/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170907.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 7, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 177 Headlines ABBA BAIL: Nov. 16 Class Cert. Bid Deadline in "van Hulten" Suit ABUNDANT LIFE: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Order in "Malamphy" Suit AETNA: Faces Class Action in Pennsylvania Over HIV Disclosure AGRIA CORP: December 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set AIRBNB: Faces Class Action in Canada Over "Service Fees" ALCO VENDING: Court Denies Class Cert in Unsolicited Fax Suit ALEX JEANS: Faces "Bernave" Suit over Unpaid Wages ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in Connecticut Ongoing ALTRIA GROUP: Unit Still Defends 4 Smoking & Health Class Suits ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Smoking and Health Class Suits Pending in Canada ALTRIA GROUP: 4 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Sept. 30 ALTRIA GROUP: Class Certification Denied in 61 Cases v. PM USA ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Defends 4 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases ALTRIA GROUP: Appeal in "Larsen" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing ALTRIA GROUP: Stipulation to Dismiss "Carroll" Lawsuit Okayed AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Pact in Natural Gas Markets Suit Gets Final OK ANGIE'S LIST: Still Faces "Williams" Lawsuit over Unpaid Wages ANTHEM INC: May File Documents Under Seal in Data Breach Suit ANTHEM INC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Has Prelim. Approval ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bids in "Stender" BANK OF THE WEST: Faces "Stahl" Suit over Debit Card Charges BEST YET EXPRESS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages BLINK HOLDINGS: "Diaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Labor Law BLUE APRON: "Speiser" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Sharon" Suit in E.D. of New York CALIBER HOME: "Razuki" Suit Moved to S.D. California CELGENE CORP: IUB Litigation Still Pending in New Jersey CENTURYLINK INC: "Thummeti" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana CLARK COUNTY, IN: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hoffman" Suit CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action CONNECTICUT: Faces Class Action Over Medicare Observation Status CORELOGIC INC: Class Certification Bid in "Witt" Lawsuit Underway CREDIT ONE: Faces "Tinker" Suit over Robocalls CVS: Plaintiff Drops Suit Over Generic Drug Pricing Scheme DEUTSCHE BANK: Litigation on Behalf of RMBS Trusts Still Ongoing DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Bid for Atty's Fees Partly Granted DOMETIC CORP: Faces "Klenk" Suit over Defective Cooling Units DOW CHEMICAL: Rocky Flats Class Action Suit Has Been Concluded EDISON INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit Still Pending EDISON INT'L: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit Set in October ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Oct. 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Corcia" Suit in S.D. of New York FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Still Faces Putative Class Lawsuits FORTERRA INC: Faces "Spindler" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports FP STORES: "Hunt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages California Labor Code GARDA CL: "Lane" Suit Seeks Unpaid Premium Wages under Labor Code GENAERA CORP: 3d Cir. Partly Vacates Argyce Ruling in "Schmidt" GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Tangara" Suit over Defective AC Systems GENERAL WIRELESS: Faces "Hoskinson" Suit in Delaware GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiffs/Counsel in "Rice" Suit Named GNC HOLDINGS: California Wage and Break Claims vs. Unit Ongoing GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal in Fluctuating Workweek Lawsuit Underway HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces "Davis" Suit in E.D. of New York HARRY CANTRELL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Caliste" Suit HARTFORD FIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Allen" HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: Court Dismisses "Mondy" Suit HT RESTAURANT: Faces "Tasman" Suit over Minimum Wages & OT Pay HYATT HOTELS: Sued in N.Y. Over Disabled Inaccessible Facilities IHS ACQUISITION: Faces "Obare" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime IMPERVA INC: Poinsignon Sues over Background Checks INDEPENDENT BANK GROUP: Subsidiary Still Faces BOH-Related Suit INTEL CORP: Appeal Pending in McAfee Shareholder Class Action JUICE BEAUTY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in E.D. of New York KBR INC: Metzgar Appeals Ruling in Burn Pit MDL to Fourth Circuit KHBJR ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Sanchez" Suit Claims LIFE INSURANCE: Norman Appeals E.D. Louisiana Ruling to 5th Cir. LM FUNDING: Agrees to Put $505K in Trust Account Under Settlement LOVE'S TRAVEL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Thompson" Suit LTD FINANCIAL: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Order in "Baez" Suit MANDALA HEALING: "Brickhouse" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MDL 2672: "Stokar" Suit vs. Audi Transferred to N.D. California MERCHANT SOURCE: Fails to Pay Earned Commissions, Miller Says METRO SHORE: Bessellieu Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code MIDLAND CREDIT: "Mutty" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida MIDLAND FUNDING: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Coyne" Suit MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Foy" Suit over Sale of Herbicide Roundup NIC GEORGIOU: Accused of Trying to Scuttle Class Action NORTH AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "McGhee" Suit NOVOCURE LTD: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Voluntary Dismissed "Cho" Suit PEOPLES SECURITY: Rakus Sues over Vehicle Foreclosure Practices PNM RESOURCES: Still Involved in Navajo Nation Allottee Matters PROCTER & GAMBLE: Appeals Ruling in "Pettit" Charmin Wipes Suit PSCH CLEAN: "Brown" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law QUIKTURN PROFESSIONAL: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Gonzalez Says RADISSON HOTEL: Settles Banquet Servers' Class Action for $1.8MM RELAY DELIVERY: "Sawadogo" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA SEI INVESTMENTS: Still Faces "Lillie" Class Action Litigation SERVICE CORP: Units Still Faces Vasquez Suit on Labor Practices SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs to Appeal on Dropped Moulton Suit SERVICE CORP: $15.0MM Settlement Reached in TCPA Class Lawsuit SHAMROCK SALOON: Faces "George" Suit in S.D. of New York SHORETEL INC: Faces "Mozeee" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Mitel SHOWTIME: Sued Over Failed Mayweather-McGregor Streams SPARTON CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action STARBUCKS CORP: Faces "Naimi" Suit in C. Dist. of Calif. SUBWAY: "Foot-Long" Sandwiches Settlement Approval Reversed SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Cheam Seeks Lost Wages under Labor Code TD BANK: Penny Arcades Customers Can File Claims Until Oct. 27 TESLA MOTORS: Faces "Platt" Suit over Termination of Employment TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Wages, Guzman Claims UNITIL CORP: Individual Claims in Bellermann Case Still Pending VOLUME SERVICES: Faces "Jeffries" Suit in Dist. of Columbia WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Faces "Edelstein" Suit in C.D. of California WORLD CLASS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Paz" Suit Claims WW GRAINGER: Trial in "Davies" Complaint Set for February 2018 ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Sylvander Sues over Inflated Share Price ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Davydov" Suit in E.D. of New York * Mainers May Lose Right to Fight Big Banks' Lending Practices ********* ABBA BAIL: Nov. 16 Class Cert. Bid Deadline in "van Hulten" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ADAM VAN HULTEN, individually, and on behalf of the general public and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABBA BAIL BONDS, INC., a California corporation; JANE UN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02459 (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Extend Deadline For Plaintiff to File Motion For Class Certification And Extend Court's Precertification Discovery Cut-Off. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his Motion for Class Certification be extended from Sept. 21, 2017 to Nov. 16, 2017; and the Court's precertification discovery deadline be extended from Sept. 11, 2017 to Nov. 10, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/nGrjic from Leagle.com. Adam Van Hulten, Plaintiff, represented by David Douglas Deason -- David@yourlaborlawyers.com -- Deason & Archbold. ABBA Bail Bonds, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Valentine, Jr. -- jvalentine@valentinelawla.com -- Law Offices of John Valentine. Jane Un, Defendant, represented by John Valentine, Jr., Law Offices of John Valentine. ABUNDANT LIFE: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Order in "Malamphy" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Abundant Life Home Health Agency, LLC and Nely Nida Villavencio filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Marcie Malamphy v. Abundant Life Home Health Age, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-00327-EAK-TGW, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Malamphy commenced the lawsuit on February 11, 2016, alleging that she and other hourly-paid nurses, who currently work, or have worked for the Defendant, were deprived of proper overtime wages -- in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Marcie Malamphy v. Abundant Life Home Health Age, et al., Case No. 17-13856, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before September 18, 2017, as to Appellant Abundant Life Home Health Agency, LLC; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before September 25, 2017, as to Appellee Marcie Malamphy.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MARCIE MALAMPHY, and others, similarly situated, is represented by: Constantine W. Papas, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA N. SASS, PA 601 W Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Tampa, FL 33603 Telephone: (813) 251-5599 Facsimile: (813) 259-9797 E-mail: papas@sasslawfirm.com Defendants-Appellants ABUNDANT LIFE HOME HEALTH AGENCY, LLC, and NELY NIDA VILLAVENCIO, an individual, are represented by: Eric W. Neilsen, Esq. NEILSEN LAW GROUP, PA 100 2nd Ave. N, Suite 240 Saint Petersburg, FL 33712 Telephone: (727) 350-3240 Facsimile: (727) 499-7166 AETNA: Faces Class Action in Pennsylvania Over HIV Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Weixel, writing for The Hill, reports that Aetna on Aug. 28 was hit with a class-action lawsuit alleging the insurance giant violated the privacy of its customers by mistakenly revealing the HIV status of approximately 12,000 people. The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 28 in federal court in Pennsylvania, claims Aetna sent customers information about HIV medication that was clearly visible through envelopes with large, clear windows. The "highly confidential matter" was visible to "family, roommates, friends, neighbors, landlords, mail carriers, and even complete strangers," according to the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania, which filed the suit with the Legal Action Center and Berger & Montague P.C. The suit demands that Aetna cease the practice of sending information about HIV medications through the mail, reform its procedures and pay damages. The attorneys argue that by mailing the information the insurer violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a federal law that oversees the privacy of health information. "For 40 years, HIV-related public health messages have been geared toward assuring people that it's safe to come forward to get confidential HIV treatment, and now our clients come forward for HIV-related healthcare and Aetna fails to provide confidentiality," Ronda B. Goldfein, executive director of the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. The letters were sent to Aetna customers in July. The incident came to light when the legal groups informed Aetna that it and six other AIDS service organizations had received complaints from the insurer's customers regarding the mailings. Aetna acknowledged the incident and said it's starting a full review. The company declined to comment on the lawsuit. [GN] AGRIA CORP: December 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., on Aug. 28 disclosed that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of American Depositary Shares of Agria Corporation (NYSE:GRO): SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES OF AGRIA CORPORATION DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 8, 2016 THROUGH NOVEMBER 4, 2016, INCLUSIVE.1 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will be held on December 13, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5C before the Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, United States District Judge of the District of New Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of $1,300,000 (the "Settlement Amount") should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to $429,000.00, or thirty-three percent (33%) of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of litigation expenses of no more than $25,000, and an award to the Lead Plaintiffs not to exceed $15,000, should be approved; and (4) whether the above-captioned action (the "Litigation") should be dismissed with prejudice. If you purchased Agria Corporation's American Depositary Shares during the class period from June 8, 2016 through November 4, 2016, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this litigation. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release attached thereto, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at: Agria Corporation Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel.); 610-565-7985 (Fax); info@strategicclaims.net), or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than October 23, 2017 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than November 13, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Class Counsel's (as defined below) request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than November 24, 2017 by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of New Jersey 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07101 Laurence M. Rosen., Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 Class Counsel James J. Farrell, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 Counsel for Defendants If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Class Counsel: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 8, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings as set forth and defined in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which is available on the Internet at www.strategicclaims.net, or through the mail upon request to the Claims Administrator. [GN] AIRBNB: Faces Class Action in Canada Over "Service Fees" -------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Mio, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a Quebec lawyer is arguing that service fees added to the final price of Airbnb rentals contravenes the province's Consumer Protection Act and is asking the court to approve a class-action lawsuit against the company. Joey Zukran, the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, says that "service fees" added to the nightly rental rate violate the Quebec law. Mr. Zukran is representing Montrealer Martin Banoon, who recently booked a six-night stay in Florida and was surprised to see his room rate jump from the $199 originally quoted to $224 per night. Even though the room was booked in the United States, the Quebec law applies, Mr. Zukran says. Sections 54.1 and 54.2 of the act state that a "distance contract is deemed to be entered into at the address of the consumer." "A company like Airbnb that has over 800,000 users in Quebec, and does business in Quebec, they (should) know that the law is going to apply to them," he said. "They know that they have to respect the law in Quebec." Mr. Zukran says the fees charged by Airbnb are in violation of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act, specifically paragraph C of Section 224, which reads that no merchant can "charge, for goods or services, a higher price than that advertised." In Quebec, hidden fees like the service charge must be disclosed in the initial price quotes to consumers. Mr. Banoon says he booked the stay in Florida as a surprise vacation for his sister in early August. "I booked the day before we left. I found this nice listing in Florida, I booked it, we went and had a great time," Mr. Banoon said. "The price was fair." He said that when he got back, he took a closer look at the bill and only then did he notice the service fee added to the nightly rate. "I see on the price of the booking that there was this service fee on it," he said. "I didn't really understand what it was." He says he didn't notice the increase because he assumed that it was just taxes being added to an online transaction, something he is accustomed to. "They showed a total that looked more or less (like) the price," he said. "I shop a lot online and you are used to coming to the total and the price going up by 10 or 15 per cent, because usually they are adding the taxes. And (the fee) is right in that range." Mr. Banoon says that based on research he and Mr. Zukran have done, the rate for the fee appears to vary. "We really did a little bit of research and prices are advertised without this fee, and then right before the end of the booking, they add it," Mr. Banoon said, adding that the rate for the fee can vary. Similar cases have been heard in Quebec, specifically against companies like Ticketmaster and StubHub. Mr. Zukran says the lawsuit is seeking compensation for the service fees paid by users, punitive damages of $100 per user and to force Airbnb to change its website to comply with Quebec law. "Sometimes it's because the company didn't know about the law, but I would be very surprised if a company like Airbnb" didn't know about this, Zukran said. "It's something they ought to have known." The Montreal Gazette reached out to Airbnb, and a company spokesperson replied that the company would not comment on any ongoing litigation. [GN] ALCO VENDING: Court Denies Class Cert in Unsolicited Fax Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sara Elizabeth Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied both the Defendant's second summary judgment motion and the Plaintiff's second motion to certify the class in the case captioned THE SIDING AND INSULATION CO., Plaintiff, v. ALCO VENDING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:11- cv-1060 (N.D. Ohio). The Defendant is in the business of placing and stocking vending machines for its customers. At all times relevant to the present litigation, Richard Gajdos was the president of Alco and owned 100% of its stock. Sometime in 2005, Gajdos received one or more unsolicited faxes from Business to Business Solutions ("B2B") offering to send faxes on behalf of Alco advertising its vending machine services. Gajdos contacted B2B and spoke with someone who referred to himself as Kevin Wilson. Gajdos settled on one particular advertisement, after offering his input on certain content details. During the course of their negotiations, Wilson made several representations to Gajdos regarding the nature of the advertising services offered by B2B. Gajdos ultimately authorized B2B to transmit the advertisement and paid for this service by faxing a check for $188 to B2B. Following payment, the initial round of faxes was sent in November 2005 by Macaw working with B2B. After this first wave of faxes went out, Gajdos received "a couple" of complaints from attorneys representing recipients who did not consent to receiving the faxes. Some of the attorney letters threatened litigation. Gajdos ultimately authorized and paid B2B to send a second wave of fax advertisements that were transmitted in July 2006. Between the two attempts, Macaw successfully sent 7,055 transmissions to 4,547 unique fax numbers. The Plaintiff was one of the businesses to receive one or more of the faxes sent by B2B/Macaw advertising the services of Alco. On May 24, 2011, it brought the present action alleging that, by authorizing the faxes, Alco violated the TCPA inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not invite or give permission to Alco to send the faxes. The Plaintiff moved for certification of the class of all those who received the allegedly offending faxes, and defendant moved for summary judgment. The motions were referred to the magistrate judge who issued a report and recommendation that summary judgment be granted to the Defendant and the class certification motion be denied as moot. The Court adopted the R&R and dismissed the action. