown.com - and Lucia Nale - lnale@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown, LLP, 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606 (For Defendants-Appellees, Citigroup, Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; and Citimortgage, Inc., Individually and as Successor-By-Merger to Principal Residential Mortgage, Inc.). Hugh E. McKay - hmckay@porterwright.com. - Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLP, 950 Main Ave., Suite 500, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company). Daniel R. Warren - dwarren@bakerlaw.com - and Brett A. Wall - bwall@bakerlaw.com - Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., 3200 PNC Center, 1900 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114; and Patrick T. Lewis - plewis@bakerlaw.com - Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., 3200 National City Center, 1900 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendants-Appellees, Fifth Third Bank; The Huntington National Bank, N.A.; and Keybank National Association). Thomas J. Lee - tlee@taftlaw.com - Stephen M. O'Bryan - sobryan@taftlaw.com - and William S. Dornette - dornette@taftlaw.com - Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., 3500 BP Tower, 200 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114; and R. Bruce Allensworth - bruce.allensworth@klgates.com - Brian M. Forbes - brian.forbes@klgates.com and Ryan Tosi - ryan.tosi@klgates.com - K&L Gates, LLP, State Street Financial Center, One Lincoln Street, Boston, MA 02111 (For Defendants-Appellees, Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp.). David A. Wallace, Esq., Carpenter Lipps & Leland, LLP, 280 Plaza, Suite 1300, 280 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215; and Phillip R. Perdew - rperdue@lockelord.com - Locke Lord LLP, 111 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606 (For Defendants-Appellees, GMAC Mortgage LLC and U.S. Bank National Association). MIDLAND CREDIT: Hernandez Renews Bid to Certify Class Under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-11179 (N.D. Ill.), filed with the Court his amended and renewed motion for class certification. Mr. Hernandez asks the Court to certify that his Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims may proceed on behalf of the class defined within his accompanying memorandum. He also asks the Court to name him as class representative, and to appoint his lawyers as counsel for the class. A copy of the Amended and Renewed Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mJa1OXA4 The Plaintiff is represented by: John Soumilas, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C., Land Title Building, Suite 1902 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Roger Zamparo, Jr., Esq. ZAMPARO LAWGROUP, P.C. 2300 Barrington Road, Suite 140 Hoffman Estates, IL 60169 Telephone: (224) 875-3202 Facsimile: (312) 276-4950 E-mail: roger@zamparo.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in "Rawa" ------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim in the case captioned JOSHUA RAWA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:17CV01252 AFG (E.D. Mo.). This putative class action filed under the Missouri Merchandise Practices Act (MMPA) is before the Court on Defendant Monsanto Company's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. In the spring of 2016, Plaintiff purchased a 35.2oz container of Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate (Super Concentrate). On the front of the container near the top, a small separate label stated, "Makes Up to 23 Gallons." Near the bottom of the main front label, appeared the statement, KILLS THE ROOTS GUARANTEED. Plaintiff purchased and used the product without opening the back booklet label, instead relying on the dilution rate provided by the circular diagram on the front of the booklet label, 2-1/2 fl oz Per Gallon of Water. Plaintiff obtained 14.08 gallons of the solution, not approximately 23 gallon as represented on the front of the container. Defendant sells Super Concentrate in other sizes, as well as Roundup Concentrate Plus in various sizes. All of these products have essentially the same labelling scheme as the container Plaintiff purchased. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that he and the other putative class members have suffered an ascertainable loss within the meaning of the MMPA, because the actual value of the Roundup Concentrate they purchased was less than the value of the product as represented. Motion to Dismiss Standard For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. The reviewing court must accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and construe them in the plaintiff's favor, but the court is not required to accept the legal conclusions the plaintiff draws from the facts alleged. MMPA Claims The MMPA, in relevant part, declares unlawful the use of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise. Missouri courts have explained the pleading requirements as follows: The MMPA protects consumers by expanding the common law definition of fraud to preserve fundamental honesty, fair play and right dealings in public transactions. To prevail on a claim under the MMPA, a plaintiff must plead and prove he or she (1) purchased merchandise (which includes services) from defendants; (2) for personal, family or household purposes; and (3) suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property; (4) as a result of an act declared unlawful under the Merchandising Practices Act. The Court believes that the Missouri Supreme Court would hold that it cannot be said as a matter of law that Super Concentrate's labelling was not deceiving. The Makes Up to 23 Gallons label on the front of Super Concentrate may well put a reasonable consumer on notice to check elsewhere on the container's labelling for mixing directions to obtain that yield. And indeed, mixing directions were provided on the circular diagram on the front of the back booklet label. But those directions, if followed, would result in much less than 23 gallons of weed killer. Significantly, the front of the booklet label did not direct a consumer to check the inside of the booklet label for other mixing options; nor did any part of the labelling on the front of the container. And the front of the back label did not qualify that the listed ratio was for the strongest solution, with more diluted options available. Under these circumstances, the Court find persuasive Plaintiff's argument that a fact question is presented as to whether a reasonable consumer would open the booklet label to search for a mixing option that would yield 23 gallons of weed killer. FIFRA Pre-emption FIFRA requires all pesticides, such as Roundup, to be registered with the EPA prior to sale or distribution. 7 U.S.C. Section 136a(a). The EPA will not register a pesticide if it is misbranded a pesticide is misbranded if, inter alia, its labelling bears any statement, design, or graphic representation relative thereto or to its ingredients which is false or misleading in any particular. A case against Defendant now pending in California district court, raising, under California's consumer protection statute, identical claims as those raised here, the district court rejected the pre- emption argument now advanced by Defendant in this case. The court stated that Defendant failed to demonstrate that the California statue, which is analogous to the MMPA, imposed any labelling or packaging requirements that were "in addition to or different from those required under FIFRA. This Court believes the Missouri Supreme Court would likewise reject Defendant's FIFRA pre-emption argument. Ascertainable Loss Here, Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the value of the Super Concentrate he purchased was less than the value of the products as represented because he believed the dilution instructions on the front of the booklet label would yield 23 gallons of solution, but the actual yield was significantly less. Plaintiff also sufficiently alleged that his product purchasing decision was dependent on the quantity of solution the product would yield. Standing Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not have standing to bring claims related to Concentrate Plus because he did not purchase it. Plaintiff contends that he has standing because the Concentrate Plus labelling and alleged injury are substantially similar those related to Super Concentrate. The District Court believes that the Missouri Supreme Court would hold that Plaintiff may not bring a claim under the MMPA for products he did not purchase. Plaintiff's allegations involving Concentrate Plus will be disregarded, with leave granted to amend the complaint to add a representative purchaser of Concentrate Plus. Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim is granted in part, and denied in part. The complaint is dismissed with respect to individual and class claims related to Roundup Concentrate Plus, and denied in all other respects. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9gtt59ufrom Leagle.com. Joshua Rawa, Plaintiff, represented by John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV, - jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, pro hac vice. Joshua Rawa, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin J. Dolley, LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC, 2726 S Brentwood Blvd, Brentwood, MO 63144, USA, Sidney Warren Jackson, III, JACKSON AND FOSTER LLC, 75 St. Michael St.Mobile, AL 36602 pro hac vice & Thomas A. Canova - tom@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC, pro hac vice. Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Erik L. Hansell -- erik.hansell@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP & John J. Rosenthal - jrosenthal@winston.com - WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP, pro hac vice. MUNGER FARMS: Faces "Covington" Employment Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Shinesha Covington on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Munger Farms LLC, Case No. Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2017-0007938 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 31, 2017), arises from employment-related issues. Based in Delano, California, Munger Farms, a partner in Naturipe Farms, produces blueberries, pistachios and almonds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121-2410 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com NAVIENT CORP: Faces "Travis" Suit in E. Dist. of New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navient Corporation. The case is styled as Marie Travis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Navient Corporation and Navient Solutions, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04885 (E.D. N.Y., August 18, 2017). Navient Corporation is a student loan servicer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Robert Reese, Esq. Reese LLP 100 West 93rd Street 16th floor New York, NY 10025 Tel: (212) 643-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com NEDBANK: South African Banks Could Face R60MM Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Phathu Luvhengo, writing for Destiny Connect, reports that South African largest banks including Nedbank, Absa, FirstRand and Standard Bank could be facing a R60 billion claim related to their conduct in attaching and selling the home of defaulting customers at prices below market value. Advocate Douglas Shaw has filed an application for direct access at the Constitutional Court on behalf of 219 people. About 100 000 homes have been repossessed by banks and sold in execution since 1994. It is estimated that 10% of these homes were sold for close to market value, with 90% of them sold below prevailing market values. South African banks reportedly sell property five times more frequently than the international norm and in some instances, for only 50% of market value. It has also been argued that going through the primary courts would be inappropriate, as the case was brought by people who were exceptionally poor. The court papers list Nedbank, Absa, FirstRand, Standard Bank, Changing Tides 17 -- a trustee of the SA Home Loans Guarantee Trust -- Investec, the National Credit Regulator, the South African Human Rights Commission, the Rules Board, the Minister of Justice and constitutional development as respondents. Advocate Shaw told Moneyweb that there were about 219 people in this case whose houses have been sold in execution -- repossessed by the bank and sold for a small percentage of the value. "Now, on average, the banks sell these properties for 50% of their value sometimes, which is terrible because in other countries 90%- 95% is normal. But, even worse, in some of these transactions, the banks have sold the properties for R100 or R1 000, which happens nowhere else in the world," he said. Shaw's papers reveal the average house price in today's money is about R1 million and the average discount that properties have