/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170906.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 6, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 176 Headlines ACE HOMECARE: Nurse and Non-Nurse Classes Certified ADAPTIVE ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "McCoy" Suit APPLIED MATERIALS: Court Certifies Settlement Classes in Stewart APPLE INC: Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Over Driving Accidents ASHLEY HALL: Hit With CA Over Email Containing Medical Records BIG LOTS: Faces "Brito" Suit Over Disabled-Inaccessible Store BISON DRILLING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Jones" Suit Claims BLUE APRON: Faces "Ivan" Suit Over False Registration Statement BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Class Conditionally Certified in "Paxton" BOW & TRUSS: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes CANADA: Class Action Seeks Compliance on Free Education Law CAPGEMINI FINANCIAL: Certification of IT Workers Class Sought COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Mishra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Probe Following Laundering Allegations CP OPCO: Sued Over Failure to Provide 60 Days Termination Notice CYFRED LTD: United Pacific Islanders Lose Basic Services Suit DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Florida Judge Dismisses Fraud Lawsuit DR. REDDY'S: October 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set INDIANA: Sidewalk Ordinances Target Homeless People, Suit Claims DUKE UNIVERSITY: "Seaman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Siddiqi" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn. FRANCO AND COMPANY: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT FUSION LOGISTICS: "Geffrard" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class FEDEX GROUND: Jameson et al. Seek to Notify Drivers GC SERVICES: Ocampo Seeks Renewed Bid for Class Certification HARTFORD FIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Analysts Class HUNGARY: Court Denied Bid for Default Judgment HYATT CORPORATION: "Matthews" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ILLINOIS: Class Certification Bid Sought in 10 Cases vs DHS ILLINOIS: Court Refuses to Review Denial of Class Certification INTUIT INC: Directed to Produce ATO Docs in Data Litigation JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pelvic Mesh Victims Balk at Sexual Suggestions JON BELMAR: "Furlow" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes KANOA: Backers Mull Class Action Following Shutdown KOVITZ SHIFRIN: "Chacon" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes LH 690: Class Certification Bid in "Shabotinsky" Suit Denied LOGAN TOWNSHIP: Faces Potential CA Over Housing Development Site MDL 1674: $8.4MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Mortgage Lending Suit MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of Bordases' Appeal MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of T. LaFollette's Appeal MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of J. Masserant's Appeal MDL 2437: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Suit MERCEDES-BENZ: Settles Class Action Over Heated Seats MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Court Certifies Class in "Devera" Suit MONSANTO COMPANY: 7 Suits Filed in Missouri over Roundup MONTANA: DiFrancesco Files Class Action NAGLE & ZALLER: Faces "Archie" Suit in Maryland NATIONAL ELECTORAL: Court Urged to Assess Damage From Demo NEBRASKA: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in "Valentine" Suit NESTLE USA: Settlement in "McFarland" Has Final Approval NEW HAMPSHIRE: Legal Assistance Threatens to Renew Prison Case NEWBURG ROAD: Bid to Strike Defenses in "Connector" Partly OK'd NIKITA LEVY: 8,000+ Checks Sent in Recording Case NORTH AMERICAN: Prelim. Approval of Deal in "Claridge" Denied NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court OKs Filing of Amended Class Suit NUTIVA INC: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Jones" Suit PAFFORD EMS: "Williams" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas PETMED EXPRESS: Faces "Lusson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports PF CHANG'S: Counterclaims in "Anderson" Suit Nixed PHILADELPHIA, PA: Court Dismisses "Thornton" Without Prejudice PHILIP MORRIS: 9,500 Claimants to Get Second Round of Checks PRISMA LLC: Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration in "Sprunk" RESIDENTIAL HOME: Fries Suit Has Conditional Class Certification RIVER MANOR: Faces "Freeman" Suit in E.D. of New York ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces "Belanger" Suit in S.D. of Florida ROYAL ADMINISTRATION: Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims RSI ENTERPRISES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed RUTHERFORD, TN: Court Denied Class Certification Bid as Moot SHORETEL INC: Faces "Simonson" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Mitel SONY CORP: Hit With Class Action Over Xperia Devices SOS INTERNATIONAL: Magana Seeks to Certify Interpreters Class SOUTH AFRICA: Court to Hear Class Action Over Muslim Marriages STATOIL USA: Sued in Penn. Over Oil and Gas Lease Royalties STERLING JEWELERS: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Says SURFSTITCH: Enters Administration Amid Shareholder Class Actions SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Slaughter" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages TAKATA CORP: Recall Shows Complicity in Negligence TOP SHIPS: Faces "Narine" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports TRANSUNION LLC: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn. TRAVELERS CASUALTY: ITT and Gould Pumps Seek to Certify Class TREASURY WINE: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $39 Million UBER TECH: Sexism Blogger Backs Workers in Class Waiver Cases UNITED NATIONS: Court Junks Last Suit Over Haiti Cholera Epidemic UNITED STATES: Evergreen Ranch Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Court Denies Adams Class Certification Motion UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Suit vs Atty Generals UNITED STATES: Arches Payout Hinges on Class Action Outcome WAL-MART STORES: Confident on Beating Cotton Sheet Action WALMART STORES: "Stephens" Suit Seeks to Certify Class WELLS FARGO: Court Sounds Skeptical of Overdraft Fee Defense WEST VIRGINIA: Attorneys Seek Approval of Revised Settlement WESTERN EXPRESS: Faces "Elmy" Suit Over Deceptive Scheme WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Faces "Dibble" Suit in Dist. of S.C. WORLD LIQUIDATORS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Katz" Suit Says XPO LAST MILE: Certification of Drivers Class in "Hayes" Denied YIN WALL: Court Grants Motion for Class Certification * Class Action Framework in India Needs Review * DOL Fiduciary Rule Lawsuit Angle 'Will Likely Be Mooted' ********* ACE HOMECARE: Nurse and Non-Nurse Classes Certified --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TONI MOLINA, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. ACE HOMECARE, BRL INVESTMENTS, LLC, ARTHUR BARLAAN and JOCELYN BARLAAN, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-02214-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James D. Whittemore granted conditional certification to these classes: Nurse Putative Fair Labor Standards Act Minimum Wage Putative Class: "all nurses employed by Ace Homecare, LLC who were not paid minimum wage between February 29, 2016 to March 13, 2016"; and Non-Nurse Putative Fair Labor Standards Act Minimum Wage Putative Class: "all other employees by Ace Homecare, LLC who were not paid minimum wage between February 29, 2016 to March 13, 2016". The seven named plaintiffs were employed by Ace Homecare at its Sebring, Florida, location until their termination when all of Ace Homecare's facilities were shut down. During the last two weeks of their employment, they received no compensation. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v8jABKkN ADAPTIVE ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "McCoy" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GLENNA McCOY and DIETRICH GRAINGER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ADAPTIVE ENTERPRISES, LLC, MICHAEL MONTGOMERY, and JUSTIN HURDLE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00054-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ken.), the Hon. Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl entered an order: a. conditionally certifying this case to proceed as a collective action for overtime and/or minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of a potential class of: "all present and former employees/independent contractors of Defendants who are or were employed as van drivers (or those who performed similar duties, however titled) from March 24, 2014, through the present"; b. approving proposed notice and consent forms, to the joint motion to approve notice and consent forms; c. directing Plaintiffs to distribute the notice and claim forms to potential class members; d. directing counsel for the Plaintiffs to ensure that each consent form returned to them is filed with the Court by or before the date which is 60 days following issuance the notice and consent forms; e. directing Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs, within 14 days of entry of this Order, a list of the names, last known addresses, and email addresses for all potential class members, as previously defined; f. directing Plaintiffs to provide copies of the notice and consent form, as modified in accordance with this Order, to all potential class members identified by the Defendants, by first-class mail and email, within 10 days after receipt of the list of names from the Defendants; g. directing Defendants to post the notice and consent form in accordance with this Order, prominently at Adaptive Enterprises, LLC, office locations, in an area where other labor and related notices are typically posted, within 14 days of entry of this Order; and h. denying motion for extension of time as moot. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3ilFyBkF APPLIED MATERIALS: Court Certifies Settlement Classes in Stewart ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARIA STEWART, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv- 02632-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. John S. Tigar entered an order: 1. granting certification of classes for settlement purposes only: (1) (a) [Individuals who] have been participants or beneficiaries in the Plan at any time during the Class Period; (b) who while enrolled in the Plan received Speech Therapy to treat Autism during the Class Period and had an Autism diagnosis at the time of that Speech Therapy; and (c) were either age six or older at the time of receipt of that Speech Therapy or were age five or younger and had exceeded 60 Speech Therapy visits in a calendar year; and either i. submitted claims for reimbursement of Speech Therapy to the Plan and the Claims Processor denied those claims ("Class One"); or ii. did not submit a claim to the Plan and were not otherwise reimbursed for the therapy ("Class Two"); or, (2) [Individuals who] are the parents and guardians of the individuals described above; or (3) [Individuals who] are the Successors-in-Interest of the individuals described in above. 2. confirming the appointment of Glenn R. Kantor as Class Counsel; 3. granting final approval of the proposed settlement; and 4. granting Plaintiffs' counsel $70,520 in attorneys' fees. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gHA214pS The Settlement Agreement establishes payment for past claims (whether previously submitted or not) for Speech Therapy, attorneys' fees and costs. The "moneys budgeted for" the settlement "will be sufficient to pay all claims at 100% of the amount the Plan would have paid, had the claims been submitted and approved." In exchange, class members "will release Applied Materials, the Plan, and their respective assigns, heirs, administrators, executors, and successors-in-interest, affiliates, benefit plans, predecessors, and transferees, and their past and present shareholders, officers, directors, agents, and employees, from any and all Class Released Claims that Named Plaintiff or the Settlement Classes have directly, indirectly, derivatively, or in any other capacity ever had or now have whether known or unknown, supported or unsupported. Named Plaintiff and the Class Members expressly waive and relinquish any and all claims, rights, or benefits that they may have under California Civil Code Section 1542." California Civil Code Section 1542 provides: A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. Class members received notice of the Settlement through the mailing of "the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005] Notice." Applied Materials shall bear all notice costs, including the hiring of a Class Administrator, and providing class notice." Moreover, "Applied Materials has agreed to pay and not object to a motion by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $70,250 to Class Counsel." APPLE INC: Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Over Driving Accidents ---------------------------------------------------------- Chance Miller, writing for 9to5Mac, reports that Apple is facing an increasing number of lawsuits centered around allegations that it is responsible for accidents caused by users who are driving while distracted by their smartphone. One case, however, as reported by Law360, has been thrown out by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Maureen A. Folan. The case was brought to court by David Riggs, whose son was killed in 2013 when he was hit by a driver who was texting. The driver was charged with a misdemeanor for driving while distracted by his iPhone, but Riggs wanted to place the blame on Apple for its failure to implement a lockout system. The case was thrown based partly on precedent set by a 2016 lawsuit that likewise argued Apple was responsible for distracted driving accidents. That case determined that to assume Apple was "actually responsible for the ultimate harm" was unreasonable Similarly, Judge Folan stated in his ruling that Riggs' agreement for blaming the accident on Apple was "attenuated." The case was thrown out with precedent and therefore cannot be refiled under the same claim. "The chain of causation alleged by the plaintiffs in this case is far too attenuated for a reasonable person to conclude that Apple's conduct is or was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm." Earlier this year, we reported on a similar class action lawsuit that aimed to place blame on Apple for distracted driving accidents. The case argued that by refusing to implement a lockout system to prevent texting while driving, Apple puts profits ahead of user safety. That case is still ongoing. Apple has the ability to outfit its iPhones with a lock-out device that would disable the smartphone while being used by motorists. In fact, it has had this technology since 2008, and was granted a patent on it by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2014. Yet, fearful that such a device would cause it to lose valuable market share, Apple refuses to employ the technology, choosing instead to allow the massive carnage to occur. As part of iOS 11, Apple is introducing a new Do Not Disturb While Driving feature that blocks incoming notifications while a vehicle is in motion. For texts, there's an option to send an automatic reply telling the other person you're driving, while calls are allowed as long as the iPhone is connected to a car's Bluetooth system. In a poll we ran earlier this year, the majority of respondents said it's not Apple's responsibility to create a complete lockout mode to prevent texting and driving. [GN] ASHLEY HALL: Hit With CA Over Email Containing Medical Records -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bowers, writing for Post and Courier, reports that the Ashley Hall school in Charleston sent an email to parents on August 25 with an attachment that included private medical details about dozens of students. A staff member at the private school forwarded the email from a school nurse practitioner to parents around 11 a.m. on August 25. It included a note from the nurse asking parents to update their students' medication paperwork. It also included a spreadsheet individually identifying 86 students' allergies, medical conditions, psychiatric diagnoses and medications. Attorney Gregg Meyers, Esq. -- attygm@aol.com -- filed a class- action lawsuit on August 25 in a Charleston County court against the school, Health Center Director Tiffin Lamoreaux and Upper School Administrative Assistant Meridith Oxley. The plaintiff is listed as "Jane Doe 300, on behalf of herself and her child, and all others similarly situated to her and to her child." "I have no idea how they could make such a mistake. There ought to be bells and whistles going off, but there weren't," Meyers said. "It's hard to imagine someone could be so careless with information that's so heavily protected." The lawsuit alleges that the school violated the students' privacy and the federal laws protecting student and medical records. It seeks actual and punitive damages as well as an injunction requiring the school to update its privacy procedures and training. "I don't know how the school makes it right, but obviously they don't have procedures up to the task of modern-day information dissemination," Meyers said. "This is a cautionary tale for every school." Assistant Head of School Anne Weston declined to comment, citing advice from legal counsel after the lawsuit was filed. [GN] BIG LOTS: Faces "Brito" Suit Over Disabled-Inaccessible Store ------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos G. Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. Big Lots Stores, Inc. d/b/a Big Lots at Chelton Center, Case No. 1:17-cv-02052 (D. Col., August 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to remove architectural and communication barriers in existing stores, denying equal access to disabled persons. Big Lots Stores, Inc. operates a shopping plaza located at 1990 S. Academy Blvd., Colorado Springs, CO 80916. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, & PEREZ, P.L. 4937 SW 74th Court, No. 3 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 E-mail: ajperezlaw@gmail.com agmlaw@bellsouth.net mpomares@lawgmp.com BISON DRILLING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Jones" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bison Drilling and Field Services, LLC, Case No. 7:17- cv-00167 (W.D. Tex., August 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours each week. Bison Drilling and Field Services, LLC operates an oilfield services company operating drilling rigs throughout the Permian Basin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, 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 rschreiber@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 BLUE APRON: Faces "Ivan" Suit Over False Registration Statement --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Ivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc., Matthew B. Salzberg, Ilia M. Papas, Matthew J. Wadiak, Jared Cluff, Pablo Cussatti, Benjamin C. Singer, Julie M.B. Bradley, Tracy Britt Cool, Kenneth A. Fox, Robert P. Goodman, Gary R. Hirshberg, Brian P. Kelley, Bradley J. Dickerson, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Canaccord Genuity Inc., Needham & Company, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Case No. 1:17-cv-05021 (E.D.N.Y., August 25, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading Registration Statement and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was suffering from delays at one of its new factory in Linden, New Jersey, which would impact new products roll-out, (ii) the Company was experiencing issues related to delivering all orders with all the ingredients, (iii) the Company had begun to significantly reduce its spending on advertising and thus negatively impacting the Company's net revenue, and (iv) the Company's strategy was not achieving the desired operational efficiency. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. is a based in New York that provides ingredients and recipe meal kit services, along with wine and kitchen utensils. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Class Conditionally Certified in "Paxton" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned WHITNEY PAXTON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00523-HSM- HBG (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon Judge Harry S. Mattice, Jr. entered an order: 1. overruling Defendants' objections to magistrate Judge Guyton's Report and Recommendation; 2. accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Guyton's Report and Recommendation; 3. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members; 4. conditionally certifying a class of: "current and former, non-exempt, commission paid (1) Front- Line Sales Representatives, (2) In-House Sales Representatives, and (3) In-House Sales Specialists at Bluegreen's Sevier County and Orlando, Florida locations during the three years preceding the filing of the date of this Complaint"; 5. directing Bluegreen to produce the names, addresses, and dates of employment for all persons potentially covered by the collective action within 20 days of entry of this Order; and 6. if the Parties have not reached an agreement regarding the notice and opt-in forms by the date of entry of this Order, directing Plaintiffs to file their proposed notice and opt- in form within five days of the date of entry of this Order, and directing Defendants to respond or file a competing notice and opt-in form within five days of the Plaintiffs' filing. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WJAImPXD BOW & TRUSS: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned KRYSTAL SMITH, TRUMAINE HARDY, BRYCE LUCAS, BENJAMIN CREECH, JEFFREY O'MALLEY, ROBERT HENRY, ETHAN JANTZ, CHRIS COWDREY, GABRIELA CAMPOS, and TAYLOR STEELE on behalf of themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BOW & TRUSS, LLC, DOEJO, LLC; PHILIP TADROS, and DARREN MARSHALL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01809 (Ill. Cir. Ct.), the Plaintiffs seek to certify three classes: Overtime Class: "all non-exempt employees employed in Defendant Bow Truss' retail sales locations in the State of Illinois who worked in excess of forty hours in any workweek, at any time in the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, up to and including the date of trial"; Wage Deduction Class: "all persons employed in Defendant Bow Truss' retail sales locations in the State of Illinois who had deductions made by Defendant Bow Truss or Doejo to their paychecks for tax, benefits, or similar purposes at any time in the ten years preceding the filing of this Complaint, up to and including the date of trial"; Non-Payment and Late Payment of Wages and Tips Class: "all persons employed in Defendant Bow Truss' retail sales locations in the State of Illinois who were not paid, or who received delayed payment, for wages and tips they were lawfully owed for work completed, at any time in the ten years preceding the filing of this Complaint, up to and including the date of trial". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eyINGCON The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Kane Stukel, Esq. Colin Cameron, Esq. CAMERON & KANE, LLC 2864 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL 60618 Telephone: (872) 588 0727 Facsimile: (312) 268 7478 E-mail: scott@cameronandkane.com colin@cameronandkane.com CANADA: Class Action Seeks Compliance on Free Education Law ----------------------------------------------------------- The Sherbrooke Times reports that as thousands of students return to school, the Parti quebecois questioned the government Couillard to make it comply with the law on free education. After having received many complaints from parents, the member of the PQ Alexandre Cloutier has analyzed dozens of bills related to school supplies. These have been filed as evidence in the context of a larger class action against the school boards. "For example, for a course on science and technology, we have a bill of $ 32 for the material, perishable and specialized, which serves as yet directly at the course ", he laments. The member of parliament for Lac-Saint-Jean also note that the school requires in addition to the $ 40 fee for photocopies. Students in the international program are also required to pay $ 70 for a fitness center, even if they do not want to use and that they are not enrolled in a sport-etudes program. The mp said also, that the costs of monitoring the midi is required for students in fifth secondary: "they are students of fifteen or sixteen years of age, and demand $ 140 per child ". Class action On its web site www.pq.org/bonnerentree the Parti quebecois promised not only to abolish the costs related to school, it invites the parents to send their bills to put pressure on the minister of Education, Sebastien Proulx, who is supposed to enforce the law on free education. The latter was not available to give an interview to TVA Nouvelles. His press officer has responded that " the costs of school materials should not be an obstacle to learning." "The law clearly provides that it must be free, except for the exercise books," says Mr. Cloutier. Since a class action has been authorized against them in this folder, the Federation des commissions scolaires du Quebec has made no comment. For the official opposition, the government must send a clear directive to put an end to the fee-gouging. [GN] CAPGEMINI FINANCIAL: Certification of IT Workers Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled PRANAV BHATTACHARYA and NAVANEETHA KOOTHAPILLAI, individually and for all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CAPGEMINI NORTH AMERICA, INC., CAPGEMINI FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, INC. and PETER KORNOWSKE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07950 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all current and former Indian IT Workers who worked for Defendants, who participated in Capgemini's Group Health Plan together with their spouses and covered dependents at any time from August 8, 2014 to the date of judgment in this action, and who did not receive proper COBRA notice and subsequent coverage in violation of ERISA." The Plaintiff bring claims against all Defendants, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. sections 1132 et seq. (ERISA), for Defendants' failure to provide requisite information regarding Plaintiffs' health insurance benefits and failure to provide election notice and continuation coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sPdYZc1E The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 E-mail: lawyers@stephanzouras.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Mishra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Debi Mishra, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation, Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-01785-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal., August 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing computer consulting services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Stralen, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: jstralen@justice4you.com jwatson@justice4you.com COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Probe Following Laundering Allegations --------------------------------------------------------------- Clancy Yeates and Eryk Bagshaw, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, report that an unprecedented inquiry will examine whether the Commonwealth Bank undermined its own reputation in pursuit of profit, after a damaging run of scandals at the country's biggest bank. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority chairman Wayne Byres on Aug. 28 ramped up pressure on CBA, announcing a public inquiry into the lending giant's culture, governance and accountability frameworks. Treasurer Scott Morrison says the government welcomes the APRA inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank. The probe was triggered by bombshell allegations of a mass breach of anti-money-laundering laws by CBA, revealed alongside earlier failings in the bank, including in its financial planning and life insurance businesses. APRA will look at any "core" cultural or organisational reasons for the bank's troubles, including whether it has put too much emphasis on financial goals at the expense of risk management. "The Australian community's trust in the banking system has been damaged in recent years, and CBA in particular has been negatively impacted by a number of issues that have affected the reputation of the bank," Mr Byres said. Treasurer Scott Morrison said there had been more than 12 compliance "issues" at the bank since 2008, and the board and management's promises to improve culture at CBA had failed to meet the public's expectations. "Dramatic action and accountability to restore this trust must be the focus of the CBA's board and management," Mr Morrison said. CBA is facing the fallout after the financial intelligence regulator, Austrac, alleged it had breached anti-money-laundering laws more than 53,000 times, and that its ATMs were used by criminal gangs to launder cash. The inquiry will be undertaken by an independent panel, to be appointed by APRA, and it is expected to be completed within about six months after it commences. The report will be made public and CBA will cover the costs of the inquiry. It is the first time that APRA, which normally works behind the scenes, has established a public inquiry of this nature into one of the banks it supervises. An inquiry into National Australia Bank was carried out by the regulator in 2004, but this focused on multimillion-dollar trading losses, and the report was handed to NAB's board, which then released it. In response to the probe, CBA chief executive Ian Narev acknowledged people were "asking questions" about the root causes of the series of problems at the bank, and CBA would co-operate with the inquiry. "Despite the fact that we have got confidence in the institution, we have got confidence in what we are doing, we are aware of the fact that we have been in the news for the wrong reasons," he said. The inquiry would likely look at the balance between financial and other goals, and the complexity of its organisational structure, Mr Narev said. CBA is the most profitable bank in Australia, in July delivering a full-year profit of $9.9 billion and announcing that Mr Narev would leave the lender at the end of this financial year. "We fully expect that out of the inquiry will come recommendations for further steps that we can take with the same goal of strengthening trust," Mr Narev said. The terms of reference and inquiry members have not been set, but it is expected the inquiry panel will include a range of participants, including those with expertise in corporate culture and financial institutions. The announcement comes as Mr Morrison is fighting off pressure from the opposition for a banking royal commission -- a proposal the government has repeatedly rejected. Labor's shadow treasurer Chris Bowen and financial services spokesman Katy Gallagher backed APRA's inquiry, but said they "strongly believed" a royal commission was still needed. "Not even the serious allegations of breaches of anti-money- laundering and anti-terrorism funding laws by Australia's largest bank have been enough to convince the Prime Minister to establish a royal commission," they said. "What is it going to take?" Mr Morrison said the APRA inquiry showed there was no need for such a probe, which he said would see "nothing happen for another three years". "Taking action now is what is needed, that is what we are doing, that is what our regulators clearly understand is their job to do and they are getting on with it," Mr Morrison said. In addition to APRA's inquiry, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission said it was investigating whether CBA broke the Corporations Act in its response to the alleged anti-money- laundering breaches. Mr Morrison said he had been in regular talks with regulators including Austrac, APRA and ASIC after the anti-money-laundering scandal emerged. [GN] CP OPCO: Sued Over Failure to Provide 60 Days Termination Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- David McDonald, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CP OpCo, LLC, d/b/a Classic Party Rentals; Insperity PEO Services, L.P., and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:17-cv-04915 (N.D. Cal., August 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide notice to their employees 60 days before closing their facilities or conducting a mass layoff as required by Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act The Defendants own and operate an event rental company in Inglewood, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Mullan, Esq. Chaya M. Mandelbaum, Esq. Meghan F. Loisel, Esq. RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, L.L.P. 