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed. In so ruling, the court found that the magistrate judge and the district court had applied the wrong standard when evaluating Alco's conduct under the TCPA. Because the faxes were sent between Nov. 2005 and July 2006, the court determined that the "on-whose-behalf" standard governed. The court explained that, pursuant to this standard, a plaintiff alleging a violation of the TCPA, must do more than simply show that the defendant's goods or services were advertised in the offending fax, but need not establish a complete agency relationship between the defendant and the fax broadcaster. The Sixth Circuit further identified a number of factors that guide a court's consideration of whether a fax broadcaster had sent the transmission "on behalf of" another entity. Applying these factors to the record in this case, the court observed that some of the factors indicate that B2B did not act on Alco's behalf, while others tend to support the conclusion that B2B did in fact act on Alco's behalf. The court remanded the matter to the district court to apply the correct legal standard. The Sixth Circuit noted that, on remand, the district court could allow further discovery and permit any such further proceedings as it determines is necessary to effectuate the standard described above. It also directed the district court to reconsider whether, after conducting such proceedings, Siding's motion for class certification remains moot. The case was reassigned to Judge Lioi pursuant to General Order 2015-12, due to the original judge's retirement. At the request of counsel, the Court permitted the parties to conduct limited discovery before re-briefing the Plaintiff's request for class certification. Following this period of discovery, the second motion of Plaintiff Siding for class certification, and the Defendant's second motion for summary judgment were filed. The Plaintiff proposes certification of the class of all persons who were successfully sent one or more faxes on Nov. 2, 2005 or July 10, 2006, from Alco Vending offering a full line of vending machines and stating that absolutely no charge to them to have Alco put in their vending machines. Judge Lioi finds that more to the point with respect to the present dispositive motion, there are unresolved questions of fact associated with many of these factors, including whether measures taken by Alco to ensure compliance were sufficient given the fact that Gajdos never read the complaints and continued to employ the services of B2B after Alco was threatened with litigation. As previously mentioned, the reasonableness of Alco's reliance on B2B's assurances of legality and promises to only send to those who had consented to receive them also continues to be mired in factual disputes. Notwithstanding the promises made by B2B, Gajdos concedes that he was not aware of the requirements (or even existence) of the TCPA, yet he was well aware that B2B had sent unsolicited faxes in the past because that is precisely how he learned of the B2B's advertising services. These unresolved factual disputes preclude a finding that, as a matter of law, the advertisements were not sent on Alco's behalf and therefore, Judge Lioi denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. As to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, Judge Lioi finds that the Plaintiff satisfies the Rule 23(a) commonality, Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality and the adequacy of representation requirements. However, she finds that Alco was able to produce documentation demonstrating that it had an existing business relationship with at least 42 of the entities on the fax list. The Defendant has never represented that this was a complete list, and, as early as 2013, has indicated that the 42 names came from an "initial review" of Alco business records. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that a more complete review of Alco's records would be necessary to determine whether the claims of other entities on the faxing list would be similarly time-barred, and, coupled with the individualized inquiry as to timeliness of each potential class member's claim that would follow, would predominate the case. Judge Lioi therefore denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/HWBAMe from Leagle.com. Siding and Insulation Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan B. Piper -- jon@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim. Siding and Insulation Co., Plaintiff, represented by Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Tod A. Lewis -- tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, pro hac vice, Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Daniel J. Cohen, Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, Ross M. Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Scott D. Simpkins -- sdsimp@climacolaw.com -- Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli. Alco Vending, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric L. Samore -- esamore@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen, Erin A. Walsh -- ewalsh@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen & Dennis R. Fogarty -- dfogarty@davisyoung.com -- Davis & Young. ALEX JEANS: Faces "Bernave" Suit over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- FIDEL BERNAVE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALEX JEANS MANUFACTURER, INC., a California corporation; H&M DENIM APPAREL, INC., a business entity of unknown form; J BRAND, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC673901 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest under the California Labor Code. The case is a class action lawsuit alleging Defendants' failure to timely pay all earned wages; failure to provide legally compliant meal periods and/or pay meal period premium wages; failure to provide legally complaint rest breaks and/or pay rest break premium wages; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employee all earned and unpaid wages due upon separation of employment; applicable civil penalties; injunctive relief and other equitable relief; and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code Sections 226(e) and 1194; costs; and interest, brought on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432 0000 Facsimile: (310) 432 0001 E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirtn.com arosenkranz@lelawfirrn.com ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in Connecticut Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. still defends itself against a securities class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut related to misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris therapy, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. Soliris(R) (eculizumab) is the first and only therapeutic approved for patients with either paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a life-threatening and ultra-rare genetic blood disorder, or atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), a life-threatening and ultra-rare genetic disease. PNH and aHUS are two disorders resulting from chronic uncontrolled activation of the complement component of the immune system. On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris. On April 12, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff. On July 14, 2017, lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint against the Company and seven current or former employees. The complaint alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris, including alleged misrepresentations regarding sales practices, management changes, and related investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26, 2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped upon the purported disclosure of the misrepresentations. The litigation is in the early stages, and defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. The Company said, "Given the early stages of this litigation, management does not currently believe that a loss related to this matter is probable or that the potential magnitude of such loss or range of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated." Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on serving patients with devastating and ultra-rare disorders through the innovation, development and commercialization of life-transforming therapeutic products. ALTRIA GROUP: Unit Still Defends 4 Smoking & Health Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that wholly-owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. remains a defendant in four "Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims Litigation" pending in the United States as of July 24, 2017. In some instances, the Company is also a defendant. The Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims Litigation includes one case the 600 civil actions (of which 344 were actions against PM USA) that were to be tried in a single proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation). The Company said, "The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the United States Constitution did not preclude a trial in two phases in this case. Issues related to defendants' conduct and whether punitive damages are permissible were tried in the first phase. Trial in the first phase of this case began in April 2013. In May 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on the claims for design defect, negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and concealment and declined to find that the defendants' conduct warranted punitive damages. Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim that ventilated filter cigarettes should have included use instructions for the period 1964 - 1969. The second phase will consist of trials to determine liability and compensatory damages. In November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment. In July 2015, the trial court entered an order that will result in the entry of final judgment in favor of defendants and against all but 30 plaintiffs who potentially have a claim against one or more defendants that may be pursued in a second phase of trial. The court intends to try the claims of these 30 plaintiffs in six consolidated trials, each with a group of five plaintiffs. PM USA is a defendant in nine of the remaining 30 cases. The first trial is currently scheduled to begin May 1, 2018. Dates for the five remaining consolidated trials have not been scheduled." Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Smoking and Health Class Suits Pending in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) still defend themselves in seven smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces as of July 24, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. As of July 24, 2017, PM USA is also a named defendant in 10 health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. The class actions, which name other cigarette manufacturers as defendants, were filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: 4 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that as of July 24, four Engle progeny cases are set for trial through September 30. There is one individual smoking and health case and no "Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions against the Company's wholly- owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) set for trial during this period. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are scheduled for trial during this period. Trial dates are subject to change. Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts have been returned in 61 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights" and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 41 of the 61 cases. These 41 cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (7), Florida (10), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (2), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for reconsideration. In December 2015, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to reassess whether to grant a new trial. In March 2016, the trial court granted a new trial and PM USA filed a petition for review of that order with the Alaska Supreme Court, which the court denied in July 2016. The retrial began in October 2016. In November 2016, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. The plaintiff subsequently moved for a new trial, which is scheduled to begin October 16, 2017. Of the 20 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, 18 have reached final resolution. As of July 24, 2017, 110 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 62 verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs; 44 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA. Two verdicts in favor of plaintiffs were partially or entirely reversed on appeal and two verdicts in favor of PM USA were reversed for a new trial. After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, since October 2004, PM USA has paid in the aggregate judgments and settlements (including related costs and fees) totaling approximately US$490 million and interest totaling approximately US$184 million as of June 30, 2017. These amounts include payments for Engle progeny judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately US$99 million, interest totaling approximately US$22 million and payment of approximately US$43 million in connection with the Federal Engle Agreement. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: Class Certification Denied in 61 Cases v. PM USA -------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 61 smoking and health class actions involving wholly- owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well. Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 61 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), California (1), Delaware (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Defends 4 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") remains a defendant to four "Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions pending in the United States as of July 24, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. In certain instances, the Company or its other subsidiaries are also named as defendants. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of July 24, 2017, 21 state courts in 22 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM USA. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: Appeal in "Larsen" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that one certified class action lawsuit remains pending on appeal. In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which potential class members can qualify to become part of the class. The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim, which the court denied in June 2015. Upon retrial, in April 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA. In August 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA cross-appealed. In November 2016, the court of appeals dismissed PM USA's cross-appeal without prejudice upon joint motion of the parties. Oral argument at the Missouri Court of Appeals was scheduled for August 8, 2017. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: Stipulation to Dismiss "Carroll" Lawsuit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that the "Carroll" lawsuit is concluded. In July 2017, the trial court approved a stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice. In December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly known as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied the motion of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as additional defendants. In February 2013, the trial court approved the parties' stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris International Inc. ("PMI"), leaving PM USA as the sole defendant in the case. In March 2015, plaintiffs moved for class certification and, in July 2015, PM USA filed a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in their entirety on preemption grounds. In May 2017, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The named plaintiff agreed to resolve her individual claim for US$3,000 and, pursuant to that agreement, in July 2017, the trial court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Pact in Natural Gas Markets Suit Gets Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP) disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that the district court has issued a final approval of a settlement in three class action lawsuits related to natural gas markets. In 2002, the lawsuit was commenced in Los Angeles County California Superior Court against numerous energy companies, including AEP, alleging violations of California law through alleged fraudulent reporting of false natural gas price and volume information with an intent to affect the market price of natural gas and electricity. AEP was dismissed from the case. A number of similar cases were also filed in state and federal courts in several states making essentially the same allegations under federal or state laws against the same companies. AEP is among the companies named as defendants in some of these cases. AEP settled, received summary judgment or was dismissed from all of these cases. The plaintiffs appealed the Nevada federal district court's dismissal of several cases involving AEP companies to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In April 2013, the appellate court reversed in part, and affirmed in part, the district court's orders in these cases. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's opinion. The cases were remanded to the district court for further proceedings. AEP had four pending cases, of which three were class actions and one was a single plaintiff case. In February 2017, a settlement was reached in the single plaintiff case. A settlement was also reached in the three class actions and the district court issued final approval of the settlement in June 2017. American Electric Power Company, Inc., a public utility holding company, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity for sale to retail and wholesale customers in the United States. It was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. ANGIE'S LIST: Still Faces "Williams" Lawsuit over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. still defends itself against a potential class action related to unpaid wages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. The case styled Williams, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc., 1:16-cv- 878, was filed by a group of former employees on April 20, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to pay (i) wages earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Statutes and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 206-07) and is requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees and other charges. Six amended complaints were filed, adding additional named plaintiffs, and the Company filed its answer to the sixth amended complaint on April 10, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification on June 10, 2016, and the Company filed its response brief in opposition on July 15, 2016. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification on November 30, 2016 but allowed the plaintiffs to refile with a more narrow class definition. On December 9, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for conditional certification. The Company filed its response to the renewed motion on January 6, 2017, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on January 17, 2017. The Court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional certification on April 28, 2017. The Company said that it is currently unable to determine the likely outcome or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if any, related to this matter, and accordingly, has not established any reserve for this matter. Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review service and marketplace where members can research, shop for and purchase local services for critical needs, as well as rate and review the providers of these services across the United States. ANTHEM INC: May File Documents Under Seal in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the parties' Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in the appeals case captioned IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 15- MD-02617-LHK (9th Cir.). The parties seek to seal portions of the motion for preliminary approval, portions of Exhibit 2 to the Settlement Agreement, and the entirety of the Statement Regarding Exclusion of Settlement Class Members. They submit that there are compelling reasons to seal these materials. The parties' motion seeks to seal two types of information. First, they seek to seal confidential information regarding Anthem's information security, including current methods for data security, methods for data security that Anthem intends to implement in the future pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and specific amounts of funding that Anthem will spend on cybersecurity measure pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. This information includes descriptions of cybersecurity practices and protocols. Judge Koh agrees that if specific information regarding Anthem's cybersecurity practices were disclosed, this could allow cyberattackers greater opportunity to defeat these defenses and substantially harm both Anthem and putative class members. She also agrees that disclosing specific funding levels could allow Anthem's competitors to have an advantage over Anthem in providing cybersecurity services. Therefore, she finds that compelling reasons exist to seal specific information regarding Anthem's cybersecurity practices and funding. Judge Koh thus granted the parties' motion to seal this information. Second, the parties seek to seal the Statement Regarding Exclusion of Settlement Class Members, which contains the number of opt-outs from the settlement that would trigger Anthem's right to terminate the Settlement Agreement. Judge Koh and other courts have found that such information is sealable in order to prevent third parties from utilizing the provision for the improper purpose of obstructing the settlement and obtaining higher payouts. If revealed, this information could lead to court files becoming a vehicle for improper purposes. Both the class members and the Defendants have a strong interest in avoiding strategic conduct by potential objectors in targeting a specific number of opt-outs. Thus, she finds that compelling reasons exist to seal this information and therefore granted the parties' request to seal the Statement Regarding Exclusion of Settlement Class Members. Thus, Judge Koh granted the parties' motion to seal. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/805uAD from Leagle.com. In re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, represented by Craig Alan Hoover -- craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP. In re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, represented by E. Desmond Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells, Eve Hedy Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan -- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio -- peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP & Michael Ben Pasternak, Michael Pasternak. Laura Fowles, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti -- tlopresti@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard -- dleonard@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & RoseMarie Maliekel, Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP. Danny Juliano, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Donald W. Stewart -- donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com -- Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Greg William Foster -- greg@stewartandstewart.net -- STEWART AND STEWART PC, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & T. Dylan Reeves, STEWART & STEWART PC. Susanne Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Casey Silva, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Brent J Gearhart, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Samantha Kirby, Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Walter Maya -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Bradley K. King, Ahdoot & Wolfson APC, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Robert Ahdoot, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & Tina Wolfson -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.. Aswad Hood, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, David Michael Berger, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP & Steven Augustine Lopez, Girard Gibbs LLP. Susan Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai Law Firm PC, Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, M. Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm, PC & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Joseph D'Angelo, III, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Edward Adam Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Webb, Klase and Lemond, LLC, Matthew C. Klase, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Shawn P. Haggerty, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Edward Adam Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Webb, Klase and Lemond, LLC, Matthew C. Klase, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Anthem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover -- craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan -- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke -- adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes -- areyes@blackwellburke.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Cassandra Lauren Crawford -- cassie.crawford@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Cavender C. Kimble -- ckimble@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Chad R. Fuller -- chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com - - Troutman Sanders LLP, Christopher W. Brooker -- cbrooker@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Craig H. Smith -- craig.smith@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, David R. Boyd -- dboyd@bsfllp.com -- Comey & Boyd, E. Desmond Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood -- elizabeth.lockwood@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Geraldine G. Sanchez, Roach Hewitt Ruprecht Sanchez & Bischoff, P.C., Glenn Virgil Whitaker -- gvwhitaker@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Gregory Haynes, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Jaime L. Theriot -- jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja -- jasmeet.ahuja@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin -- john.martin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lisa Fried -- lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Lucile Hartley Cohen -- lucie.cohen@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mark A. Stafford, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten -- mary.vanhouten@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Matthew H. Geelan -- MGeelan@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue, Durham & Noonan, P.C., Melissa McCoy Gormly, Vorys, Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, Michael G. Durham -- mdurham@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue Durham & Noonan PC, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael C. Theis -- michael.theis@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael J. Tuteur -- mtuteur@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell-- nathan.foell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells, Neal F. Perryman -- nperryman@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC, Patrick Joseph Dempsey, Hogan Lovels US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robert Armand Perez, S., Perez Law Firm Co. LPA, Robert Neal Webner -- rnwebner@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Ronald A. Norwood -- rnorwood@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Stephen A. Loney, Jr. -- stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan & Hartson, Travis A. Bustamante -- travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell -- winston.maxwell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP. Blue Cross of California, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. The Anthem Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Craig H. Smith, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Stephen A. Loney, Jr., Hogan & Hartson & Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. The Anthem Companies of California, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins & Vassiliki Iliadis. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia Inc, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jaime L. Theriot, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. Community Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robert Neal Webner, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Cassandra Lauren Crawford, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Craig Alan Hoover, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mark A. Stafford, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Timothy James Parker, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. ANTHEM INC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Has Prelim. Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement in the case captioned IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK (9th Cir.). Judge Koh preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only, the Settlement Class defined as all Individuals whose Personal Information was maintained on Anthem's Enterprise Data Warehouse and are included in Anthem's Member Impact Database and/or received a notice relating to the Data Breach; provided, however, that the following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (i) the Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and the Defendants' officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts-out from the Settlement Class. The Judge appointed as the Class Representatives: Cindy Chadwick, Pearl Bruno, Daniel Randrup, Mary Ella Carter (on behalf of her minor daughter T), Kenneth Coonce, Steve Kawai, Kenneth Solomon, Joseph and Karen Jo Blanchard, Lillian Brisko, Alvin Lawson, James Schatzman, Janet Brunton, Kimberly Kos-Williams, Gary Lasneski, Ralph Staffieri, Jessica Holguin, Danielle DiFonzo, Glenn Kahn, Gerald Keaton, John McAffry, Charles Platt, John Thomas, II, Lauren Roberts, Karen Coppedge, Allison Swank, Kevin Donnelly, Harold Lott, Cynthia Kelley, Mary Wicklund, David Klemer, Nadine Foster, Cynthia Reichrath, Wanda Pratt, Brent Harris, Steven Quinnette, Darrell Hunter, Cheryl Grissom, Melinda Lambert, Amy Whittaker, Shantel and Rahman Jones, Jason Jenkins, Kelli Smith (on her own behalf and on behalf of her three minor children), Dianne Reistroffer, Christopher Ruberg, Frank Bailey, Jason Baker, Meredith Fisse, Robin Wilkey, Gary Bellegarde, Mark Hatcher, Don West, Denese Depeza, Claudia Cass, Robert Roy, Carrie Ramos, Lisa Daniels, Michelle Kaseta-Collins, Lyle Nichols, Hank Maurer, Jack Wenglewick, Charles McCullough, Debbie Stein, Melody Eads, Christopher Allen, Jill Noble, Cherri and Gregory Hawes, Christina Renkoski (previously Novak), Shawn Crane, Troy Hobbs, David Ifversen, Angelin Gonzalez, Joseph LeBrun, Brenda Harrington, Elizabeth Ames, Ronald Percy, Barbara Gold, Matthew Gates, Marne Onderdonk, Frank Pacilio, Valerie Brescia, Randy Polacsek, Francis Nicosia, Connie McDaniel, Rachel Calo, Nicholas Bowes, Martin Williams, Rosanne M. Stanley, Gregory Kremer, Denise Masloski, Alan Voll, Lakeysha Gant, Jonathan B. Pulcini, Patrick Kimbrell, William Ansah-Dawson, C. Wheelwright, Michael S. Weinberger, Vernon Davitte, Jennifer Mertlich, Simon Kaufman, Lisa Shiltz, Susan H. Jones, and Jennifer Rud. She also appointed as the Class Counsel Eve H. Cervantez, Andrew N. Friedman, Michael W. Sobol, and Eric Gibbs, as well as their respective firms: Altshuler Berzon LLP; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; and Girard Gibbs LLP. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Parties have designated KCC as the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator will perform all the duties of the Settlement Administrator set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Judge Koh approved the Notice and Notice Plan and directed the parties and the Settlement Administrator to proceed with providing notice to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator will disseminate the Notice and implement the Notice Plan on or before Oct. 30, 2017. She also approved the Claim Form and the Out-of-Pocket Costs Claim Form, as well as the administration and/or enrollment procedures for Out-of-Pocket Costs claims, Alternative Compensation claims, and obtaining Credit Services. Those Settlement Class Members who wish to opt-out and exclude themselves from the Settlement Class may do so by notifying the Settlement Administrator in writing, postmarked no later than Dec. 29, 2017 (60 calendar days after Oct. 30, 2017). Those Settlement Class Members who wish to object to the Settlement may do so by submitting a written objection to the Settlement Administrator and to the Court in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Notice no later than Dec. 29, 2017 (60 calendar days after Oct. 30, 2017). The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Feb. 1, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. It reserves the right to continue the date of the Final Approval hearing without further notice to Settlement Class Members. Judge Koh set these deadlines, injunction, and termination: (i) Event Date Notice of Class Action Settlement completed as October 30, 2017 per Notice Plan Class Counsel Motion for Attorneys' Fees; (ii) Dec. 1, 2017 - Costs Motion for Final Approval; (iii) Dec. 1, 2017 - Opt-Out and Objection Deadline; (iv) Dec. 29, 2017 - Reply in Support of Motion for Final Approval; (v) Jan. 25, 2018 - Attorneys' Fees and Costs; and (vi) Feb. 1, 2018 - Final Approval Hearing. All proceedings and deadlines in the matter, except those necessary to implement the Order and the Settlement, are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. The instant motion granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement renders moot the following pending motions in this multi-district litigation: Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Application for Leave to File Response to Defendants' Statement of Recent Decision; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Motion to Strike Expert Testimony of Dr. Stefan Savage; Motion to Strike Expert Testimony of James Mulvenon; Motion to Strike Expert Testimony of William S. Choi; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion for Removal of Incorrectly Filed Documents; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; and Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Judge Koh therefore denied as moot these pending motions. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/eCebzq from Leagle.com. In re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, represented by Craig Alan Hoover -- craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP. In re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, represented by E. Desmond Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells, Eve Hedy Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan -- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio -- peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP & Michael Ben Pasternak, Michael Pasternak. Laura Fowles, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti -- tlopresti@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard -- dleonard@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & RoseMarie Maliekel, Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP. Danny Juliano, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Donald W. Stewart -- donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com -- Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Greg William Foster -- greg@stewartandstewart.net -- STEWART AND STEWART PC, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & T. Dylan Reeves, STEWART & STEWART PC. Susanne Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Casey Silva, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Brent J Gearhart, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Samantha Kirby, Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Walter Maya -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Bradley K. King, Ahdoot & Wolfson APC, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Robert Ahdoot, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & Tina Wolfson -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.. Aswad Hood, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, David Michael Berger, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP & Steven Augustine Lopez, Girard Gibbs LLP. Susan Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai Law Firm PC, Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, M. Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm, PC & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Joseph D'Angelo, III, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Edward Adam Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Webb, Klase and Lemond, LLC, Matthew C. Klase, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Shawn P. Haggerty, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Edward Adam Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Webb, Klase and Lemond, LLC, Matthew C. Klase, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Anthem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover -- craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan -- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke -- adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes -- areyes@blackwellburke.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Cassandra Lauren Crawford -- cassie.crawford@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Cavender C. Kimble -- ckimble@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Chad R. Fuller -- chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com - - Troutman Sanders LLP, Christopher W. Brooker -- cbrooker@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Craig H. Smith -- craig.smith@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, David R. Boyd -- dboyd@bsfllp.com -- Comey & Boyd, E. Desmond Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood -- elizabeth.lockwood@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Geraldine G. Sanchez, Roach Hewitt Ruprecht Sanchez & Bischoff, P.C., Glenn Virgil Whitaker -- gvwhitaker@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Gregory Haynes, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Jaime L. Theriot -- jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja -- jasmeet.ahuja@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin -- john.martin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lisa Fried -- lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Lucile Hartley Cohen -- lucie.cohen@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mark A. Stafford, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten -- mary.vanhouten@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Matthew H. Geelan -- MGeelan@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue, Durham & Noonan, P.C., Melissa McCoy Gormly, Vorys, Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, Michael G. Durham -- mdurham@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue Durham & Noonan PC, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael C. Theis -- michael.theis@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael J. Tuteur -- mtuteur@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell-- nathan.foell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells, Neal F. Perryman -- nperryman@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC, Patrick Joseph Dempsey, Hogan Lovels US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robert Armand Perez, S., Perez Law Firm Co. LPA, Robert Neal Webner -- rnwebner@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Ronald A. Norwood -- rnorwood@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Stephen A. Loney, Jr. -- stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan & Hartson, Travis A. Bustamante -- travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell -- winston.maxwell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP. Blue Cross of California, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. The Anthem Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Craig H. Smith, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Stephen A. Loney, Jr., Hogan & Hartson & Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. The Anthem Companies of California, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins & Vassiliki Iliadis. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia Inc, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jaime L. Theriot, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. Community Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robert Neal Webner, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Cassandra Lauren Crawford, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Craig Alan Hoover, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mark A. Stafford, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Timothy James Parker, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP. ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bids in "Stender" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Joseph Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Defendants' four motions for summary judgment in the case captioned STEVEN A. STENDER, and INFINITY CLARK STREET OPERATING, L.L.C., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 07-cv-2503- WJM-MJW (D. Colo.). This case revolves around a particular real estate investment trust ("REIT")-umbrella partnership real estate investment trust ("UPREIT") pair (both organized under Maryland law), namely: Defendant Archstone-Smith Trust, the publicly traded parent REIT ("Archstone"); and Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, the UPREIT that actually owned and managed the properties ("Operating Trust"). The Plaintiffs instituted this lawsuit on Nov. 30, 2007, alleging breach of the pre-merger Declaration of Trust, breach of fiduciary duties (majority oppression of minority shareholders), and breach of fiduciary duties (self-dealing). Plaintiffs Stender and Infinity, along with the other members of the Plaintiff Class, owned preferred equity interests in a real estate investment trust that underwent a complicated merger in 2007. They claim that the merger was structured to impermissibly eliminate their interests, causing them about $1 billion in damages. The case was originally drawn to then-Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham. In January 2008, the Defendants moved to dismiss or stay in favor of arbitration. They argued, in essence, that: (i) the Plaintiffs were suing, at least in part, to be indemnified for the tax consequences of the merger; and (ii) the Declaration of Trust required arbitration of any tax-related dispute between unitholders and the Operating Trust. In September 2008, Judge Nottingham resolved that motion, agreeing with the Defendants that, at least to the extent count one alleges a breach of the tax deferral provisions of Archstone UPREIT's Declaration of Trust, it must be stayed for arbitration. This case was then stayed pending arbitration. During that stay, the matter was reassigned to Judge Robert E. Blackburn. The case was then reassigned to Judge Martinez, upon his appointment to the bench, in February 2011, while the arbitration was still in progress. The arbitration finally concluded with a written decision in March 2013. Primarily at issue in the arbitration was a section of the applicable TPA that triggered tax protection if a merger or similar transaction results in an [A-1 Unit Holder] being required to recognize part or all of the gain that would have been recognized for federal income tax purposes upon a fully taxable disposition of one or more Protected Properties. The arbitration claimants (including Plaintiff Stender) argued that their choice between cash and Series O units was not a real choice. Although Series O units, in theory, preserved the tax-deferred characteristics of the A-1 units, the claimants asserted that the Series O Unit was so economically inferior that it provided no reasonable alternative to the cash option, and so the claimants were effectively required to take the cash, thereby recognizing taxable gain. The claimants accordingly sought damages equal to the taxes paid. The arbitrator ruled against claimants, concluding that the Series O unit was a bona fide investment alternative, and, therefore, the merger did not result in Claimants being required to recognize taxable gain by choosing the cash option. The Court confirmed the arbitration award in November 2013. It then granted the Plaintiffs leave to file their Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed that complaint in December 2013, and it remains the operative complaint today. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint asserts eight causes of action: (i) Count 1, against Archstone as Trustee and any of its Successors-in-Interest, for breach of the fiduciary duties a trustee owes to the trust; (ii) Count 2, against the Individual Defendants and Tishman, for aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty alleged in Count 1; (iii) Count 3, against Archstone and any of its Successors-in-Interest, for breach of fiduciary duties through majority oppression of minority shareholders, namely, the A-1 unitholders; (iv) Count 4, against the Individual Defendants and Tishman, for aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty alleged in Count 3; (v) Count 5, against Archstone, the Operating Trust, and any of their Successors-in-Interest, for breach of contract, namely, the Declaration of Trust; (vi) Count 6, against Tishman, the River Entities, and any of their Successors-in-Interest, for tortious interference with contract, namely, the Declaration of Trust; (vii) Count 7, against Tishman, for civil conspiracy to commit tortious interference with the Declaration of Trust; and (viii) Count 8, against Tishman, the River Entities, and their Successors-in-Interest, for unjust enrichment, based on the terms of the merger. The 2013 Defendants and Lehman Brothers are the "Successors-in- Interest" referred to in the various causes of action.The Court eventually dismissed the Plaintiffs' Count 1, finding that Maryland REITs are generally governed by corporate fiduciary duties, not trust duties. It likewise dismissed Count 2, given that it depended on establishing the breach alleged in Count 1. Thus, as of today, only Counts 3-8 remain for decision. Before the Court are four motions for summary judgment filed by these of Defendants: (i) the Tishman Defendants (Tishman Speyer Development Corp.), along with the River Entities, namely, River Holding, LP, River Acquisition (MD), LP, River Trust Acquisition (MD), LLC, and Archstone MultiFamily Series I Trust); (ii) the Individual Defendants (Caroline Brower, Stephen R. Demeritt, Ernest A. Gerardi, Jr., Ruth Ann M. Gillis, Ned S. Holmes, Robert P. Kogod, Charles Mueller, Jr., Alfred G. Neely, James H. Polk, III, Mark Schumacher, John C. Schweitzer, R. Scot Sellers, and Robert H. Smith); (iii) the 2013 Defendants (AvalonBay Communities, Inc., Equity Residential, and ERP Operating Limited Partnership) along with Archstone Enterprise LP, Archstone Inc., and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. -- entities which, for some unexplained reason, do not fit within any larger group; and (iv) the Archstone Defendants (Archstone-Smith Trust and Archstone- Smith Operating Trust)(public entry). These four motions are comprehensive -- they address all remaining causes of action asserted against all the Defendants. Judge Martinez finds that the Archstone Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law against the Plaintiffs on their breach of contract cause of action (Count 5). Furthermore, an underlying breach of contract is an element of any claim for tortious interference with contract under Maryland law. Consequently, all the Defendants named under the Plaintiffs' claim for tortious interference with contract (Count 6) and the Plaintiffs' claim for civil conspiracy to commit tortious interference (Count 7) are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding bad faith. Moreover, to the extent their claim reduces to simple dissatisfaction with the negotiated per-share compensation ($60.75, as opposed to the original offer of $64), there is no fiduciary duty claim when the Plaintiffs' fundamental grievance is one of inadequate price. Thus, all the Defendants subject to the Plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims (Counts 3 and 4) are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on those claims. Finally, on the factual side, the Plaintiffs' claims turn on the supposed right to keep their A-1 units despite the merger, and the attendant continuing existence of A-1 units after the merger. As he explained, the Judge notes no such right existed and therefore the A-1 units were extinguished. Judge Martinez will grant judgment as a matter of law against the Plaintiffs on their unjust enrichment claim (Count 8). For these reasons, Judge Martinez granted the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. He vacated the Final Trial Preparation Conference currently set for Dec. 18, 2017 at 11:00 a.m., and the 14-day jury trial scheduled to begin on Jan. 16, 2018. The Clerk will enter final judgment in favor of all the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, and will terminate the case. The Defendants will have their costs upon compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/Mvip3u from Leagle.com. Steven A. Stender, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth A. Wexler -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP. Steven A. Stender, Plaintiff, represented by Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, Christopher James Stuart, Wexler Wallace, LLP, Daniel Charles Girard, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Edward Anthony Wallace --eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP, Jordan S. Elias, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Kara A. Elgersma -- kae@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP, Maria J. Ciccia, Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, Mark Richard Miller -- mrm@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP, Renee Beth Taylor -- rtaylor@bader-associates.com -- Bader & Associates, LLC, Rick D. Bailey, Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, PC & Thomas Arthur Doyle -- tad@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP. Harold Silver, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler Wallace, LLP, Kara A. Elgersma, Wexler Wallace, LLP, Mark Richard Miller, Wexler Wallace, LLP & Thomas Arthur Doyle, Wexler Wallace, LLP. Infinity Clark Street Operating LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler Wallace, LLP, Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, Christopher James Stuart, Daniel Charles Girard, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Edward Anthony Wallace, Wexler Wallace, LLP, Jordan S. Elias, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Kara A. Elgersma, Wexler Wallace, LLP, Maria J. Ciccia, Mark Richard Miller, Wexler Wallace, LLP, Renee Beth Taylor, Bader & Associates, LLC, Rick D. Bailey, Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, PC & Thomas Arthur Doyle, Wexler Wallace, LLP. Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes -- jonathan.polkes@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers -- AMyers@LRRLaw.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi -- ashish.gandhi@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka -- caroline.zalka@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser -- elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann -- FBaumann@LRRLaw.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy -- melanie.conroy@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Ralph I. Miller -- ralph.miller@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert -- raquel.kellert@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP. Archstone-Smith Trust, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Ralph I. Miller, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP. Ernest A. Gerardi, Jr., Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP. Ruth Ann M. Gillis, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP. Ned S. Holmes, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP. Robert P. Kogod, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP. James H. Polk, III, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP. John C. Schweitzer, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP. R. Scot Sellers, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann & Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP. Robert H. Smith, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Alex C. Myers, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, Justin David D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Melanie A. Conroy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP. BANK OF THE WEST: Faces "Stahl" Suit over Debit Card Charges ------------------------------------------------------------ MONAH STAHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF THE WEST, the Defendant, Case No. BC673397 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks to recover damages and other relief arising from Bank of the West's routine practice of charging standard overdraft fees on one-time debit card transactions, in violation of its contract with accountholders In this case, Bank of the West charged Plaintiff $35.00 in overdraft fees when she used her debit card to pay for one-time Lyft and Uber ride transactions even though such fees are not authorized for everyday debit card transactions. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recoup the fee she paid and to represent all individuals in the United States who were charged similar overdraft fees on one-time debit card transactions in violation of Bank of the West's Disclosures. Bank of the West is a regional financial services company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is a subsidiary of BNP Paribas. It has more than 600 branches and offices in the Midwest and Western United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973 0900 Facsimile: (202) 973 0950 E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com -and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq. McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557 1250 Facsimile: (909) 557 1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com jkk@mccumwright.com -and - Taras Kick, Esq. Robert Dart, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 201 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Robert@kicklawfirm.com BEST YET EXPRESS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------- ELISEO GUZMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BEST YET EXPRESS INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC678801 (Cal Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked. For at least 4 years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees or former employees within the State of California a 30 minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees worked more than five hours in a workday and a second 30 minute uninterrupted meal periods for days on which the employees worked in excess of 10 hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws. Best Yet is doing business in California transportation and warehousing industry for over 30 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone (310) 553 3600 Facsimile (310) 553 3603 BLINK HOLDINGS: "Diaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Diaz, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Blink Holdings, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 711881/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including her maximum liquidated damages, including maximum liquidated damages on all wages paid later than weekly, prejudgment interest, maximum recovery for violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL), reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of the action. The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 901 et seq., on behalf of herself and a class of other similarly-situated current and former employees who were employed by Defendant as manual workers, within the six-year period preceding the filing of this action to the date of disposition of this action, that she and the class members: 1) were employed by Defendant within the State of New York as manual workers; 2) entitled to maximum liquidated damages (for the period after April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid overtime wages and non- overtime wages later than weekly; and 3) entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL) sections 191, 198, and the regulations thereunder. They also seek an injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate the weekly payment requirement for manual workers set forth in NYLL 191.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com BLUE APRON: "Speiser" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID SPEISER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, 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 and BRADLEY J. DICKERSON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-06517 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Blue Apron securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to Blue Apron's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about June 29, 2017; and/or (2) on the open market between June 29, 2017 and August 9, 2017, both dates inclusive. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) rather than continue to significantly increase spending on advertising, Blue Apron had already decided to significantly reduce spending on advertising in Q2 2017, which would hurt sales and profit margins in future quarters; (ii) Blue Apron was already experiencing adverse on-time in-full rates, meaning orders were not arriving on time or with all the ingredients needed, which was hurting customer retention; (iii) the Company had encountered delays in Q2 2017 associated with its new factory in Linden, New Jersey, a factory which is expected to eventually account for more than half of the meal kits Blue Apron sells; (iv) existing and already-materialized delays at the Company's new factory in Linden were resulting in additional delays in new product rollouts, which was limiting Blue Apron's ability to gain new customers and retain existing ones; (v) the foregoing delays would hurt the Company's bottom line in the near-term, particularly affecting the important metric of lifetime value per customer (i.e., the net profit Blue Apron makes off a customer); (vi) the Company was unable to fully execute its new product initiatives; (vii) Blue Apron had already decided it would be forced to change its strategic approach in managing the business for the remainder of 2017; and (viii) as a result of the foregoing, Blue Apron's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides meal-kit delivery services. Blue Apron sends weekly boxes of pre-portioned ingredients with instructions for customers to cook meals at home. Founded in 2012, Blue Apron is headquartered in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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 pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Sharon" Suit in E.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAC Financial Corp. The case is styled as Ella Sharon, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. CAC Financial Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05174 (E.D. N.Y., September 1, 2017). CAC Financial provides financial services and accounts receivable solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CALIBER HOME: "Razuki" Suit Moved to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled SALAM RAZUKI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIV 37-2017-00026373, was removed on Aug. 25, 2017 from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01718-LAB-WVG to the proceeding. Salam Rakuzi filed the State Court Action against Caliber on July 18, 2017. The four claims alleged in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint are: (1) negligence; (2) violation of the right to privacy under California Constitution Article 1, Section 1; (3) violation of Unfair Competition Law and; (4) violation of the California Information Practices Act. Caliber Home is an Irving, Texas-based home mortgage originator and servicer established in 2013 by the merger of Caliber Funding and Vericrest Financial. The firm is owned by affiliates of private equity fund manager Lone Star Funds.[BN] Attorneys for Caliber Home Loans, Inc. Spencer Persson, Esq. Matthew D. Spohn, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 E-mail: spencer.persson@nortonrosefulbright.com matt.spohn@nortonrosefulbright.com CELGENE CORP: IUB Litigation Still Pending in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- Celgene Corporation continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit filed by the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the Company violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories (Barr) allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of the Company's THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products; and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits against Barr and Natco Pharma Limited in order to allegedly delay those companies from obtaining approval for proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third party payers, is seeking injunctive relief and damages. On February 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss IUB's complaint. On March 3, 2015, the City of Providence ("Providence") filed a similar putative class action making similar allegations. Both IUB and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of third party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages. Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's complaint. A supplemental motion to dismiss Providence's state law claims was filed on April 20, 2015. On October 30, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss on all grounds. Celgene filed its Answer to the IUB and Providence complaints on January 11, 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs - International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, The Detectives' Endowment Association, Inc. and David Mitchell. The Company said, "Counsel identified the new complaint as related to the IUB and Providence cases and intends to move to consolidate the complaints. The completion of fact discovery and expert discovery is scheduled for February 1, 2018 and July 15, 2018, respectively. No trial date has been set. We intend to vigorously defend against these claims." Celgene Corporation discovers, develops, and commercializes therapies to treat cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The Company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey. CENTURYLINK INC: "Thummeti" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled AMARENDRA THUMMETI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTURYLINK, INC., GLEN F. POST III and R. STEWART EWING JR., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04695, was transferred on Aug. 23, 2017 from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for Western District of Louisiana (Monroe). The Louisiana Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01065-RGJ-JPM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert G James. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired CenturyLink securities between February 27, 2014 and June 15, 2017, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials. CenturyLink provides various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the United States. It operates through two segments, Business and Consumer. The company offers broadband, Ethernet, colocation, video entertainment and satellite digital television services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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 pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CLARK COUNTY, IN: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hoffman" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Amy Bennett, Nathan Clifford, Joshua Foley, Destiny Hoffman and Ashleigh Santiago filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Destiny Hoffman, et al. v. Susan Knoebel, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00012-SEB-TAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was brought by former and current Clark County Drug Treatment Court participants alleging mistreatment by Clark County employees. The Defendants include former drug court director Susan Knoebel; and then-suspended Circuit Court No. 2 bailiff and former drug court field officer Jeremy Snelling; Clark County Circuit Court No. 2 Judge Jerry Jacobi, who oversaw the drug court program; and drug court case manager and Clark County Probation Department employee Josh Seybold. The appellate case is captioned as Destiny Hoffman, et al. v. Susan Knoebel, et al., Case No. 17-2750, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 8, 2017; and -- Appellants' brief is due on or before October 4, 2017, for Amy Bennett, Nathan Clifford, Joshua Foley, Destiny Hoffman and Ashleigh Santiago.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DESTINY HOFFMAN, On behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, NATHAN CLIFFORD, JOSHUA FOLEY, ASHLEIGH SANTIAGO and AMY BENNETT are represented by: Brennan Soergel, Esq. BOLUS LAW OFFICES 600 W. Main Street Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 584-1210 E-mail: brennan@boluslaw.com Defendants-Appellees SUSAN KNOEBEL and JEREMY SNELLING are represented by: James S. Stephenson, Esq. STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER, P.C. 3077 E. 98th Street Indianapolis, IN 46280 Telephone: (317) 844-3830 Facsimile: (317) 573-4194 E-mail: jstephenson@stephlaw.com Defendants-Appellees JOSH SEYBOLD and DANNY RODDEN, Clark County Sheriff, are represented by: Robert Jeffrey Lowe, Esq. KIGHTLINGER & GRAY LLP 3620 Blackiston Boulevard New Albany, IN 47150-0000 Telephone: (812) 949-2300 Facsimile: (812) 949-8556 E-mail: jlowe@k-glaw.com Defendant-Appellee JEROME JACOBI, Judge, is represented by: David A. Arthur, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 302 W. Washington Street Indiana Government Center South Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770 Telephone: (317) 232-6286 Facsimile: (317) 232-7979 E-mail: David.Arthur@atg.in.gov CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Aug. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of holders of ClubCorp Holdings, Inc. ("ClubCorp") (NYSE:MYCC) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of ClubCorp by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its affiliates (together, "Apollo") announced on July 9, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against ClubCorp, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Apollo, is captioned Berg v. ClubCorp Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02127 (D. Nev.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On July 9, 2017, ClubCorp entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Apollo. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, shareholders of ClubCorp will receive $17.12 in cash for each share of ClubCorp stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2017. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that ClubCorp stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to ClubCorp's financial projections, the analyses performed by ClubCorp's financial advisor, and potential conflicts of interest. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of ClubCorp common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 27, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN] CONNECTICUT: Faces Class Action Over Medicare Observation Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levin & Perconti reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Connecticut against the government, citing Medicare's observation status rule as being an unfair policy that has dwindled the life savings of many. Observation status is when a hospital classifies a patient as such instead of as an admitted inpatient, a distinction meaning very little in terms of the care provided. An admitted patient is also able to receive nursing home care after discharge according to Medicare. In order to be able to receive nursing home coverage, an admitted patient must be treated for 3 nights at a hospital. Unlike a patient classified as 'admitted' to a hospital, hospital charges for those listed as observation status are filed under Medicare Part B, which requires a monthly premium payment, an out of pocket payment until a deductible is met, as well as a 20% copay for all Medicare-approved services. Nursing home care after discharge is not covered under Medicare for patients classified as observation status. If a patient has not enrolled in Medicare Part B and is listed as observation status, that patient has to pay the entire hospital bill out of pocket. The class action, filed by the Center for Medicare Advocacy, seeks to give patients the right to appeal observation status, a right that is currently not afforded to Medicare recipients. The suit asks that interested patients who were listed as observation status from January 1, 2009 on be eligible for inclusion in the class. Observation Status Increasing While the inability to appeal observation status has long been an issue, the hurt has intensified by the relatively recent push for hospitals to slash readmission rates within 30 days of discharge. As a result, hospitals are putting more Medicare patients on observation status, which allows them to avoid classifying a patient as being admitted. A lower number of admitted inpatients translates into a lower number of readmitted patients. The Naples Daily News cited a Brown University study that found 918,000 Medicare recipients had been placed on observation status in 2009 alone. With readmission rates under a watchful eye, experts estimate that number of Medicare recipients placed on observation status in recent years has grown even larger than 2009 levels. Another factor influencing rising observation status designations is that Medicare has been closely watching hospitals with high admittance numbers of Medicare patients. The reason for the increased scrutiny lies in the fact that Medicare reimbursement is greater for those who are technically admitted vs. those that are listed under observation status. The higher the number of admitted patients, the more suspicion a hospital draws. While the lawsuit was just given the ok by a federal judge to proceed, the first hurdle has been cleared, giving hope to many that they may be able to appeal a decision that they were never given a part in making. [GN] CORELOGIC INC: Class Certification Bid in "Witt" Lawsuit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for class certification is pending in the "Witt" class action lawsuit against a unit of CoreLogic, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. The case, Witt v. CoreLogic National Background Data, et al., was filed in June 2015 by the same attorneys in a pending class action captioned Tyrone Henderson, et al., v. CoreLogic National Background Data., alleging the same claim against CoreLogic National Background Data, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Background Data, LLC) ("CBD"). Specifically, plaintiffs in the Henderson case allege violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and have pled a putative class claim relating to CBD's return of criminal record data in response to search queries initiated by its consumer reporting agency customers, which then prepare and transmit employment background screening reports to their employer customers. Plaintiffs contend that CBD failed to send notice letters to consumers each time search results were returned to CBD's consumer reporting agency customers. Witt also names as a defendant CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC) ("RPS")) on the theory that RPS provides criminal record "reports" to CBD at the same time that CBD delivers reports to CBD's consumer reporting agency customers. Witt is pending in the same court and before the same judge as Henderson, and the two cases have been deemed related by the Court. In April 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to certify a class of consumers for whom Virginia criminal record data was returned that did not reflect a year of birth associated with the record. That motion is fully briefed and remains pending. CoreLogic, Inc. provides property information, analytics, and data-enabled services in North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. It was formerly known as The First American Corporation and changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc. was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. CREDIT ONE: Faces "Tinker" Suit over Robocalls ---------------------------------------------- RICHARD TINKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., a national banking association, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00157-LJA (M.D. Ga., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks redress on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to whose cellular telephone number a call was initiated by Defendant using an automatic telephone dialing system without the prior express consent of the called party. The Defendant is a national banking association with its principal place of business located at 585 Pilot Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. James M. Feagle, Esq. Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq. Kris Skaar, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 2374 Main Street, Suite B Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (404) 373 1970 Facsimile: (404) 601 1855 E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Joseph McClelland, Esq. JOSEPH P. MCCLELLAND, LLC 545 N. McDonough St. Ste. 210 Post Office Box 164 Decatur, GA 30031 Telephone: (770) 775 0938 Facsimile: (770) 775 0932 CVS: Plaintiff Drops Suit Over Generic Drug Pricing Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- Eric Sagonowsky, writing for FiercePharma, reports that after making a series of allegations that pharmacy giant CVS was gouging generic drug consumers who paid with insurance, the plaintiff in a proposed class action lawsuit dropped her claims. In the suit, plaintiff Megan Schulz alleged she paid more through insurance to get a generic drug than if she'd just paid cash. The suit also alleged pharmacy "copays" were really payments to pharmacy benefit managers, set up by confidential deals. CVS refuted the allegations and said in a statement on Aug. 25 that it's pleased the suit has been dismissed. After seeing the lawsuit, CVS got in touch with the law firm about "numerous factual misstatements that, when corrected, make it clear that the plaintiff named in the suit was not overcharged for her prescriptions," a spokesperson told FiercePharma. "The complaint contained numerous demonstrably false assertions that a reasonable pre-filing investigation by the law firm would have discovered," CVS's spokesperson said via email on Aug. 25. "As such, we are pleased that the suit has been voluntarily dismissed." The firm that represented the plaintiffs, Hagens Berman, isn't walking away from the allegations altogether, though. "We plan to refile the lawsuit against CVS related to its generic drug pricing scheme promptly," managing partner Steve Berman said in a statement on Aug. 28. "Our case against Walgreens was not dismissed and will remain on file until we achieve a just outcome for consumers." The lawsuits made major waves earlier this month, garnering coverage in dozens of publications and spreading rapidly on social media. Shortly after filing the CVS claim, Hagens Berman followed up with another against one of CVS's peers, Walgreens. The lawsuits came as public frustration with drug pricing mounted in recent months, prompting lawmakers to propose a variety of measures to tackle costs. None has gained traction in Congress, and many states are now taking the issue into their own hands. In addition to the pharma industry, pricing attention has also spread to other segments of the drug business, such as pharmacy benefit managers. The middlemen have been thrust into the spotlight in part thanks to efforts by the pharmaceutical industry to highlight growing rebates and discounts. PBMs have countered that their tough negotiations save billions in healthcare costs. [GN] DEUTSCHE BANK: Litigation on Behalf of RMBS Trusts Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (DBTCA) still defends itself against a derivative and class action complaint filed on behalf of private-label RMBS trusts, according to COMM 2013-CCRE12 Mortgage Trust's Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from June 13, 2017 to July 12, 2017. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of US$89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court. In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of US$9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed. On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed. On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers. On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Bid for Atty's Fees Partly Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees in the case captioned DL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 05-cv-1437-RCL (D.D.C.). This case, originally filed in 2005, was brought by the parents of preschool age children with various disabilities who tried to obtain special education services from the District of Columbia Public Schools, alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), the Rehabilitation Act, and District of Columbia law, which require that the District offer a free and appropriate public education to disabled children. The Plaintiffs alleged numerous knowing, pervasive, and systemic failures to comply with the "Child Find" requirement. It is sufficient to note that the Plaintiffs ultimately brought claims related to four subclasses: (i) disabled three-to-five-year-olds whom the District failed to identify for the purpose of offering special education services; (ii) disabled three-to-five-year-olds whom the District failed to give an initial evaluation within 120 days of being referred for special education services; (iii) disabled three-to-five-year-olds whom the District failed to give an eligibility determination -- i.e., a decision as to whether they qualify for IDEA services -- within 120 days of being referred; and (iv) all children who transitioned from early intervention to preschool programs, and whom the District denied a smooth transition by age three. In 2014, the Court found that the District was liable for violating the IDEA and District law for the period up to April 6, 2011 for all four subclasses. It ruled for the Defendants, however, on (i) the Plaintiffs' IDEA and District law claims related to the failure timely to evaluate children for special education and related services for the period from April 6, 2011 to the present [Subclass 2], and (ii) all of the Plaintiffs' Rehabilitation Act claims for the period from March 22, 2010 to the present. Then, at trial, the Plaintiffs alleged that the District violated the IDEA with respect to Subclasses 1, 3, and 4 from April 6, 2011 through the present, and that the District violated the Rehabilitation Act with respect to all four subclasses for the period up to March 22, 2010. After trial, the Court found that the District had violated the IDEA with respect to Subclasses 1, 3, and 4 from April 6, 2011 through the first day of trial (Nov. 12, 2015), and that it violated the Rehabilitation Act with respect to all four subclasses through March 22, 2010. On May 18, 2016, the Court found that the Plaintiffs have prevailed on both IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Pursuant to the IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act, the District will pay the Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and related nontaxable expenses associated with litigating the suit. The Plaintiffs now request fees for two periods of time: (i) through Nov. 16, 2011 (Period 1); from Nov. 17, 2011 to June 22, 2016 (Period 2). They originally requested fees and costs totaling $10,010,956, using the current rates set out in the LSI Matrix. After briefing, they now request $9,760,487.55 using LSI Matrix rates. The law firm of Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP ("TPM"), the lead counsel in the case, requests fees totaling $8,962,597.98 and costs totaling $259,409.83. Prof. Jeffrey S. Gutman, who oversaw a clinic at The George Washington University Law School in which students worked on the case, requests fees totaling $135,476.32. Co-counsel Margaret A. Kohn, who served as class counsel and the primary contact with the Named Plaintiffs, requests fees totaling $380,009.56 and costs totaling $1,727.61. Co-counsel Cyrus Mehri, who performed work related to class certification and settlement, requests fees totaling $21,266.25. The District argues that the Court should award fees using the USAO Matrix, and should use historic (2012) rates with interest for Period 1, and current rates for Period 2. It also argues that the requested fees should be reduced because the Plaintiffs billed an unreasonable number of hours for many tasks, because they improperly billed for matters in which they failed to prevail, and because they failed to exercise reasonable billing judgment. It also argues that fees for co-counsel should be reduced substantially or denied. Furthermore, it argues that the Plaintiffs' costs are excessive and should be reduced significantly, and that expert fees are not reimbursable. Finally, the District argues that the IDEA's statutory fee cap requires that the Court deny the Plaintiffs' request unless and until the Plaintiffs demonstrate actual class membership. The United States has submitted a statement of interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 517, and argues that the USAO Matrix is the appropriate fee matrix to use in this and other cases. Judge Lamberth granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs. He explains that the IDEA fee caps do not apply in the case. Fees will be calculated according to the lodestar method of multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by reasonable hourly rates. Hourly rates will be determined by current USAO Matrix rates. The Plaintiffs will multiple these rates by the number of hours billed for each timekeeper -- after all of the aforementioned voluntary reductions -- less the 101.64 hours the Court has identified as non-compensable clerical work billed by paralegals. After this calculation, the Plaintiffs' fee award will be reduced by 5% for lack of success. It will not be further reduced for issues such as lack of billing judgment, unreasonable number of hours, block billing, or vagueness. The fee awards for Margaret Kohn, Jeffrey Gutman, and Cyrus Mehri will also not be reduced any further, the Judge says. The Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable costs. They will be reimbursed for travel, telephone, and Westlaw/Lexis expenses, but will not be reimbursed for overnight delivery of overtime services. They will be reimbursed 50% of their printing costs. Finally, the Plaintiffs are entitled to $121,207.82 in expert fees. Given the number of attorneys and paralegals in this case with different billing rates, the voluminous number of hours, and various reductions to those hours, both voluntary and involuntary, Judge Lamberth did not at this time calculate the total fee award. Instead, in order to ensure that the correct calculations are performed in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion, he ordered the Plaintiffs to submit new fee and cost award calculations in accordance with the aforementioned findings. The Plaintiffs will calculate the fees due under the current USAO Matrix, and will then reduce those fees by 5%. The Plaintiffs will also calculate their costs for travel, telephone, and Westlaw/Lexis expenses, as well as 50% of their printing expenses. The Judge will review their submission, and will allow the District to respond, before ordering the District to reimburse the Plaintiffs the requested amount. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/CrfwES from Leagle.com. DL, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP. DL, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri -- cmehri@findjustice.com. -- MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn -- Margaret.Kohn07@gmail.com -- LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN. TAMEKA FORD, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN. JB, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN. LEAH BLAND, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN. FD, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN. FREDERICK DAVY, Parent and Next Friend of FD, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN. MONICA DAVY, Parent and Next Friend of FD, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN. TF, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN. ANGELIQUE MOORE, Parent and Next Friend of TF - On their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Todd A. Gluckman, TERRIS, PRAVIK & MILLIAN, LLP, Carolyn Smith Pravlik, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, L.L.P., Cyrus Mehri, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Kathleen Lillian Millian, TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP & Margaret A. Kohn, LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by Chad Wayne Copeland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Daniel Albert Rezneck, OFFICE OF THE D.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Matthew Robert Blecher, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Robert C. Utiger, DC OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Samuel C. Kaplan -- skaplan@bsfllp.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP. MICHELLE RHEE, Defendant, represented by Chad Wayne Copeland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Matthew Robert Blecher, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MICHELLE RHEE, Chancellor, Defendant, represented by Samuel C. Kaplan, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP. DEBORAH GIST, Defendant, represented by Chad Wayne Copeland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Matthew Robert Blecher, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Samuel C. Kaplan, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Interested Party, represented by Peter C. Pfaffenroth, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. DOMETIC CORP: Faces "Klenk" Suit over Defective Cooling Units ------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE ZUCCONI and TIMOTHY KLENK, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOMETIC CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23197-CMA (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks to recover damages for any of the personal injuries that have resulted from fires or inhalation of harmful gases. The lawsuit says the Plaintiffs' recreational vehicles (RV's) were engulfed in flames and rendered total losses as a result of fires caused by the defective cooling units installed on the Dometic gas absorption refrigerators in their RV's. They bring this class action to address the inherent latent design defects in the cooling units and the business practices implemented by Defendant for more than a decade in connection with its manufacture and sale of these cooling units and its efforts to conceal the defective design. Many hundreds of thousands of consumers have purchased RVs equipped with refrigerators manufactured by Dometic. Dometic's refrigerators exhibit an identical and dangerous, inherent design defect in their cooling units (the "Defective Cooling Units") that is present at the point of sale but not visible or disclosed to consumers. The lawsuit alleges Dometic has known for over a decade that the Defective Cooling Units in question shared the uniform design defect but has not fixed the inherent defect or warned consumers of the serious and potentially lethal dangers of the use of the cooling units. Dometic's Defective Cooling Unit is a separate replaceable part that attaches to the back of the refrigerator box. It is uniform in design and operation and does not differ in any material way by the refrigerator model number. In fact, when a Defective Cooling Unit leaks but does not ignite, a consumer can replace the Defective Cooling Unit without harming the refrigerator box. Dometic Group is a Swedish manufacturer whose core business is climate, hygiene, sanitation, food and beverage applications within the RV, marine, and automotive industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. Stephanie Moncada Gomez KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372 1800 Facsimile: (305) 372 3508 E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com gam@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com sgomez@kttlaw.com - and - Lance A. Harke, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP 9699 NE Second Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Telephone: (305) 536 8220 Facsimile: (305) 536 8229 E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com hbushman@harkeclasby.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348 6400 Facsimile: (480) 348 6415 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Jack Scarola, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686 6300 Facsimile: (561) 383 9451 E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com DOW CHEMICAL: Rocky Flats Class Action Suit Has Been Concluded -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that there are no outstanding balances in the consolidated balance sheets at June 30 related to a class action lawsuit involving property owners in Rocky Flats, Colorado. The Company previously recorded US$131 million in "Accounts and notes receivable - Other" and US$130 million in "Accrued and other current liabilities" at December 31, 2016 related to the escrow. The Company and Rockwell International Corporation ("Rockwell") (collectively, the "defendants") were defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 1990 on behalf of property owners ("plaintiffs") in Rocky Flats, Colorado, who asserted claims for nuisance and trespass based on alleged property damage caused by plutonium releases from a nuclear weapons facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") (the "facility") but operated by Dow and Rockwell. The plaintiffs tried their case as a public liability action under the Price Anderson Act ("PAA"). Dow and Rockwell litigated this matter in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ("District Court"), the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On May 18, 2016, Dow, Rockwell and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement for US$375 million, of which US$131 million was paid by Dow. The DOE authorized the settlement pursuant to the PAA and the nuclear hazards indemnity provisions contained in Dow's and Rockwell's contracts. The District Court granted preliminary approval to the class settlement on August 5, 2016. On April 28, 2017, the District Court conducted a fairness hearing and granted final judgment approving the class settlement and dismissed class claims against the defendants ("final judgment order"). The litigation is now concluded. On December 13, 2016, the United States Civil Board of Contract Appeals unanimously ordered the United States government to pay the amounts stipulated in the settlement agreement. On January 17, 2017, the Company received a full indemnity payment of US$131 million from the United States government for Dow's share of the class settlement. On January 26, 2017, the Company placed US$130 million in an escrow account for the settlement payment owed to the plaintiffs. The funds were subsequently released from escrow as a result of the final judgment order. At June 30, 2017, there are no outstanding balances in the consolidated balance sheets related to this matter (US$131 million included in "Accounts and notes receivable - Other" and US$130 million included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" at December 31, 2016). The Dow Chemical Company manufactures and supplies products that are used as raw materials in the manufacture of customer's products and services worldwide. It operates in five segments: Agricultural Sciences, Consumer Solutions, Infrastructure Solutions, Performance Materials & Chemicals, and Performance Plastics segments. The Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Midland, Michigan. EDISON INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Edison International is awaiting court ruling on a motion to dismiss the third amended securities complaint related to San Onofre, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. In July 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison International, its then Chief Executive Officer and its then Chief Financial Officer. The complaint was later amended to include subsidiary Southern California Edison Company's former President as a defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose that Edison International had ex parte contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San Onofre OII that were either unreported or more extensive than initially reported. The initial complaint purported to be filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired Edison International common stock between March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class Period"). In September 2016, the federal court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the federal court dismissed again with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in May 2017, which extends the Class Period to August 10, 2015. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in June 2017, and are awaiting a ruling. Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the United States. The Company generates electricity through hydroelectric, diesel, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic sources. It supplies electricity primarily to commercial, residential, industrial, agricultural, and other customers, as well as public authorities through transmission and distribution networks. Edison International was incorporated in 1987 and is based in Rosemead, California. EDISON INT'L: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit Set in October ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edison International disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a class action lawsuit alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act will be heard by the court in October 2017. In November 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison International, its then Chief Executive Officer and its Treasurer by an Edison International employee, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of Edison International employees who were participants in the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and invested in the Edison International Stock Fund between March 27, 2014 and June 24, 2015. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties because they knew or should have known that investment in the Edison International Stock Fund was imprudent because the price of Edison International common stock was artificially inflated due to Edison International's alleged failure to disclose certain ex parte communications with CPUC decision-makers related to the San Onofre OII. In July 2016, the federal court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2016, that dismissed Edison International as a named defendant and the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2016. These defendants' motion was heard by the court in November 2016. In June 2017, the federal court again granted defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in early July 2017. Defendants have filed motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which will be heard by the court in October 2017. Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the United States. The Company generates electricity through hydroelectric, diesel, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic sources. It supplies electricity primarily to commercial, residential, industrial, agricultural, and other customers, as well as public authorities through transmission and distribution networks. Edison International was incorporated in 1987 and is based in Rosemead, California. ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Oct. 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Aug. 28 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Envision Healthcare Corporation ("Envision" or the "Company") (NYSE: EVHC) between March 2, 2015 and July 21, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Envision securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than October 3, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions. Envision investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Envision Securities Class Litigation Envision, based in Nashville, Tennessee, through its subsidiary EmCare Holdings, Inc. ("EmCare"), is one of the largest physician staffing companies for hospital emergency rooms in the United States. The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) EmCare routinely engaged in "surprise billing," whereby EmCare arranged for patients seeking treatment at in-network facilities to be treated by out-of-network physicians, and subsequently charged significantly higher billing rates; (ii) for this reason, the Company's statements during the Class Period attributing EmCare's growth to other factors were false and/or misleading; and (iii) Envision's revenues from EmCare were not be sustainable. On July 24, 2017, The New York Times reported that a study conducted by researchers at Yale University found that hospital emergency rooms run by EmCare were much more likely to engage in surprise billing. According to the Times, out of a sample of 194 hospitals emergency rooms run by EmCare, for example, the study found an average out-of-network billing rate of 62%, far higher than the national average. On this news, the price of Envision common stock fell $2.33 per share, or 3.72%, to close at $60.28 per share on July 24, 2017, on elevated trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle -- http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. [GN] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Corcia" Suit in S.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as David Corcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv- 06689 (S.D. N.Y., September 1, 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 appears PRO SE. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Still Faces Putative Class Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- First American Financial Corporation still defends in a number of non-ordinary course lawsuits, most of which are putative class actions, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also pertain to the Company's other businesses. In a case alleging the defendants charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance transaction (Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho), a court has granted class certification in Lewis. The Company said that it has been unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss. The cases alleging that the defendants misclassified certain employees include: * Cruz v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on November 25, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, * Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and * Weber v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., filed on April 17, 2015 and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. These lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. The Company said that it has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is not material to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole. The cases alleging that the defendants overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services, conspired to fix prices, participated in the conveyance of illusory property interests, denied home warranty claims, improperly handled property and casualty claims, and gave items of value to brokers and others as inducements to refer business in violation of certain laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations, include: * Chavez v. First American Specialty Insurance Company, filed on June 29, 2017 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, * Downing v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on July 26, 2016 and pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, * Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, * Lennen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on May 19, 2016 and pending in the United States District court for the Middle District of Florida, * McCormick v. First American Real Estate Services, Inc., et al., filed on December 31, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, * Tenefufu vs. First American Specialty Insurance Company, filed on June 1, 2017, pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and * In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman, Kirk and Sjobring, are putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a class was certified but that certification was subsequently vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded and the judgment has been affirmed on appeal. The Company said that it has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is not material to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole. First American Financial Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides financial services. It operates through Title Insurance and Services, and Specialty Insurance segments. First American Financial Corporation was incorporated in 2008 and is based in Santa Ana, California. FORTERRA INC: Faces "Spindler" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Spindler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forterra, Inc., Jeffrey Bradley, William Matthew Brown, Lori M. Browne, Kyle S. Volluz, Kevin Barner, Robert Corcoran, Samuel D. Loughlin, Clint Mcdonnough, John Mcpherson, Chris Meyer, Jacques Sarrazin, Chadwick Suss, and Grant Wilbeck, Case No. 2:17-cv-04978 (E.D.N.Y., August 23, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) at the time of the IPO, organic sales in Forterra's Drainage and Water segments had significantly declined; (ii) the Company was experiencing increased pricing pressure due to competition and continued softness in its concrete and steel pipe business; (iii) Forterra had been losing business in its important pipe and precast business due to in large part to operational problems at its production plants; (iv) the Company had undisclosed material weaknesses in its internal controls that prevented it from accurately reporting and forecasting its financial results; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Forterra's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, the complaints asserts. Forterra, Inc. manufactures water and drainage pipes and various precast products. [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 FP STORES: "Hunt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages California Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE HUNT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FP STORES, INC. aka FALLAS-PAREDES NATIONAL DISCOUNT STORES, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC673955 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages in the form of rest and meal period compensation, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants consistently maintained and enforced against Defendants' Non-Exempt Employees, among others, the following unlawful practices and policies, in violation of California state wage and hour laws: a) failing to provide proper meal and rest periods, b) failing to timely pay all wages earned upon separation from Defendants, c) failing to provide proper and accurate employee itemized wage statements, and d) failing to pay all wages. FP Stores operates a chain of off-price stores in the United States. Its stores offer clothing for men, ladies, boys, girls, juniors, infants, and toddlers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Caldwell, Esq. WILLIAM S. CALDWELL, APLC 9891 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 130 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 244 2547 E-mail: william@wsc-law.com GARDA CL: "Lane" Suit Seeks Unpaid Premium Wages under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALI LANE, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. GARDA CL WEST, INC., a California corporation; GARDA CL TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; GARDA SUPPLIES, RENTAL & SERVICES LTD., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC673544 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid premium wages under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants (a) failed to provide him and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods, (b) failed to provide them with rest periods, (c) failed to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, (d) failed to pay them for all hours worked, (e) failed to pay overtime wages at the correct rate, (f) failed to pay double time wages at the correct rate, (g) failed to reimburse them for all business expenses; (h) failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements, (i) failed to timely pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. Based on these alleged violations, Plaintiff now brings this class and representative action to recover unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated overtime wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com GENAERA CORP: 3d Cir. Partly Vacates Argyce Ruling in "Schmidt" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ALAN SCHMIDT, v. JOHN A. SKOLAS; LEANNE KELLY; JOHN L. ARMSTRONG, JR.; ZOLA