been sold for appears to be around 50% of market price. Thus, the damage done to these 100 000 people is R50 billion. The maximum damages that could be awarded if every person affected since 1994 joined the claim would be R60 billion, equivalent to around a year's income generated by the big four banks. The papers reportedly refer to one case in which a bank attached and sold as property thought to have been financed by a R300 000 loan, when the actual loan amount was only R30 000. The applicants also want the court to order that no debt shall be reclaimable from a creditor when a property is sold for less than the value of the bond. Representatives from FNB and Standard Bank have told Moneyweb allegations would be reviewed and addressed once tabled before a court. [GN] NESTLE WATERS: Faces Suit Over 'Spring Water' Labeling ------------------------------------------------------ Lori Valigra, writing for Mainebiz, reports that Nestle Waters North America Inc., the parent of Poland Spring Water Co., is the subject of a class-action lawsuit by 11 individuals alleging a number of claims, including deceptive product labeling, Poland not being the source of the water and that some of its water collection sites are not from spring water. The 325-page lawsuit, filed Aug. 15 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, where Switzerland-based Nestle has its U.S. headquarters in Stamford, Conn., asks for a jury trial. It also lists $5 million as the amount on the lawsuit but does not list specific damages. The $5 million is the minimal amount for such a class-action lawsuit and could potentially go much higher, a lawyer familiar with the case said. A Poland Spring spokeswoman said on August 17 morning that the company has not yet been served regarding the case, but said it is without merit and the company is "highly confident in our legal position." If and when it is served, the normal practice is to file responses to the complaint, a lawyer familiar with the case said. He added that he doesn't know if any of the plaintiffs directly filed any complaints prior to filing the lawsuit to the company's customer service hotline regarding concerns about the source and labeling of the water. The plaintiffs also brought claims on behalf of a nationwide class on fraud and breach of contract, as well as various claims brought on behalf of the state sub-class including the states of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. A spokesperson for Nestle, which sells 15 different brands of bottled waters, said Poland Spring is the largest selling bottled water in the Northeast United States. The company did not release figures for the amount of water it bottles annually, but a 2014 article by Mainebiz noted that Nestle's net sales of bottled water in 2012 were $3.9 billion, and it was the largest bottled water company and third-largest U.S. non-alcoholic beverage company by volume. The company also sells Perrier, S. Pelligrino and Pure Life waters. What alleged violations in Maine claim The Maine claim was for violations of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Maine Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit noted that 30 days before filing the complaint, plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Nestle Waters in compliance with Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5, 213-1-A, demanding relief, identifying the claimant and reasonably describing the unfair and deceptive act or practice relied up and the injuries suffered. Among the claims, the plaintiffs allege that the "Evergreen Spring" site in Fryeburg fails the FDA's spring quality standard of identity because the well is not hydraulically connected to a genuine natural spring, the water collected by the well is not from the same underground strata as the groundwater that discharges into the alleged spring, the water does not have the same chemical and physical composition as the water discharging into the alleged springs, and the well draws from surface waters. The plaintiffs' suit was filed by representatives of Alexander H. Schmidt in New Jersey; Izard, Kindall & Raabe in West Hartford, Conn.; Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame, Calif., and in "The claims made in the lawsuit are without merit and an obvious attempt to manipulate the legal system for personal gain. Poland Spring is 100% spring water," Brian Nurse, vice president and associate general counsel for Nestle and Poland Spring, told Mainebiz. He added that the lawsuit was an attempt to manipulate the trust of consumers in the brand and in Maine's natural resources. A company statement added, "It meets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations defining spring water, all state regulations governing spring classification for standards of identity, as well as all federal and state regulations governing spring water collection, good manufacturing practices, product quality and labeling. We remain highly confident in our legal position." Nestle has been the target of other lawsuits in the past, including a 2003 lawsuit in Connecticut challenging the source of Poland Spring water. The suit was settled with Nestle not admitting to the allegations that the water is not from springs but heavily treated ground water, but offering $10 million in discounts to consumers and charitable donations for the five years after the suit was settled in September 2003. What bottled water labels mean U.S. consumers can buy at least 100 different types of bottled waters, according to industry estimates, which makes the profit on a case of water just pennies, Nestle told Mainebiz in 2014. The FDA's definitions quickly go into the weeds on the definitions of bottled water, including mineral content. Nestle said each state must meet the FDA standards, and some go above. Maine's Division of Environmental Health, which listed more than 18 bottled water plants, handles the compliance in the state. [ ] Poland Spring also publishes a water quality report on its website. The case comes at a time when bottled water sales by volume outpaced those of soda in 2016. Research firm Beverage Marketing Corp. of New York found Americans each drank an average of 39.3 gallons of bottled water in 2016 and 38.5 gallons of carbonated soft drinks. That compares with 36.5 gallons of bottled water in 2015 and 39 gallons of soda. Poland Spring has been expanding its water sources, having on Aug. 16 inked a 15-year agreement with the Rumford Water District to draw up to 150 million gallons of water annually from two of the district's wells. [GN] NETFLIX: Price Hike Sparks CA Lawsuit From Quebec Law Firm ----------------------------------------------------------- BNN reports that a Quebec man wants millions in compensation from Netflix on behalf of subscribers in the province, alleging the company violated strict consumer rights rules when it upped their fees. The class action document filed in Quebec Superior Court seeks permission to sue the popular video streaming service for allegedly charging higher fees unilaterally. "They had to send a notice which mentions exclusively the rate that the people were paying and the new rate," said lawyer Pierre Boivin, who represents the consumers. "They also have to mention that the consumer would have 30 days to cancel the contract if they don't agree with this increase, and that's not what Netflix sent. They did not respect this provision of the Consumer Protection Act." Boivin's Montreal law firm, Kugler Kandestin, is acting on behalf of Frederic Seigneur and other Quebecers -- an estimated 1.45 million subscribers in the province. The action has not yet been given the go-ahead by a judge, but Boivin said he hopes to have it in a few months time. A public relations firm that deals with the company said on August 17 that Netflix does not comment on ongoing litigation. Earlier this month, it announced it was hiking prices for new members, effective immediately, and would do the same for existing users after notifying them by email in the coming weeks. Netflix has invested heavily in producing its own original content in recent years, including "House of Cards," "Ozark" and in a slate of feature films bought at international film festivals. The Quebec suit would extend to any rate hike by Netflix since Aug. 11, 2014, and Boivin said there appears to have been just one, in 2016. Because the suit argues on the basis of Quebec legislation, other Canadian users are exempted, he said, adding Quebec subscribers wouldn't have to do anything to take part in the suit. The class action seeks a reimbursement of the fees paid since the 2016 hike -- $1 to $2 a month depending on the subscription. Boivin said that works out to roughly $14 million as of now, with lawyers seeking an additional $7.5 million in punitive damages. "When a company wants to do business in Quebec, it must minimally respect the law -- in this case, the Consumer Protection Act," he said. "They had to send a notice of the rate hike, which we argue they did not do." [GN] NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Demasco" Suit in E.D. of New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group, Inc. The case is styled as Hope M. Demasco, Jennifer Hertzovitz, Jaime Abreu, Robert J. Paulson, James M. Caruso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Northland Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04903 (E.D. N.Y., August 21, 2017). Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and student loan lenders.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE. OUT OF SITE: Judgment on Pleadings in "Mendelhall" Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued an Order granting Defendant Out of Site Infrastructure, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the case captioned JASON MENDENHALL, Plaintiff, v. OUT OF SITE INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., et al., Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-4996 (E.D. Pa.). Defendant Out of Site Infrastructure, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings granted on Counts II and III in regard to Plaintiffs claim that he is a proper representative in the case to represent the Plan and its members, current and former, and that the case may proceed as a class action. Defendant Out of Site Infrastructure Inc. Retirement Plan's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted on Counts II and III in regard to Plaintiffs claim that he is a proper representative in the case to represent the Plan and its members, current and former, and that the case may proceed as a class action. All claims Plaintiff purports to make as representative of the Plan or its participants are dismissed. The only remaining claims against Defendants Out of Site Infrastructure, Inc. and Out of Site Infrastructure Inc., Retirement Plan in Counts II and III involve Plaintiffs individual retirement account. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yb4fmxhqfrom Leagle.com. JASON MENDENHALL, Plaintiff, represented by AMY GALER -- office@brodierubinsky.com - BRODIE & RUBINSKY. JASON MENDENHALL, Plaintiff, represented by JOSHUA P. RUBINSKY - office@brodierubinsky.com - BRODIE & RUBINSKY, JESSICA L. MACKNER - office@brodierubinsky.com - BRODIE & RUBINSKY PC & LOUIS AGRE, LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS AGRE. OUT OF SITE INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER JAMES AMENTAS - chris@carosella.com - ARMSTRONG & CAROSELLA PC. OUT OF SITE INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, represented by FREDERICK P. SANTARELLI - fpsantarelli@elliottgreenleaf.com - ELLIOT GREENLEAF & SIEDZIKOWSKI P.C. PAUL VERNA, Defendant, Pro Se. JOHN TADDEI, Defendant, Pro Se. RAYONIER ADVANCED: Robbins Geller Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on August 18 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor on behalf of purchasers of Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. ("Rayonier") (NYSE:RYAM) common stock during the period between October 29, 2014 and August 19, 2015 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee and is captioned City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System v. Rayonier Advanced Materials, Inc., No. 17-cv-01167. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from August 17. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/rayonier/.Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Rayonier and certain of its officers and/or directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Rayonier manufactures cellulose specialty products that are sold throughout the world to companies for use in various industrial applications and to produce a wide variety of products, including cigarette filters, foods, pharmaceuticals, textiles and electronics. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Rayonier's business and outlook. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, despite the Company's claims during the Class Period that in 2015 Rayonier "will be able to maintain or increase [its] share of volume at each of [its] top 10 customers," since 2013, one of its top three customers, Eastman Chemical Company ("Eastman"), had been informing Rayonier of its competitors' pricing and had requested that Rayonier respond to declines in market pricing, leading to a protracted dispute between Rayonier and Eastman over the "meet and release" provision of their agreement. As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, Rayonier common stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a Class Period high of more than $30 per share. Then, on August 18, 2015, the Company filed a form 8-K with the SEC informing investors that the Company had filed an action against Eastman regarding its "chemical cellulose specialty products contract with Eastman." On August 19, 2015, the Company issued a press release further explaining the dispute with Eastman. Specifically, the release stated that the language in the contract at issue involved the "meet or release" provisions of the agreement, which allow Eastman to obtain "third party offers that meet the requirements of the Supply Agreement for similar cellulose specialties products, and would require [Rayonier] to either meet such price or release the volume, thereby allowing Eastman to purchase the volume from the third party." In addition, the release disclosed that on August 12, 2017, Eastman had filed an action against Rayonier regarding the same "meet or release" provisions in their contract. In reaction to these announcements, the price of Rayonier common stock fell $6.01 per share, or 44%, to close at $7.62 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Rayonier common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller is widely recognized as a leading law firm advising and representing U.S. and international investors in securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For the third consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. David A. Rosenfeld Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Tel No: 800-449-4900 E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN] RESORT MARKETING: Settles Free Cruise Robocall Class-Action ----------------------------------------------------------- ABC 7 reports that there's a potentially big payout for people who received a robocall offering free cruises during a certain period of time. The money is from the settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Resort Marketing Group. The suit claims RMG broke the law when it robocalled consumers without permission of cruise lines. Anyone getting calls from 2009 through 2014 may be eligible for up to $900. To determine if you are eligible, go to https://www.rmgtcpasettlement.com/Home.aspx. Follow the instructions on the File A Claim page to plug in your phone number and see if you qualify. [GN] ROCKET FUEL: Faces "Bushansky" Lawsuit Over Sale to Sizmek Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BUSHANSKY and MENDEL ZAKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ROCKET FUEL INC., E. RANDOLPH WOOTTON III, MONTE ZWEBEN, RICHARD A. FRANKEL, SUSAN L. BOSTROM, RONALD E. F. CODD, WILLIAM W. ERICSON, CLARK M. KOKICH, and JOHN J. LEWIS, Defendants, Case No: 3:17-cv-04454-JD (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2017), was brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Rocket Fuel Inc. against Rocket Fuel and its Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act and to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer, pursuant to which Rocket Fuel will be acquired by Sizmek Inc., an affiliate of Vector Capital IV, L.P. and Vector Capital V, L.P., and Sizmek's wholly owned subsidiary Fuel Acquisition Co. The Tender Offer commenced on August 2, 2017, and was scheduled to expire at 12:00 midnight, New York City time, at the end of August 29, 2017. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $145 million. According to the complaint, Rocket Fuel filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule that allegedly omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Needham & Company, LLC; and (ii) Rocket Fuel insiders' potential conflicts of interest. Rocket Fuel is a technology company. The Company's core service offerings are organized around two platforms: Demand Side Platform and Data Management Platform.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: 310/208-2800 Fax: 310/209-2348 - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212/682-3025 Fax: 212/682-3010 RP MARTIN: November 10 Euroyen Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Notice of Class Action Settlements If you transacted in Euroyen-Based Derivatives1 between January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, then your rights will be affected and you may be entitled to a benefit. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in connection with the proposed settlements with Settling Defendants R.P. Martin Holdings Limited and Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd. (collectively, "R.P. Martin"), Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citibank Japan Ltd., and Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc. (collectively, "Citi"), and HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank plc (collectively, "HSBC") in the actions titled Laydon v. Mizuho Bank Ltd. et al., 12-cv-3419 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.) and Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd. et al. v. UBS AG et al., 15-cv- 5844 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.). The settlements with R.P. Martin, Citi, and HSBC (collectively, the "Settlements") are not a settlement with any other Defendant and thus are not dispositive of any of Plaintiffs' claims against remaining Defendants. The Settlements have been proposed in a class action lawsuit concerning the alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate for the Japanese Yen ("Yen-LIBOR") and the Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate ("Euroyen TIBOR") from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. The Settlements will provide $58 million to pay claims from persons who transacted in Euroyen- Based Derivatives from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim form to potentially get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from the Settlements, or object to them. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this Notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlements. Who Is Included? You are a "Settlement Class Member" if you purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in any Euroyen-Based Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or agent of any Defendant; (ii) the Released Parties; and (iii) any Class Member who files a timely and valid request for exclusion. Contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, or held Euroyen-Based Derivatives. If you are not sure you are included, you can get more information, including the Settlement Agreements, Mailed Notice, Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and other important documents, at www.EuroyenSettlement.com ("Settlement Website") or by calling toll free 1-866-217-4453. What Is This Litigation About? Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, between January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, manipulated or aided and abetted the manipulation of Yen-LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of Euroyen-Based Derivatives. Defendants allegedly did so by using several means of manipulation. For example, panel banks that made the daily Yen-LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR submissions to the British Bankers' Association and Japanese Bankers Association (collectively, "Contributor Bank Defendants"), such as Citi and HSBC, allegedly falsely reported their cost of borrowing in order to financially benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions. Contributor Bank Defendants also requested that other Contributor Bank Defendants make false Yen-LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR submissions on their behalf to benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions. Plaintiffs further allege that inter-dealer brokers, intermediaries between buyers and sellers in the money markets and derivatives markets (the "Broker Defendants"), such as R.P. Martin, had knowledge of, and provided substantial assistance to, the Contributor Bank Defendants' foregoing alleged manipulations of Euroyen-Based Derivatives in violation of 22(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 25(a)(1). For example, Contributor Bank Defendants used the Broker Defendants to manipulate Yen-LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of Euroyen- Based Derivatives by disseminating false "Suggested LIBORs," publishing false market rates on broker screens, and publishing false bids and offers into the market. Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories, including federal antitrust law, the Commodity Exchange Act, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law. Citi, R.P. Martin, and HSBC have consistently and vigorously denied Plaintiffs' allegations. What Do the Settlements Provide? Under the Settlements, Citi agreed to pay $23 million and HSBC agreed to pay $35 million into a Settlement Fund. If the Court approves the Settlements, potential Settlement Class Members who qualify and send in valid Proof of Claim forms may receive a share of the Settlement Fund after it is reduced by the payment of certain expenses. The Settlement Agreements, available at the Settlement Website, describe all of the details about the proposed Settlements. The exact amount each qualifying Settlement Class Member will receive from the Settlement Fund cannot be calculated until (1) the Court approves the Settlements; (2) certain amounts identified in the full Settlement Agreements are deducted from the Settlement Fund; and (3) the number of participating Class Members and the amount of their claims are determined. In addition, each Settlement Class Member's share of the Settlement Fund will vary depending on the information the Settlement Class Member provides on their Proof of Claim form. The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case to case. If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a Proof of Claim form, you could get more money. R.P. Martin, in order to resolve the claims against them, agreed to provide cooperation (including documents, audio tapes, transaction data, and other cooperation) to Plaintiffs' counsel for the benefit of the Class. How Do You Ask For a Payment? If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may seek to participate in the Settlements by submitting a Proof of Claim to the Settlement Administrator at the address below postmarked no later than January 24, 2017. You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the Settlement Website or by calling the toll-free number referenced above. If you are a Settlement Class Member but do not file a Proof of Claim, you will still be bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreements if the Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreements. What Are Your Other Options? All requests to be excluded from the Settlements must be made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice and must be postmarked to the Settlement Administrator no later than October 6, 2016. The Settlement Notice, available at the Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or object. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the Settlement Agreements and can independently pursue claims at your own expense. However, if you exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund or otherwise participate in the Settlements. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in these cases on November 10, 2016, to consider whether to approve the Settlements and a request by the lawyers representing all Settlement Class Members (Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.) for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than one-fourth of the Settlement Fund for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement, and for reimbursement of their costs and expenses in the amount of no more than approximately $1,000,000. The lawyers for the Settlement Class may also seek additional reimbursement of fees, costs, and expenses in connection with services provided after the Fairness Hearing. These payments will also be deducted from the Settlement Fund before any distributions are made to the Settlement Class. You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not have to. For more information, call toll free 1-866-217-4453, visit the website www.EuroyenSettlement.com. 1 "Euroyen-Based Derivatives" means (i) a Euroyen TIBOR futures contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"); (ii) a Euroyen TIBOR futures contract on the Tokyo Financial Exchange, Inc. ("TFX"), Singapore Exchange ("SGX"), or London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (iii) a Japanese Yen currency futures contract on the CME; (iv) a Yen-LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR based interest rate swap entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (v) an option on a Yen-LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR based interest rate swap ("swaption") entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (vi) a Japanese Yen currency forward agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; and/or (vii) a Yen-LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR based forward rate agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S. PATRIOT DRILLING: "Woloszyn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Woloszyn, individually and for others similarly situated v. Patriot Drilling Fluids, Q'Max Solutions, and Q'Max America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01076-NBF (W.D. Penn., August 16, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate an oil and natural gas exploration and production company operating throughout the United States, including Ohio and Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412)766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and - Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. affirmed bankruptcy court judgment ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court in favour of Defendant Ira Bodenstein, Chapter 7 trustee in the case captioned IN RE: PEREGRINE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Debtor. SECURE LEVERAGE GROUP, INC., et al., Appellants, v. IRA BODENSTEIN, Appellee, and COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Intervenor- Appellee. IN RE: PEREGRINE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Debtor, ROBERT MILLER, et al., Appellants, v. IRA BODENSTEIN, Trustee of Estate of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., Appellee. Nos. 16-3424, 16- 3425. (7th Cir.) This is a consolidated appeal from judgments entered by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court in favor of Ira Bodenstein, the Chapter 7 trustee of the estate of Peregrine Financial Group (Peregrine). After an adversary proceeding was terminated, another group of customers including Robert Miller and others (Miller plaintiffs), filed a class action adversary proceeding against Bodenstein, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and conversion, and seeking the imposition of a constructive trust. As that claim was filed two years after the bar date for proofs of claim, and involved claims based on facts unrelated to the timely filed contract-based claims, the bankruptcy court dismissed the action as untimely. On appeal, the plaintiffs in this consolidated action challenge the decisions of the bankruptcy court and the district court. The Secured Leverage plaintiffs assert, inter alia, that their funds were held in a resulting trust and therefore were not included in the bankruptcy estate; the forex and spot metal contracts constituted commodity contracts under the similar contracts clause, 11 U.S.C. Section 761(4)(F)(i). The Seventh Circuit held that in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district court properly resolved all of those challenges, and nothing that is argued in the briefs to the Seventh Circuit leads it to disagree with the district court's analysis. Because the Seventh Circuit agrees with the reasoning and conclusions of the district court as to all of the issues raised on appeal, it adopts the district court's opinion set forth at Secure Leverage Grp., Inc. v. Bodenstein, 558 B.R. 226, 231 (N.D. Ill. 2016) as its own in this appeal. The decision of the district court as to both appeals is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 7, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yadg45ztfrom Leagle.com. Robert M. Fishman - rfishman@shawfishman.com - for Appellee. Michael John O'Rourke, 4940 Beach Blvd, Jacksonville, FL 32207- 4858, for Appellant. Michael C. Moody, 55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1400Chicago, IL 60601 for Appellant. Terence G. Banich - tbanich@shawfishman.com - for Appellee. Anne Stukes, 1700 K St NW, Washington, DC 20006 USA for Intervenor-Appellee. Carrie Ellen Davenport, 321 N Clark St Ste 800 Chicago, IL 60654- 4766 for Appellee. Kavita Kumar Puri - KAVITA.KUMAR.PURI@APORTER.COM - for Intervenor-Appellee. Vivian R. Drohan 575 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022 for Appellant. John Patrick Drohan, III, 575 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022 for Appellant. PRECISION DEMOLITION: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Castro" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Arturo Castro filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Arturo Castro v. Precision Demolition, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-213, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. The appellate case is captioned as Arturo Castro v. Precision Demolition, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 17-10895, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ARTURO CASTRO, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b), is represented by: Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.C. 6310 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com josh.a.petersen@gmail.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net Defendants-Appellees PRECISION DEMOLITION, L.L.C.; PRECISION DEMOLITION, L.P.; HOLFORDS PRAIRIE PARTNERS, L.L.C.; RAYMOND D. RICKER, III; and AARON SMITH are represented by: Darrell W. Smith, Esq. CUTLER-SMITH PC 12750 Merit Drive Dallas, TX 75251 Telephone: (214) 219-0800 Facsimile: (214) 219-0854 E-mail: darrell@cutler-smith.com PRESTONE PRODUCTS: Faces CA Over Vehicle Damage Caused by Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a St. Louis consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against a vehicle maintenance products manufacturer, citing alleged false representations. Paul Weishaar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Prestone Products Corp. alleging that the defendant violated the Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in 2010, he purchased the defendant's windshield wiper fluid, which was advertised to protect vehicle wiper fluid systems from freezing temperature. The plaintiff claims the wiper fluid froze and did not perform as intended. As a result, Weishaar and others claim they were forced to make repairs to their vehicles to remedy the issues caused by freezing windshield wiper fluid. They also claim they were at an increased risk of accidents due to poor visibility. The plaintiff holds Prestone Products responsible because the defendant's product allegedly failed to perform as advertised, the company allegedly omitted or suppressed material facts regarding the product and made false promise and misrepresentation as the product failed to protect down to the freezing temperature as advertised and marketed for sale to the public. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment individually and on behalf of the other members of the class, his expenses, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and for other relief that may be just and proper. He is represented by Ryan P. Horace, Esq. -- ryan@swmwlaw.com -- of SWMW Law, LLC in St. Louis and Steven J. Stolze, Esq. -- sstolze@allfela.com -- of Holland Law Firm in St. Louis. St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC10829 [GN] PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC: Hit With Potential Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Ryan Smith, writing for Insurance Business Magazine, reports that Progressive Insurance is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing it of sharing clients' personal information. The lawsuit accused Progressive Classic Insurance Co., a progressive subsidiary, and debt-collection agency Kohn Law Firm, of sharing people's driver's license numbers in court documents, a violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The lead plaintiff, Jeffrey George, accused the companies of putting his unredacted driver's license number on court documents filed with the Eu Claire County, Wisc., Circuit Court in 2014. "The disclosure of plaintiff's unredacted driver's license number amounts to an ongoing, unabated public nuisance under Wisconsin law, as it constitutes unreasonable behavior and actions that interfere substantially with plaintiff's use of the public roadways," the lawsuit said. The trouble began when George was involved in a car accident with a Progressive customer. Progressive Classic initiated legal action against him and won a judgment. Kohn Law Firm, acting on behalf of Progressive Classic, notified the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles of the unpaid judgment using forms that contained George's driver's license number. The lawsuit is intended to represent a class whose driver's license numbers the companies shared in court filings over the last four years. The lawsuit argued that the company "poses a public threat by placing at risk, through publication of private information, the safety and security of those with whom it does not have contractual relations." [GN] PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: McCracken Appeals D. Colo. Order to 10th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Brenda McCracken and Christa Hecht filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled McCracken, et al. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 1:17-CV-00114-CMA- STV, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver. The lawsuit arose from insurance-related issues. The appellate case is captioned as McCracken, et al. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 17-1285, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case was set as follows: -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of appearance were due August 28, 2017, for Christa Hecht and Brenda McCracken; and -- Notice of appearance were due on August 28, 2017, for Progressive Direct Insurance Company and Progressive Preferred Insurance Company.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BRENDA MCCRACKEN and CHRISTA HECHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Patricia A. Meester, Esq. Jonathan Steven Parrott, Esq. Keith R. Scranton, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014-0000 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 Facsimile: (303) 759-5203 E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com meesterp@fdazar.com JParrott@fdazar.com scrantonk@fdazar.com - and - Tonya L. Melnichenko, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES 5536 Library Lane Colorado Springs, CO 80918-0000 Telephone: (719) 527-8000 E-mail: melnichenkot@fdazar.com - and - Bradley A. Levin, Esq. Susan S. Minamizono, Esq. Nelson Andrew Waneka, Esq. LEVIN SITCOFF 1512 Larimer Street, Suite 650 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 575-9390 E-mail: bal@robertslevin.com ssm@levinsitcoff.com naw@levinsitcoff.com Defendants-Appellees PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by: Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. Sammantha Jeannine Tillotson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 E-mail: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com jtillotson@TillotsonLaw.com PW BISHOP: Knepp Seeks to Recover OT and Minimum Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KNEPP and other similarly situated non-exempt employees v. P.W. BISHOP DAIRY, INC. a Florida Profit Corporation and HAMILTON L. BISHOP, Individually, Case No. 2017-018372-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., July 31, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime and minimum wages, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. P.W. Bishop Dairy, Inc., has its main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Defendant operated as an organization, which sells and markets its dairy services and goods to customers throughout the United States. Hamilton L. Bishop is a corporate officer of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattomeys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com ROTOR HOLDINGS: Cohn Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY COHN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ROTOR HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and PAUL TUROVSKY. Individually, Case No. 2:17-cv-00438-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., July 31, 2017), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Rotor Holdings, Inc., doing business as LTO, is a Florida Profit Corporation with a principal place of business in Fort Myers, Florida. Paul Turovsky, a resident of Lee County, Florida, manages and operates LTO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A. 4423 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com ROYAL PLAINVIEW: Romero Files Class Suit in E.