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434-9800 Facsimile: (415) 434-0513 E-mail: jtm@rezlaw.com cmm@rezlaw.com mfl@rezlaw.com CYFRED LTD: United Pacific Islanders Lose Basic Services Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Louella Losinio, writing for The Guam Daily Post, reports that after 15 years, residents of the Gill Baza subdivision are still hoping to get some resolution to the long-standing problem of their not having access to basic services. In separate interviews with The Guam Daily Post, subdivision residents expressed their frustration. Long-term residents Redsa Untalan and daughter Angie moved to Gill Baza around the same time when several homeowners sued developer Cyfred Ltd. over their failure to provide much-needed infrastructure, including sewer lines. Angie Untalan said only in 2013 were they able to get their power installed. Now, a broken sewer line has remained unfixed for months. "We called GWA after someone damaged it. We called and they came to check it but never returned. This was a couple of months ago," she said. Without a sewer line, Redsa said they have to pay around $179 per month for a portable toilet which requires weekly maintenance. The same issue concerns Florence Martin, who moved to the area in 2002. "When we got here, we had no power or sewer. I was off-island when we got power here. It was several years ago, except for the sewer. Up to now, we are still waiting for these services," she said. "It is really hard with the portable toilets - we need a sewer line. It is hard for the kids to use the porta-toilets." At the time the Post visited the area, a Detry Plumbing Service truck was seen going around the neighborhood to clean the portable toilets. Back in 2002, 40 subdivision homeowners filed their first complaint with the Superior Court of Guam. In 2006, the Guam Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice of violation and order of compliance for the subdivision, which required residents to leave the area until a sewer system was installed. In 2009, the Guam Supreme Court upheld a trial court's decision ordering Cyfred to pay around $580,000 for the installation of a sewer system for homeowners. The decision stemmed from a class action filed by lead plaintiffs Kini and Iowanna Sananap. Since then, various parties have filed motions and oppositions. In July, a group of residents won their appeal against Cyfred, which meant the Superior Court of Guam had to hear the matter. The Superior Court dismissed the case filed by United Pacific Islanders' Corp. and dozens of residents of the subdivision against Cyfred and National Union Fire Insurance Co. for failure to prosecute under the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure because the case had not progressed in the Superior Court. An appeal of the dismissal was filed with the local Supreme Court. The appellate court determined that United Pacific Islanders' had no standing in the lawsuit, but that the individual residents did. On Aug. 25, the court held a brief meeting to announce a stipulation has been drafted between the parties involved in the recent case. [GN] DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Florida Judge Dismisses Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- David Weigel, writing for Washington Post, reports a year-long legal battle over the Democratic National Committee's handling of the 2016 presidential primary came to an end on August 25, with a federal judge in Florida dismissing a class-action suit brought by supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). "To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC's internal workings, or their right of free speech -- not through the judiciary," Judge William Zloch, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dismissal. "To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court's emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs' pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so . . . the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court." The lawsuit, which its supporters promoted with the hashtag #DNCFraudLawsuit, grew out of the 2016 hack of the DNC that eventually led to the release of thousands of documents on the website DCLeaks. On July 28, 2016, Florida attorneys Jared and Elizabeth Beck filed a civil complaint, alleging that the hacked emails had revealed a DNC that was plotting to get Hillary Clinton through the primaries, defrauding its donors, and exposing them to harm through shoddy information security. The DNC filed a petition to dismiss the complaint on July 22, the week the party's convention got underway -- and the week that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) resigned as DNC chair. But the case dragged on into 2017, with the Becks heavily promoting the case on Twitter and through their super PAC, JamPAC. In April, the Becks and the DNC's attorneys met in court, with the Becks arguing that the hacked emails had shown the DNC violated its charter, with staffers talking openly about how to elect Clinton. "We have a wealth of information that was released by WikiLeaks that comes from emails from officials of the DNC, as well as the Hillary Clinton campaign, which really, I think, flesh out and fill in the detail of this really seminal internal document that Guccifer released," Jared Beck said. "These additional leaks have shown that DNC officials participated in creating and disseminating media narratives to undermine Bernie Sanders and advance Hillary Clinton." Bruce Spiva, representing the DNC, made the argument that would eventually carry the day: that it was impossible to determine who would have standing to claim they had been defrauded. But as he explained how the DNC worked, Spiva made a hypothetical argument that the party wasn't really bound by the votes cast in primaries or caucuses. "The party has the freedom of association to decide how it's gonna select its representatives to the convention and to the state party," said Spiva. "Even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs. The party could have favored a candidate. I'll put it that way." In the corners of the media where the lawsuit was covered most, that answer became infamous -- proof that the defeated Democrats did not respect the will of the voters. "The DNC reportedly argued that the organization's neutrality among Democratic campaigns during the primaries was merely a 'political promise,' and therefore it had no legal obligations to remain impartial throughout the process," a reporter for Newsweek wrote. But Clinton had won 3.7 million more votes than Sanders during the primaries, in part because the Vermont senator dominated relatively lower-turnout caucuses. And as the judge considered whether to dismiss the suit, Jared Beck advanced more theories of the depths to which Democrats might have gone in order to cover their tracks. In a June 2017 interview with Alex Jones's news site Infowars, Beck suggested that the deaths of potential witnesses, the process server who delivered documents to the DNC, and DNC IT staffer Seth Rich had all raised troubling questions. [GN] DR. REDDY'S: October 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until October 25, 2017 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. (RDY), if they purchased the Company's securities between June 17, 2015 through August 10, 2017, inclusive (the 'Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Dr. Reddy's and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/-rdy/to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by October 25, 2017. About the Lawsuit Dr. Reddy's and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company had failed to implement an effective corporate quality control system including but not limited to its manufacturing plants and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Dr. Reddy's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com -- whose partners include the former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN] INDIANA: Sidewalk Ordinances Target Homeless People, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Liz Wolfe, writing for The American Conservative, reports that they loiter, they sit, even sprawl on the sidewalk. Often we avert our eyes to their condition. Police see the homeless as a nuisance and they are soon scattered under the guise of "public safety." Meanwhile, the non-homeless often loiter, and they congregate too, but are never turned away by the cops. They aren't considered a threat. A struggling class of working poor living in urban areas with high housing prices, combined with an increasing lack of low-income rents and long-term solutions, ensure the poor have nowhere else to go. Those who can, move outside the urban limits. Those who can't, stay behind, oftentimes on the streets, closer to shelters and other free services. But now officials in cities across the country want to make these people "illegal" in hopes they will move along, to wherever that may be. In a class action lawsuit filed in August, plaintiffs are claiming the city of Indianapolis is unconstitutionally targeting homeless people with their sidewalk ordinances. Homeless people and activists believe the law, which prohibits congregating or lying on certain public sidewalks, is being applied unequally, and by all accounts it is. On August 4, in what reports say was a joint effort with the Department of Homeland Security, notices were posted at several homeless encampments that they would be cleared within a few days, and that "an emergency" had been declared. According to the Indianapolis Star the city claimed: Congestion and cluttering of the area from personal belongings or people in the public right of way inhibits safe passage by pedestrians and emergency first responders, blocks evacuation routes and allows for concealment of threats targeting pedestrians and first responders. On August 8, city officials kept their word. According to Maurice Young, a homeless man mentioned in the lawsuit, police officers have made it clear to the homeless that they cannot sit, stop, loiter, or lie down in the cleared areas--but non-homeless people have not been treated the same way or even approached with such reminders. "At the time Mr. Young visited the areas there were no events taking place at any nearby stadiums or other event venues and there were not a large number of non-homeless pedestrians traversing the areas," reads the lawsuit--so it's clear there was no massive obstruction of sidewalks, or obvious issue with the conduct of the homeless in the area. Plaintiffs are also challenging the vague use of the term "emergency," arguing it violates residents' due process rights and needs to be clarified. These cruel regulatory tendencies too often go unnoticed and harm the most vulnerable people. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, plaintiffs are arguing that these ordinances are being used to discriminatorily target the needy. Simply put, they violate the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law. It's crucial that the city remedy this. In addition, an injunction to lift the ban has been requested to prevent future issues. It makes sense for lawmakers to ensure sidewalks aren't blocked to pedestrians, but it doesn't make sense for city officials to deny the homeless the ability to rest their feet, talk to one another, or stop for a moment to catch their breath. For too long, ordinances such as these have been passed quietly, city by city, with little to no public objection. Now, homeless people must navigate a complex patchwork of laws that slowly deprive them of their humanity and criminalize daily activity, without ever giving their input to legislators. Of course, laws designed to target homeless people are nothing new. In 33 of 100 total U.S. cities studied, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty found that it's illegal to publicly camp. About 32 percent of cities studied had anti-loitering ordinances city-wide. And these laws aren't limited to specific states: from 2012 to 2015, the Dallas Police issued about 323 citations a month for sleeping in public. In 2014, Honolulu enacted a law banning sitting and lying down in public places, which has resulted in more than 16,000 warnings given predominantly to homeless people. In California alone, there are hundreds of separate ordinances all targeting the homeless--in fact, researchers at Berkeley found that each California city has, on average, nine separate anti -homeless laws. Government overreach that hurts vulnerable people isn't limited to a specific state, region, or jurisdiction--it's unfortunately all over. In some ways, Indianapolis's methods of dealing with homelessness are ahead of the curve. Faith-based missions provide shelter for a large percentage of the homeless population, and Indianapolis "serves as a national model for government-FBO collaborations" according to a study done by the Baylor Institute that measured the impact of faith-based organizations in public policy initiatives. These private-public partnerships also lessen the amount incurred by taxpayers-organizations like Wheeler Mission Ministries save taxpayers about $3 million per year. For small government advocates, this is a clear win and an impressive feat. But in order to fully approach homelessness with compassion, Indianapolis city government and law enforcement will need to not only rethink their current laws, but also how they're being used. Many states are slowly passing laws against housing status discrimination, such as Right to Rest Acts and efforts to make the homeless a protected class--but still, cities all across the country regularly violate the rights of those who need them most. Instead of using public funds and the threat of jail time to corral the homeless into submission, we should rethink our onerous laws and discern whether they're actually designed to help the homeless get back on their feet. In most places, they aren't. [GN] DUKE UNIVERSITY: "Seaman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled DANIELLE SEAMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY; DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, WILLIAM L. ROPER, AND DOES 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00462-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all natural persons employed by Defendants and their co- conspirators in the United States during the period from January 1, 2012 through the present (the "Class Period") as a faculty member, physician, nurse, or other skilled medical employee. Excluded from the Class are: members of the boards of directors and boards of trustees, boards of governors, and senior executives of Defendants and their co-conspirators who entered into the illicit agreements alleged herein; and any and all judges and justices, and chambers' staff, assigned to hear or adjudicate any aspect of this litigation." Dr. Seaman also moves the Court to appoint her as Class representative and to appoint Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Elliot Morgan Parsonage, P.A., as Class Counsel. This motion is based on the accompanying memorandum of law; the Declaration of Anne B. Shaver; the Expert Reports of Dr. Edward E. Leamer and Dr. Peter Cappelli; all exhibits and appendices to such documents, the pleadings and other documents on file in this action, and any argument that may be presented to the Court. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z2aYqmzx The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly M. Dermody, Esq. Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Anne B. Shaver, Esq. Abbye Klamann, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956 1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com dharvey@lchb.com ashaver@lchb.com aklamann@lchb.com - and - Robert M. Elliot, Esq. ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, P.A. 426 Old Salem Rd. Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 724 2828 Facsimile: (336) 714 4499 E-mail: rmelliot@emplawfirm.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Siddiqi" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled SHABIB SIDDIQI, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC; and PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-06126 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff seeks the Court to certify two classes: Pinnacle class: "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses, (b) to whom a letter was sent on behalf of Pinnacle to collect a debt, (c) which debt was a credit card on which the last payment had been made more than 5 years prior to the letter, (d) which letter offered a settlement or a payment plan (e) and did not state that any payment may restart the statute of limitations, (f) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action"; and Dynamic class: "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses, (b) to whom Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC sent a letter to collect a debt, (c) which debt was a credit card on which the last payment had been made more than 5 years prior to the letter, (d) which letter offered a settlement or a payment plan (e) and did not state that any payment may restart the statute of limitations, (f) which letter was sent on or after June 22, 2017". The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. The Defendants have been attempting to collect from plaintiff an alleged credit card debt incurred, if at all, for personal, family or household purposes. On July 31, 2017, Defendant, acting on behalf of defendant Pinnacle, sent plaintiff a letter. The debt was beyond the statute of limitations, the Complaint says. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=giYd8Mfj The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 1824 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC. The case is styled as Treva Sudell Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01166 (W.D. Tenn., August 31, 2017). Equifax Information collects and reports consumer information to financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Micah Stephen Adkins, Esq. THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C. 2 Perimeter Park South, Suite 405 E Birmingham, AL 35243 Tel: (205) 206-6718 Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Treva Sudell Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01165 (W.D. Tenn., August 31, 2017). Experian Information, an information services company, provides information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations and consumers to help manage the risk and reward of commercial and financial decisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Micah Stephen Adkins, Esq. THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C. 2 Perimeter Park South, Suite 405 E Birmingham, AL 35243 Tel: (205) 206-6718 Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com FRANCO AND COMPANY: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Rhodes Moya, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Franco And Company, LLC, and Sandra L. Franco, Case No. 0:17-cv- 61697-DPG (S.D. Fla., August 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Podiatry medical practice and "Med Spa" d/b/a as "FRANCO AND CO" with multiple locations including at 2407 Main Street, Miramar, Florida 33025 in Broward County and 777 East 25th Street, Suite 502, Hialeah, Florida 33013 in Miami-Dade County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com FUSION LOGISTICS: "Geffrard" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CHRISTIAL GEFFRARD, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FUSION LOGISTICS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01161-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla.), the Class Representative asks the Court to enter an Order certifying a class of: "all employees of Fusion who: (1) were employed as "Delivery Drivers" in Florida during the preceding three years; (2) were paid a "day rate;" and (3) worked more than forty hours in a workweek without being paid proper overtime compensation". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z3nE2yb6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Adams, Esq. N. Ryan Labar, Esq. LABAR & ADAMS, P.A. 2300 East Concord Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 835 8968 Facsimile: (407) 835 8969 E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com rlabar@labaradams.com FEDEX GROUND: Jameson et al. Seek to Notify Drivers --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled HUNTLEY JAMESON, JORDAN ROY, and ANGEL SULLIVAN-BLAKE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00987-WWE (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the court to order that notice be issued to: "all individuals who, at any time in the last three years, have delivered FedEx's packages but have been employed through a FedEx ISP and who may have driven vehicles under 10,001 pounds gross vehicle weight." The Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendant, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who have delivered packages for FedEx through intermediary "independent service providers" ("ISPs") and who have been eligible to receive overtime pay but have not been paid time-and-a-half compensation for their hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=71aQT8h8 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com pdelano@llrlaw.com - and - Richard E. Hayber, Esq. THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC. 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 522 8888 Facsimile: (860) 218 9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com GC SERVICES: Ocampo Seeks Renewed Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JOSE LUIS OCAMPO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09388 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff seeks renewed motion for class certification of: "(1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2) from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, (3) upon which Defendants sent a form letter substantially similar to that of Plaintiff's, which contained the following paragraphs: (a) While we have not reported this account to any consumer reporting agency as of the date of this letter, our client has authorized us to report your account to the three major consumer reporting agencies unless we are able to resolve your account; (b) Please read the following message provided by Dish Network: The balance that has been placed in collections may include the cost of your leased Dish Network equipment. If you choose to return the equipment to Dish Network they will reverse the leased equipment fees and/or refund any payments made that were applied to equipment charges." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0asVYoIr The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha C. Chatman, Esq. Michael J. Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757 1880 Facsimile: (312) 265 3227 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com HARTFORD FIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Analysts Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CORDELL ALLEN; ALIA CLARK; PATRICIA DEARTH; CHRIS DEPIERRO; JESSICA LEIGHTON; JESSICA PEREZ; JAMIE RIVERA; LAYFON ROSU; MARISSA SHIMKO; and CAROL SOMERS, the Plaintiffs, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No 6:16-cv- 01603-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of collective class and issuance of notice and incorporated memorandum of law; 2. conditionally certifying a national section 216(b) class of Analysts who have: (1) worked for The Hartford at any of its locations during the three years preceding their decision to opt into this action; and (2) worked more than forty hours in a workweek without being paid overtime compensation. This class excludes Analysts that have agreed to arbitrate their claims pursuant to The Hartford's arbitration policy. Putative class members will have a 60 day period in which to opt into this action; 3. appointing Plaintiffs Patricia Dearth, Jessica Perez, Jamie Rivera, Layfon Rosu, Marissa Shimko, and Carol Somers as class representatives; 4. On or before Thursday, August 31, 2017, directing Hartford to disclose to the Plaintiffs the contact information of all Analysts who have: (1) worked at or reported to any of The Hartford's locations during the three years preceding the date of this Order; and (2) are not subject to The Hartford's arbitration policy; 5. approving Plaintiffs' Notice of Collective Action; 6. authorizing distribution of the modified notices -- by U.S. mail and personal email -- on or before Tuesday, October 31, 2017; 7. On or before Friday, September 1, 2017, directing Hartford to post Plaintiffs' revised notice at its job site locations and on its company intranet site and provide certification to the Court that it has done so. The Hartford may remove such notices on or after Wednesday, November 1, 2017; and 8. directing parties to file a joint motion for modification of the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order on or before Tuesday, September 5, 2017. Failure to do so may result in the Court revising its Case Management and Scheduling Order sua sponte. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7d0CCPac HUNGARY: Court Denied Bid for Default Judgment ---------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOE W. STAR, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05709 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, and for admission to trial bar without prejudice. The Court said, "In regard to Trial Bar membership, an explanation of the procedures and a link to the Court's web site. Neither an order of default nor a default judgment are appropriate at this time because Plaintiff has not satisfactorily shown that he has effectuated service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. The Plaintiff is directed to file on the docket no later than Sep. 8, 2017 a memorandum answering the questions set out below pertaining to service of the summons and complaint. In addition, given the inability of Plaintiff's counsel to appear in person and to file documents electronically, the Court's previous inclination to proceed without local counsel has become untenable. Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel is directed to obtain local counsel in accordance with Local Rule 83.15 by Sep. 8, 2017. Plaintiff's counsel is reminded that all documents should be filed electronically rather than mailed directly to the judge's chambers or the Courtroom Deputy. Finally, Plaintiff's counsel is directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Carolyn Hoesly (312-435-5668) at least 24 hours prior to any status hearing in which he wishes to participate by telephone. The Court will set this matter for further status hearing after it is able to review Plaintiff's forthcoming memorandum." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2cR8BSCI HYATT CORPORATION: "Matthews" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CARLA MATTHEWS, and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. HYATT CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00413- RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Carla Matthews, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, moves the Court, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a FLSA collective; 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-authorized notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text message) to: "all current and former hourly Remote Associates who worked for the Hyatt Corporation in the United States at any time in the past three years; and 3. requiring Defendant to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing names, dates of employment, job title, and last known addresses, cell phone numbers, and email addresses in an agreeable format for mailing within 14 days of the entry of the order. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8u0tga3C The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. Charles R. Ash, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MH 48076 Telephone: 248-355-0300 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com - and - Edward B. Davis, Esq. BELL DAVIS PITT, P.A. 227 W. Trade Street, Suite 1800 Charlotte, NC 28202 E-mail: edward.davis@belldavispitt.com Telephone: (704) 227 0129 ILLINOIS: Class Certification Bid Sought in 10 Cases vs DHS ----------------------------------------------------------- Separate motions for class certification and appointment of class counsel have been filed in 10 lawsuits by civil detainees held by the Illinois Department of Human Services, Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility. The complaints are identical and allege violation of the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (725 ILCS Sec. 207/1 et seq.)