B. HOROVITZ, Ph. D.; OSAGIE O. IMASOGIE; MITCHELL D. KAYE; ROBERT F. SHAPIRO; PAUL K. WOTTON; ROBERT DELUCCIA; DAVID LUCI; STEVE ROUHANDEH; JEFFREY DAVIS; MARK ALVINO; GENAERA LIQUIDATING TRUST; BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND, INC; LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; XMARK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; ARGYCE, LLC; JOHN L. HIGGINS; GENAERA CORPORATION; SCO FINANCIAL GROUP; MARK N. LAMPERT; DIPEXIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; MACROCHEM CORPORATION; ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS INC; BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND, LP; BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND II, LP; BVF, INC; XMARK OPPORTUNITY FUND, LP; XMARK OPPORTUNITY FUND LTD; XMARK JV INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC; XMARK OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS LLC. Alan W. Schmidt, Appellant, No. 15-3751 (3d Cir.), Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated and remanded in part, and affirmed in part the District Court's dismissal of the Schmidt's class action shareholder derivative suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). According to the complaint, the board of directors of biotechnology company Genaera voted in April 2009 to dissolve the company. On June 4, 2009, the Genaera shareholders, including Genaera's largest shareholder, XMark Capital Partners, LLC, approved the dissolution. Genaera director Mitchell Kaye was an officer of XMark. The next day, XMark sold a third of its Genaera shares at a price that was 1.6 times the average selling price for recent trading days. "Upon information and belief," Schmidt alleges that sale was prearranged. When Genaera was dissolved on June 12, 2009, its assets were transferred to a trust, pursuant to a trust agreement between Genaera and trustee Argyce, LLC, an entity run by John Skolas, a former Genaera CFO. Genaera shareholders received an interest in the trust. Argyce allegedly sold three of Genaera's assets for less than their worth. First, Genaera owned an interest in certain aminosterol compounds ("Aminosterol Assets"). In July 2009, the Trustee sold the Aminosterol Assets for $200,000 without public bidding. The complaint alleges that the board did not have the Aminosterol Assets appraised. Second, Genaera owned an interest in Pexiganan, a treatment for diabetic foot infections, which it licensed to MacroChem Corporation. In 2007, MacroChem paid $1 million for the license. MacroChem spent only $45,110 on developing Pexiganan in 2008. As a result of MacroChem's failure to develop the asset, in late 2009 the Trustee terminated MacroChem's licensing agreement. MacroChem executives Robert DeLuccia and David Luci formed an entity called Dipexium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Jan. 14, 2010 that purchased the Pexiganan license for $272,500. The sale lacked the royalty or sales-milestone payment obligations of MacroChem's agreement. Third, Genaera owned an interest in an IL9 antibody program for asthma, which it licensed to MedImmune, LLC, a subsidiary of AstraZeneca Corporation. In February 2008, Genaera indicated at an investor conference that the value of the IL9 program was $48 million. In May 2010, the Trustee sold the IL9 program to Ligand Pharmaceuticals for $2.75 million. Ligand then sold half of its interest in the program to BVF, Inc., Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P., and/or Biotechnology Value Fund II, L.P. ("BVF"), where Kaye is currently a managing director (it is not clear when he assumed that role). Schmidt filed the suit. He alleged breach of fiduciary duty against the Trustee and the directors and officers of Genaera ("D&O Defendants"), and aiding and abetting the breaches by the Trustee and the D&O Defendants against Dipexium ("Dipexium Defendants"), among other claims. The District Court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss. First, the District Court considered the breach of fiduciary duty claim against the D&O Defendants. Despite Kaye's involvement with XMark, the District Court concluded the XMark sale of Genaera stock after the dissolution announcement did not show disloyalty. Nor were the facts alleged sufficient, according to the District Court, to state a claim that the D&O Defendants breached their duty of care by failing to inform themselves about alternatives to dissolution. The District Court then rejected each alleged misrepresentation in the proxy statement. The Delaware law does not require directors to disclose all alternatives. Schmidt alleged that the proxy should have included more information about the value of Genaera's assets. According to the District Court, however, Schmidt did not allege that current valuations were within the board's control. Second, the District Court considered the breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Trustee for unlawful asset sales. The District Court concluded that Schmidt failed to allege gross negligence with the necessary specificity. Third, the District Court considered the claim against the Dipexium Defendants for aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty by the Trustee and the D&O Defendants. The District Court determined that Schmidt did not allege anything besides an arm's length transaction, despite the connection between Dipexium and MacroChem. Schmidt timely appealed. On appeal, Schmidt challenges dismissal of claims against the Trustee, the D&O Defendants, and the Dipexium Defendants. Judge Chagares concludes that the District Court erred in dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Trustee. Viewing all reasonable inferences in favor of Schmidt, and under enhanced scrutiny review, it is plausible that the Trustee acted with gross negligence and failed to maximize asset values. Accordingly, he reinstates the claim against the Trustee (Argyce) premised on the sale of the Aminosterol Assets and Pexiganan. However, he affirms dismissal of the allegations based on the sale of the IL9 program. Allegations of the difference in valuation and the subsequent sale to an entity affiliated with a former Genaera director (a sale that did not involve the Trustee) are insufficient alone to survive a motion to dismiss. The Judge further concludes that the District Court correctly dismissed Schmidt's claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the D&O Defendants. The business judgment rule applies, and the directors' actions are presumptively valid. The complaint fails to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the D&O Defendants. And, as a result, the Dipexium Defendants cannot be liable for aiding and abetting that insufficiently-pled breach. For these reasons, Judge Chagares vacated and remanded the District Court's order dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Trustee (except as to the IL9 program sale allegations and as to Skolas, personally), and affirmed the order dismissing the remaining claims. A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Aug. 25, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/mojt6c from Leagle.com. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Tangara" Suit over Defective AC Systems -------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMED TANGARA, and THOMAS L. BRENNAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12786-MOB-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks declaratory relief, judgment enjoining Defendant from continuing to disseminate its false and misleading statements relating to the sale of vehicles. This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of current and former GM vehicle owners and lessees whose vehicles suffer from a defective air conditioning system ("AC systems") resulting from systemic failure of the refrigerant hose that transmits refrigerant from the vehicles' compressor to the condenser in the following models: 2015 Cadillac Escalade models, 2014-15 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 models, 2015 Chevrolet Suburban models, 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe models, 2014-15 GMC Sierra 1500 models, and 2015 GMC Yukon models ("Class Vehicles"). This action arises from GM's fraudulent and misleading marketing, sale and warranting of Class Vehicles. GM marketed and sold the Vehicles as including a functioning AC system suited for its intended purposes, despite knowing prior to sale -- and failing to disclose to Plaintiffs and Class members -- that the AC system is defective and virtually guaranteed to fail because of GM's failure to adequately secure the refrigerant hose. As a result of the tremendous pressure to which the refrigerant hose is subjected while the AC system is in operation, as well to extreme vibration experienced during vehicle operation generally, the refrigerant hose will eventually shake loose, crack, leak and fail ("the Defect"). Further, if the Defect, which is latent but present in all Class Vehicles at the time of sale and all times thereafter, manifests while the AC system is in use, the AC system will suddenly cease to operate, causing the compressor to seize and necessitating additional costly repairs. General Motors Company, commonly known as GM, is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq. Bryan Clobes, Esq. Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 220 Collingwood Dr., Suite 130 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone: (734) 769 2144 Facsimile: (215) 864 2810 E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com bclobes@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com ctourek@caffertyclobes.com GENERAL WIRELESS: Faces "Hoskinson" Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Wireless Operations Inc. dba RadioShack. The case is styled as Calvin Hoskinson, Eric Vanderlip, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. General Wireless Operations Inc. dba RadioShack, Dene Rogers, Robert Lavan and DOES 1 through 40, Defendants, Case No. 17-51043-BLS (D. Del, September 1, 2017). General Wireless Operations, Inc. is an American chain of wireless and electronics stores, founded in 1921 and since 2017 has 70 remaining corporate locations, an online website, and approximately 500 independently owned franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel I. Barness, Esq. Barness & Barness LLP 11377 West Olympic Blvd. 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: (310) 594-3011 Fax: (310) 473-8700 Email: Daniel@BarnessLaw.com - and - Julia Bettina Klein, Esq. Klein LLC 919 N. Market Street, Suite 600 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 438-0456 Email: klein@kleinllc.com - and - Mia Munro, Esq. KESLUK, SILVERSTEIN, & JACOB, PC 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411 P.O. Box 9729 Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309 Tel: (310) 273-3180 Email: Mmunro@californialaborlawattorney.com - and - Douglas N. Silverstein, Esq. KESLUK, SILVERSTEIN, & JACOB, PC 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411 Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309 Tel: (310) 273-3180 Email: Dsilverstein@californialawattorney.com GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiffs/Counsel in "Rice" Suit Named ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ALEXANDER RICE, Individually And on behalf of all others Similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENWORTH FINANCIAL INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17cv59 (E.D. Va.), Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 478 Pension Fund's motion seeking to be named the Lead Plaintiff and seeking approval of the Union's counsel as the Lead Counsel; and granted Plaintiffs Rice and Brian James' Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. On Oct. 21, 2016, a Merger Agreement was executed between Genworth and China Oceanwide. On Oct. 23, 2016, Genworth and China Oceanwide issued a press release announcing that the companies had reached an Agreement and Plan of Merger, whereby Genworth would be acquired by China Oceanwide. On Dec. 21, 2016, the Genworth filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission which provided that Genworth stockholders should exchange their shares pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, based, among other things, on the opinion rendered by Genworth's financial advisors, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Lazard Freres & Cp. LLC. On Jan. 23, 2017, Rice filed a Class Action Complaint in which he raised claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration and the process by which the Defendants agreed to consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally unfair to Genworth's public stockholders as the Merger Consideration represents only a 4.2% premium to the Company's closing price of $5.21 on Oct. 21, 2016, the last trading day before the Proposed Transaction was announced. The Complaint filed by Rice alleges several material misrepresentations and omissions in the Proxy Statement provided to Genworth shareholders. In the Complaint, Rice sought injunctive relief, certification of a class, and the enjoining of the proposed transaction, unless and until the Defendants disclose the material information identified above which has been omitted from the Proxy Statement. In the alternative, the Complaint requested recissory damages. On Jan. 25, 2017, the Company filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC. This Proxy Statement recommended that shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction and announced that the special shareholder meeting to vote on the Proposed Transaction would occur on March 7, 2017. On Jan. 25, 2017, James filed a Class Action Complaint for Violations of Sections 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in which he raised essentially the same substantive claims as those raised by Rice. Rice and James agreed to work together to coordinate their actions. Also on Jan. 25, 2017, the Rosenfeld Family Trust filed a Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in which it raised substantively similar claims to those raised by Plaintiffs Rice and James. On Feb. 2, 2017, Rice, supported by James, filed the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, which sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction until certain supplemental disclosures were made to Genworth's stockholders. On Feb. 6, 2017, Esther Chopp filed a Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Chopp raised essentially the same substantive claims as raised by Rice and James. On Feb. 10, 2017, David Ratliff filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia a complaint in which he raised substantively identical claims to those already raised by Rice, James, and the Rosenfeld Family Trust. The Ratliff case was filed and identified as a case related to the Rice case. On Feb. 17, 2017, an Emergency Motion to Consolidate Cases and for Appointment of Interim Lead Counsel was filed, in which Rice and James sought the entry of an order consolidating the actions pending before the Court, and appointing Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Monteverde & Associates, PC, and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") as the Interim Class Counsel and MeyerGoergen PC as the Interim Lead Liaison Counsel. On Feb. 23, 2017, the Court consolidated Rosenfeld Family Trust v. Genworth Financial, Inc., and Chopp v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., with the consolidated cases, all of which thereafter proceeded under the style Rice, et al. v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al. The Plaintiffs subsequently reached an agreement with the Defendants, pursuant to which the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction was withdrawn. On March 6, 2016, the Court entered the Stipulated PSLRA Lead Plaintiff Scheduling Order which provided that on or before April 17, 2017, any Plaintiff in these actions or any other member of the purported class who wishes to serve as the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated purported class action will file a motion to serve as the Lead Plaintiff of the purported class and will state its selection for the Lead Counsel to represent the purported class, subject to approval by the Court. On April 1, 2017, the Union filed its motion seeking to be named the Lead Plaintiff and seeking approval of the Union's counsel as the Lead Counsel. Rice and James, with the consent of the other Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, also filed the Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. The stockholder vote has taken place and the merger was approved; however, the merger of Genworth and China Oceanwide has been pending for several months. Recently, a further delay in the merger was announced. To rebut the presumption that the Union is not an adequate Lead Plaintiff, Rice and James contend that the Union has a conflict of interest in the action against the Company because it is pursuing, on behalf of the Company, a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Judge Payne is persuaded by the argument made by Rice and James that there is a conflict between the direct action and the derivative action in Delaware based on the issue of damages. He also finds persuasive the argument of Rice and James that the Union's 220 Action potentially serves as a basis to strengthen the Union's derivative case post-merger. The Union tries to rebut this conflict not by denying its existence, but by explaining that, once the merger is consummated, the derivative action will disappear. The Judge concludes that this conflict renders the Union an inadequate the Lead Plaintiff. Further, in all respects, Rice and James have shown that they meet the relaxed typicality and adequacy (capability) requirements of Rule 23 that apply at this stage of the proceedings. The Lead Plaintiff is empowered under the PSLRA to select and retain counsel to represent the class members in the consolidated actions. Judge Payne finds that Faruqi & Faruqi and KSF as the Co-Lead Counsel and MeyerGoergen as the Liaison Counsel possess the requisite experience to represent the interests of the class members and approves the selection of those firms as co-lead counsel and liaison counsel respectively. For these reasons, Judge Payne denied Union's motion seeking to be named the Lead Plaintiff and seeking approval of the Union's counsel as the Lead Counsel; and granted Plaintiffs Rice and Brian James' Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated August 25, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/PtG39H from Leagle.com. Alexander Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Andrew Simmons, MeyerGoergen PC. Alexander Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Joseph Habenicht, MeyerGoergen PC, James Milligan Wilson, Jr., Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice & Stuart Jay Guber, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice. Brian James, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Scott Andrew Simmons, MeyerGoergen PC, Christopher Joseph Habenicht, MeyerGoergen PC, Christopher Robert Tillotson, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, pro hac vice & Michael Joseph Palestina, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, pro hac vice. David Ratliff, II, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Charles Lewis Williams, Williams & Skilling PC, Benjamin Isaac Sachs- Michaels, Harwood Feffer LLP, pro hac vice & Robert Ira Harwood, Harwood Feffer LLP. Rosenfeld Family Trust, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M. Ernst, O'Kelly & Ernst LLC, Daniel Patrick Murray, O'Kelly & Ernst LLC, Elizabeth Kathleen Tripodi, Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Richard Adam Acocelli, WeissLaw LLP, pro hac vice. Esther Chopp, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Charles Lewis Williams, Williams & Skilling PC & Thomas J. McKenna, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, pro hac vice. Genworth Financial Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. Thomas J. McInerney, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. James S. Riepe, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. William H. Bolinder, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. G. Kent Conrad, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. Melina E. Higgins, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. David M. Moffett, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. Thomas E. Moloney, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. James A. Parke, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. Debra J. Perry, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. Robert P. Restrepo, Jr., Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Tim Schulte, Shelley & Schulte PC, Blackwell Nixon Shelley, Jr., Shelley & Schulte PC, Brett David Stecker, The Weiser Law Firm PC, pro hac vice, Donald Alan Broggi, Scott + Scott LLP pro hac vice, Judith Sarah Scolnick, Scott + Scott LLP. pro hac vice, Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV, Scott + Scott LLP. pro hac vice & William Scott Holleman, Johnson & Weaver LLP, pro hac vice. GNC HOLDINGS: California Wage and Break Claims vs. Unit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of GNC Holdings, Inc. is still facing California wage and break claims in the Country of Alameda, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation ("GNC") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and legal fees are sought. The Company stated, "As of June 30, 2017, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. The Company intends to conduct further discovery and file a motion to decertify the class action prior to trial, which is scheduled for July 2018." GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products. The Company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal in Fluctuating Workweek Lawsuit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself against a case alleging that it violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) through the "fluctuating workweek" method, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were paid according to the fluctuating workweek method. In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the class related to damages and ultimately legal fees for a combined immaterial amount, which has been accrued in the accompanying interim consolidated financial statements. The Company appealed from the adverse judgment. The Company's brief has been filed with the Superior Court and Plaintiffs' brief was due in August 2017. The Superior Court has not announced a date for oral argument. GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products. The Company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces "Davis" Suit in E.