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Plainview Car Wash Inc. The case is styled as Alexander Romero as assignee of, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Royal Plainview Car Wash Inc. and Qin Hu Qu, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04859 (E.D. N.Y., August 18, 2017). Royal Plainview Car Wash Inc. is engaged in the cash wash business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Appeals Order in "Benoit" PFOA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., and Honeywell International Inc., filed an appeal from a District Court order entered on August 2, 2017, in the lawsuit styled as THELMA BENOIT AND DAVID BENOIT v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., AND HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-930, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The appellate case is captioned as THELMA BENOIT AND DAVID BENOIT v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., AND HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 17-2494, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Defendants-Appellants want the Second Circuit to determine whether: * under Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 22 N.Y.3d 439, 446 (2013), an asymptomatic plaintiff may state a claim in tort for medical monitoring damages by alleging accumulation of an allegedly harmful substance in the plaintiff's body; and * under 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc., 96 N.Y.2d 280 (2001), a plaintiff may state a claim in tort for economic harm alone in the form of diminution of property value without alleging physical injury to the subject property. The action concerns the presence of perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), a hazardous substance, in groundwater in Hoosick Falls, New York. PFOA is a compound that repels oil, grease, and water, and was widely used by many companies for decades to manufacture numerous products, including food packaging, clothing, furniture fabrics, and cookware.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents THELMA BENOIT AND DAVID BENOIT are represented by: Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq. Tate J. Kunkle, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (844) 230-7676 E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com tkunkle@napolilaw.com Defendant-Petitioner Saint- Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation is represented by: Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. Mark S. Cheffo, Esq. Douglas E. Fleming, III, Esq. Patrick D. Curran, Esq. Lincoln Davis Wilson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com Defendant-Petitioner Honeywell International Inc. is represented by: Michael D. Daneker, Esq. Elissa J. Preheim, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: Michael.Daneker@aporter.com Elissa.Preheim@aporter.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Beture Sues Over Galaxy Note 4 Defects ----------------------------------------------------------- ERMIAS BETURE, ELISHA POLOMSKI, and JAMES SAMUELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, Defendant, Case No: 2:17-cv-05757- SRC-CLW (D.N.J., August 4, 2017), is a consumer suit brought by Plaintiffs who allege that Samsung concealed a known material defect in Samsung Galaxy Note 4 and Galaxy Note 4 Edge smartphones. The defective component is the eMMC (embedded MultiMediaCard) memory, which prematurely fails, rendering Galaxy Note 4 smartphones inoperable, says the complaint. Defendant allegedly knew or should have known about the eMMC memory defect, and despite this knowledge, it failed to disclose the defect to purchasers of Note 4 phones. Defendant then unjustly profited on this omission by routinely refusing to provide repairs free of charge, the complaint adds. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. Plaintiffs purchased Galaxy Note 4 phones.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary "Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 210 Summit Avenue Montvale, NJ 07645 Phone: (201) 391-7000 - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Faces "Pike" Suit in C.D. of Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of San Bernardino. The case is styled as Penny Pike and David Denkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. County of San Bernardino a legal subdivision of the State of California and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv- 01680 (C.D. Cal., August 18, 2017). County of San Bernardino a legal subdivision of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. SCICLONE PHARMA: Faces "Sciabacucchi" Suit Over Silver Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sciabacucchi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jon S. Saxe, Friedhelm Blobel, Nancy T. Chang, Richard J. Hawkins, Gregg Anthony Lapointe, Simon Li, Silver Biotech Investment Limited, and Silver Delaware Investment Limited, Case No. 4:17-cv-04799-JSW (N.D. Cal., August 17, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 8, 2017, pursuant to which SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. will be acquired by Silver Biotech Investment Limited and its wholly owned subsidiary, Silver Delaware Investment Limited and together with Parent, which were formed by a consortium consisting of entities affiliated with GL Capital Management GP Limited, Bank of China Group Investment Limited, CDH Investments, Ascendent Capital Partners, and Boying Investment Limited for $11.18 in cash for each share of SciClone. According to the complaint, Sciclone filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Sciclone stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's unlevered free cash flows to be generated by each of the Company's products and product candidates, estimated future net cash, and the estimated future general and administrative expenses, as well as the line items used to calculate the unlevered free cash flows; (ii) the inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 9.5% to 11.5%; (iii) Lazard's bases for applying each of the terminal growth rate ranges for each of the Company's products and product candidates, and the estimated future general and administrative expenses; (iv) the exit multiples implied from the analysis; and (v) the Company's estimated cash balance as of July 30, 2017, as used by Lazard in its analysis. The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest Sciclone's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy the Defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied. Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a revenue-generating, specialty pharmaceutical company with a substantial commercial business in China and a product portfolio spanning major therapeutic markets including oncology, infectious diseases, and cardiovascular disorders. [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 - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com SELECT STAFFING: Faces "Joseph III" Suit in C.D. of Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Staffing. The case is styled as Edward Joseph III, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Select Staffing, Insight Worldwide, Inc. and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06134 (C.D. Cal., August 18, 2017). Select Staffing is a provider of temporary staffing and employment services in the U.S., with nationwide operations across multiple contingent staffing sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Laura Gutierrez and Jessica Arreola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Senior Lifestyle Corporation, and SLH North Shore Management, LLC, and Automatic Data Processing, Inc., Case No. 2017-CH-11314 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 17, 2017), seeks to put a stop to the Defendants' unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class's sensitive biometric data. Senior Lifestyle Corporation and SLH North Shore Management, LLC operate a retirement and assisted living facilities in the State of Illinois. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. is a provider of human resource management software and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Sydney Janzen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com sjanzen@edclson.com - and - David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dtish@fishlawfinn.com jkunze@fishlawfinn.com SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Faces "Lafferty" Suit in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Sherwin Williams Company, Inc. The case is styled as Brad Lafferty in their capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of their minor daughter, EL, a minor, Christen Lafferty in their capacity of guardians ad litem of their minor daughter, el, a minor, Corrine Procajlo, Lauren Procajlo, Sandra Keating, Michael Digiovanni, Spencer Pope, Lisa Digiovanni, Gina Tartaglia, Anthony Tartaglia, Scott Littlefield in their capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of their minor daughter, LL, a minor, Kristen Littlefield, in their capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of their minor daughter, LL, a minor, Dawn D'Orazio, Gina Hyndman in their individual capacity and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Sherwin Williams Company, Inc and John Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06321-JHR-AMD (D. NJ., August 22, 2017). The Sherwin-Williams Company is engaged in the development, manufacture, distribution and sale of paint, coatings and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig R. Mitnick, Esq. 35 KINGS HIGHWAY EAST Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Tel: (856) 427-9000 SIBANYE GOLD: Silicosis CA Lawsuit 'Being Handled' Out Of Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Masa Kekana, writing for Eye Witness News, reports that the mining companies facing a class action lawsuit to compensate miners who contracted lung cancer have provisionally set aside between $30 million and $100 million for a possible settlement. They say the matter is being handled out of court. The companies involved include Sibanye Gold, Harmony Gold Mining, African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American South Africa, Anglo Gold Ashanti and Gold Fields. The mining companies involved, known as the industry working group, say they do not believe they are liable in respect of the claims brought. However, the companies say they're committed to finding solutions to what they've called "a legacy issue" in the sector. The group is appealing the 2013 Johannesburg High Court ruling for them to compensate workers who contracted silicosis at work. The 2013 ruling found that if the person is already deceased, their dependents should be compensated. But spokesperson for the working group representing the six companies, Allen Sine, says that the companies don't agree with aspects of the ruling. "They all believe they have a legitimate case to make. However, neither the companies or claimants believe it would be best to pursue this through the courts for the next 10 to 15 years." The case will be heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal in March. [GN] SK FOODS: Court Issues Final Judgment as to Ingomar, Los Gatos -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, issued final judgment Order as to Defendants Ingomar Packaging Company, Gregory Pruett, Los Gatos Tomato Products and Stuart Woolf in the case captioned FOUR IN ONE COMPANY, INC., DIVERSIFIED FOODS & SEASONINGS, INC., BRUCE FOODS CORPORATION, and CLIFFSTAR CORPORATION, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SK FOODS, L.P., INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY, LOS GATOS TOMATO PRODUCTS, SCOTT SALYER, STUART WOOLF and GREG PRUETT, Defendants, Case No. 08-CV-3017 KJM EFB (E.D. Cal.). The Court entered an Order granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Defendants Ingomar Packing Company and Greg Pruett (Ingomar) and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Los Gatos Tomato Products and Stuart Woolf (Los Gatos). The Order specified the approved manner that the claims administrator was to provide Class Notice to the Settlement Class. The Court dismisses on the merits and with prejudice the Consolidated Class Action Complaint as to Ingomar Packing Company, Greg Pruett, Los Gatos Tomato Products and Stuart Woolf. If the Settlement Agreement becomes null and void pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Final Judgment will be deemed vacated and will have no force or effect whatsoever as to that Settlement Agreement. Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment in any way, the Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties, including all Class members, and the execution, consummation, administration, and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreements. The Court finds there is no just reason for delay in the entry of final judgment as to Defendants Ingomar Packing Company, Greg Pruett, Los Gatos Tomato Products and Stuart Woolf, and therefore directs the Clerk to enter the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7vvhn2gfrom Leagle.com. Four in One Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey, - abailey@hausfeldllp.com - Hausfeld LLP. Four in One Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dana Statsky Smith, - Dsmith@bernlieb.com - Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, pro hac vice, Donald A. Ecklund, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein, 5 Becker Farm RoadRoseland, NJ 07068 pro hac vice, James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart and Olstein, pro hac vice, Joey Dean Horton - jdhorton@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, Ronald J. Aranoff - raranoff@wmd-law.com - Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP, pro hac vice, Stanley D. Bernstein - Bernstein@bernlieb.com - Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Steig D. Olson steigolson@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephaine M. Beige -: Beige@bernlieb.com - Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen R. Neuwirth - stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice & Tania T. Taveras, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, pro hac vice. Cliffstar Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey, Hausfeld LLP, Steig D. Olson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Allan Steyer - asteyer@stayerlaw.com - Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Holly Joy Stirling - hstirling@cov.com - Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith, LLP, Lucas E. Gilmore - Lucas.Gilmore@blbglaw.com - Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Bruce L. Simon, Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny. SK Foods, L.P., Defendant, represented by Paul Robert Griffin, - pgriffin@winston.com - Winston & Strawn LLP, Robert Bernard Pringle - rpringle@winston.com - Winston and Strawn & Jonathan E. Swartz, Winston and Strawn LLP. Randall Rahal, Defendant, represented by David Warren Dratman, - dwdratman@aol.com - David W. Dratman, Attorney at Law. Intramark USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Warren Dratman, David W. Dratman, Attorney at Law. Scott Salyer, Defendant, represented by Malcolm S. Segal, Segal & Associates, PC. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2550, Sacramento, CA 95814, Tel. (916) 441-0886 Bradley D. Sharp, Chapter 11 Trustee for SK Foods, LP, Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Nuti - gnuti@nutihart.com - Nuti Hart LLP & Kevin W. Coleman, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP. United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Sean C. Flynn, United States Attorney's Office. US Department of Justice, Intervenor, represented by Anna Tryon Pletcher, US DOJ/Antitrust Division, Richard B. Cohen, Department of Justice/Antitrust Division & Tai Snow Milder, U.S. DOJ - Antitrust Division. Bruce Foods Corporation, Neutral, represented by Alexandra S. Bernay - xandb@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney - bsweeney@hausfled.com - Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP, Carmen Anthony Medici - cmedici@rdrglaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock - clebsock@hausfeld.com - Hausfeld Llp, Craig C. Corbitt - ccorbitt@zelle.com - Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason, LLP, Hilary K. Ratway, Hausfeld, LLP, Allan Steyer - asteyer@steyerlaw.com - Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Arthur N. Bailey - abailey@hausfeld.com - Hausfeld LLP, Holly Joy Stirling - hstirling@cov.com -Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith, LLP, Kimberly Ann Kralowec, - kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com - The Kralowec Law Group, Lucas E. Gilmore, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Roger M. Schrimp, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva. Diversified Foods and Seasonings, Inc., Neutral, represented by Arthur N. Bailey, Hausfeld LLP, Eric B. Fastiff - efastiff@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein & Joseph R. Saveri - jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com - Saveri Law Firm. Morning Star Packing Company, Neutral, represented by Alex James Kachmar, Jr. - jkachmar@weintraub.com - Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin. L'Ottavo Ristorante, et al., Neutral, represented by Jeff S. Westerman -- jwesterman@jswlegal.com - Westerman Law Corp. SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Nassiri" ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued Order granting the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint filed by Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez in the case captioned MOHAMMAD NASSIRI, et al., Plaintiff, Plaintiffs, v. NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Social Security Administration; Supervisor Mary Hagar; Duke Duc Tran; SSA Agent Nicholas Pilcher, SSA Agent Sundeep Patel, William Villasenor, and Dulce Sanchez, Defendants, Case No. 15cv0583-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal.), and ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The matters before the Court are the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint filed by Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez and the order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint (FAC). Among other named Defendants, Plaintiffs brought suit against unknown SSA Agents Nick, SSA-Agent 2, and other SSA Armed Agents Plaintiffs alleged that agents of the Social Security Administration (SSA) barged into their homes and questioned them in retaliation for filing affidavits in Phan et al v. Colvin, 13cv2036-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal. 2013). In Phan et al v. Colvin, plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent a SSA administrative law judge from conducting proceedings to suspend attorney Alexandra Manbeck from practice of social security law. Contentions of the Parties Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez move the Court to dismiss the claims against them on the grounds that the TAC fails to state any factual or legal basis to support liability. Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez contend that the allegation in the TAC that they are investigators with the Los Angeles Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit (CDI) fails to establish any connection with the claim that federal agents questioned Plaintiffs about the authenticity and accuracy of affidavits in retaliation for filing affidavits in the Phan, et al v. Colvin case. Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez further assert that they are entitled to absolute immunity for any acts alleged in the TAC. Plaintiffs contend that the TAC sufficiently alleges that Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez appeared at the home of Plaintiff Thai in January 2014 for the purpose of interfering with Thai's attorney-client relationship in retaliation for the filing of Thai's affidavit in the Phan et al v. Colvin case. Plaintiffs assert that absolute immunity does not apply under the allegations of the TAC. In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, Plaintiffs must show that (1) Defendants acted under color of state law and (2) Defendants caused them to be deprived of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the United States. In this case, the Court finds that the TAC does not allege sufficient facts to support allegations that Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez acted under color of state law. The Court grants the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez on the grounds that the allegations of the TAC do not support the exercise of jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 and the California Constitution, civil rights statutes and common law based on the fact that the state agents conspired with SSA to deprive plaintiffs of their civil rights and access to courts" as alleged in the TAC. The motion to dismiss the TAC filed by Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez is granted. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Federal Torts Claims Act, and the Social Security Act. The Court says it has repeatedly concluded that Plaintiffs' allegations are not sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985. The Court concludes that it is required at this stage in the proceedings to order Plaintiffs to show cause whether the remaining Defendants can be sued for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) in light of Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 1843 (2017). The motion to dismiss the third amended complaint filed by Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez is granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 7, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yabu69m7from Leagle.com. Mohammad Nassiri, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck. 4531 University Avenue, San Diego, CA 92105. Diep Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck. Anh Van Thai, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck. Duc Huynh, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck. Trai Chau, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck. Hoi Cuu Quan Nhan VNCH, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck. Roes 1-100, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck. United States of America, Defendant, represented by Daniel Everett Butcher, US Attorneys Office Southern District of California & Valerie Torres, U.S. Attorney's Office. William Villasenor, Defendant, represented by Christie Bodnar Swiss -- cswiss@ccmslaw.com -- Collins Collins Muir and Stewart LLP, Tomas Antonio Guterres -- tguterres@ccmslaw.com -- Collins Collins Muir & Stewart & Megan K. Lieber -- mlieber@ccmslaw.com -- Collins Collins Muir Stewart. Dulce Sanchez, Defendant, represented by Christie Bodnar Swiss, Collins Collins Muir and Stewart LLP, Tomas Antonio Guterres, Collins Collins Muir & Stewart & Megan K. Lieber, Collins Collins Muir Stewart. STRATEGIC HOTELS: Faces "White" Suit in N.D. of Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strategic Hotels & Resorts, LLC. The case is styled as Patrick White, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Strategic Hotels & Resorts, LLC and Four Seasons Hotels Limited, a Canada corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04867 (N.D. Cal., August 22, 2017). Strategic Hotels & Resorts is an American REIT in the hospitality industry. It was publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange as BEE. The company owns 18 luxury hotels, 17 of which are located in the United States and one of which is in Germany.[BN] The Plaintiff appear PRO SE. SUPPORTBUDDY INC: Accused by "Ramirez" Suit of Placing Malwares --------------------------------------------------------------- TARA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUPPORTBUDDY INC. and JOHN DOES #1-10, said names being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown, Case No. 7:17-cv-05781-VB (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2017), accuses the Defendant of engaging in an unfair and deceptive online scam in which it markets a solution to a computer problem it created. Specifically, Ms. Ramirez alleges, the Defendant causes or assists in malware to be present and active on the computers of Internet users when they are online, thereby, taking control of the operation of the Users' computers and Web browsers. The Malware essentially renders the User's computer inoperable and provides a telephone number for the Defendant, which the Internet Users use to contact the Defendant. The Defendant then charges the Users exorbitant rates to remove its Malware from their computers and to remedy the problems its Malware caused, the Plaintiff further alleges. SupportBuddy Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of California and its headquarters are located in Bakersfield, California. The Defendant is a for-hire, third-party computer technical support provider. The true names of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com SYMPHONY HEALTHCARE: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Marquita McDonald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Symphony Healthcare LLC and Symphony Bronzeville Park LLC, Case No. 2017-CH-11311 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Augst 17, 2017), seeks to put a stop to the Defendants' unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class's sensitive biometric data. The Defendants operate a network of post-acute care facilities with over twenty locations throughout the State of Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Sydney Janzen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com sjanzen@edclson.com - and - David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dtish@fishlawfinn.com jkunze@fishlawfinn.com THYME & BASIL: "Rolando" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Marcia Rolando and Benito Garcia, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Thyme & Basil, Inc. d/b/a Columbus Natural Food, Columbus Natural Food Inc. d/b/a Columbus Natural Food, Anne Cottavoz, PAUL Cottavoz and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:17-cv-06194 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a health market/restaurant doing business as Columbus Natural Food located at 725 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York 10025. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com U.S. BANCORP: Dodges Proposed Class Action Over Pay --------------------------------------------------- Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that an Ohio federal judge shut down a proposed class action bringing breach of contract claims against U.S. Bank for allegedly underpaying nonexempt workers, ruling on August 17 that the plaintiff didn't provide definite proof he had a binding employment contract with the financial institution. Debt collector Louis Hopkins accused U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association of breaching compensation agreements by paying hourly workers for only 2,080 hours across 24 pay periods annually, even if there were more work hours based on a year that had 365 or 366 days. But U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black said Hopkins couldn't bring a breach of contract claim because no contract had been reached between Hopkins and U.S. Bank. The terms of the alleged agreement at the time of his job offer were too indefinite to be a binding contract, Judge Black said. "Plaintiff's own retelling of the alleged agreement confirms that there was no agreement as to the exact wage plaintiff would be paid, the most essential term of an employment contract," Judge Black said. Judge Black also said that even if there was an unwritten contract where Hopkins agreed to be paid $15 per hour, the bank wouldn't have breached its contract with him based on what he was paid. "Even at plaintiff's lowest salary, 2,080 hours at $15.68 per hour is greater pay than the 2096 hours at $15 per hour that plaintiff has alleged he was promised," Judge Black said. "Defendant more than adequately compensated plaintiff even if the oral agreement alleged by plaintiff is considered a binding contract." The order dismissed the complaint without prejudice. In his suit, Hopkins says he earned between $15 and about $19 an hour working as a debt collector for U.S. Bank starting in July 2012 through mid-June 2015. He claimed that the bank didn't pay nonexempt employees for all hours worked -- compensating them for 2,080 hours worked divided into 24 pay periods, even though the years contained either 2,088 or 2,096 work hours. The case was initially filed in May 2016, but Judge Black ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint in September. At that time, Judge Black said Hopkins failed to specifically identify or describe the circumstances under which a contractual arrangement was reached, according to court records. The amended complaint, filed in October, added details that said Hopkins was told he would be paid about $15 an hour when he was offered a job at his initial interview. He also said he received a letter with a conditional offer of employment, according to the court's history of the case. U.S. Bank's latest motion to dismiss, filed in October, said Hopkins was paid in accordance with his offer letter and consistent terms -- and that he failed to establish any plausible evidentiary foundation for a breach of contract claim. In addition to ruling that Hopkins' description of an offer agreement was too indefinite, Judge Black also said on August 17 that the letter he received with a conditional offer "expressly disavowed the creation of a contract" and "cannot itself be the basis for any alleged contract to pay plaintiff hourly." Representatives for the parties didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on August 17. Hopkins is represented by Carlos V. Leach, Esq. and C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. of Morgan & Morgan PA and Barry D. Levy, Esq. and W. Matthew Nakajima, Esq. of O'Connor Acciani & Levy LPA. U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association are represented by Tracy Stott Pyles, Esq. -- tpyles@littler.com -- Andrew J. Voss, Esq. -- avoss@littler.com -- and Anthony de Sam Lazaro, Esq -- alazaro@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC. The case is Hopkins v. U.S. Bancorp et al., case number 1:16-cv- 00552, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle 'Refer-A-Friend' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Uber is moving toward a $20 million settlement of a class action lawsuit by a group accusing the ride-hailing company of breaking federal law in how it sent "Refer-A-Friend" promotional messages to prospective new customers. In a motion filed Aug. 11 in federal court in Chicago, lawyers for a putative class asked U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin to sign off on a preliminary approval of class action settlement with Uber Technologies Inc. The agreement would wrap up more than two years of litigation in courts across the country as well as mediated negotiations by establishing a $20 million common fund for settlement classes and Uber agreeing to stop sending text messages alleged to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Under terms of the agreement, lawyers for the plaintiffs -- the Chicago office of McGuire Law P.C., and the Washington, D.C., firm of Tycko & Zavareei LLP -- asked to be certified as class counsel and indicated they would ask for one third of the settlement fund, a maximum of $6.6 million. In the motion, the plantiffs' attorneys said the settlement represents "an extraordinary result" that "would bring meaningful relief to consumers as well as certainty and closure to what has been, and likely would continue to be, highly contentions and costly litigation." According to the motion, the underlying issue is Uber's Refer-A- Friend program. Through its text messaging vendor, Twilio Inc., Uber asked its clients to authorize sending messages to their contacts to advertise both the ride-sharing service and the opportunity to be a paid Uber driver. The plaintiffs said Uber gives referral fees of $250 to $500 to current drivers who help conscript new drivers. But, the motion noted, "many Refer-a-Friend messages have been received by individuals who have no connection to Uber or the referring individual, and thus did not provide their prior express consent to receive such messages." Further, even for those text recipients who did have a connection to Uber, the company "failed to adopt sufficient measures to obtain valid prior express consent." Beyond that, the plaintiffs said Uber's system didn't adequately recognize or honor requests to stop sending messages, even in instances where people sent repeatedly asked to stop being sent solicitations. The original complaint cited one Federal Trade Commission complaint in which a person said Uber "texted me on Christmas Eve at 1:44 a.m. and 4:10 a.m. I returned texts saying STOP. I wrote them an email asking them to remove my number from their lists. And I'm still getting text messages." The plaintiffs also said Uber's process for establishing an account lacks sufficient procedures to confirm the accuracy of information its prospective users submit, meaning many of the numbers that end up in the company's database are incorrect, compounding the issue of text messages going to people who have no desire to be an Uber customer or driver. With complaints filed in Illinois and California, Uber and the plaintiffs began exploring a settlement. According to the plaintiffs' lawyers, both sides consented to mediation on May 23 in hopes a settlement would help avoid the uncertainties of Uber's motion for judgment in Illinois balanced against pending class certification or summary judgment in California. Former U.S. District Judge Layn R. Phillips oversaw the full day of negotiations resulting in the agreed-upon conditions, executing a term sheet on June 14. If Durkin allows, the settlement would establish three classes -- one for anyone who got a Refer-a- Friend text; a second for those who started but did not complete the driver application process; and a third for those who had no contact with Uber but nonetheless got any sort of non-emergency text message from the company. Uber also would completely discontinue the Refer-a-Friend program on cellphones it issues to requesting drivers, "maintain the robust opt-out protocol" instituted after plaintiffs filed their original complaints and take several steps to reduce incidence of contacting incorrect phone numbers, including automatic deletion from its rolls of any unverified numbers. Uber was represented in the action by attorneys with the firms of Morrison & Foerster LLP, of New York; Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of San Francisco; and Ellis Legal P.C., of Chicago. [GN] WAFFLE HOUSE: 11th Cir. Vacates Denial of Arbitration in "Jones" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issued an Opinion vacating the district court's denial of Waffle House, Inc.'s motion to compel in the appeals case captioned WILLIAM JONES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC., a Georgia corporation, WH CAPITAL, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Defendants- Appellants, THE SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA, L.P., a foreign limited partnership doing business as Publicdata.com, et al., Defendants, No. 16-15574 (11th Cir.), and remanded the case with instructions to stay the case pending arbitration. In this appeal, Waffle House challenges the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. William Jones applied for a job at a Florida Waffle House in Ormond Beach in December 2014 but was rejected by the store. Jones sued Waffle House and various data-reporting companies in federal district court, claiming that the defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to give him a copy of the background checks that were run on him in connection with his job application and by failing to give him an opportunity to dispute those background checks. Jones also sought class relief, seeking to represent a class of United States residents who applied for employment or were employed with Waffle House in the preceding five years against whom Waffle House took adverse employment actions based on a background check. Later on, Jones applied for and gained employment at a Waffle House store in Kansas City, Missouri. In connection with his employment, Jones signed an arbitration agreement that covered all claims and controversies, past, present, or future, arising out of any aspect of or pertaining in any way to his employment. The agreement also included a delegation provision requiring that the Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of the Agreement. After careful review, the Eleventh Circuit concludes that the district court erred in denying Waffle House's motion to compel arbitration. The arbitration agreement contains a broad, valid, and enforceable delegation provision that expresses the parties' clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate gateway questions of arbitrability, including questions concerning the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, and formation of the agreement. In the face of the Federal Arbitration Act's clear preference for and presumption in favor of arbitration, we are obliged to enforce the parties' clear intent to arbitrate these issues. The Eleventh Circuit likewise rejects Jones's claims that the arbitration agreement improperly interfered with the district court's managerial authority over class actions or that the agreement amounted to an improper ex parte communication with a represented party. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit vacates the district court's denial of Waffle House's motion to compel and remand with instructions to stay the case pending arbitration. A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's August 7, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycbbt8j5from Leagle.com. Richard Wade Smith, for Defendant-Appellant. Ronald I. Raether, Jr. - ronald.raether@troutmansanders.com - for Defendant-Appellant. Thomas Holland Loffredo - tom.loffredo@gray-robinson.com - for Defendant-Appellant. Alexandria Kachadoorian - Alexandria@counselonegroup.com - for Plaintiff-Appellee. John C. Lynch - john.lynch@troutmansanders.com - for Defendant- Appellant. David Michael Gettings - david.gettings@troutmansanders.com - for Defendant-Appellant. Joshua H. Eggnatz - JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com - for Plaintiff- Appellee. Michael James Pascucci - MPascucci@ELPLawyers.com - for Plaintiff- Appellee. Anthony J. Orshansky - antohony@counselonegroup.com - for Plaintiff-Appellee. Justin Kachadoorian - justin@counselonegroup.com - for Plaintiff- Appellee. Mark C. Mao - mark.mao@troutmansanders.com - for Plaintiff- Appellee. Timothy St. George - tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com - for Plaintiff-Appellee. WANTAGH BAGELS: Faces "Garcia" Suit in E.