(from prosecution to conditions of imprisonment). The 10 lawsuits are captioned as: "James Vance, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, Et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04190-JES (C.D. Ill.)" A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sQOo1mEX; Samuek Rutherford, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04194-JES (C.D. Ill.)" A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gCDqCEQU; Christoher Tatara, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04195-JES (C.D. Ill.)", A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=frs64peg; Michael Hansen, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04189-JES (C.D. Ill.)", A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BesniizY; Samuel Lewis, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04191-JES (C.D. Ill.)", A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pSpwgyOu; Ronald Dunn, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04192-JES (C.D. Ill.)", A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lfJBISw8; William Ragel, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04198-JES (C.D. Ill.)", A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fLDBIVL9; Nicholas Bauer, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04205-JES (C.D. Ill.)", A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DsxalHCP; Jose Montanez, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04222-JES (C.D. Ill.)", A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=P9pOv2As;and Joseph Sumaling, the Plaintiff, v. James Dimas, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04224-JES (C.D. Ill.)", A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SpzFV2S1. ILLINOIS: Court Refuses to Review Denial of Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Objections to Court's June 13, 2017, Order denying his motion to amend his complaint, certify a class action, and appoint new counsel in the case captioned MARC NORFLEET, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-1279-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.). First, Judge Wilkerson finds that Plaintiff's belief that he was misled that his previously-appointed counsel's duty was to assist him in bringing a class action was misguided and unfounded. A review of the docket evidences no indication that the purpose of appointing the Plaintiff counsel to this matter was to assist him in setting forth a class action lawsuit. In the Court's Order appointing counsel, it noted that the Plaintiff is a disabled inmate proceeding on an Eighth Amendment and ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims that may require significant discovery. It also recognized that his filings were difficult to comprehend and demonstrated his inability to communicate effectively. Nowhere in the Order does the Court contemplate a potential class action or direct counsel to assist in litigating the same. The Plaintiff also takes issue with the Court allowing counsel to withdraw after conducting a telephonic conference with counsel in which he was not in attendance. He asserts that counsel was allowed to withdraw without merit as counsel only sought to withdraw because he did not want the workload of handling a class action. It is apparent from the letter dated Feb. 6, 2017 directed to the Plaintiff from former counsel that there was a significant breakdown of the attorney-client relationship insofar as the Plaintiff and his counsel had different views on how this matter should be handled. Judge Wilkerson notes that the Plaintiff cannot ask that counsel withdraw because they will not pursue a class action lawsuit, and then complain when counsel is allowed to withdraw and the Court declines to appoint new counsel. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider its denial of his motion to amend the complaint and bring forth a class action lawsuit. A review of the proposed amended complaint submitted in accordance with the Plaintiff's motion at Document 53 in October 2016 demonstrates its obvious similarity to the proposed amended complaint submitted in March, 2017, the Judge finds. Indeed, the October 2016 proposed amended pleading includes the same substantive content as the later proposed amended pleading, but does not include any reference to a class. Accordingly, Judge Wilkerson does not find that the October 2016 proposed amended pleading clearly sets forth the claims the Plaintiff is attempting to bring. The Judge held that insofar as the Plaintiff complains about the overcrowding of the ADA cells at Pinckneyville in his motion, he has not requested any specific relief in this motion tied to this issue and the Court reminds him that these issues are the basis of the claims pending in this lawsuit. For these reasons, Judge Wilkerson finds that the Plaintiff has not provided a significant reason for the Court to reconsider its previous ruling on the Plaintiff's requests for new counsel and motion to amend the complaint and proceed as a class action. Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Objections to Court's June 13, 2017 Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/jvG4nf from Leagle.com. Marc Norfleet, Plaintiff, Pro Se. IDOC, Defendant, represented by Ayesha Patel, Office of the Attorney General. Patrick Keane, Defendant, represented by Ayesha Patel, Office of the Attorney General. Gladyse C Taylor, Defendant, represented by Ayesha Patel, Office of the Attorney General. Sherry Benton, Defendant, represented by Ayesha Patel, Office of the Attorney General. INTUIT INC: Directed to Produce ATO Docs in Data Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: INTUIT DATA LITIGATION, Case No. 15- cv-01778-EJD (SVK)(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, ordered Intuit to produce the Account Takeover Refund Fraud ("ATO") documents. The putative class action claims that Intuit enabled third parties to file false tax returns in the names of the Named Plaintiffs and other taxpayers through Intuit's TurboTax service. The Plaintiffs allege that these third parties fraudsters used two methods to carry out this scheme: (i) opening new TurboTax accounts in the names of other individuals and filing returns through those accounts, Stolen Identity Refund Fraud ("SIRF"), and (ii) accessing the accounts of existing TurboTax customers and filing returns through those accounts, ATO. The Plaintiffs assert causes of action for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, negligence, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent enablement of third-party imposter fraud, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek to bring these claims on behalf of a class defined in the operative Second Amended Complaint as all persons in the United States in whose names fraudulent tax returns were filed using TurboTax within the applicable statute of limitations. Intuit generally denies responsibility for fraudulent tax filings submitted through TurboTax. The District Judge has issued an order opening discovery. No discovery cut-off or deadline for the Plaintiffs' class certification motion has been set. Intuit's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and its motion to compel certain of the Named Plaintiffs to submit their dispute with Intuit to arbitration are pending before the District Judge. Before the Court is the parties' joint letter brief concerning a dispute over the relevance of documents concerning ATO sought by the Plaintiffs in discovery. Intuit objects to the production of documents that relate only to ATO on the grounds that ATO-only documents are not relevant. The Plaintiffs respond that they have not dropped ATO victims from the putative class or the case and state this action is brought on behalf of all victims in whose name fraudulent TurboTax returns were filed, whether by means of SIRF or ATO. At the request of Defendant Intuit, the Court held a hearing on this dispute on Aug. 22, 2017. Judge van Keulen concludes that the ATO documents sought by the Plaintiffs are relevant and appropriate discovery at this pre- certification stage of the case. In determining relevancy in a class action, it is appropriate for the Court to consider the class definition. The proposed class is not limited to persons who suffered SIRF-type fraud. In addition, the Second Amended Complaint states that this proposed class may be divided into subclasses. Elsewhere, the Second Amended Complaint discusses both SIRF and ATO fraud. Intuit has not demonstrated that the Plaintiffs have unambiguously "abandoned" their ATO-related claims. Although Intuit's arguments as to the role of ATO-type fraud in this case may be pertinent to issues such as class certification, they are not an appropriate basis to limit discovery at this stage in light of the class definition in the operative complaint. The Plaintiffs have shown that discovery of the ATO documents is necessary to enable them to present evidence as to whether their proposed class or subclasses are appropriate. Therefore, she concludes that the ATO documents are relevant. Accordingly, Judge van Keulen ordered Intuit to produce the ATO documents to the Plaintiffs. The parties are to meet and confer regarding a reasonable production schedule for the documents and, if they are unable to agree, must submit a joint letter brief to her. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/OWLkE5 from Leagle.com. Christine Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher Wright -- dcw@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Christine Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by Jae Kook Kim -- jkk@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, John A. Yanchunis -- JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Soffin -- RSoffin@ForThePeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan, Roger Norton Heller -- rheller@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein LLP, Joel R. Rhine, Rhine Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joseph Jeremy Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. David Stock, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw, PC, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. James Lebinski, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Mark S. Goldman -- goldman@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Carol Knoch, Plaintiff, represented by Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Richard Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice. Intuit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rodger R. Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Alexis Caloza -- acaloza@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Angel Chiang -- achiang@fenwick.com -- Carly Lee Bittman, Fenwick and West & Hailey Coltra Teton -- hteton@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pelvic Mesh Victims Balk at Sexual Suggestions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Knaus, writing for The Guardian, reports that Australian victims of faulty pelvic mesh implants have expressed disgust at doctors' suggestions of anal intercourse as a solution to their ruined sex lives. A disturbing email exchange between doctors emerged as part of a federal court class action in Australia, which was launched by hundreds of women who had the devices implanted to treat common childbirth complications. The devices, manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, caused chronic and debilitating pain, including during intercourse. The emails reflected a callous attitude towards women among French gynaecologists involved with the company. In the emails, doctors talk about alternatives to sex for women suffering painful intercourse. "It is no less true that sodomy could be a good alternative!" one doctor wrote. Another discussed the difficulty of raising sexual matters with his patients. "I said to myself, there you go, for your next prolapse [patient], you talk to her about orgasms. OK! But also about fellatio, sodomy, the clitoris with or without G-spot etc," he wrote. "I am sure of one thing: that I would very quickly be treated like some kind of sex maniac (which, perhaps, I am) or a pervert, or an unhealthily curious person." The attitudes accord with evidence before the current Senate inquiry into the devices, which has heard women were advised to consider anal intercourse as a solution to the extreme pain caused by intercourse. The comments outraged members of the Australian Pelvic Mesh Support Group, which sent Guardian Australia a collection of anonymised responses from women to the revelations. Many of the women said they had encountered similar attitudes from their own doctors. "My husband and I were given advice [about] sexual activity," one woman said. "We were gobsmacked. The whole sexual deviation thing is supposed to make the pain and complications from mesh go away. I find this type of advice disgusting." Another woman said the comments were demoralising and devalued women. She said they represented another form of abuse. "Our vaginas have been abused by mesh and now doctors are suggesting our anus be abused. Despicable! Only a misogynist could think this way," she said. A third woman wrote that the "appalling" comments showed a complete lack of respect to the women involved. Another wrote that they suggested women were nothing more than a receptacle to satisfy men. "The suggestion that women who are unable to have vaginal intercourse should practise anal instead completely devalues a woman's right to a full and healthy sex life as an active, empowered and fulfilled participant," she said. "It suggests that a woman is nothing more than a receptacle to satisfy men and that 'any hole will do'. I'm appalled that anyone, particularly a woman's treating medical practitioner, would be so thoughtless and arrogant as to suggest that anal sex is an adequate solution to sexual dysfunction." Greens senator Rachel Siewert is chairing the senate inquiry into the devices. Ms. Siewert described the treatment of many of the women as appalling. "The way many women have been treated when trying to get treatment and support when they have had bad outcomes from mesh implants is appalling, including suggestions by medical professionals that anal intercourse is an alternative to vaginal intercourse after mesh implants have gone terribly wrong," she said. "We have heard a lot of harrowing evidence during the inquiry -- so many women have been horribly impacted by mesh implants. There is a clear pattern emerging of poor processes and advice which is leading to women having their lives severely impacted." The class action is continuing in the federal court. [GN] JON BELMAR: "Furlow" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled DWAYNE FURLOW et al., the Plaintiffs, v. JON BELMAR et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00254-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant certification of two classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uVBviyHq The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric A. Stone, Esq. Timothy J. Holland, Esq. Charles J. Hamilton III, Esq. Elizabeth J. Grossman, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON AND GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373 3000 Facsimile: (212) 757 3990 E-mail: tholland@paulweiss.com estone@paulweiss.com chamilton@paulweiss.com egrossman@paulweiss.com - and - Thomas B. Harvey, Esq. Michael-John Voss, Esq. Blake A. Strode, Esq. ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC. Nathaniel R. Carroll 67988MO 1210 Locust Street, 2nd Floor St. Louis, MO 63103 Telephone: (855) 724 2489 Facsimile: (314) 925 1307 E-mail: tharvey@archicitydefenders.org mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org bstrode@archcitydefenders.org ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org - and - Baher Azmy, Esq. Darius Charney, Esq. Omar Farah, Esq. Angelo Guisado, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: 212 614 6464 Facsimile: 212 614 6499 E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org dcharney@ccrjustice.org ofarah@ccrjustice.org aguisado@ccrjustice.org KANOA: Backers Mull Class Action Following Shutdown --------------------------------------------------- David Z. Morris, writing for Fortune.com, reports that Kanoa, a crowdfunded company promising its backers a pair of innovative wireless headphones, has announced that it will shut down without delivering products to most of them. The shutdown comes after a string of challenges, but the final nail in the coffin may have been a merciless YouTube video posted on Aug. 19 in which a reviewer found numerous basic flaws with the product -- and alleged that the company tried to bribe him for positive coverage. Kanoa's journey began in 2015, when its successful crowdfunding campaign promised in-ear wireless headphones with a sharp charging case and smart features like adjustable ambient sound pass- through. According to the company's parting message, the following year saw them encountering technical challenges and starting over from scratch. They began to ship a few units to backers and reviewers, but they were apparently still not up to snuff. Technology reviewer Cody Crouch, also known as iTwe4kz, received a review unit from the company, and . . . well, things got rough. Mr. Crouch's review video is like a horrific car crash -- hard to watch, but impossible to turn away from. It chronicles his Sisyphean struggle to get the headphones, which were planned to retail for $300, to perform basic functions like connecting to his phone. Kanoa's promised pass-through feature produced unlistenable feedback, and they didn't reliably connect when Mr. Crouch had his phone in his rear pocket. The fancy charging case, stunningly, wouldn't charge the headphones while plugged in. Mr. Crouch says he was in communication with the Kanoa team through all of these struggles, and offered to review an improved version of the product if they sent him one. But he eventually concluded that he had been sent a production unit and decided to go ahead with an honest review. That, according to Mr. Crouch, is when things got really dark. He claims that a Kanoa representative sent him a long email detailing the headphone's features, which concluded with: "I know that you're busy and your time is valuable, so if you can get a good review, or a good video, out by Sunday, we'll give you $500." Visibly incensed by the offer of a bribe, Mr. Crouch offered a pointed summary of Kanoa and its product: "This is trash. You don't want to have these. This is not a company that you want to deal with." Within four days, Kanoa was finished. The company even alluded to the review in its shutdown announcement, saying that "reviews of non-shippable beta units" led to customer complaints and, more dramatically, the loss of promised investments. Kanoa's announcement did not reference any possibility for refunds, saying that its customer service and social media staff have been laid off along with other employees. Some Kanoa backers are now organizing a class action lawsuit, though it's unclear where any proceeds would come from. [GN] KOVITZ SHIFRIN: "Chacon" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled WENDY CHACON, on behalf of herself and all other similar situated, the Plaintiff, v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT, an Illinois, Professional Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02766 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks Court for an order certifying two classes: Count I Class consisting of: "(a) individual(s) who own (s)a unit property within an Homeowner's association governed by or formed under the Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act, (b) who received a form collection letter similar to Plaintiff's form Collection Letter, and whose collection letters were not returned by the United States Postal Service as undelivered or undeliverable. The class period is between September 17, 2016 and April 12, 2017, the date of filing of this action. Excluded from the Class are Kovitz, any entity in which Kovitz has a controlling interest, any officers or directors of Kovitz, the legal representative, heirs, successors, and assigns of Kovitz, and any Judge assigned to this action, and his or her family"; and Count II Class consisting of: "(a) individual(s) who own(s) a unit property within a homeowner's association governed by or formed under the Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act, (b) was sued by Kovitz in an attempt to collect a debt for assessment, and whose lawsuits contained substantially similar, or identical to the allegations in Plaintiff's State Action. The class period is between September 17, 2016 and April 12, 2017, the date of filing of this action. Excluded from the Class are Kovitz, any entity in which Kovitz has a controlling interest, any officers or directors of Kovitz, the legal representative, heirs, successors, and assigns of Kovitz, and any Judge assigned to this action, and his or her family. The Plaintiff also asks that the Court enter an order appointing Plaintiff as the class representative and Kenneth M. DucDuong of KMD Law Office, Ltd. as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QniPexiT The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq. KMD LAW OFFICE, LTD. 4001 W. Devon Ave., Ste. 332 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 997 5959 Facsimile: (312) 219 8404 E-mail: kducduong@kmdlex.com LH 690: Class Certification Bid in "Shabotinsky" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled David Shabotinsky, the Plaintiff, v. Deutsche Lufthansa, A.G., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04865 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon, Judge Elaine E. Bucklo entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification in a lawsuit over a 2014 cancelled Lufthansa flight. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 21, 2017, Judge Bucklo held that the first prerequisite to a class action is that a class "is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Plaintiff has offered various class definitions in this case, in his complaint, in court on March 17, 2017 and March 3 2017, and in his motion for class certification. In my order dated March 17, 2017, I rejected plaintiff's attempt to base a class on Lufthansa flights other than the canceled flight from Frankfurt to Tel Aviv on August 25, 2014 (flight 690). I understood at that time that plaintiff agreed that only persons who flew on plaintiff's flight from Chicago on August 24, 2014 and were scheduled to fly on the canceled Tel Aviv flight were in his potential class. However, plaintiff now argues that anyone on any U.S. flight to Frankfurt (he is vague about the date the flight from the United States had to take place), who was scheduled to fly on the canceled Frankfurt to Tel Aviv flight is part of his class. The motion for class certification actually contains a proposed class that is arguably broader still, defining the class to include any person residing in the United States who had a confirmed reservation on the canceled flight, assuming the person has not received compensation as required under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention. The broader definition in plaintiff's motion for class certification is rejected on the ground that the mere fact that a person resides in the United States cannot confer this court's jurisdiction over a canceled flight from Germany to Tel Aviv, Israel." The Court further said, "I also reject plaintiff's alternative proposed class of persons who traveled, or were scheduled to travel, on any flight from the United States to Frankfurt, with a connection to the canceled flight. I note, first, that plaintiff's definition would presumably include non-Lufthansa flights, raising jurisdictional issues, and at any rate include Lufthansa flights from other parts of the United States. In either case, the individual issues relating to discovery and evidence with respect to each connecting flight would clearly outweigh questions of fact common to a class. Plaintiff is left with two other persons besides himself who took the flight from Chicago to Frankfurt and then a flight (delayed by three hours from the original scheduled flight) from Frankfurt to Tel Aviv. Three persons have never been held to be a sufficient number to justify class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P." A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OD4yTGuZ LOGAN TOWNSHIP: Faces Potential CA Over Housing Development Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Kibler, writing for Altoona Mirror, reports that a lawsuit threatened by the developer who initiated the 100-acre Strawberry Hills housing development could stymie Logan Township's efforts to find a use for the parcel. "My lawyers are preparing a lawsuit," Victor Ruggery told the supervisors at the regular meeting that preceded one dedicated to supervised brainstorming about Strawberry Hills, the site of one of the former Stotler landfills, one heavily used by the railroad. The supervisors have "defamed" his name and lately have been "slurring" the name of the development, said Ruggery, who went bankrupt and lost the project in the early 2000s. Following that loss, a Lancaster firm proposed building up to 600 homes, but didn't follow through due in part to road access problems, eventually giving way to a bankruptcy trust that donated the property to the township in 2015. The township -- particularly solicitor Larry Clapper -- caused Ruggery to lose the development with repeated "roadblocks," Ruggery said. "It was despicable the way the township treated me," he said. The proposed lawsuit has the potential to become a class action comprising potential homeowners who put money down and had contracts to build. Others with damaged interests include builders those potential homeowners would have engaged, Ruggery said. There's also the matter of unrealized profit, he added. He's prepared to take the suit through appeal after appeal to the highest court, he said. He borrowed for the project, committed all the money he had, investing $1 million and six years of his life, buying the property acre-by-acre, and it's not fair for others to reap the benefits, he told the supervisors. It's also wrong that the state Department of Environmental Protection at one time had approved ground for building homes, then later withdrew that permission, he said. Early on, he suspected the township was angling to take over, and events proved him right, he said. Supervisors Chairman Jim Patterson said he can't respond, given the threat of the lawsuit. "Thanks for coming," he told Ruggery. "However things lay out, things (will) lay out." After the meeting, Patterson explained that the DEP withdrew its approval of the ground for homes -- there's a blanket prohibition against using any of the site for residential construction -- only after Ruggery had lost control. At the brainstorming session, Ruggery alerted attendees of his hope to regain control and build "decent" homes in one area. He's fine with leaving the rest green space, he told the approximately 40 attendees, who favored green space for the tract more than any other option discussed. [GN] MDL 1674: $8.4MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Mortgage Lending Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: COMMUNITY BANK OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA MORTGAGE LENDING PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 1674 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Arthur James Schwab of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the Motion to Confirm Costs and Attorneys' Fees Awarded to R. Bruce Carlson, Esquire. The Parties to this class action agreed to resolve their dispute in accordance with certain terms they set forth in a Final and Binding Settlement Agreement dated Aug. 8, 2016. The Court approved the Settlement Agreement along with the terms and procedures set forth therein, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing. After Notice was provided to the Class, the Court granted the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. In so doing, it honored the terms set forth the Parties' Settlement Agreement and appointed a Three-Person Arbitration Panel to make their ruling as to the "high" or "low" amount submitted by the Parties and to determine attorneys' fees and expenses, which was to be paid solely from the selected number. After the Panel's appointment, but before the three Arbitration Panelists heard the case and determined the award, one Motion for Attorneys' Fees, amended, was filed. The Court denied without prejudice, the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees because the Aug. 8, 2016 Agreement provided that the three-person Arbitration Panel would also determine attorneys' fees and expenses. The Arbitration Panel, after a comprehensive 13-day hearing, issued a "Unanimous Decision" on March 24, 2017 announcing the amount to be awarded to the Plaintiff Class ($24,000,000). The Panel also approved the attorneys' fees of 35% of the Final Settlement Amount ($8,400,000), less costs and expenses to the extent that they exceed $1,150,000. Despite the representations made by "all Class Counsel" to the Arbitration Panel, Atty. Carlson's prior law firm, Specter Specter Evans & Manogue ("SSEM"), now claims that it is entitled to a portion of the attorney fees to be paid out in this matter. SSEM relies upon its June 30, 2004, "Separation Agreement" with Attorney Carlson, and an earlier document dated Feb. 6, 2004, entitled "Agreement," to substantiate its claim to a portion of Attorney Carlson's attorneys' fees to be paid in the case. Meanwhile, in the Court, Atty. Carlson filed a Motion and Brief in Support to conform costs and attorneys' fees awarded to him, and to stay the State Court litigation initiated by SSEM. In his Motion and Brief, Atty. Carlson argued that the Court has ancillary jurisdiction over this fee dispute. The Court granted Atty. Carlson's Motion to stay the State Court lawsuit, thereby suggesting it had ancillary jurisdiction. SSEM filed a Motion/Response to Attorney Carlson's Motion to Conform Fees and a Motion to Vacate the Order of Court Asserting Ancillary Jurisdiction; and Motion and Brief in Support to Vacate Order Asserting Ancillary Jurisdiction. Attorney Carlson filed a Reply to the Motion/Response filed by Attorney Stein. SSEM contends that ancillary jurisdiction is inappropriate because the state court proceedings have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the settlement of or legal fees awarded in this class action. However, given the Court's participation (which began in May of 2013), and its in-depth involvement with the Parties and their mediator which led to the Agreement on a method by which this case could be settled (after 14 years of prolonged litigation), by a panel of three of arbitrators using a baseball arbitration technique, Judge Shwab firmly disagrees with SSEM's position. He accordingly finds it has ancillary jurisdiction over the attorney fee dispute in this matter. Based on the plain reading of Feb. 6, 2004 Agreement, Judge Schwab finds the phrase, "assuming the district court's Order is affirmed on appeal" to be a condition precedent. The history of this case readily shows that on Aug. 11, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit did not affirm the district court's Order; to the contrary the Aug. 11, 2005 Court of Appeals Order was vacated and the matter was remanded back to the late Chief Judge Lancaster, and it continued to be litigated for an additional 12 years. Therefore, because the prerequisite was not met, Atty. Carlson is excused from his performance of his obligation(s) under terms set forth in the Feb. 6, 2004 contract. Subsequent to the Feb. 6, 2004 Agreement, Atty. Carlson and SSEM entered into the June 30, 2004 Agreement which set forth a fee sharing arrangement with respect to the instant matter. Again, like the Feb. 6, 2004 Agreement, Judge Schwab finds that the "approval of the $8.1 million fee" was a condition precedent. Thus, because the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in its 2005 decision did not approve "the $8.1 million fee," Atty. Carlson is excused from his performance of his obligation(s) under terms set forth in this June 30, 2004 contract. For these reasons, Judge Schwab finds that neither of the two agreements between Carlson and SSEM obligates Carlson to perform. Accordingly, he granted the Motion to Confirm Costs and Attorneys' Fees. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/NTDXup from Leagle.com. DAVID R. COHEN, Special Master, represented by David Rosenblum Cohen -- david@specialmaster.law -- David R. Cohen Co. LPA. BRIAN W. AND CARLA M. KESSLER, Plaintiff, represented by A. Hoyt Rowell -- hrowell@rpwb.com -- Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, Daniel O. Myers -- dmyers@domlawoffice.com -- The Law Offices of Daniel O. Myers, Michael E. McCarthy, R. Bruce Carlson -- bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Benjamin J. Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Carlos R. Diaz, Carlson Lynch LTD, David M. Skeens -- DSKEENS@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LTD, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC, Jamisen A. Etzel -- jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, R. Frederick Walters -- FWALTERS@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Stephanie K. Goldin -- sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Sunshine R. Fellows -- sfellows@levicofflaw.com -- The Levicoff Law Firm, P.C. & Robert S. Wood -- bwood@rpwb.com -- Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC, pro hac vice. JOHN A. NIXON, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan. KATHY NIXON, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan. ELLEN SABO, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan. WILLIAM SABO, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan. MARTIN J. BARATZ, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan. TAMMY WASEM, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan. DAVID WASEM, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC & R. Frederick Walters, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan. PHILIP F. KOSSLER, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by A. Hoyt Rowell, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, Daniel O. Myers, The Law Offices of Daniel O. Myers, R. Bruce Carlson, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Carlos R. Diaz, Carlson Lynch LTD, David M. Skeens, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch LTD, James L. Ward, Jr., McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC, Jamisen A. Etzel, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, R. Frederick Walters, Walters, Bender, Strohbehn & Vaughan, Stephanie K. Goldin, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Sunshine R. Fellows, The Levicoff Law Firm, P.C. & Robert S. Wood, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC, pro hac vice. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant Consolidated, represented by Darryl J. May, PNC, N.A., Joel E. Tasca -- TASCABALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, pro hac vice, Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Ballard Spahr LLP, Joseph F. McDonough -- joseph.mcdonough@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney & Kevin P. Lucas -- kevin.lucas@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joseph P. Pohl, III, Reed Smith. FRANK JONES, JR., Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison -- borison@legglaw.com -- Legg Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum. DEBORAH A. JONES, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum. MICHAEL LANE, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum. MARCOS ESCALANTE, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum. CHERYL WHITE-BERRY, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum. WILLIAM P. GORNY, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum. RINALDO SWAYNE, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm & Stanley A. Kirshenbaum. DAVID D. DAVISON, Movant, represented by Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm. MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of Bordases' Appeal -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel denying the appeal of James and Linda Bordas that centers on the ratings of their 42 trees. In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non- target vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non- target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling Imprelis. In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process to compensate victims of Imprelis damage. Despite this voluntary process, various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states. After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties came to a settlement agreement. The Imprelis Class Action Settlement covers three classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs. Among the three settlement classes is a property owner class. That class includes all persons or entities who own or owned property in the United States to which Imprelis was applied from Aug. 31, 2010 through Aug. 21, 2011, as well as all persons who own or owned property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, or Feb. 11, 2013. Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees, tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for incidental damages. The Settlement included a warranty that provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but before May 31, 2015. On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing. On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement. After three inspections and reviews by multiple arborists of 57 trees on the Bordases' property, DuPont rated 15 of the Bordases' trees for removal and replacement, 14 for tree care, and 28 for no action. The Bordases ultimately appealed the ratings of 42 trees to the Appeals Panel, asking that the vast majority of those 42 trees be rated for removal and replacement. The Panel denied the appeal in full. The Bordases' appeal the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel, claiming that several of their trees were so damaged by Imprelis that they should be rated for removal and replacement. Judge Pratter finds that their appeal centers on the ratings of 41 trees. They submit a wealth of photographic evidence and their own arborist's report in support of their appeal. It is clear from the Appeals Panel's statement that they reviewed this same evidence in detail and were not convinced that DuPont's prior assessments should be disturbed. The Bordases have not demonstrated that the Arborist Panel's decision was arbitrary or capricious. After an independent review of the evidence, Judge Pratter held that because the Appeals Panel decision in the Bordases' case was neither arbitrary nor capricious, she affirmed the Panel's unanimous decision and denied the Bordases' appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/Yzltz4 from Leagle.com. MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of T. LaFollette's Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel denying Thomas LaFollette's appeal that the DuPont inspector should have inspected a fourth tree and compensated him for it. In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non- target vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non- target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling Imprelis. In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process to compensate victims of Imprelis damage. Despite this voluntary process, various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states. After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties came to a settlement agreement. The Imprelis Class Action Settlement covers three classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs. Among the three settlement classes is a property owner class. That class includes all persons or entities who own or owned property in the United States to which Imprelis was applied from Aug. 31, 2010 through Aug. 21, 2011, as well as all persons who own or owned property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, or Feb. 11, 2013. Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees, tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for incidental damages. The Settlement included a warranty that provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but before May 31, 2015. On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing. On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement. A Davey Tree arborist inspected three trees on Mr. LaFollette's property and recommended one tree for tree care and two for no action. Mr. Lafollette then raised two issues with the Appeals Panel -- the valuation of his claim and the failure of the inspector to evaluate a fourth tree. The Panel denied the appeal. LaFollette appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel, claiming that the DuPont inspector missed one tree that should be rated for removal. Judge Pratter finds that Mr. LaFollette focuses his appeal to on one issue -- whether DuPont should have inspected a fourth tree and compensated him for it. He provided a few photographs with his appeal, but those photographs are undated and do not allow for an assessment of the tree's symptoms. Based on the lack of any evidence that would allow them to properly evaluate that tree, the Appeals Panel denied Mr. LaFollette. Mr. Lafollette now seems to argue that because the damage to the tree happened after Imprelis was applied, Imprelis must have been the cause of the damage. However, the Judge finds that Mr. LaFollette's circumstantial evidence, without more, is insufficient to prove causation. Because the Appeals Panel decision in Mr. LaFollette's case was neither arbitrary nor capricious, Judge Pratter affirmed their decision and denied Mr. LaFollette's appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/XnSGcA from Leagle.com. MDL 2284: Court Affirms Denial of J. Masserant's Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel denying John Masserant's appeal for lack of evidence. In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non- target vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non- target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling Imprelis. In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process to compensate victims of Imprelis damage. Despite this voluntary process, various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states. After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties came to a settlement agreement. The Imprelis Class Action Settlement covers three classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs. Among the three settlement classes is a property owner class. That class includes all persons or entities who own or owned property in the United States to which Imprelis was applied from Aug. 31, 2010 through Aug. 21, 2011, as well as all persons who own or owned property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, or Feb. 11, 2013. Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees, tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for incidental damages. The Settlement included a warranty that provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but before May 31, 2015. On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing. On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement. After a warranty inspection of Mr. Masserant's trees, seven trees were recommended for removal and replacement and 10 were recommended for tree care. Mr. Masserant appealed his notice of warranty resolution to the Arborist Panel on Sept. 30, 2014. However, he did not provide any details concerning what he wished to appeal or include any evidence supporting his appeal. The Panel denied the appeal. Mr. Masserant appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel, claiming that a number of trees rated for tree care should be rated for removal. Mr. Masserant appeals from the Arborist Panel's decision to deny his appeal for lack of evidence. He now clarifies that he was challenging the tree ratings for the trees recommended for care, and he includes several pictures for Judge Pratter's review, the Judge's review is limited to that evidence presented to the Appeals Panel, and Mr. Masserant presented no evidence to the Appeals Panel. Indeed, he did not even identify for the Appeals Panel the issues he intended to raise on appeal. And because the Appeals Panel decision in Mr. Masserant's case was neither arbitrary nor capricious, Judge Pratter affirmed their decision and denied Mr. Masserant's appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/SDABXM from Leagle.com. MDL 2437: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' ("DPPs") Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Direct Purchaser Actions, MDL No. 2437, No. 13-MD-2437 (E.D. Pa.). In the fall of 2011, several gypsum wallboard (drywall) manufacturers in the United States announced substantial changes to their pricing. These announcements ended a long-standing pricing practice called "job quotes" and scheduled a very large price increase to commence in January 2012 and to be effective for the entire year. Then, in fall 2012, the same manufacturers again announced a similar price increase to take effect in January 2013. In this multidistrict litigation, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' 2012 and 2013 price increases and other changes in pricing practices were the result of an agreement, in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. At the outset of the Direct and Indirect Purchaser actions, a consensus was reached among counsel and the Court that discovery would be initially limited to whether there was an agreement between any Defendants in violation of Sherman Act Section 1. As a result, the Court postponed discovery on class certification issues. After the first-phase of discovery period was completed, with intra-party and third-party discovery, the Court set a deadline for the Defendants to move for summary judgment. Following extensive briefing and argument, the Court filed an 85- page detailed opinion denying summary judgment as to all but one Defendant, Certainteed. Presently before the Court is DPPs' Motion for Class Certification. Related to this motion is the Defendants' Daubert Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Russell Lamb. The Court previously ruled on the Motion to Preclude, and held that Dr. Lamb's expert opinion and testimony are admissible, and will be considered in support of DPPs' Motion for Class Certification. The Court has carefully considered the expert reports submitted by the Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Russel Lamb in support of Class Certification, and the reports of the Defendants' expert Dr. Jerry Hausman in opposition to Class Certification. In addition, it heard oral argument on March 8, 2017, and, to more thoroughly assess the experts' opinions, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on April 25 and 27, during which both experts testified and were subject to cross-examination. Following the evidentiary hearing, the parties submitted post- hearing briefing. Then, to help with its understanding of the econometric issues raised by the expert reports, the Court appointed a technical advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Church of the University of Calgary. Dr. Church submitted a report. Pursuant to the Court's invitation, the Parties responded to Dr. Church's Report. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons or entities that purchased Paper-Backed Gypsum Wallboard in the United States from Jan. 1, 2012 through Jan. 31, 2013 directly from the Defendants or their wholly-owned subsidiaries. The proposed class is composed of about 14,000 entities, and includes distributors, buying cooperatives, and contractors. They seek certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Judge Baylson concludes that Dr. Lamb has sufficiently responded to Dr. Hausman's critiques. In so holding, he does not conclude that Dr. Lamb is necessarily "correct" but rather that he has presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that all or nearly all the Plaintiffs were impacted by the Defendants' alleged agreement to fix prices. This supports the conclusion that the Plaintiffs have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they can prove antitrust impact on a classwide basis. The Judge notes that Dr. Lamb's opinions and testimony are entitled to more weight than Dr. Hausman's, in large part because his opinions adhere to the factual record. Judge Baylson further concludes that the Plaintiffs have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they will be able to prove measurable damages on a classwide basis. The damages alleged by them relate directly to this price fixing scheme. Though there are various actions alleged by the Plaintiffs that contributed to the effectiveness of the conspiracy, such as the elimination of job quotes, these separate actions are alleged to have contributed to the overall scheme, and do not form the basis of separate theories of liability. Like the plaintiffs' expert in Processed Egg, Dr. Lamb's damages model here utilizes the same regression model he developed to demonstrate antitrust impact. Dr. Lamb, like Dr. Rausser in Processed Egg, submits a formula to be used to allocate the aggregated damages. At this stage, the model is a workable damages model. It is sufficient to recognize that Dr. Lamb's model allows for classwide proof of measurable damages. Therefore, common issues predominate on the question of measurable damages. This determination is made without prejudice to the Court later deciding to divide the certified class into sub-classes for purposes of damages determinations. These subclasses could be based on purchaser size, type, or geographic location. Hence, the predominance requirement is satisfied. For these reasons, Judge Baylson held that the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proof for class certification. Accordingly, DPPs' Motion for Class Certification is granted. The counsel will proceed to implement the notice provisions of Rule 23. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/aGRupk from Leagle.com. MERCEDES-BENZ: Settles Class Action Over Heated Seats ----------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Mercedes-Benz heated seats that allegedly can catch on fire will be repaired for former and current owners and lessees of 2000-2007 M-Class, 2006-2007 R-Class and 2007 GL-Class vehicles equipped with original seat heaters. According to the Mercedes class-action lawsuit, about 270,000 vehicles are included in the proposed class-action settlement after owners sued Mercedes claiming the seat heaters cause fires and injuries. Mercedes denies there are problems with the wiring or the heated seats but will settle the suit to avoid prolonged and costly litigation. According to the Mercedes-Benz lawsuit, the problem exists because copper wires used for the seat heaters can overheat and cause smoke and fires. Mercedes owners say seeing smoke and burned seats are a common result of the seat heater wiring. "I was about to pull off the parking lot when I noticed thick white smoking coming from my seat. I immediately turned off the seat warmer. The smoke dissipated afterwards. I continued to drive the car about 1/2 mile to the grocery store. I got out and noticed a burn on seat." - 2007 Mercedes-Benz E350 owner / Little Rock, Arkansas "My husband was driving when he smelled something burning and then felt something burning, he pulled over and jumped out to check and found the seat warmer had malfunctioned and burned through the seat, his shirt and had slightly burned him." - 2007 Mercedes-Benz E350 owner / Yucaipa, California Plaintiff Elizabeth Callaway says she noticed the smell of smoke in her 2006 Mercedes-Benz R350 shortly after turning on the driver-side seat heater. A day later the car filled with smoke and the seat heater allegedly caused a hole to burn through Callaway's dress in addition to causing a deep burn in the seat material. Mercedes fought the action by telling the court that federal regulators twice investigated alleged problems with the heated seats and closed the investigations without finding issues with the seat heaters. Once the paperwork is done and the judge gives final approval to the settlement terms, affected owners can receive free repairs that involve dealers bypassing wires, or owners can receive extended warranties for the seat covers. For owners who already paid for repairs to their cars related to seat heaters, Mercedes agrees to reimburse those owners up to $1,000. Attorneys for vehicle owners may receive more than $6 million. The Mercedes-Benz heated seats lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California - Elizabeth Callaway et al., v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al. The plaintiffs are represented by Frank Sims & Stolper LLP, and Yuhl Carr. [GN] MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Court Certifies Class in "Devera" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CERILINA DEVERA and MARY NEUMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01349-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman certified Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "(a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin (b) who were sent a collection letter in the form [of the allegedly confusing letters], (c) seeking to collect a debt for personal, family or household purposes, (d) between November 11, 2014, and the date that the Court enters an order certifying a class in this action, (e) that was not returned by the postal service. Judge Adelman said a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The alternative to the class would be dozens or hundreds of separate suits in which plaintiffs seek to prove that Merchants's discount-offer language violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resolving that common question in a single suit is the superior method, Judge Adelman said. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=akfdkYTS MONSANTO COMPANY: 7 Suits Filed in Missouri over Roundup -------------------------------------------------------- Seven lawsuits were filed against Monsanto Company seeking damages suffered by each Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Each Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The lawsuits are captioned as: "ROBERT KING and CARLESA KING, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04843-VC (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2017)"; "ALTON MCLENDON and BEVERLY MCLENDON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, 3:17-cv-04844-VC (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2017)"; "WILLIAM MEDLIN as EXECUTOR of the Estate of BILLY MEDLIN, and ZELLA MEDLIN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1- 50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04848-VC (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2017)"; "RICHARD MILLER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04845-VC (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2017)"; "SUZANNE SIMPSON and ROGER SIMPSON the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04847- VC (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2017)"; "RANDEL WHITE and PEGGY WHITE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04846-VC (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2017)"; and "PATRICIA HONAKER and CHARLES HONAKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04842- VC (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2017)". Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241 8111 Facsimile: (314) 241 5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com - and - Jessica L. Richman. Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 723 4627 Facsimile: (516) 723 4727 E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com MONTANA: DiFrancesco Files Class Action --------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steve Bullock in his official capacity as Governor of Montana. The case is styled as Michael DiFrancesco, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Steve Bullock in his official capacity as Governor of Montana, Tim Fox in his official capacity as Attorney General of Montana, Sarah Garcia in her official capacity as Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Division, Michele Snowberger in her official capacity as Bureau Chief of the Driver Services Bureau, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00066-SEH (D. Mont., August 31, 2017). Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is a state-level government agency that administers vehicle registration and driver licensing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Farris-Olsen, Esq. MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP 401 N Last Chance Gulch PO Box 557 Helena, MT 59624 Tel: (406) 442-3261 Fax: (406) 443-7294 Email: rfolsen@mswdlaw.com NAGLE & ZALLER: Faces "Archie" Suit in Maryland ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nagle & Zaller, P.C. The case is styled as Suzette Archie, individually and on behalf of three classes of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Nagle & Zaller, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02524-GJH (D. Md., August 31, 2017). Nagle & Zaller, P.C. has been representing community associations for over 30 years.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. The Defendant represented by: Stacey Ann Moffet, Esq. Eccleston and Wolf PC 7240 Parkway Dr Fourth Fl Hanover, MD 21076 Tel: (410) 752-7474 Fax: (410) 752-0611 Email: moffet@ewmd.com NATIONAL ELECTORAL: Court Urged to Assess Damage From Demo ---------------------------------------------------------- CITIZENS Against Violence and Anarchy Trust (CAVAAT) have asked the court to appoint a commissioner to assess the extent of damage on property during last year's demonstration by opposition parties under the banner of National Electoral Reform Agenda (Nera). Charles Laiton, writing for News Day, reports that CAVAAT is a local organisation aligned to the ruling Zanu PF that promotes peace and business in the country. The organisation filed its application on August 21 through its trustee, Elton Paul Ziki, as a follow-up to the first court application it made in June this year suing Nera for $1 million. In November last year, CAVAAT filed another court application seek to have Nera held accountable for the damages. The losses were, however, not quantified and former police assistant commissioner Faustino Mazango resolved to sue Nera for damages in a bid to assist the affected victims recover their property. "This is an application in terms of Section 9 of the Class Action Act (Chapter 8:17) which allows the court to appoint a commissioner at any stage in a class action to assess and collate evidence," Ziki said in his founding affidavit. "The applicant's (CAVAAT) claim is based on the damages suffered as a result of violence which took place during the demonstration held by the respondent on August 26 2016 the applicant was granted leave by this honourable court on January 25, 2017 to institute class action. On June 15, 2017 applicant issued summons claiming damages in the sum of $1 million. "The respondent (Nera) was duly served with summons and a declaration and has failed to enter an appearance to defend within the dies induciae. Having failed to do so, the members of the class are, therefore, entitled to default judgment." Ziki further said notwithstanding that CAVAAT was entitled to a default judgment, it was appropriate to have the damages proved and assessed, adding at the time of filling the application, the number of claims filed were 78 and more were still forthcoming. "The applicant therefore considers it appropriate at this stage for the court to appoint a commissioner who will assess damages and make a report to the court on the quantum of damages successfully proved," he said. Ziki added that the nature and extent of the damage and or loss caused to the individual properties and businesses was diverse. The matter is yet to be set down for hearing. [GN] NEBRASKA: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in "Valentine" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned VERONICA VALENTINE, the Plaintiff, v. LISA VILLWOK, No. 1764; and JENNIFER HANSEN, No. 1585, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00131-LSC-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson denied Plaintiff's motion for certification. The Plaintiff asked the Court to certify class and appoint counsel to represent class. According to a hand-written document, the lawsuit alleges illegal strip-searching of "Red, Yellow, Black, White & Brown" albino women. A copy of the Plaintiff's Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jzyxc6vr The Plaintiff appears pro se. In its ruling, the Court said, "In review of Plaintiff's motion and the operative pleadings in this case, the Court finds Plaintiff's bare and general allegations are insufficient to warrant certification of a class action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) provides that no class action may be certified unless the court determines: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. Plaintiff has not made any kind of showing that the above requirements exist in this case. Moreover, Plaintiff has not complied with this district's class action procedures set forth in NECivR 23.1." "Additionally, Plaintiff's motion to certify this case as a class action is not proper at this stage of the proceedings," the Court continued. "Pursuant to this Court's January 20, 2017, Order Setting Schedule for Progression of Case, Defendants should have already drafted the Order on Final Pretrial Conference and submitted it to Plaintiff by July 31, 2017. Plaintiff should have already provided to defense counsel her additions and/or proposed deletions to that draft by August 14, 2017. The jointly prepared Proposed Order on Final Pretrial Conference is due to the Court by August 28, 2017. By that time, the parties should have completed "all items as directed in NECivR 16.2" and fully prepared for the case "so that trial may begin at any time following the Pretrial Conference." This proposed order is necessary before the undersigned magistrate judge can hold a meaningful final pretrial conference with the parties on September 11, 2017." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Er64Zotj NESTLE USA: Settlement in "McFarland" Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JOY McFARLAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC. and NESTLE PREPARED FOODS COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16- cv-00100-JLH(E.D. Ark.), Judge James Leon Holmes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted final approval of the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Class and Collective Action Settlement, and the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Judge Holmes the approved (i) the Plaintiff's request for a service payment of $2,500 for the Named Plaintiff; (ii) the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $49,450; and the form and content of the Notice of Proposed Settlement. Simpluris, Inc., will mail payments by check to Class Members within 14 calendar days of the Settlement Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement. The Class Members will have 120 calendar days after the date of mailing to cash their settlement checks as provided in the Settlement Agreement. If any checks are returned as undeliverable, Simpluris will update the Class Members' last known mailing address through the National Change of Address program certified by the U.S. Postal Service and other standard skip trace methods and will re-send the check to the new address. If any Class Members do not cash their checks within 120 days after mailing of the checks by Simpluris and their check is not returned, their checks will be void and a stop- payment will be placed. If any redistributed checks are again returned as undeliverable, their checks will be void and a stop- payment will be placed. Following the expiration of the period for the Class Members to timely submit Claims Forms as specified in the Settlement Agreement, the Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an Order, on a form supplied by the Defendant and agreed to by the parties, which dismisses the action on the merits and with prejudice any individual or Class claims which are released by the settlement, upon satisfaction of all payments and obligations. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/aLrPrC from Leagle.com. Joy McFarland, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Sanford -- josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm. Joy McFarland, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Lee West -- west@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm. Nestle USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Eric R. Magnus -- MagnusE@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Justin R. Barnes - - BarnesJR@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & O. John Norris, III -- NorrisJ@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.. Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Eric R. Magnus, Jackson Lewis P.C., Justin R. Barnes, Jackson Lewis P.C. & O. John Norris, III, Jackson Lewis P.C. NEW HAMPSHIRE: Legal Assistance Threatens to Renew Prison Case -------------------------------------------------------------- New Hampshire Union Leader reports that after 12 years, William Wrenn wants out of prison. Mr. Wrenn will not seek a fourth term as commissioner of the Department of Corrections, saying it is "time to pass the baton." That baton will be heavy. New Hampshire prisons are facing huge challenges. The Executive Council was forced to spend $2.5 million to extend the state's lease at the Goffstown women's prison through next spring. After spending $48 million to build a brand-new 224-bed facility in Concord that was supposed to open a year ago, the state can't staff it. New Hampshire Legal Assistance is threatening to renew its class action lawsuit if the state can't get the new prison opened. The contract with Teamsters Local 633, the union representing nearly 400 correctional officers, expired in June, and negotiations on a new deal are at an impasse. Gov. Chris Sununu claims the union has turned down a 10-percent raise, which the union disputes. The union also wants more positions established, but the state can't fill current jobs. That results in correctional officers working more than 10,000 hours of overtime a month for the past three years, straining prison safety and the state budget. The prison system has a hard time holding on to correctional officers, who have to go through the state police academy. That makes them tempting targets for law enforcement agencies. Whoever takes over Mr. Wrenn's job should be focused on recruiting and retaining prison staff, stopping the deadly flow of illegal drugs into our prisons, and updating standards and training to improve safety for New Hampshire prisoners and the public employees who guard them. [GN] NEWBURG ROAD: Bid to Strike Defenses in "Connector" Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge E. Richard Webber of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Some of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses in the case captioned CONNECTOR CASTINGS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NEWBURG ROAD LUMBER CO., INC., Defendant, No. 4:17- CV-01204-ERW (E.D.Mo.). The Plaintiff filed the purported class action in state court on March 29, 2017, alleging it received unsolicited fax advertisements marketing the products, goods or services of Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, and treble damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as attorneys' fees. The Defendant removed the action to the Court and filed an answer and eleven affirmative defenses. The Plaintiff now moves to strike to Defendant's first, second, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses. The Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. The Plaintiff argues the defense is "legally insufficient" because other federal courts have ruled the TCPA is not void for vagueness. However, Judge Webber finds that the Plaintiff cites no precedent from the Court or the Eighth Circuit to indicate the Defendant's void-for-vagueness affirmative defense would fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Defendant fairly presents a matter of law which the Court should hear, and the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant's second affirmative defense is denied. In its eighth affirmative defense, the Defendant asserts that any claim alleged in the Complaint is barred to the extent the Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its alleged damages. The Court and other courts have determined recipients of unsolicited faxed advertisements have no duty to mitigate or to ask senders to stop transmitting such advertisements. Accordingly, Judge Webber held that the Defendant's failure-to-mitigate affirmative defense cannot succeed under any circumstances, and the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant's eighth affirmative defense is granted. In its ninth affirmative defense, the Defendant asserts that any claim alleged in the Complaint is barred because Newburg did not have actual knowledge of any unlawful transmissions. The Judge finds that the Defendant's assertion that it did not have actual knowledge of the unlawful faxes is therefore relevant to the Plaintiff's allegation the Defendant ratified the acts. Further, the Plaintiff asks the statutory damages be trebled, which requires a finding by the court that the violation was willful or knowing. Therefore, he concludes that the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant's ninth affirmative defense is denied. In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Webber granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Some of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/WyvT3w from Leagle.com. Connector Castings, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Robert Schultz -- rschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.. Connector Castings, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ronald J. Eisenberg -- reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.. Newburg Road Lumber Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Ann L. Wymore -- mlw@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC & Jasmine Yasar McCormick -- jmccormick@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC. NIKITA LEVY: 8,000+ Checks Sent in Recording Case ------------------------------------------------- The News and Observer reports that more than 8,000 checks have been mailed to former patients of Johns Hopkins gynecologist Dr. Nikita Levy as part of a class-action settlement involving the secret recording of pelvic exams, but some have still not received a full payment. The Baltimore Sun reports some women have received only 80 percent of their settlement award, because the trustee of the $190 million settlement fund continues to try to resolve lien issues related to Medicaid and Medicare. Michael Lee, the chief operating officer of a Philadelphia company handling the claims, says that since June about 8,100 checks have been mailed. He says about 1,200 women received partial payments. A total of 8,342 women were approved to receive settlement money in the case. [GN] NORTH AMERICAN: Prelim. Approval of Deal in "Claridge" Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JULIE CLARIDGE and HELEN MARSH, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER & GAS, LLC, Defendant, No. 15-cv- 1261(PKC)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion of Ms. Claridge and Ms. Marsh for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, and denied as moot the application of the Edwards Plaintiff to intervene in the action. The complaint was brought on behalf of a class of "thousands of New York consumers" who were overcharged for electricity by the Defendant. The ratepayers were alleged to have entered into a New York Electricity Sales Agreement. The Court certified a class of New York consumers who paid a variable monthly rate for electricity that they purchased from North American. Among other conclusions, the Court determined that New York ratepayers Claridge and Marsh were adequate Class Representatives and that their claims, including claims of deceptive trade practices in violation of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 349-d, were typical of other class members. The action was brought under the Class Action Fairness Act, and no claims other than claims under New York law were asserted. Ms. Claridge and Ms. Marsh, through their counsel, now present a proposed settlement for preliminary approval. The proposed settlement dramatically expands the class definition from a New York-only class to a class that includes all ratepayers across the nation who, after Feb. 20, 2012, had a contract for variable-rate electric or gas service for more than 28 days. At no time has Ms. Claridge or Ms. Marsh sought to expand the definition of the class or amend the claims in their complaint to include non-New Yorkers or purchasers of natural gas. Presently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut is a putative class action against North American brought by Connecticut and New Hampshire ratepayers who are represented by a different set of lawyers, Edwards v. North American Power. The Edwards action was filed on Nov. 14, 2014, prior to the institution of New York action. The lawyers who represent Ms. Claridge and Ms. Marsh are also counsel in a putative class actions brought on behalf of New Jersey, Rhode Island and Illinois ratepayers. There is no information before the Court that would allow it to assess whether ratepayers in states other than New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Illinois have potentially valid claims. There has been no adequate showing of typicality and commonality of the claims and defenses of New York electric ratepayers with ratepayers, both gas and electric, in states other than New York. Also, the proposed settlement would require scrutiny of whether the settlement was infected by a reverse auction with the Edwards plaintiff. North American has now moved for a stay of the Edwards action pending approval of the settlement present to the Court. Judge Castel finds that to gloss over the preliminary approval stage but then later conclude that Ms. Claridge and Ms. Marsh are not adequate class representatives of electric and gas ratepayers from other states and that their claims are not typical of these other ratepayers' claims, would severely prejudice the Edwards putative class members because of the likely delay during the failed approval process. The Judge is mindful of the efficiencies of a joint or consolidated settlement hearing of claims that have some significant similarities, even though they may have state-to-state variances. The counsel in Fritz and Zahn, who also represent the class in this action, are free to seek a conditional transfer of those actions to the Court for the limited purpose of Rule 23(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., settlement proceedings. That option is also open to the Edwards plaintiffs. For these reasons, Judge Castel denied the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, and denied as moot the application of the Edwards plaintiff to intervene in this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/jFFypL from Leagle.com. Julie Claridge, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Gregory Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP. Julie Claridge, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Seth Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP, Antonino B. Roman -- aroman@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP, Matthew R. Mendelsohn -- mmendelsohn@mskf.net -- Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC & Matthew D. Schelkopf -- mds@mccunewright.com -- Mccunewright, LLP, pro hac vice. Helen Marsh, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP, Todd Seth Garber, Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP, Antonino B. Roman, Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP, Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC & Matthew D. Schelkopf, Mccunewright, LLP, pro hac vice. North American Power & Gas, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP, Joanna Marie Doherty -- jmdoherty@grsm.com -- Chronakis Siachos & Kaplan, LLC & Peter George Siachos -- psiachos@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court OKs Filing of Amended Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CHANTAE YOUNG, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04390-EMC(N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff leave to file her First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages. On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo against the Defendant. On Aug. 2, 2017, the Defendant removed the case to the Court. On Aug. 16, 2017, the parties met and conferred regarding the Defendant's intention to file a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff agreed to amend her Complaint to attempt to address the Defendant's concerns and avoid motion practice. While Defendant is reviewing, and continues to have concerns regarding, certain aspects of the proposed amended complaint, the Defendant has agreed not to object to the Plaintiff's filing of the same, subject to its reservation of rights to answer or to otherwise respond to the amended complaint. Therefore the parties agree and stipulate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to the filing of the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages, subject to the Defendant's reservation of rights to answer or to otherwise respond to the proposed amended complaint. Having considered the Parties' Stipulation to Permit Plaintiff to File a First Amended Complaint, Judge Chen granted the Plaintiff leave to file her First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/TUAEyF from Leagle.com. Chantae Young, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC. Chantae Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jill Jessica Parker -- jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Defendant, represented by A. Marisa Chun -- mchun@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Jeremy White -- jmwhite@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP, pro hac vice & Kerry Alan Scanlon -- kscanlon@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery, pro hac vice. NUTIVA INC: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Jones" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PRESTON JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NUTIVA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00711-HSG(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood Stirling Gilliam Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint ("FAC"). According to the FAC, in January 2013 and again in February 2014, Plaintiff Jones purchased several jars of the Defendant's Virgin Coconut Oil. Based on the product's label, Plaintiff Jones believed Nutiva Virgin Coconut Oil was healthy, healthier than butter and other oils, would only make positive contributions to health and would not detriment his health. Plaintiff Delalat purchased the Defendant's Extra Virgin Coconut Oil and Virgin Coconut Oil on multiple occasions over the past several years. Like Plaintiff Preston, based on the product's label, Plaintiff Delalat believed Nutiva Extra Virgin and Virgin Coconut Oils were healthy, healthier than butter and other oils, and would only make positive contributions to health and would not detriment her health. However, the Plaintiffs allege that each 1 tablespoon (or 15mL) serving of Nutiva coconut oil (whether Extra Virgin, Virgin, or Refined) contains 130 calories, all of which come from fat: in each 14-gram serving there are 14 grams of fat. Further, each 14- gram serving contains 13 grams of saturated fat. In other words, Nutiva's Coconut Oil is 100%, 93% of which is saturated fat. According to them, this amount of total and saturated fat renders the Defendant's products both inherently unhealthy and less healthy than butter. The Plaintiffs consequently seek to bring a nationwide class action on behalf of themselves and a Class of all persons in the United States who, on or after Jan. 8, 2012, purchased, for personal or household use, and not for resale or distribution purposes, Nutiva Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, Nutiva Virgin Coconut Oil, or Nutiva Refined Coconut Oil. They assert five causes of action on behalf of the putative class: (i) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (ii) violation of California's False Advertising Law; (iii) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (iv) breach of express warranty; and (v) breach of implied warranty of merchantability. This is the Defendant's second motion to dismiss. On Sept. 22, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part its earlier motion. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on Dec. 5, 2016, adding Plaintiff Delalat and allegations that both the Plaintiffs believed the Defendant's products would only make positive contributions to health and would not detriment their health. Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the FAC. It challenges the claims of Plaintiffs UCL, FAL, and CLRA in two ways. First, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' allegations no longer pass the reasonable consumer test because they do not plausibly allege that its products' labels would deceive a reasonable consumer. Second, and more narrowly, it argues that the allegations regarding Plaintiff Delalat lack sufficient particularity. As detailed in the Court's previous order, to state a claim under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, a plaintiff must plead that "members of the public are likely to be deceived" by a defendant's advertisements. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint no longer passes this "reasonable consumer test" as no reasonable consumer would believe that any product would "only make positive contributions to health and would not detriment" their health. Judge Gilliam is not persuaded by the Defendant's narrow reading of the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs detail myriad alleged detrimental health effects of consuming saturated fats generally, and coconut oil more specifically. The Defendant's product labels -- such as characterizing coconut oil as "nourishing" and a "superfood" -- contribute to the impression that the product is healthy. Accordingly, it would be premature to dismiss these claims and he denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss on this basis. Judge Gilliam agrees that Plaintiff Delalat's allegations are insufficient. Rather than list the specific statements upon which she relied, she only identifies two illustrative statements that she read and relied on labeling claims that made the products seem healthy. And although the complaint includes different labels for the Defendant's Virgin and Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, it does not state that Plaintiff Delalat relied on any of them. Such incomplete allegations do not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirement. The Judge similarly finds that Plaintiff Delalat has not sufficiently alleged when she was exposed to the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations. Instead, she merely states that she purchased its products over the past several years. Judge Gilliam, therefore, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Delalat's allegations asserted against its Virgin and Extra Virgin Coconut Oil products. As the Court previously held, the Plaintiffs must have actually purchased the products at issue to have standing to challenge them. The Plaintiffs concede that neither of them purchased the Defendant's refined coconut oil and do not ask the Court to reconsider its prior holding. Accordingly, Judge Gilliam granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss all claims asserted against its refined coconut oil product. The Court also previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief because they failed to allege that they are at risk of future injury. The Plaintiffs concede that they are merely preserving their rights for appeal, and do not ask the Court to reconsider its prior holding. Therefore, Judge Gilliam granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. For these reasons, Judge Gilliam granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date of the Order if it can, pursuant to its Rule 11 requirements, provide additional detail regarding the products Plaintiff Delalat purchased, when she purchased them, and which statements she relied upon when making those purchases. The Judge cautions, however, that the amended complaint may not add additional plaintiffs or additional claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/3TEmoF from Leagle.com. Preston Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Kenneth Joseph -- pkjoseph@umich.edu -- The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph, PC. Preston Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Fitzgerald -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Melanie Rae Persinger -- melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald & Trevor Matthew Flynn, Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC. Shirin Delalat, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Kenneth Joseph, The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph, PC & Jack Fitzgerald, The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC. Nutiva, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rakesh Mahendra Amin -- rakesh@amintalati.com -- Amin Talati and Upadhye LLC, pro hac vice, Ryan Mathew Kaiser -- ryan@amintalati.com-- Amin Talati and Upadhye LLC, pro hac vice, Sanjay Satish Karnik -- sanjay@amintalati.com -- Amin Talati and Upadhye LLC, pro hac vice, William Paul Cole -- wcole@calljensen.com -- Call and Jensen & Matthew Ryan Orr -- morr@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen. PAFFORD EMS: "Williams" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Karley Williams, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pafford EMS LLC; Pafford Medical Billing Services Inc.; and Pafford Medical Services Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 54-CV-17- 00151, was removed on Aug. 21, 2017 from Phillips County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Helena). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. Pafford is a medical transport company providing local transportation for customers requiring medical transport service in Ringgold, Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon W. Lacy, Esq. LACY LAW FIRM 630 S. Main Street Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 277 1144 E-mail: brandon@lacylawfirm.com - and - Donald E. Knapp, Jr. KNAPP LAW FIRM 107 Hickory Hill Drive Helena, AR 72342 Telephone: (870) 338 3100 Facsimile: (870) 338 3101 E-mail: donald@knapplewis.com - and - Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq. 324 South Main Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 336 0155 Facsimile: (870) 934 8887 E-mail: scriberfirm@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Charley Swann, Esq. Patrick R. James, Esq. JAMES, HOUSE & DOWNING P.A. Post Office Box 3585 Little Rock, AR 72203-3585 Telephone: (501) 372 6555 Facsimile: (501) 372 6333 E-mail: cswann@jamesandhouse.com pjames@jamesandhouse.com - and - Guy W. Murphy, Jr., Esq. Philip Miron, Esq. HYDEN, MIRON & FOSTER, PLLC 557 Locust Conway, AR 72034 Telephone: (501) 336 8822 Facsimile: (501) 336 8688 E-mail: guy.murphy@HMFlaw.net PETMED EXPRESS: Faces "Lusson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew W. Lusson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc., Menderes Akdag, and Bruce S. Rosenbloom, Case No. 9:17-cv-80980-WPD (S.D. Fla., August 25, 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, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was marketing dangerous and addictive animal drugs to humans; (2) that, as such, the Company is vulnerable to potential civil or criminal liability, as well as other regulatory action; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Google may halt the Company's advertising activities; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about PetMed's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The Defendants operate a pet pharmacy that markets prescription and non-prescription pet medications, and other health products for dogs and cats, direct to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Telephone: (772) 231-9600 Facsimile: (772) 231-0300 E-mail: lwd@DesmondLawFirm.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 lportnoy@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com PF CHANG'S: Counterclaims in "Anderson" Suit Nixed -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JEREMY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 16-14182(E.D. Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Plaintiff Anderson's Motion to Dismiss P.F. Chang's Counterclaims, dismissed without prejudice the Defendant P.F. Chang's' Counterclaims, and denied without prejudice Plaintiff Anderson's Motion for Collective Action Certification. Anderson began working for P.F. Chang's, an Asian-themed restaurant chain, in 2008 until about June 2013 as a Line Cook in the Beachwood, Ohio restaurant. Starting in or about August 2013 until about September 2014, Anderson became a Sous Chef at the P.F. Chang's restaurant in Northville, Michigan. From about September 2014 to about March 2015, Anderson worked as a Sous Chef at the P.F. Chang's restaurant in Charlotte, North Carolina. Anderson asserts that, as a Sous Chef in the Michigan and North Carolina restaurants, he was a non-exempt employee within the meaning of the FLSA. He claims that he is entitled to back wages for work performed for which P.F. Chang's did not pay him the legal minimum wage or overtime wages. According to Anderson, he worked four days a week, for approximately 66.5 to 70.5 hours per week at the Michigan restaurant. He claims he worked five days a week, for approximately 55 hours per week at the North Carolina restaurant. On Nov. 29, 2016, Anderson filed the case against the Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Michigan labor law, and North Carolina labor law. Anderson seeks to prosecute his claims as a collective action on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly employed by the Defendants as sous chef employees or similar positions with different titles who were non-exempt employees within the meaning of the FLSA and who were not paid minimum wage for hours worked and/or were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 hours in a work week during the three years prior to the filing on this case. On Feb. 1, 2017, P.F. Chang's filed an Answer and Counterclaims against Anderson alleging accounting and offset/recoupment, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and restitution, and faithless servant. On March 8, 2017, Anderson filed a Motion to Dismiss P.F. Chang's Counterclaims. P.F. Chang's filed a Response on March 29, 2017. Anderson filed a Reply on May 12, 2017. On March 27, 2017, Anderson filed a Motion for Collective Action Certification. P.F. Chang's filed a Response on May 30, 2017. Anderson filed a Reply on June 12, 2017. The Court held a hearing on the Motions on June 21, 2017. Judge Hood finds that P.F. Chang's' Counterclaims are not compulsory because they do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as Anderson's claims. Even if P.F. Chang's' Counterclaims derived from a common nucleus of operative facts with Anderson's claims, she declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Counterclaims because of the concern that the Counterclaims would change the nature of the lawsuit and substantially predominate over Anderson's statutory wage claims. The Judge dismissed without prejudice P.F. Chang's' Counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Counterclaims, Judge Hood needs not reach the parties' remaining arguments under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As to Plaintiff Anderson's Motion for Collective Action Certification, Judge Hood finds that under these circumstances it cannot be said that Anderson has made a modest factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that he and potential plaintiffs together were victims of a widespread, unlawful de facto policy or plan of P.F. Chang's. She concludes that Anderson has not met his burden of showing that the putative class is similarly situated. She denied Anderson's Motion for Collective Action Certification without prejudice. Anderson may ask the Court to revisit the issue of conditional certification after additional discovery if appropriate. For the reasons set forth, Judge Hood granted Plaintiff Anderson's Motion to Dismiss P.F. Chang's Counterclaims; dismissed without prejudice Defendant P.F. Chang's' Counterclaims; and denied without prejudice Plaintiff Anderson's Motion for Collective Action Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/WGGkgg from Leagle.com. EREMY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by William C. Rand -- wcrand@wcrand.com -- Law Offices of William Coudert Rand. JEREMY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by Sergei Lemberg -- slemberg@lemberglaw.com -- Lemberg Law, LLC. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Defendant, represented by Christopher Parlo -- chris.parlo@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Daniel Kadish -- daniel.kadish@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Melissa C. Rodriguez -- melissa.rodriguez@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Stephanie L. Sweitzer -- stephanie.sweitzer@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. DOES, Defendant, represented by Daniel Kadish, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Melissa C. Rodriguez, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Stephanie L. Sweitzer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Counter Claimant, represented by Stephanie L. Sweitzer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. JEREMY ANDERSON, Counter Defendant, represented by Sergei Lemberg, Lemberg Law, LLC. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Court Dismisses "Thornton" Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JOANNE THORNTON, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Civil Action No. 16-5554 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan Ramon Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendants' move to dismiss Thornton's Amended Complaint and dismissed without prejudice Thornton's Amended Complaint. Thornton previously owned real property located at 1609 Christian Street in Philadelphia. She was unable to make her mortgage payments. In May 2011, her mortgagee, EverBank, filed a complaint for mortgage foreclosure in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. In September 2014, Thornton's property sold at a sheriff's sale for $305,000 to a third party purchaser. The Philadelphia Sheriff's Office collected the proceeds from the sale and thereafter issued a Proposed Schedule of Distribution of the proceeds listing taxes, fees, costs, liens, and mortgages associated with the property, as well as "unused proceeds" from the sale to be distributed to Thornton. One such deduction includes the cost of a title insurance policy in the amount of $1,317.50. After accounting for all costs and liabilities from the sale proceeds, the Proposed Schedule of Distribution listed the unused proceeds as $193,795.18. Sometime thereafter, the Proposed Schedule of Distribution was amended to include, among other things, a Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia (RDA) mortgage in the amount of $179,454. After the amendment, the unused proceeds amounted to $11,968.17. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, Thornton filed a Defendant Asset Recovery Team claim for the unused proceeds in August 2016, about two years after the sheriff's sale. The Sheriff's Office disbursed a check to Thornton for the unused funds. Thornton brings this putative class action lawsuit against the City, the Sheriff's Office, and the Sheriff, asserting she was deprived of procedural due process because she did not receive the amount of unused proceeds calculated in the original Schedule of Distribution, that the Sheriff's Office improperly amended the Schedule of Distribution, and that the sale proceeds should not have been used to pay for the title insurance policy. In bringing the class action, she seeks to represent two classes of individuals. As to the first class, Thornton seeks to represent those individuals whose real property was foreclosed and sold at sheriff sale for an amount in excess of the legal credit price plus costs and who did not recover the excess funds remaining from the proceeds of such sheriff's sale after all proper liability had been satisfied. As to the second class, she seeks to represent those individuals who were charged a premium by the Defendants for a title insurance policy insuring Defendants for their actions related to a sheriff's sale. Thornton also brings claims under Pennsylvania law for breach of contract, negligent mishandling of funds, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Thornton seeks compensatory and punitive damages and a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' policies are unconstitutional. The Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge Sanchez granted the Defendants' move to dismiss Thornton's Amended Complaint and dismissed without prejudice Thornton's Amended Complaint. The Judge held that because Thornton received the unused funds as reflected in the latest Schedule of Distribution, she does not have a legitimate claim of entitled to any additional funds from the sale. Any procedural due process claim based on the calculation of unused proceeds in the original, and incomplete, Proposed Schedule of Distribution is meritless. Because, he agrees that Pennsylvania law affords Thornton adequate process to challenge the distribution of proceeds, including challenging the Sheriff's use of $1,317.50 from the sale proceeds to pay for a title insurance policy, he finds she was not deprived procedural due process. Moreover, to the extent that Thornton does not receive the relief she desires from objecting to, pursuant to Rule 3136, the Sheriff's use of the sale proceeds to pay for title insurance, she may appeal such a determination. Because Thornton may yet avail herself of this process, and suffer some defect therein, Judge Sanchez dismissed her procedural due process claim without prejudice. Thornton's remaining state-law claims are likewise dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/fWLC4b from Leagle.com. JOANNE THORNTON, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES -- chris@chayeslaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES. JOANNE THORNTON, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL C. LEVIN -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN & WILLIAM T. WILSON -- wtw@becounsel.com -- BAILEY & EHRENBERG PLLC. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, represented by DIMITRIOS MAVROUDIS, City of Philadelphia Law Department. PHILADELPHIA SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendant, represented by DIMITRIOS MAVROUDIS, City of Philadelphia Law Department. SHERIFF JEWELL WILLIAMS, Defendant, represented by DIMITRIOS MAVROUDIS, City of Philadelphia Law Department. PHILIP MORRIS: 9,500 Claimants to Get Second Round of Checks ------------------------------------------------------------ John Lynch, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that about 9,500 claimants in a $45 million Arkansas cigarette settlement should expect a second check in the mail under an August 25 ruling by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox that quadrupled the minimum payout to $400. The fund, set up last year by cigarette-maker Philip Morris USA to end a 2003 lawsuit about Marlboro Lights advertising, has already sent out $18 million tax-free to 20,521 claimants. The checks were mailed in April. Of those applicants, 13,035 shared $17.3 million, at $1,325 per application, court filings show. Fox's ruling on August 25 addresses the 7,372 claimants -- about 36 percent of the total -- whose applications were deemed faulty and received only the $100 minimum. They will now get an additional $300. Court filings show the procedure to determine the validity of the claims has drawn hundreds of inquiries. Fox stated that if he held hearings on each questionable application to determine its worthiness, the process would take years and drain money from the fund that otherwise could have gone to the claimants. "It is not feasible to establish a hearing procedure to adjudicate the more than 7,000 remaining claims," the judge wrote. "It is not in the best interests of the class nor in accordance with principles of judicial efficiency and economy." If he held hearings, none of the 7,372 claimants could be paid until all of the questionable applications had been examined in court and compensation had been determined for each claimant, the judge wrote. The necessary hearing process also would take three to 10 years, Fox wrote, citing a study by the settlement fund administrators who calculated the resources needed for the procedure. Even figuring each proceeding lasted only 30 minutes, the process would take three to 10 years, considering a hearing schedule of one per week to four a week, while accommodating Fox's regular caseload of 1,500 to 1,600 new cases a year, the judge wrote. The costs would run from $1.4 million to $8.8 million. The additional payments are expected to cost $2,684,313, with $2.1 million coming from the settlement fund and the remainder from unclaimed payments, the judge wrote. Out of fairness, 2,002 claimants who were paid less than $400 now will be paid the difference to reach the minimum level, the judge ordered. Applications that the judge deemed flawed were almost all for claims of cigarette purchases by claimants when they were younger than 18 or reports of purchases of more than five packs a day for sustained periods, court filings show. About 13 percent of the applications that reported purchasing cigarettes by minors involved applicants who reported regularly buying cigarettes before age 12, the judge wrote. Honoring those applications would cost the fund $2 million. One claimant reported buying cigarettes for 40 years before his birth, while another four reported making purchases for 39 years before they were born, court filings show. A "large number" of the claims alleged they purchased multiple dozens -- sometimes more than 100 packages of cigarettes every day for at least one of the 40-year claim period, the judge wrote. Michael Woods of Gray filed an objection May 9, about a month after the checks were mailed out. He complained because his payment was reduced to the $100 minimum because his claim included a year of cigarette purchases he made when he was younger than 18 in the early 1970s. Woods questioned whether those purchases were actually illegal, stating he was never denied cigarettes and that both the elementary and high schools he attended provided smoking areas for students. Woods complained he was being penalized unfairly for filling out the form honestly and that the proper remedy would be to just deduct that year from his total. A second petitioner, Larry Reed, a 57-year-old prison inmate serving time for robbery convictions in Pulaski and Jefferson counties, also filed a complaint about receiving the $100 minimum. He also stated it was not illegal in Arkansas for consumers younger than 18 to purchase cigarettes during the first four years of his claim, 1978 through 1981. Reed stated he should receive his full share because 35 years of smoking has left him disabled with cardiovascular disease, hypertension and high blood pressure. Also submitting a petition for increased payment was Loretta Jane Martin of Jacksonville, who stated all of her cigarette purchases were legal. Philip Morris paid the $45 million to end a 2003 class-action lawsuit filed in Little Rock about how Marlboro Lights had been marketed in Arkansas. Anyone who bought the brand and its sister brand Marlboro Ultra-Lights could apply for payment. Applicants were eligible for 10 cents to 25 cents per pack purchased, based on an estimate of their annual purchases between 1971 when Lights went on the market until 2010 when regulators forced cigarette makers to drop the light designation. Each potential claimant had to submit a sworn statement attesting to yearly cigarette purchases, a list of three retailers where they were purchased and contact information for a verifying witness. The fund received 26,001 applications after a national advertising campaign last fall. [GN] PRISMA LLC: Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration in "Sprunk" ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Elwood Lui of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's denial of Plan B's motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned MARIA ELENA SPRUNK et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. PRISMA LLC, Defendant and Appellant, No. B268755(Cal. App.). Sprunk is the Named Plaintiff in this wage and hour class action that the trial court certified on April 24, 2015. Prisma, doing business as Plan B Club, owns and operates a bar and restaurant in Los Angeles in which exotic (i.e., bikini-clad) dancers perform. Sprunk and the other class members are dancers who performed at Plan B. Sprunk alleges that the dancers were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees, and that they were consequently denied various benefits that the law requires for employees, such as minimum wages, meal periods, and reimbursement of expenses. Sprunk also alleges that Plan B misappropriated tips. Sprunk and all other class members signed contracts containing an arbitration clause. There were two versions of the arbitration clause. One version, which was in effect prior to July 2011, did not specifically address class arbitration. The other version, which Plan B claimed was in effect beginning in July 2011, contained an express waiver. Sprunk signed the first version of the agreement. Sprunk filed her complaint on Oct. 7, 2011. On Nov. 28, 2011, Plan B sent an arbitration demand letter stating that new case law has issued which permits demanding and requiring arbitration of individual claims despite class allegations. The parties filed a joint initial status report on Dec. 30, 2011, in which Plan B stated that it wishes to file a motion to compel arbitration at the earliest available opportunity. On Jan. 25, 2012, Plan B filed the Petition to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay Superior Court Proceedings, seeking arbitration of Sprunk's individual claims only. Sprunk filed an opposition to the petition on Feb. 15, 2012. On Sept. 6, 2012, Plan B filed a notice withdrawing its motion for arbitration. Plan B filed an answer the same day which included several affirmative defenses based upon the arbitration agreements. Plan B also filed a cross-complaint, which it amended on Nov. 14, 2002. On Dec. 19, 2012, Sprunk filed a demurrer and a motion to strike in response to the cross-complaint. Before those motions could be heard, Plan B dismissed the cross-complaint without prejudice. Sprunk filed her class certification motion on Sept. 19, 2014. Plan B opposed. The trial court granted class certification in a written order filed on April 24, 2015. On Aug. 12, 2015, Plan B filed two separate motions to compel arbitration directed to the class members who signed the two different versions of the arbitration agreement. The trial court heard the motions on Oct. 15, 2015. It rejected the argument that the arbitration agreements were unconscionable. However, the court ruled that Plan B had waived its right to compel arbitration based upon its delay in seeking arbitration of Sprunk's individual claims. The court concluded that the delay was both unreasonable and prejudicial. It found that the Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by the four-year delay in adjudicating their claims if the court were to now order arbitration. The court also expressed concern that the Plaintiffs might be reluctant to "come forward" to arbitrate their claims individually due to the kind of business that they are in. Accordingly, the court denied Plan B's motion in a written order filed on Nov. 6, 2015. Plan B appeals. Judge Lui affirmed trial court's order denying the motions to compel arbitration. He explains that the four-year delay resulted in Sprunk conducting class-related discovery and preparing and arguing an extensive class certification motion that never would have been necessary if individual arbitration had been ordered earlier in the case. Because Plan B's delay was unreasonable, he concludes that the trial court's finding of prejudice is supported by sufficient evidence. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 23, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/rtgoml from Leagle.com. Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton and Daria Dub Carlson -- dcarlson@mzclaw.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, AndrE E. Jardini -- aej@kpclegal.com -- Gwen Freeman -- gf@kpclegal.com -- and K. L. Myles -- klm@kpclegal.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent. RESIDENTIAL HOME: Fries Suit Has Conditional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ERIN FRIES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RESIDENTIAL HOME HEALTH, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03727 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Charles Ronald Norgle entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and issue notice. The Court said, "The class shall be conditionally certified, as the parties do not dispute that conditional certification should occur. However, Plaintiffs' proposed notice shall not issue as it currently stands. Plaintiffs shall file a second proposed notice consistent with this order. The second proposed notice shall be submitted on or before September 18, 2017. Defendants shall file objections, if any, on or before September 22, 2017. Having not submitted their own proposed notice along with their objections to Plaintiffs' first proposed notice, the Court directs Defendants to include a proposed notice with the filing of their objections. Finally, Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' objections is due on or before September 29, 2017." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UWbmkFrW RIVER MANOR: Faces "Freeman" Suit in E.D. of New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against River Manor Corp. d/b/a Atrium Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing. The case is styled as Lennox Freeman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. River Manor Corp. d/b/a Atrium Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing, River Manor Care Center, Inc., Excelsior Care Group, LLC, River Manor Acquisition I, LLC, River Manor Acquisition II, LLC, Constance Leifer and Joel Leifer, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05162 (E.D. N.Y., August 31, 2017). River Manor Corp. provides medical and surgical hospital services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces "Belanger" Suit in S.D. of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation. The case is styled as Austin Belanger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, Great American E&S Insurance Company and Willis of Ohio, Inc. doing business as: Loan Protector Insurance Services, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23307- MGC (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2017). Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation is engaged in the business of collecting on behalf of themselves, debts owed to them arising out of home mortgage loans and/or home equity lines of credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Samuel Podhurst, Esq. PodhurstOrseck, P.A. City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130-1780 Tel: (305) 358-2800 Fax: (305) 358-2382 Email: apodhurst@podhurst.com - and - Lance August Harke, Esq. HarkeClasby& Bushman LLP 9699 NE Second Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Tel: (305) 536-8222 Fax: (305) 536-8229 Email: lharke@harkeclasby.com - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. KozyakTropin& Throckmorton 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 900 Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036 Tel: (305) 372-1800 Fax: 372-3508 Email: AMM@kttlaw.com ROYAL ADMINISTRATION: Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric S. Pavlack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Royal Administration Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv- 02935-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind., August 25, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of using automatic telephone dialing systems to initiate calls to wireless cellular telephone lines of the Plaintiff and Class members using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Royal Administration Services, Inc. operates as a service contract administrator of automotive service plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: G. John Cento, Esq. CENTO LAW, LLC 334 N. Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 908-0678 E-mail: cento@centolaw.com RSI ENTERPRISES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned KRISTINA GIBEAU and KEVIN SCHELLENBERGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RSI ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17- cv-01143-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes, appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QnwH54Gf The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com RUTHERFORD, TN: Court Denied Class Certification Bid as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled E.J., et al., the Plaintiffs, v. RUTHERFORD COUNTY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01975 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. denied as moot the original Motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling in accordance with any deadlines set by the Magistrate Judge, in light of the amended class action complaint. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d6t4HuNJ SHORETEL INC: Faces "Simonson" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Mitel --------------------------------------------------------------- David H. Simonson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Shoretel, Inc., Charles D. Kissner, Kenneth D. Denman, Mark F. Bregman, Donald Joos, Constance E. Skidmore, Shane V. Robison, Josef Vejvoda, Marjorie L. Bowen, Mitel US Holdings, Inc., Shelby Acquisition Corporation, and Mitel Networks Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-04931-WHA (N.D. Cal., August 24, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of ShoreTel, Inc. to enjoin the proposed sale of the Company to Mitel Networks Corporation for $7.50 per share in cash. According to the complaint, ShoreTel filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in support of the Proposed Transaction. However, the 14D-9 omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (a) the Company's financial projections; (b) the sales process of the Company; and (b) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness opinions provided by the Company's financial advisor J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; and (c) the financial analyses performed by J.P. Morgan in support of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest ShoreTel'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. Shoretel, Inc. provides business communication solutions for small and medium sized businesses. The Company offers integrated voice, video, data, and mobile applications based on Internet protocol technologies, such as ShoreTel Voice Switches; ShoreTel Service Appliances for messaging, conferencing, and collaboration applications; ShoreTel Director, which enables IT administrators to view and manage the entire system from various locations using a single application; ShoreTel IP Phones; and Small Business Edition 100 for smaller businesses. [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 - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 337-1567 E-mail: denright@zlk.com SONY CORP: Hit With Class Action Over Xperia Devices ---------------------------------------------------- A class action settlement filed against Sony regarding the waterproof capabilities advertised for a number of Xperia devices has been preliminarily approved by a U.S. federal court in New York. The lawsuit claimed that Sony sold mobile devices that were deceptively advertised as waterproof. The lawsuit alleged that Sony designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, and sold certain mobile devices that were misrepresented as waterproof, but were not designed for or capable for underwater use. Furthermore, the suit also claimed that the company exploited some international water resistance ratings in order to launch the marketing campaign promoting the devices as waterproof. The class action lawsuit website said that the settlement provides for warranty extension and claims for prior water-related warranty claim rejections from Sony. The company has denied these allegations and will be settling with the court on Dec. 1 for the final terms. This is not the first time that Sony has encountered problems with the labeling of its devices as waterproof. In 2014, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of South Africa ordered Sony to discontinue using the term "waterproof" in describing the Xperia Z1 in the country following a complaint filed regarding the device. In 2015, the company updated its website which advised its users to "remember not to use the device underwater" despite the devices having an IP68 certification. The company explained that while its devices have the certification, the tests were conducted in laboratory conditions and with the phone in standby mode. "Sony devices that are tested for their waterproof abilities are placed gently inside a container filled with tap water and lowered to a depth of 1.5 metres," said the company on its website. "After 30 minutes in the container, the device is gently taken out and its functions and features are tested." If the allegations are found to be true, the company may need to pay a large sum as a result of the incorrect labeling. [GN] SOS INTERNATIONAL: Magana Seeks to Certify Interpreters Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JO ANN GUTIERREZ-BEJAR, MARIA PORTILLO, AND STEPHANY MAGANA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. SOS INTERNATIONAL, LLC and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-09000-JAK-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will seek at a hearing on November 20, 2017, conditional certification of an opt-in collective action consisting of: "all persons who are or have been employed by Defendant, nationwide, as Interpreters pursuant to Defendant's contract with the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") Executive Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR") (including persons described as "Contractors" pursuant to Defendant's Prime Contract with the DOJ EOIR, or any titles performing similar duties thereto) at any time from November 2, 2015, (i.e., the first date of the Defendant's "period of performance" on its contract with DOJ EOIR) through the final disposition of this action." A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=D3oZdIfo The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sheila K. Sexton, Esq. Costa Kerestenzis, Esq. Lorrie E. Bradley, Esq. BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC 483 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor Oakland, CA 94607-4051 Telephone: (510) 625 9700 Facsimile: (510) 625 8275 E-mail: ssexton@beesontayer.com ckerestenzis@beesontayer.com lbradley@beesontayer.com SOUTH AFRICA: Court to Hear Class Action Over Muslim Marriages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Petersen and Alex Mitchley, writing for News24, report that a class action suit to have Muslim marriages declared legally valid in South Africa will be heard in the Western Cape High Court on Aug. 28. The matter, which was filed in 2014, was deferred to be heard together with a matter which raises similar issues, applicant, the Women's Legal Centre (WLC), said. The court previously ordered the consolidation of a further matter pending before the court, which similarly highlights the plight of Muslim women, the WLC said. "There are several matters that are pending at a number of courts across the country. This is testament to the fact that Muslim women are struggling to assert their rights because their Muslim marriages and the consequences arising therefrom are not legally recognised," the centre said in a statement. "They have no option but to plead their cases with the courts and the judiciary." Judges Siraj Desai, Gayaat Salie-Hlophe and Nolwazi Boqwana have been appointed to hear the matter. According to the non-profit law centre, legal steps to ensure fairness between the spouses, as well as ensuring children's rights, when civil or customary marriages break down, do not exist in Muslim and religious marriages. "Once customary marriages were given full legal recognition, the historical basis for not recognising polygynous marriages fell away," attorney Hoodah Abrahams-Fayker said in a statement when the application was first heard in September 2016. "The courts have already found the lack of inclusion of Muslim marriages to be discriminatory in respect of inheritance and spousal dependent's claims, but legislation is needed to recognise them for all purpose." "We are also often approached by women who cannot get a divorce because it is dependent upon the husband to agree when the wife seeks a divorce. Even where the religious bodies intervene, they have no power to compel a husband to adhere or to enforce an agreement reached." The centre argues that there is no judicial oversight with Muslim divorces, as there is in civil and customary divorces. It would rely on arguments that a range of constitutional rights were being violated, including the right to equality. [GN] STATOIL USA: Sued in Penn. Over Oil and Gas Lease Royalties ----------------------------------------------------------- Alan Marbaker; Carol Marbaker; Jerry L. Cavalier; and Frank K. Holdren, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc. f/k/a StatoilHydro USA Onshore Properties, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01528-UN2 (M.D. Penn., August 25, 2017), is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to the filed arbitration demand by the Plaintiffs with the American Arbitration Association against Statoil with respect to the royalties paid by Statoil on certain oil and gas leases in which a 32.5% interest was assigned to Statoil by Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc. operates an oil and gas exploration services business located at 2103 City West Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77042. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ira Neil Richards, Esq. Arleigh P. Helfer III, Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 751-2000 E-mail: irichards@schnader.com ahelfer@schnader.com - and - Aaron D. Hovan, Esq. John J. Hovan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN J. HOVAN 154 Warren Street Tunkhannock, PA 18657 Telephone: (570) 836-3121 - and - Richard L. Huffsmith, Esq. RICHARD L. HUFFSMITH, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 28 East Tioga Street Tunkhannock, PA 18657 Telephone: (570) 240-4400 STERLING JEWELERS: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Yvonne Madrid, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01711-CAB- BGS (S.D. Cal., August 24, 2017), is an action for damages against the Defendant for willfully employing and causing to be employed certain recording equipment in order to record the telephone conversations of the Plaintiff without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy. Sterling Jewelers, Inc. operates a specialty jewelry company in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART Camino Del Rio 2221 South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com yana@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com SURFSTITCH: Enters Administration Amid Shareholder Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- John McDuling, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that selling surfwear products online in Australia (a nation obsessed with surfing and buying things online) sounds like a cake walk. But Gold Coast-based online retailer SurfStitch hasn't been able to make it work, and the ramifications of that could be far reaching. The ASX-listed e-commerce company recently collapsed into voluntary administration, and if you haven't been following the incredible saga surrounding it, then here is a quick recap: In 2014, SurfStitch made waves among sharemarket investors (warning, this piece is going to contain lots of surfing puns) when it splashed onto the ASX through an IPO. In the IPO prospectus, the company, which was founded by former banker Justin Cameron, and retail executive Lex Pederson, described itself as "one of the leading pure play online action sports retailers globally" and "one of Australia's fastest growing technology companies". Through its websites, it acted as both a third party retailer, helping others sell surf and skate wear, and a more traditional retailer, selling stock it purchased from suppliers itself, to people in Australia, the US and Europe. Initially investors loved the pitch. "If you look out three years, it will be a global business, not a loss-making business, with global scale," Janchor Partners founder John Ho told Fairfax Media shortly after the float. Less than a year later, the share price had more than doubled, pushing SurfStitch's market value beyond $500 million. SurfStitch looked like one of Australia's most interesting, and exciting companies. Mr. Cameron, who served as founding CEO, talked up the company's aims to hit $1 billion in sales within five years, and its potential to be the Netflix or Amazon Prime of the action sports world. It started investing in content, such as surf forecasting websites and action sports video providers, in a bid to drive more traffic to its websites. ned you). Last year, Cameron abruptly and unexpectedly quit. New management wrote down the value of the company's assets; its financial losses deepened. It is now facing multiple class action lawsuits from shareholder groups, as well as an ASIC investigation. Its shares tanked, and are now suspended from trading. In a statement to the ASX, the administrator FTI Consulting said Surfstitch's ASX listed entity and a holding company had been placed in administration, but its consumer facing online companies continue to trade as normal. At any rate, the SurfStitch saga could reinforce the perception among ASX investors that Australia just can't do online retail. Other e-commerce businesses that have made it to the ASX have also struggled. Shares in Temple and Webster, an online furniture business, have fallen 70 per cent since it listed in late 2015. Redbubble, an online marketplace for printed products, is down about 40 per cent from its IPO price. Some faith has been restored by Kogan, the online electronics retailer, whose shares started poorly but recently reclaimed their IPO price (and have since been on a bit of a tear). Yet, Kogan could be perceived as the exception not the rule. That, coupled with the narrative Amazon dominates everything in e- commerce (the reality is more complex than that) and the fact that retail floats in general (Dick Smith, Myer) have been problematic to say the least could be a problem. It could make life difficult for the next wave of promising Australian tech businesses with aspirations to list on the ASX in the next few years, particularly those in e-commerce. At the front of the list would be Vinomofo, an online wine retailer with a devoted following, which pursues a daily deals type model in Australia. Members sign up to get discounted rates on cases of wine (and winemakers can offload excess inventory without hurting their brand). In confidential fundraising documents from 2015 obtained by Fairfax Media, Vinomofo's key investor Blue Sky Venture Capital said the "most likely exit path" for the company is an IPO, and that an IPO on the ASX "is achievable in the next three to four years". Other highly regarded Australian e-commerce companies to keep an eye on include Brosa, an IKEA-style furniture business backed by AirTree Ventures, Shoes of Prey, a custom shoemaker backed by Blackbird Ventures and Blue Sky; and The Iconic, the fashion business backed by the German clone factory Rocket Internet. If the IPO route is closed off, these companies might still be acquired by a bricks and mortar rival. That's what's been happening in the US, stoking a mini revival for e-commerce start- ups. Retailer Wal-Mart acquired Jet.com, consumer goods behemoth Unilever bought subscription razor blade company Dollar Shave and pet food business PetSmart ate Chewy.com. For a while, SurfStitch's biggest shareholder was Billabong, another fallen surfwear company (what's the deal with that, Australia?). Of course, its struggles are in many ways company specific. But through the eyes of a beaten and bruised sharemarket investor, its travails might not look like an isolated case. The challenge for its successors will be to prove otherwise. [GN] SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Slaughter" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Slaughter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sykes Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Sykes Home Powered by Alpine Access, Case No. 1:17-cv-02038 (D. Col., August 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sykes Enterprises, Inc. provides comprehensive customer contact management services to Global 2000 companies in the communications, financial services, healthcare, technology, transportation, and retail industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Jo Lowrey, Esq. Sarah J. Parady, Esq. LOWREY PARADY, LLC 1725 N. High Street, Suite 1 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 593-2595 Facsimile: (303) 502-9119 E-mail: maryjo@lowrey-parady.com sarah@lowrey-parady.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Melissa Lardo Stewart, Esq. Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo Meireles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 TAKATA CORP: Recall Shows Complicity in Negligence -------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Muhoro, writing for Techdigg, reports that there has been a ruckus concerning the recent airbag recall which affected millions of vehicles in America spanning more than a dozen brands. Takata, the Japanese supplier on the faulty inflator parts has been implicated leading to numerous legal issues as the issue also entail 17 deaths globally. The issue involved defective inflator and propellant devices which could improperly deploy during a crash and shoot metal fragments into the occupants of the vehicle. About 42 million vehicles were affected in America only. A Brief History on Takata Issues There were originally six brands which had been affected when Takata announced the issue in 2013, though the Toyota recall along with admissions from the inflator producer stating it was not sure on the vehicles that had used the defective inflators or the root cause had made the automakers authorize more recalls for safety's sake. Though Toyota states there have been no related injuries or deaths concerning its vehicles, a report from the New York Times found a total of 139 reported injuries across different brands. The report also claimed that Takata and Honda had previous knowledge of the faulty equipment since the year 2004 though they failed to notify the NHTSA during the previous recall filings in 2008 that the airbags which were affected had ruptured or had been linked to injuries and deaths. Takata had stated that their propellant chemicals were mishandled in the first place and improperly stored when they were being assembled and this led the metal airbags inflators to burst open because of excessive pressure during deployment. Documents reviewed by Reuters showed Takata's position implying rust, bad welding and foreign materials dropped into inflators as the fault. These same documents also show that in the year 2002, a plant in Mexico allowed defect rates which were at least six times above the acceptable limits or about 60 defective parts per 1 million airbag inflators that are shipped. Interestingly enough, the company's position is they are yet to come to a conclusion so they can report what they know to the NHTSA. The level of negligence exhibited has evidently led to injury and death and shows a conscious effort to subdue due process from possibly more than one player. Automakers Compromise on Quality News broke in February that at least four automakers had previous knowledge the Takata airbags were dangerous and would rupture resulting in injury or even death, though they continued to use the airbags in the cars in order to save on cost. The manufacturers include Ford, Honda, Toyota and Nissan and they were facing litigation as part of a class action lawsuit in Florida according to company documents which allegedly provided evidence on a deep involvement by the brands in utilizing defective airbags from Takata. There is evidence to prove this considering Ford chose the inflaters over objections from their own inflator expert that had opposed the use of the propellant considering its instability and sensitivity to moisture. Apparently, in its defense, Takata was the only supplier that could conveniently handle its needs. Representatives from the implicated brands withheld official statements on the active cases which in a sense is an admission of guilt or at least a legal move to cover their positions. Thus far, Takata and affiliated automakers have proven automakers and parts suppliers frequently compromise on quality for the purpose of profits. Recall and Repairs Delays The spokesman for choice, Tom Godfrey claimed 50,000 vehicles were among the ones affected within the ranges of the auto manufacturers. Apparently, the brands have also been silent on the increased risk brought on by the new Alpha airbags. The standard ones tend to fail at a rate of one in 400 times, while the alpha airbags have a 50 percent rate of failing. According to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) deputy chairwoman Delia Rickard, repairs and compensation claims are not being attended to fast enough. This is interesting considering Stephen Collins, a director at Honda has rejected claims the firm is not keeping adequate communication on this matter with their clients. Apparently, the auto manufacturers and clients are not on the same page as pertains claim negotiations. This is troubling as the firms have clearly benefitted of the profits of sales units. [GN] TOP SHIPS: Faces "Narine" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Karon Narine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Top Ships Inc., Evangelos J. Pistiolis, Alexandros Tsirikos, Kalani Investments Limited, Murchinson Ltd. and Marc Bistricer, Case No. 2:17-cv-05016 (E.D.N.Y., August 24, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the true purpose of the proxy proposal was to further the Defendants' Reverse Split Share Issuance Scheme and enable Top Ships to finance a variety of related-party transactions in order to enrich Pistiolis and his affiliates; (ii) the Defendants intended to repeatedly engage in securities issuances and related reverse splits thereby manipulating the market for Top Ships stock; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Top Ships' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Top Ships Inc. is an international provider of oil, petroleum products and chemicals transportation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 TRANSUNION LLC: Faces "Jones" Suit in W.D. of Tenn. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TransUnion LLC. The case is styled as Treva Sudell Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TransUnion LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01167 (W.D. Tenn., August 31, 2017). Transunion offers total credit protection all in one place from credit score, credit report and credit alert.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Micah Stephen Adkins, Esq. THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C. 2 Perimeter Park South, Suite 405 E Birmingham, AL 35243 Tel: (205) 206-6718 Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com TRAVELERS CASUALTY: ITT and Gould Pumps Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ITT CORPORATION and GOULDS PUMPS, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY), the Defendant, Case No. 3:12-cv-00038-JAM (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court to certify a proposed class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rnroI5cc The Plaintiff is represented by: Harvey Bartle, IV, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Telephone: (215) 963 5000 TREASURY WINE: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $39 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Ambar Warrick, writing for Reuters, reports that Australian winemaker Treasury Wine Estates Ltd said on Aug. 28 it will pay A$49 million ($39 million) to settle a class action lawsuit over allegations it misled shareholders about problems at its U.S. business. Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed the suit in 2014 after the world's biggest listed stand-alone winemaker announced a surprise A$190 million writedown at its U.S. unit, partly to cover the cost of pouring out millions of bottles of unsold wine. The writedown prompted a sharp decline in Treasury Wine's shares, and the company subsequently fought off two takeover attempts by private equity firms. The company has since restructured its U.S. business. On August 28, 2017, its shares rose 0.9 percent to a record high of A$14.10, nearly three times the per-share value of the private equity takeover approaches. The broader market was down 0.7 percent. Treasury Wine, which initially said it would defend the lawsuit, said on Aug. 28 the settlement was fully insured and would not have an impact on its financial results. Litigation financier Bentham IMF Ltd, which funded the class action suit, said the settlement terms were confidential and that the agreement is subject to approval by the Federal Court of Australia. [GN] UBER TECH: Sexism Blogger Backs Workers in Class Waiver Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that the former Uber engineer behind a viral blog post alleging a sexist culture at the company has filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to find that federal labor law bars so-called class action waiver agreements, casting collective litigation as the equivalent of the strike for the 21st-century workforce. As the growth of telecommuting and the rise of the gig economy reduce the effectiveness of the traditional forms of "collective activity" protected by the National Labor Relations Act, workers should not be barred from joining together to improve their working conditions in court, Susan Fowler said in an Aug. 16 amicus brief in an appeal tying together three cases over the waivers. "Collective litigation -- when meritorious -- usually results in settlement negotiations (or bargaining), a 'collective' settlement agreement, an improvement in working conditions, and a reduction of industrial strife," Fowler said. "Without the right to collective litigation, there will be more systemic employment law violations, less effective ways to remedy them, and the balance between companies (i.e. capital) and talent (i.e. labor) will shift firmly in favor of capital." Class action waivers are agreements by workers not to engage in collective litigation, collective actions or collective arbitration against their employers. The high court in January agreed to hear three cases over the National Labor Relations Board's stance that class action waivers violate NLRA provisions guaranteeing the rights of workers to act collectively, in a debate that has split the circuit courts. These cases involve class action waiver agreements required by Ernst & Young, Epic Systems Corp. and Murphy Oil Corp. Fowler's brief joins unions, a group of states and others in defense of the NLRB. Fowler alleged in her February post that she was sexually harassed by a male superior and ignored when she reported it to human resources, plunging the ride-hailing giant into a public relations nightmare that led to the firing of at least 20 employees and the resignation of CEO Travis Kalanick. But where these changes were possible because her blog went viral, Fowler argued that she would not have been able to get them in court because she had signed a class action waiver. Fowler's brief attacked the "legal fiction" by employers that arbitrators more cheaply and efficiently deal with worker grievances than the courts, arguing companies employ class action waivers to avoid costly litigation over potentially illegal employment practices. "The primary benefit [of arbitration] is the employer's belief that the arbitration agreement is necessary to secure the class action waiver, and the class action waiver -- which prohibits today's workers' most effective means of concerted activity -- is too good a deal for even a virtuous large employer to pass up," Fowler said. Now collective litigation is the "primary means of concerted activity for 21st century workers" as more and more workers are telecommuting, hopping jobs or turning to the "gig economy," eliminating the picket as they erase the centralized workplace and allowing employers to more easily replace striking workers, she argued. "By necessity the modern workforce must turn to the third leg of 'concerted activity' to aggregate their economic power and improve their working conditions: collective litigation," Fowler said. The right of collective litigation furthers Congress' intent when it passed the NLRA, and collective activity can not only win payment for aggrieved employees but also result in "agreed-upon changes to the employees' working conditions," she said. An attorney for Fowler did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Fowler is represented by Chris Baker, Esq. -- cr.bakerlaw@gmail.com -- of Baker Curtis & Schwartz PC. The NLRB is represented by Richard F. Griffin Jr., Esq. Jennifer Abruzzo, Esq. John H. Ferguson, Esq. Linda Dreeben, Esq. Meredith Jason, Esq. Kira Dellinger Vol, Esq. and Jeffrey W. Burritt, Esq. Ernst & Young is represented by Rex S. Heinke, Esq. -- rhienle@akingump.com -- Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. -- gknopp@akingump.com -- Pratik A. Shah, Esq. -- pshah@akingump.com -- and Daniel L. Nash, Esq. -- dnash@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq. - kshanmugam@wc.com -- Allison Jones Rushing, Esq. - arushing@wc.com -- A. Joshua Podoll, Esq. -- apodoll@wc.com -- William T. Marks, Esq. - wmarks@wc.com -- and Eden Schiffmann, Esq. -- eschiffmann@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP. Epic Systems and Murphy Oil are represented by Thomas P. Schmidt, Esq. -- tschmidt@hoganlovells.com -- Neal Kumar Katyal, Esq. -- nkatyal@hoganlovells.com -- Frederick Liu, Esq. -- fliu@hoganlovells.com -- Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak, Esq. -- crohsinzdak@hoganlovells.com -- and Daniel J.T. Schuker, Esq. -- daniel.schuker@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells. Epic Systems is also represented by Noah A. Finkel, Esq. - nfinkel@seyfarth.com -- and Andrew Scroggins, Esq. - ascroggins@seyfarth.com -- of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Murphy Oil is also represented by Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Esq. - schwartzj@jacksonlewis.com -- and Daniel D. Schudroff, Esq. -- SchudroffD@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis PC. The cases are Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Stephen Morris et al., case number 16-300; NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA Inc., case number 16- 307; and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, case number 16-285, at the Supreme Court of the United States. [GN] UNITED NATIONS: Court Junks Last Suit Over Haiti Cholera Epidemic ----------------------------------------------------------------- Curacao Chronicle reports that a US federal judge has thrown out the last class-action lawsuit that had been filed against the United Nations (UN) over the 2010 cholera epidemic in Haiti. The suit had contended that the UN should take responsibility for the outbreak because the illness was introduced by its peacekeepers from Nepal. But in her ruling yesterday, Federal District Court in Brooklyn, Judge Sandra Townes said the UN could not be sued in US courts. On August 18 last year, a federal appeals court in New Year also upheld that immunity argument in the other class-action lawsuit. According to the New York Times, the lead lawyer for the Haitians who had filed the lawsuit, James Haggerty, said he was "certainly likely" to appeal. A study by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had indicated that UN peacekeepers from Nepal, where cholera is endemic, were the likely cause of the outbreak which killed more than 10,000 of the hundreds of thousands of Haitians who were infected. The disease had not been present in Haiti before the peacekeepers arrived from their homeland where an outbreak was underway. The UN has not legally accepted responsibility for the outbreak, but last year, the then Secretary General Ban Ki-moon delivered a statement at the General Assembly in which he apologized for the UN's role in the outbreak. "We simply did not do enough with regard to the cholera outbreak and its spread in Haiti," he said at the time. [GN] UNITED STATES: Evergreen Ranch Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned EVERGREEN RANCH, LC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00478-RJS-EJF (D. Utah), Evergreen Ranch moves the Court to certify a class of plaintiffs with respect to injunctive relief and with respect to refunds; designate the Plaintiff as the representative of the class(es); and appoint the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Repurvma The Plaintiff is represented by: Karra J. Porter, Esq. J.D. Lauritzen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C. 257 East 200 South, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2047 Telephone: (801) 323 5000 Facsimile: (801) 355 3472 E-mail: kporter@chrisjen.com JD.Lauritzen@chrisjen.com - and - Robert J. Fuller, Esq. FULLER LAW OFFICE, LC 1090 North 5900 East Eden, UT 84310 Telephone: (801) 791 7736 E-mail: rob@fullerattorney.com UNITED STATES: Court Denies Adams Class Certification Motion ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled KAREN ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BETSY DEVOS, in her capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Education, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03592 (S.D.W.Va.), the Court denies Plaintiff Karen Adams' motion for class certification. Adams claims the DoE had violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it (1) rehabilitated her loan subject to discharge; (2) sold it to SunTrust; and (3) denied her claim for interest on the money paid on the discharged loan. Adams moved the Court to certify a class of plaintiffs whose eligibility for a guaranteed student loan disbursed in whole or in part on or after January 1, 1986 was falsely certified by PTC "and/or" whose loans were secured through Florida Federal and are allegedly subject to restitution. Chief Judge Robert C. Chambers held that Adams has not been able to prove that her proposed class or classes meet the "numerosity" requirement of Rule 23(a)(1). He explained that the primary deficiency of Adams' request for class certification is her sole reliance on unsupported speculation about the size of the potential class. Adams has conducted months of discovery for the purpose of finding evidence to support her request for class certification, but none of the evidence presented to the Court would permit the Court to make a "common-sense" assumption finding the numerosity requirement met. Judge Chambers added that Adams has not identified a single other potential class member, other than herself, whose discharged loan was subject to rehabilitation. Without even a sliver of evidence to base a decision, the Court cannot assume that Adams has met the numerosity requirement. Failing to have made a sufficient showing of numerosity, the Court declines to address Adams' arguments on the other three elements required to certify a class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tEdIWzr8 UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Suit vs Atty Generals -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ROLANDO ROBLES, the Plaintiff, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00296- VLB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Vanessa L. Bryant entered an order: 1. denying a motion for class certification and a motion to intervene; and 2. denying a motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice; and 3. conditionally granting a motion to participate in electronic filing. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, the Court said. The plaintiff's civil complaint is against 35 individuals including the Attorney General of the United States, the Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Governor Daniel P. Malloy, City/Town Clerks, Superior and Appellate Court Judges, Connecticut State's Attorneys, the Chief Public Defender, Superior Court Clerks, Connecticut Probation Officers and Department of Correction employees. He also filed a motion for class certification and a motion for other inmates to intervene in this action. The plaintiff was a pretrial detainee confined in the MacDougall Building within the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution when he filed this action. He has recently informed the court that correctional officials have discharged him from prison. The claims asserted by Robles on behalf of other similarly situated inmates are not properly before the court and are dismissed, Judge Bryant said. Accordingly, all claims in the complaint have been dismissed. Judge Bryant said Robles may renew his motion at a later stage of the litigation after he has made additional attempts to secure legal assistance and has filed an amended complaint. Robles must complete the court's training class on electronic filing for Self- Represented litigants before he may start filing documents electronically in this case. Robles may contact the Clerk's Office in Hartford, Connecticut at (860)-240-3200 regarding any questions about the court's training class. If Robles seeks to proceed with one of the claims or sets of claims that are asserted in the complaint, the court will permit him to file an amended complaint that complies with Rules 8 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk shall send Robles an amended complaint form and a copy of the Complaint with a copy of this order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OuHikydd UNITED STATES: Arches Payout Hinges on Class Action Outcome ----------------------------------------------------------- Ben Lockhart, writing for Deseret News, reports that the Utah Insurance Department told legislators that it will pay roughly $10 million to health providers over the next six months to help pay down the debt of unpaid claims from Arches Health Plan, which closed its doors at the end of 2015. But Tanji Northrup, assistant department commissioner, said that the payments are just a fraction of the more than $36 million owed to those service providers by the health co-op, which was founded for the purpose of offering insurance plans on the federal exchange established by the Affordable Care Act. That number could still rise as a small number of straggler claims trickle in, she said. That's in addition to another $90 million that the defunct co-op owed the federal government, as well as $2 million in unpaid debts to insurance agents and unpaid advertising costs, Ms. Northrup reported to the Health Reform Task Force of the Utah Legislature. The money owed to the federal government was a startup loan of $10 million and a solvency loan of $80 million. Arches announced in October 2015 that it would no longer be able to offer health insurance beginning in January 2016. The announcement meant 45,000 Utahns would no longer be covered beginning that January and would need to explore other options for their health insurance. Arches at the time cited unsustainable financial pressure caused by an extreme shortfall in expected funding from the Affordable Care Act's risk corridor, a funding source that the law intended to use to make up for unpredictable shortfalls for some insurers. At the time Arches was put into receivership, it was paying $2 million per month to outside third-party administrators for help processing claims, Northrup reported. That number dismayed task force co-chairman Rep. Jim Dunnigan, R-Taylorsville, who asked incredulously, "How do you get that job?" "Well, when you have an insurance company that doesn't have the expertise or the technology to pay claims," Northrup began, before cutting herself off. Since the time that the Utah Insurance Department hired Stillman Consulting Services to take Arches into receivership, the firm has "been able to reduce that to just a few hundred dollars a month," she said. Former Arches CEO Shaun Greene told the Deseret News that he "wholeheartedly, respectfully" disagrees that Arches was paying anywhere close to $2 million per month for those services. He added that the contract in question "was pretty favorable" and that he is not confident Insurance Department leaders were "given all the facts." In an interview with the Deseret News last year, Mr. Greene was critical of the Insurance Department's decision to shut down the startup insurer. Mr. Greene said at the time that the company was able to present an analysis to the department providing evidence that the co-op could manage a small profit by the end of 2016. Insurance Department Commissioner Todd Kiser told health providers in a public meeting that the decision to take Arches into receivership was based on objective data and "wasn't a subjective opinion that we (expressed) to say 'we want to do this.'" In all, what remains of what used to be Arches is $20 million in assets. Mr. Dunnigan asked why $10 million of that is not scheduled to be paid out to health providers in the coming months. "Why can't we pay more? Why don't we expend the (full) $20 million and pay those claims?" he said. That money is being held in reserve for "any potential future claims or future litigation that may occur and the administrative costs to finalize this insolvency, which is going to take years," Ms. Northrup said. Mr. Greene also said on Aug. 27 that he was dissatisfied with the pace of the payments being made to service providers. "They could have made a partial payment a long time ago," he said. Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden and co-chairman of the task force, asked Ms. Northrup whether there is "such a thing as negotiating with the providers on a pay down amount." Ms. Northrup said Kiser is allowed by law to "take a reduction of 25 percent and pay the provider claims 75 cents on the dollar." "Commissioner Kiser has not yet made a determination on if he is going to (do that) or not," she said. Steve Gooch, spokesman for the Utah Insurance Department, told the Deseret News that compensation to health providers for unpaid claims will be ordered by date of service, with earlier medical services being paid for first, and that no one provider or one type of claim is otherwise prioritized over another. Mr. Gooch said Utahns who had Arches insurance don't need to be concerned that their health providers would pass financial responsibility for any unpaid insurance claims back to them. Such action would be illegal, he said. "There's nothing they have to worry about this point," he said of those who were covered by Arches. Ms. Northrup said her department is maintaining hope that all health providers can be paid in full, but that could be contingent on the success of a class action lawsuit against the federal government suing for funds from the Affordable Care Act's risk corridor mechanism. The receivership could receive roughly $57 million if the lawsuit is successful, according to the department. "It's going to be a long process, but I would say there is a light at the end of the tunnel," she said, saying that three of six similar lawsuits against the federal government have so far found favorable rulings. "I'm not optimistic that will happen," Rep. Dean Sanpei, R-Provo, said, referring to a court victory resulting in a payout. When asked about the lawsuit, Greene said he was cautiously hopeful it could eventually get the job done and said he agreed with the effort. "We have seen some succesful judgements, so why not?" he said, but also warned that winning in court and getting paid in full "are two different things." Kiser explained to health providers in a meeting that federal authorities have appealed in all three risk corridor cases they lost. He also cautioned "it might be years" before a final judgment is given in the lawsuit that could potentially benefit them. Statutorily, any paying off of Arches' debts would be required to make health providers whole before beginning to recompensate the federal government, Ms. Northrup told the Deseret News. A somewhat obscure provision added to extensive federal spending legislation in 2014 delivered a major financial obstacle to Arches and co-ops like it around the country by limiting the capabilities of the Affordable Care Act's risk corridor feature. Despite receiving assurances from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services just months earlier that risk corridor payments would be delivered in full, Arches discovered in October 2015 that it would receive only $1.9 million out of an expected $11 million in such funds. [GN] WAL-MART STORES: Confident on Beating Cotton Sheet Action --------------------------------------------------------- Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that retail giants including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target Corp. are confident they can nip a potential big-dollar consumer fraud class action stemming from Welspun India Ltd.'s 2016 Egyptian Cotton labeling scandal in the bud, a Manhattan judge heard on August 25. On coming dismissal bids the defense was coy on specifics on August 25, though Warren Haskel of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, counsel for Welspun and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. -- a third big retail defendant -- hinted at jurisdictional curbs that have been much on the mind of the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. "Defendants are confident they have strong bases for [defense] motions in response to plaintiffs' complaint," a defense filing says. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan directed the retailers to give him previews of their motions bids in coming weeks. Judge Sullivan plans to give guidance on their merits. "I can just see what this is costing by looking at all of you," he told a foursome of corporate defense partners who were in court to back the retailers, Mumbai-based Welspun and its U.S. unit. Consumers including New York shopper Samuel Jividen claimed fraud, unjust enrichment and other violations by the retailers in a February complaint that says consumers across the U.S. payed premium prices for supposedly higher-quality Egyptian Cotton at retail outlets only to take home lesser-quality bedding. Welspun's share price plummeted following revelations last year that retailers were investigating its business practices. The damages in the case were not specified as of August 25, but Welspun alone has set aside roughly $78 million for the litigation and its quality improvement efforts. The retailers "knew or should have known" the sheets were falsely labeled, the suit says, asserting they lacked adequate quality control procedures. All three retailers offered refunds to short-sheeted customers. Target has discontinued its relationship with Welspun. Judge Sullivan also set up a discovery schedule related to certifying a potential consumer class or classes to last through most of 2018. The sides have noted that a July mediation did not bear fruit, but the judge said they will have to take another crack at settlement before the case is folded up and put away. "I will ask you to huddle up with a magistrate judge," he said. "At some point before trial I'll expect you to have a session." The plaintiffs are represented by Scott A. Bursor, Esq. -- sbursor@bursor.com -- and Frederick J. Klorczyk, Esq. -- fklorczyk@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher PA. Welspun and Bed Bath & Beyond are represented by Warren Haskel, Esq. -- warren.haskel@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Joseph Serino Jr., Esq. -- joseph.serino@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP. Wal-Mart is represented by Nathaniel P.T. Read, Esq. -- info@cohengresser.com -- of Cohen & Gresser LLP. Target is represented by Jessica Kaufman, Esq. - jkaufman@mofo.com -- and Steven T. Rappoport, Esq. -- srappoport@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP. This case is In re Welspun Litigation, case number 1:16-cv-06792, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] WALMART STORES: "Stephens" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled GERARD STEPHENS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. WALMART STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62723-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a national class of: "consumers who applied for work with Walmart and against whom Walmart took adverse employment actions without first providing them with the FCRA-mandated notice." Walmart is one of the nation's largest employers, staffing its retail locations and other positions with individuals like Plaintiff. As do many employers, Walmart obtains employment purpose consumer reports (commonly known as "background checks") for use in its hiring process. Nothing requires that employers use such reports to screen employees but, when they choose to do so, employers must abide by the strict, easy-to-follow mandates of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff alleges that Walmart has failed to meet those requirements, for him and a national class of individuals who applied for work at Walmart and against whom Walmart took adverse actions absent the appropriate notice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=06ms7RFz The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8719 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com - and - Chad A. Justice, Esq. BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS PLLC 201 S. Westland Ave., Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (800) 346 7752 Facsimile: (813) 254 3999 E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com - and - Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Elizabeth Hanes, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930 3660 Facsimile: (757) 930 3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com The Defendant is represented by: David Batista, Esq. Richard Bradlee Rosengarten, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: Batistad@gtlaw.com rosengartenrich@gtlaw.com - and - David E. Sellinger, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 500 Campus Drive, Suite 400 Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677 Telephone: (973) 360 7900 E-mail: sellingerd@gtlaw.com WELLS FARGO: Court Sounds Skeptical of Overdraft Fee Defense ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Dugan, writing for New York Post, reports that a federal appeals court sounded very skeptical about Wells Fargo's eleventh- hour argument that more than 1 million depositors potentially hit with excessive overdraft fees should be forced individually to pursue a remedy through arbitration. The bank's arbitration defense was raised well after the 2008 suit was filed -- leading one jurist on the three-judge panel to question the wisdom of chasing such a gambit. "Whatever," Judge Adalberto Jordan said during August 23's argument, responding to an explanation from a Wells lawyer about why the bank changed strategies. "I mean, parties choose their litigation strategy, and sometimes they predict the future correctly and sometimes they don't," the judge said, according to an audio recording of the argument released on August 25. Five depositors sued the embattled bank in 2008, claiming they were slammed with excessive overdraft fees because Wells reordered the charges. Most banks used to reorder each day's charges to clear the highest-price purchase first -- thus increasing the chances of charging overdraft fees. Every bank settled those claims -- except Wells Fargo. If it loses its attempt to force depositors to chase down a remedy through arbitration -- and not through a class-action lawsuit -- it could face a payout of more than $1 billion, experts close to the case estimate. Wells Fargo's scandal-scarred chairman to step down next year A trial court judge in Florida denied Wells Fargo's arbitration argument -- which set up August 23's appeals court argument in Atlanta. It is not known when the appeals court will rule. Lawyers for the depositors have claimed that the bank was too late in trying to narrow who can join the class, which could balloon to more than a million people. During the hearing, Sonya Winner, a lawyer for Wells Fargo, said the bank would have mounted the arbitration strategy earlier -- but it did not appear viable until a decision in a related case. It was that comment that prompted Jordan to blurt out, "Whatever." "Everybody's devoted 5, 6, 61/2 years to litigation on substantial motions to dismiss, certifications of a class, everything else," Jordan said. "It all could have been avoided had you initially asserted your arbitration right with regard to the named plaintiffs and had that issue resolved one way or another." Wells tried once before, in 2011, to stop depositors from forming a class action. The previous argument was not a winner. [GN] WEST VIRGINIA: Attorneys Seek Approval of Revised Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Ward Jr., writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that attorneys for tens of thousands of Kanawha Valley residents, businesses and workers have filed a revised settlement in the class-action lawsuit over the January 2014 water crisis, and are hoping that changes made to the agreement with West Virginia American Water and Eastman Chemical will resolve objections raised by the federal judge who is overseeing the case. The amended settlement agreement aims to avoid what the judge felt were disparities between settlement payments to different sized businesses, provide a more thorough avenue for water-crisis victims to appeal the amount of their individual settlement payments, address the court's concerns about payments and eligibility for medical claims, and create a potential avenue for some payments to be made quickly, even if the settlement itself faces a legal appeal. Broad terms of the new proposal, filed on August 25 night in U.S. District Court in Charleston, remain essentially the same: Residents, businesses and workers who couldn't use tap water following the contamination of the West Virginia American regional system by the Freedom Industries chemical spill will share in a total of up to $151 million in payments from the water company and Eastman. The process for residents, businesses and workers to file claims for their share of the settlement will not start until the settlement gets preliminary approval from U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. Notices will be published and sent to eligible class members once the judge has issued that preliminary approval. Copenhaver had ruled in July that the settlement was a "strong result" that provides "substantial benefits" for the victims of the water crisis, but said the deal needed more work before he would give it preliminary approval and begin the formal process for spill victims to have their say about the deal or opt-out of the settlement. Among other things, the revisions would increase the estimated payments to households who choose to file a simple claim form -- one that doesn't require documentation of money spent on things like bottled water -- from $525 for the first resident and $170 for each additional resident to $550 for the first resident and $180 for each additional resident. The base payment for a family of four therefore increases from $1,035 to $1,090, without the family having to prove specific losses or injuries. New language would also require the hiring of an "Independent Appeal Adjudicator" who would hear challenges from victims to claim decisions made by a settlement administrator. "The amended settlement agreement is the product of further extensive negotiations between the parties, undertaken to ensure that the court's concerns identified in the July 6 order were well understood and fully addressed," lawyers for the water crisis victims said in a legal brief filed on August 25 night. "Thus, at this juncture, the parties submit their request for preliminary approval of the amended settlement agreement as fair, adequate and reasonable and in the best interest of all parties." The amended settlement comes 10 months after the parties agreed, on the eve of trial, to general terms of a deal to resolve the complicated case over the region's ability to use its tap water during the "do not use" order period that followed the contamination of the Elk River supply by a spill of Crude MCHM and other chemicals from the Freedom Industries facility just 1.5 miles upstream from the water company intake. In the case, lawyers for residents and businesses alleged that West Virginia American did not adequately prepare for or respond to the spill and that MCHM-maker Eastman did not properly warn Freedom of the dangers of its chemical or take any action when Eastman officials learned that the Freedom facility was in disrepair. West Virginia American and Eastman continue to deny any liability, and say the blame for the crisis rests with Freedom Industries, which admitted to criminal pollution violations related to the spill. The class covered by the case includes 224,000 residents and about 8,000 businesses. It includes basically any business or resident who received tap water from the Elk River intake plant and any hourly wager earner whose employer closed because of the spill and resulting water system contamination. Generally under the settlement, residents and businesses can obtain uniform settlement payments by filing simple claim forms or potentially receive larger distributions by providing receipts or other proof of money spent for things like replacing hot water tanks or buying bottled water. If the settlement administrator rules out some portions of more complex claims, the administrator must then advise the victims if they would be able to instead accept payment of the simple form's base amount if that amount would be greater. The settlement also provides additional payments to women who were pregnant at the time of the spill, residents who had medical expenses, and hourly-wage earners who lost money when businesses they worked in closed during the water crisis. The amended settlement includes language that would cut -- as ordered by the judge -- the payment to lawyers for the plaintiff class from 30 percent of the settlement to 25 percent. It also would place firmer restrictions on the ability of any lawyers to charge clients for assistance in filling out simple claim forms. Originally, law firms that did not sign onto a settlement petition for fees, but who had clients eligible for the class-action deal, would have been able to charge for that work. Copenhaver had been concerned the original settlement would have provided businesses that file simple claim forms with just under $1 million in annual revenue with a payment equal to 1.25 percent of their annual revenue, while a business with just over $1 million in revenue would be entitled to a payment of 5 percent of its annual revenue. The amended proposal would give simple claim form businesses with annual revenue of $1 million or less a base payment of $1,875 plus 4 percent of an amount equal to their 2013 revenue. Businesses with more than $1 million in annual revenue would receive estimated uniform payments of $41,875, which is the amount that a business with $1 million in revenue would receive using the same formula as for businesses with less than that in revenue. To address Copenhaver's concern about delays in claims being paid should eventual approval of the settlement be appealed, the amended deal sets up a procedure for both sides would confer to decide if some claim classes might not be affected by the outcome of the appeal, allowing them to be paid before the appeal is resolved. Alternatively, the amended deal allows for early funding, into escrow accounts, so that the water crisis victims would at least have the benefit of interest on those funds in exchange for the delay in being paid. [GN] WESTERN EXPRESS: Faces "Elmy" Suit Over Deceptive Scheme -------------------------------------------------------- John Elmy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Western Express, Inc., New Horizons Leasing, Inc., and John Does 1-5, Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn., August 25, 2017), seeks redress for fraud and negligent misrepresentation for the Defendants' scheme to misrepresent material facts about the Owner Operator program in order to induce the Plaintiffs to become Owner Operators. The Defendants own and operate a cargo and freight company in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley Tse, Esq. Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY, & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: ltse@getmansweeney.com - and - Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Hwy N. Ste 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com - and - Charles Yezbak, Esq. YESBAK LAW OFFICES 2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Faces "Dibble" Suit in Dist. of S.C. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams & Fudge, Inc. The case is styled as David Dibble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Williams & Fudge, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv- 02351-CMC (D. S.C., August 31, 2017). Williams & Fudge, Inc was founded in 1986 with the purpose of serving the Higher Education community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr, Esq. Norsworthy Law Ltd Co 505 Pettigru Street Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 804-0581 Fax: (864) 756-1153 Email: kenorsworthy@me.com WORLD LIQUIDATORS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Katz" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shalom Katz and all others similarly situated v. World Liquidators, Inc. and Meir Peretz, Case No. 1:17-cv-23223-JLK (S.D. Fla., August 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a safety equipment and supplies company in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM XPO LAST MILE: Certification of Drivers Class in "Hayes" Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled STEPHEN HAYES, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. XPO LAST MILE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00319-RJJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker denied class certification of: "all current or former drivers and drivers' assistants and/or helpers who worked for Defendant at any time in the three years prior to the filing of this action." The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an Order: a. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid wages pursuant to 29 U.S.C section 216(b) defined as: "all current or former drivers or drivers' assistants and/or helpers who worked for Defendant at any time in the three years prior to the filing of this action; b. compelling Defendant to provide Plaintiffs with the names, all known addresses, e-mail addresses and cell phone numbers of the potential Collective members; c. authorizing the notice to the Collective members with a 120 day opt-in period; and d. appointing Avanti Law Group, PLLC as interim class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kRKgd0Mr In its order, the Court explained that it will be more efficient and less confusing to consider the collective action and class action issues at the same time on the CMO schedule. First, some discovery will be needed here in light of the multiple layers of potential employers and the contractual relations between them. Second, the potential for confusion among prospective plaintiffs is too great if the case proceeds now with a notice of conditional collective action with required opt-in, and later with a parallel opt out class action. Finally, case management conflicts inherent in parallel collective and class proceedings can be best managed on the CMO schedule just set by the Court. The Court recognized this means some potential FLSA opt in plaintiffs may not start their claim clock as early as they otherwise would. However, if both collective and class action status is ultimately proper, as Plaintiffs contend, the class portion of the case would relate back to the date of the original class action complaint. Accordingly the risk identified by Plaintiffs for the FLSA collective action opt in plaintiffs would be mitigated. A copy of the Court is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=95X36wwS The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq. Kristin L. Sage, Esq. AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC 600 28th Street SW Grand Rapids, MI 49509 Telephone: (616) 257-6808 Facsimile: (616) 257-8501 E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com ksage@avantilaw.com YIN WALL: Court Grants Motion for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned BAUMANN FARMS, LLP, a Wisconsin limited liability partnership; and GLENN HEIER; and AARON KAISER, the Plaintiffs, v. YIN WALL CITY, INC., an Illinois corporation; SUT I. FONG; CHEONG SAT O; YIN WALL CITY, DALLAS, INC., a Texas Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00605-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "all individuals and entities engaged in the business of cultivating ginseng in the State of Wisconsin who have registered as ginseng growers with Wisconsin's DATCP as mandated by Wis. Stats. section 94.50(2), from January 2010 through the date the defendants stopped selling ginseng in boxes labeled as "grown in Wisconsin," excluding defendants and all officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants"; 2. appointing Michael T. Hopkins of IP-Litigation US LLC as class counsel; and 3. directing class counsel to provide the court with a proposed form of notice to potential class members within 28 days of this order. The Court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The defendants allege that they stopped selling the ginseng labeled "grown in Wisconsin" in July 2015.Thus, the class definition will include those who have registered as ginseng growers from 2010 up to and through the date on which the defendants stopped selling the ginseng that the plaintiffs allege was falsely labeled. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q1qSw4jK * Class Action Framework in India Needs Review ---------------------------------------------- Ashish Rukhaiyar, writing for The Hindu Review, reports that in 2006, many shareholders who lost money after investing in shares of Enron received a total of $7.2 billion in the U.S. after a probe revealed that officials of the company presented false accounts to investors and hid losses before going bankrupt. Around the same time, those who had invested in the shares of WorldCom received $6.2 billion after it emerged that its CEO had indulged in manipulative activities to pump up the share price. Both these cases saw eligible shareholders in the U.S. getting back their money only because they had recourse to a class action suit. Interestingly, homegrown Satyam Computer Services, whose investors in India did not get any compensation even after founder Ramalinga Raju said that accounts were inflated and falsified, agreed to pay $125 million in the U.S. to settle suits filed by shareholders. Such cases assume significance currently as India Inc. recently saw the sudden resignation of Infosys's CEO Vishal Sikka and the ensuing exchange of allegations between the board of directors and founder N.R. Narayana Murthy that led to almost INR23,000 crore of investor wealth being wiped off in a single day. At least three U.S. law firms -- Pomerantz LLP, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, and Rosen Law -- have reportedly said that they would initiate class action proceedings against the Indian software major, which is also listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The origins of class actions suits in the U.S.-- where such cases are the most common -- go back to 1842 when Equity Rule 48 gave individuals the right to file such cases. After multiple revisions, it gained its current shape in 1966. Since then, the legal recourse has been used on numerous occasions in the U.S., the most famous and biggest of the lot being a whopping $206 billion being paid out by tobacco companies over a period of time. This would be a good time for Indian policy makers as well to mull why such class action suits have not been able to take off in the country even though it has been more than four years since such recourse has been made possible in India. The concept of class action was introduced in the Indian legal system when the Companies Act, which has its origin in 1956, was revised in 2013. Section 245 of the revised Act lays down that shareholders or depositors can file a suit in the Tribunal if "they are of the opinion that the management or conduct of the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company or its members or depositors." The Act further states that a minimum of 100 individuals is required to file a class action suit. The Tribunal, if it deems fit, could restrain the company from certain activities while also directing the company and the auditor as well to pay damages or compensation. 'Non-starter' Sandeep Parekh, founder, Finsec Law Advisors, was of the view that class action suits have been a non-starter in India primarily due to two reasons: "First, lawyers should be allowed to charge contingency fees in class suits as is the case in the U.S. where such suits have seen shareholders get hefty compensation when cheated by companies," he said. "Second, Section 20A of SEBI Act bars a civil court from having jurisdiction on any matter that is under the regulatory purview of SEBI," said Mr. Parekh, who has earlier worked with SEBI as an executive director in charge of the legal department. Contingency fees refer to the practice wherein the lawyer gets a fee only if the case is won. Indian regulations bar lawyers from charging such fees. Meanwhile, the Companies Act lays down that the Investor Education and Protection Fund will be used for "reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in pursuing class action suits under sections 37 and 245 by members, debenture-holders or depositors as may be sanctioned by the Tribunal." According to Mr. Parekh, class action suits cannot be managed with a government-controlled fund as they could be misused and one might even suspect that people are using political influence to target rival companies. Interestingly, the California-based law firm that managed the class action suit for Enron shareholders got more than $700 million in fees. Rajesh Narain Gupta, managing partner, SNG & Partners, said that while Section 245 had been introduced in the Companies Act, class action suits are still rare though there have been a few instances of people coming together or a common cause being addressed at consumer forums or in the form of a public interest litigation. "The reasons include lack of a push mechanism. In U.S., law firms and lawyers become the catalyst for class suits as they get a share in the compensation granted by the Courts and the aggrieved persons get legal help and assistance without paying anything upfront," said Mr. Gupta. "The lawyers and law firms are highly incentivised to ensure success to such actions as they can legitimately recover their costs and fee from the award/compensation given to the claimants. It's a highly-skilled and developed industry. In India, a commoner has to first think, 'which platform do I go to; how do I get a lawyer; and how do I pay the lawyer,' as there is no recognised back-ended system for payment of legal charges," he added. In the absence of such recourse to a class action suit, interested entities, including individual and institutional shareholders, have been left with no option but to approach the company itself or the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to ensure that the organisation is managed in the best possible manner so as to safeguard their investments. In a joint letter addressed to the board of Infosys, 12 mutual funds wrote that they were concerned about the recent developments and that co-founder Nandan Nilekani should be brought back. This was before the company announced the appointment of Mr. Nilekani as the chairman. Incidentally, UTI Mutual Fund also sought clarification from the Infosys board as to whether the company was "committed to a transformation strategy aimed at rebuilding its business" and whether it would "continue to invest in attracting and rebuilding human capital" to aid such a strategy. Bringing SEBI in Post the sudden resignation of Mr. Sikka, a few shareholders even wrote to SEBI to check if there were any lapses related to corporate governance or disclosure requirements by the IT major. "Under Companies Act, 2013 investors can approach the Tribunal for a class action suit if they think that company's affairs are being conducted in a prejudicial manner to the shareholders or depositors. While there is no proven success of class action suits in India as it has its own limitations, there are precedents of relief from SEBI where stakeholders have sought quality in financial reporting, transparency and corporate governance," said Sumit Agrawal, founder, Suvan Law Advisors, a law firm specialising in regulatory matters. Mr. Sikka, in his resignation note, had said that the last few months and quarters saw "false, baseless, malicious and increasingly personal attacks" and allegations "that have been repeatedly proven false and baseless by multiple, independent investigations." "But despite this, the attacks continue, and worse still, amplified by the very people from whom we all expected the most steadfast support in this great transformation," he said in his letter to the board. Interestingly, if the framework for class action suits is revised to remove practical hindrances, one could see such suits being filed over non-corporate issues as well, such as those related to the general lack of proper civic amenities or even those concerning public health facilities. [GN] * DOL Fiduciary Rule Lawsuit Angle 'Will Likely Be Mooted' ---------------------------------------------------------- John Hilton, writing for Insurance News, reports that the DOL fiduciary rule places any financial professional who works with retirement income under a fiduciary standard. The Department of Labor sent its clearest signal that it plans to eliminate the hated class-action lawsuit provision of the Obama- era fiduciary rule. In a court brief filed in District of Minnesota federal court, government attorneys said the lawsuit angle "will likely be mooted in the near future." The lawsuit right is included in the Best Interest Contract Exemption, which agents will need to comply with in order to sell variable and fixed indexed annuities. It is slated to take effect Jan. 1. However, the DOL is proposing an 18-month delay that is expected to be published in the Federal Register soon. During that time, the department will study and revise some portions of the rule. The lawsuit provision is one of the most despised aspects of the fiduciary rule. Several lawsuits were filed challenging the government's right to create a private right of action, including one in Minnesota court filed by Thrivent Financial. Filed in September 2016, Thrivent 's 29-page lawsuit claimed the DOL rule will render its dispute resolution mechanism obsolete. Thrivent's mechanism prohibits class actions. "Nothing in ERISA gives DOL authority to preclude financial institutions and their clients from entering into and enforcing arbitration agreements that include class action waivers," Thrivent's complaint reads. The two sides are trading briefs in the case, but the government made it clear that Thrivent should not worry about class action remaining a part of the rule. Phase one of the DOL rule took effect June 9. It requires advisors and agents to act as fiduciaries, make no misleading statements and accept only "reasonable" compensation. [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 * * *