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wantagh Bagels Inc. The case is styled as Ismael Antonio Hernandez Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wantagh Bagels Inc., Wantagh Bagels, Ralph Facchini and Peter Casella, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04924 (E.D. N.Y., August 21, 2017). Wantagh Bagels Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. WELLS FARGO: Preston Sues Over Forced, Unnecessary Auto Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEITH PRESTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY AND WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., D/B/A WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, Case No. 3:17-cv-04346-JD (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2017), arises from the Defendants' practice of forcing hundreds of thousands of borrowers to pay for unnecessary and expensive auto insurance. Beginning as early as 2006, Wells Fargo Dealer Services required its direct auto loan customers to have comprehensive and collision auto insurance for the vehicle that was the subject of the loan, according to the complaint. If the customer did not have such insurance or did not provide evidence of it, Wells Fargo purchased it for the customer, at the customer's expense. Wells Fargo referred to this as Collateral Protection Insurance. Wells Fargo & Company is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company with $2 trillion in assets, and provides banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, and consumer and commercial finance through more than 8,500 locations, 13,000 ATMs, and the Internet. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a national banking association chartered under the laws of the United States with its primary place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Wells Fargo Bank provides Wells Fargo & Company personal and commercial banking services, and is Wells Fargo & Company's principal subsidiary. Wells Fargo Bank, doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services, provided the auto lending services that are the subject of the action. Wells Fargo Dealer Services is Wells Fargo's auto lending business and part of its Consumer Lending division.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Alison S. Gaffney, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com agaffney@kellerrohrback.com WEST LIBERTY: Daniels Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Daniels, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Liberty Foods, L.L.C., Case No. 2017- CH-11308 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 17, 2017), seeks to put a stop to the Defendant' unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class's sensitive biometric data. West Liberty Foods, L.L.C. operates a meat processing company in the State of Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Sydney Janzen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com sjanzen@edclson.com - and - David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dtish@fishlawfinn.com jkunze@fishlawfinn.com WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces "Andreozzi" Suit Over "Defective" Joists --------------------------------------------------------------- LOU ANDREOZZI and LISA ANDREOZZI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant, Case No: 2:17-cv-05763-MCA-SCM (D.N.J., August 4, 2017), arises out of alleged damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class that were proximately caused by Weyerhaeuser's defective Joists used in the construction of Plaintiffs' and proposed Class members' homes and other structures. The joists allegedly emit noxious and toxic gases that are harmful to humans. The Joists' "Flak Jacket" coating includes a formaldehydebased resin that results in the "off-gassing" of formaldehyde far in excess of acceptable levels and causes other serious air quality issues. Weyerhaeuser is one of the world's largest forest products companies. The Plaintiffs signed contracts to purchase homes or other structures located in the State of New Jersey and across the United States in which Weyerhaeuser's TJI Joists with Flak Jacket Protection are or were installed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-4656 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: scarson@bm.net rpaul@bm.net ldeutsch@bm.net emdrake@bm.net jpolakoff@bm.net WILSON COUNTY, KS: Oct. 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has given her approval to a deal in a lawsuit filed against the Wilson County sheriff over his jail's policy of allowing inmates to receive and send only postcards in the mail. U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson preliminarily approved the class action settlement that would allow inmates to receive letters at the southeast Kansas jail. The jail houses an average of 40 people daily. The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the Social Justice Law Collective sued Sheriff Pete Figgins last year alleging the policy violated the free speech and due process rights of prisoners and the people who write to them. A fairness hearing on the settlement is set for Oct. 25 in the federal courthouse in Kansas City, Kansas.[GN] WRIGHT TREE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Merriman" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Merriman, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Wright Tree Service, Inc., Case No. 0:17-cv-00085-HRW (E.D. Ken., August 16, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Wright Tree Service, Inc. provides vegetation management, storm restoration, and work planning services to utility companies and their communities across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 333 W Vine St Ste 1200 Lexington, KN 40507 Telephone: (859)286-8368 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com XEROX BUSINESS: 9th Cir. Certifies Question to Wash. High Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an Order certifying to the Washington Supreme Court the dispositive question of state law in the appeals case captioned TIFFANY HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC; LIVEBRIDGE INC., an Oregon Corporation; AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES INC., a Delaware Corporation; AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellants, No. 14-36029 (9th Cir.). This case arises from a dispute between Tiffany Hill (Hill) and Xerox Business Services, LLC, and its predecessor companies (Xerox), over the method by which Xerox calculated wages owed to Hill and others similarly situated. Hill brought a state-wide class action lawsuit against Xerox for unpaid wages under the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA)and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. This interlocutory appeal involves only Hill's claims under the MWA. They dispute whether Hill was an hourly employee or a piecework employee. Hill claims that she was an hourly employee and therefore Xerox violated the MWA by determining her hourly wage based on a workweek, as opposed to a per-hour, calculation. Xerox, in contrast, contends that Hill was a piecework employee and therefore its work-week calculations were sanctioned by Washington Administration Code Section 296-126-021. In the district court, Xerox moved for partial summary judgment on this issue, which the district court denied, stating that Xerox was not paying its employees on a piecework basis, and therefore summary judgment was inappropriate. After denying a motion to reconsider, the district court certified Xerox's request for an immediate interlocutory appeal of its denial of partial summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit granted Xerox's request, and this appeal followed. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). During Hill's entire tenure and until mid-2014, Xerox paid its call agents under the Achievement Based Compensation (ABC) Plan. Under the ABC Plan, all employees' pay derived from three different sources: (1) ABC Pay, (2) Additional Pay, and (3) Subsidy Pay. As the system is somewhat complex, a description of the three sources follows. First, Xerox primarily used ABC Pay to compensate its employees. ABC Pay was an incentive-based model rewarding agents who were efficient at dealing with customer issues. The ABC Plan required employees to track all of their time expended on certain activities -- ranging from receiving calls to performing follow-up work. Some of these activities such as receiving inbound calls -- were paid on a per minute basis, and each minute [was] referred to as a 'production minute. Second, Xerox used Additional Pay to compensate its agents for some tasks that were not covered by ABC Pay. These defined activities included (1) training, (2) meeting/coaching, (3) work shortages, (4) system down time, (5) non-ABC Pay tasks or special projects, and (6) break pay. Third, Xerox used Subsidy Pay to supplement an agent's wages if Xerox determined that the employee's hourly rate did not comply with minimum wage. To determine whether this supplement was necessary, Xerox took the Subsidy Pay rate (the minimum wage) and multiplied it by the total hours worked in a given week to calculate an employee's minimum pay. Because it is necessary to ascertain the local law of this state in order to dispose of this appeal, Wash. Rev. Code Section 2.60.020, the Ninth Circuit certifies to the Washington Supreme Court the following question: whether an employer's compensation plan, which includes as a metric an employee's production minutes, qualifies as a piecework plan under Wash. Admin. Code Section 296- 126-021? The clerk of court is ordered to transmit to the Washington Supreme Court, under official seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a copy of the order and all relevant briefs and excerpts of record pursuant to Washington Revised Code Sections 2.60.010, 2.60.030 and WRAP 16.16. The record contains all matters in the pending case deemed material for consideration of the local law question certified for answer. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 7, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycplw43ufrom Leagle.com. Todd L. Nunn - todd.nunn@klgates.com - and Patrick M. Madden - Patrick.madden@klgates.com - K&L Gates LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Defendants-Appellants. Marc C. Cote - marc@benoit-cote.com - and Toby J. Marshall - tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com - Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC, Seattle, Washington; Jon W. MacLeod, MacLeod LLC, Seattle, Washington; Daniel F. Johnson, Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee. ZTO EXPRESS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has filed a federal securities class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of ZTO Express (Cayman), Inc. (NYSE:ZTO) ("ZTO") pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and seeks to recover damages under the federal securities laws for those who purchased or otherwise acquired ZTO Express' stock pursuant or traceable to its October 27, 2016 IPO. Investors who have incurred losses in ZTO Express (Cayman), Inc. are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have purchased shares of ZTO Express (Cayman), Inc. and would like to assist with the litigation process as a lead plaintiff, you may, no later than October 16, 2017, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. The lawsuit charges that ZTO, certain of its directors and officers, and underwriters of its IPO violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Defendants priced ZTO's IPO shares at $19.50 per share. Through the IPO, defendants issued and sold over 72 million ADSs, generating over $1.36 billion for defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus contained materially false and misleading information, and failed to disclose that ZTO was improperly inflating its stated profit margins by keeping certain low-margin segments of its business out of its financial statements. ZTO failed to disclose that it used a system of "network partners" to handle lower-margin pickup and delivery services, while maintaining ownership of core hub operations. By keeping the "network partners" businesses off its own books, the Company allegedly was able to exaggerate its profit margins to investors. Subsequent to the IPO, ZTO Express' stock declined immediately. As of August 16, 2017, the stock was trading at just $13.57 -- a decline of over 30% from the IPO price. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: -- gstone@whafh.com -- or -- classmember@whafh.com -- Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [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 * * *