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. The case is styled as Josh Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and Hain Blueprint, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05191 (E.D. N.Y., September 1, 2017). The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. operates a food company whose main focus is foods and personal care products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Levin-Epstein& Associates One Penn Plaza, Suite 2527 New York, NY 10119 Tel: (212) 792-0046 Fax: (212) 563-7108 Email: joshua@levinepstein.com HARRY CANTRELL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Caliste" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ADRIAN CALISTE AND BRAIN GISCLAIR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. HARRY E. CANTRELL, MAGISTRATE JUDGE, SECTION "L"(5) OF ORLEANS PARISH CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, Civil Action No. 17-6197 (E.D. La.). On June 27, 2017, a group of Plaintiffs filed suit as a class against one Criminal District Court Judge; Magistrate Judge Harry Cantrell. The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class has been continued. The Named Plaintiffs are two criminal defendants with cases pending in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. They appear as the class representatives for the putative class. The Defendant is the Magistrate Judge for Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, among his duties is to set bail for those arrested. He also has a role in managing the expenditures of the Judicial Expense Fund. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant routinely sets a $2,500 minimum secured money bond without considering the facts of the case to determine whether a lower bond amount or an alternative condition of release might be appropriate. They Plaintiffs further aver that the Defendant requires the use of a for-profit bail bond and does not allow arrestees to post cash bail. They argue that this policy of refusing to consider a criminal defendant's ability to pay, alternative conditions of release, or a lower bond, as well as the resulting institutional financial conflict, violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgement that the Defendant's bond policy, which results in the creation of a modern "debtor's prison," is a violation of their constitutional rights, and a declaration that the Defendant's financial conflict of interest violates the Due Process rights of criminal defendants. The Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, raising two issues, standing and abstention. Judge Fallon finds that the Named and proposed Plaintiffs in this putative class action have criminal cases pending before the Defendant. Therefore, they have ongoing actual injuries, traceable to the Defendant, and will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. The Defendant argues that Named Plaintiff Gisclair lacks standing because he has been released from custody subsequent to the filing of this suit. However, in Cain v. City of New Orleans, the Court only dismissed plaintiffs for lack of standing who were not incarcerated or did not have court debts outstanding at the time the suit was filed. Here, Plaintiff Gisclair was incarcerated at the time the suit was filed and his claim is not mooted by his release from custody. Therefore, Plaintiff Gisclair has standing to bring this claim. Finally, regarding the putative class members, there are issues related to standing that may depend on facts not present at this time. Judge Fallon further finds that while these Plaintiffs have various procedural mechanisms available to challenge the bonds set by the Defendant, the delay required by these appeals is problematic because the damage is done by the time the appeal is perfected. The Named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class will suffer irreparable harm via incarceration and/or the financial burden of the bonds even if their appeals are eventually successful. Additionally, any appeals would not abrogate denial of due process during initial bond hearings. Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and Younger abstention is not appropriate. The Plaintiffs' complaint, according to the Judge, is sufficient on its face to make a claim of denial of due process. Further, the Plaintiffs have not and likely will not have an adequate opportunity in the state court to raise constitutional challenges in a manner that prevents irreparable harm. For these reasons, Judge Fallon denied the Defendant' Motion to Dismiss. He ordered the parties to attend a status conference in chambers set for Sept. 7, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order and Reasons is available at https://is.gd/SJY0Lb from Leagle.com. Adrian Caliste, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Foley -- admin@macarthurjustice.org -- Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center. Adrian Caliste, Plaintiff, represented by Alec George Karakatsanis, Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice & Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center. Brian Gisclair, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Foley, Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, Alec George Karakatsanis, Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice & Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center. Harry E. Cantrell, Defendant, represented by Celeste Brustowicz, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C., Dennis J. Phayer, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C., Christopher Kent Tankersley, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. & Elizabeth A. Doubleday, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. HARTFORD FIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Allen" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CORDELL ALLEN; ALIA CLARK; PATRICIA DEARTH; CHRIS DEPIERRO; JESSICA LEIGHTON; JESSICA PEREZ; JAMIE RIVERA; LAYFON ROSU; MARISSA SHIMKO; and CAROL SOMERS, Plaintiffs, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-1603- Orl-37KRS(M.D. Fla.), Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Class and Issuance of Notice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. To properly assess the parties' dispute, the Court looks back more than three years to the start of a closely-related Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") action -- Monserrate v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company. The named plaintiffs in Monserrate were Analysts who worked for The Hartford in Orange County, Florida. As here, the Monserrate plaintiffs alleged that The Hartford violated the FLSA by: (i) failing to pay its employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week; (ii) failing to maintain accurate records of its employees' work hours; and (iii) inaccurately classifying its Analysts as exempt from overtime pay despite knowledge that such Analysts were non-exempt. A little over a year into the litigation, the named plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify a national class of similarly situated Analysts. The Court ultimately granted the motion in part-limiting the scope of the proposed class due to the absence of evidence that employees outside The Hartford's central Florida locations were interested in opting into the action. The named plaintiffs later moved to clarify and expand the class based on after-acquired evidence that similarly situated Analysts from additional states were interested in joining the Monserrate class. However, the parties settled the action before the Court resolved the Motion to Expand. Three months after the Monserrate settlement, the Plaintiffs initiated the instant action. While almost identical to the plaintiffs' pleadings in Monserrate, the operative Complaint also references Analysts employed by The Hartford in Seminole County, Florida, Connecticut, New York, Georgia, and Minnesota. Unsurprisingly, the Plaintiffs have submitted evidence from Analysts that have worked in these five states to support their Motion to Certify. The present case was initiated by employees who claim that their employer willfully misclassified them as exempt administrative employees and, thus, failed to pay them overtime compensation to which they were entitled under the FLSA. Seeking relief for both themselves and a collective class of similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs request that the Court conditionally certify a nationwide class of current and former employees who: (i) worked for The Hartford as Analysts processing disability claims; and (ii) routinely worked more than forty hours a week without receiving overtime compensation. In addition to seeking conditional certification of a national class of Analysts, the Motion to Certify requests that the Court: (i) order The Hartford to produce the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and emails of each putative class member; (ii) authorize notice of the action to be sent to all putative class members employed by The Hartford within the three years preceding the Motion to Certify; (iii) require The Hartford to post notice of this action at its work sites and on its company intranet website; and (iv) toll the statute of limitations for the putative class members' claims back to the date that the Motion to Certify was filed. The Hartford vehemently opposes conditional certification. Judge Dalton granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Class and Issuance of Notice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. He conditionally certifies a national Section 216(b) class of Analysts who have: (i) worked for The Hartford at any of its locations during the three years preceding their decision to opt into this action; and (ii) worked more than 40 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. The putative class members will have a 60 day period in which to opt into the action. The Judge appointed Named Plaintiffs Patricia Dearth, Jessica Perez, Jamie Rivera, Layfon Rosu, Marissa Shimko, and Carol Somers as the Class Representatives. No later than Aug. 31, 2017, The Hartford is directed to disclose to the Named Plaintiffs the contact information of all Analysts who have: (i) worked at or reported to any of The Hartford's locations during the three years preceding the date of the Order; and (ii) are not subject to The Hartford's arbitration policy. Judge Dalton approved the Plaintiffs' Notice of Collective Action, subject to the incorporation of the following changes: a. The Plaintiffs must change the start date of the statute of limitations period from Dec. 2, 2013 to Aug. 25, 2014, in the recipient line, under the sections titled Persons Eligible to Participate in the Lawsuit, and Your Choice to Participate in the Lawsuit, and on the Consent to Join Collective Action form. b. Under the section titled Persons Eligible to Participate in the Lawsuit, the Plaintiffs must delete language stating: Even if you signed an Arbitration Agreement with Hartford you may still Opt-In to this action. In its place, they must state that employees subject to The Hartford's arbitration policy will not be permitted to join the collective action. c. The Plaintiffs must remove the Named Plaintiffs subject to The Hartford's arbitration policy from their Description of The Lawsuit -- specifically, Cordell Allen, Alia Clark, Chris DePierro, and Jessica Leighton. d. Under the Description of the Lawsuit, the Plaintiffs must specifically state that The Hartford denies that it owes any of the Plaintiffs overtime pay. The Hartford contends that the Plaintiffs' duties made them exempt from the law requiring overtime pay. e. Under the Effect of Joining the Lawsuit, the Plaintiffs must adjust the language to state that: If you choose to join this suit, you may be required to provide information, sit for deposition, and you may be required to appear for a trial and testify in Court in the Middle District of Florida, which encompasses Seminole, Brevard, Orange, Osceola, and Volusia counties. Judge Dalton authorized the distribution of the modified notices - - by U.S. mail and personal email -- on or before Oct. 31, 2017. On or before Sept. 1, 2017, The Hartford is directed to post the 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 Nov. 1, 2017. The parties may file a joint motion for modification of the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order on or before Sept. 5, 2017. Failure to do so may result in the Court revising its Case Management and Scheduling Order sua sponte. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/PtG39H from Leagle.com. Alexander Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Andrew Simmons -- simmons@mg-law.com -- MeyerGoergen PC. Alexander Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Joseph Habenicht -- habenicht@mg-law.com -- MeyerGoergen PC, James Milligan Wilson, Jr. -- jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice & Stuart Jay Guber, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice. Brian James, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Scott Andrew Simmons, MeyerGoergen PC, Christopher Joseph Habenicht, MeyerGoergen PC, Christopher Robert Tillotson -- christopher.tillotson@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, pro hac vice & Michael Joseph Palestina, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, pro hac vice. David Ratliff, II, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Charles Lewis Williams, Williams & Skilling PC, Benjamin Isaac Sachs- Michaels -- bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP, pro hac vice & Robert Ira Harwood -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP. Rosenfeld Family Trust, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M. Ernst -- rernst@oelegal.com -- O'Kelly & Ernst LLC, Daniel Patrick Murray -- dmurray@oelegal.com -- O'Kelly & Ernst LLC, Elizabeth Kathleen Tripodi -- etripodi@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Richard Adam Acocelli, WeissLaw LLP, pro hac vice. Esther Chopp, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Charles Lewis Williams, Williams & Skilling PC & Thomas J. McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston, pro hac vice. Genworth Financial Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr -- efuhr@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. Thomas J. McInerney, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka -- caroline.zalka@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr. -- evert.christensen@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III -- gsibley@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow -- greg.danilow@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce -- jschronce@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP. James S. Riepe, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. William H. Bolinder, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. G. Kent Conrad, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. Melina E. Higgins, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. David M. Moffett, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. Thomas E. Moloney, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. James A. Parke, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. Debra J. Perry, Defendant, represented by Caroline Hickey Zalka, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Hunton & Williams LLP, Evert John Christensen, Jr., Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, George Peter Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Greg A. Danilow, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Johnathon Earl Schronce, Hunton & Williams LLP. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/PtG39H from Leagle.com. Cordell Allen, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz -- dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney -- Lytle & Barszcz. Cordell Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Mary E. Lytle -- mlytle@lblaw.attorney -- Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III - - rsutton@lblaw.attorney. Alia Clark, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III. Patricia Dearth, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III. Chris Depierro, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III. Jessica Leighton, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III. Jessica Perez, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III. Jamie Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III. Layfon Rosu, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III. Marissa Shimko, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III. Carol Somers, Plaintiff, represented by David Victor Barszcz, Lytle & Barszcz, Mary E. Lytle, Lytle & Barszcz & Robert N. Sutton, III. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony S. Califano -- acalifano@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, pro hac vice, Arlene Karin Kline -- Arlene.kline@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Melissa Segarra Zinkil -- Melissa.zinkil@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Molly C. Mooney -- mmooney@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick J. Bannon -- pbannon@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, pro hac vice. HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: Court Dismisses "Mondy" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Judge James Leon Holmes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed without prejudice the case captioned ELIJAH MONDY, JR., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated citizens of the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN MESSINA, individually and in his official capacity as Alderman for the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, et al., Defendants, No. 2:17CV00104 JLH (E.D. Ark.). This is a putative class action against the City of Helena-West Helena, its mayor, and its aldermen. The Plaintiff alleges that the city council unlawfully repealed an ordinance passed by a majority of the city's residents during a valid initiative election. The Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the action and to disqualify Mondy's attorney, James F. Valley. Because Mondy fails to state a claim that arises under federal law, the case is dismissed without prejudice and the motion to disqualify counsel is denied as moot. On or about Sept. 9, 2016, Mondy submitted a petition for an initiated ordinance with the requisite number of signatures to the city clerk. The proposed ordinance would reduce the number of wards in the city and consequently the number of city council members. The clerk verified the signatures, and the county election commission approved the ordinance to appear on the ballot for the November 2016 election. By majority vote, the initiated ordinance passed at the election. In early December of 2016, the city council voted 10-0 on a "motion to repeal the vote" on the initiated ordinance. The city council subsequently realized that a new ordinance was needed to repeal the initiated ordinance. Later that month the city council met again, this time with a repeal ordinance on the agenda. The city council ultimately adopted the repeal ordinance by an 8-1 vote. The city council also voted by the same margin on an emergency clause so that the repeal ordinance would be effective immediately. Mondy alleges that the Defendants' actions have violated the first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution. He further alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. After invoking these provisions in the jurisdictional allegation of his complaint, Mondy barely mentions them again. Instead, the complaint alleges numerous violations of Arkansas law and seeks a declaration that the repeal ordinance is invalid under state law. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Mondy responded but did not address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, except in a conclusory fashion. Judge Holmes held that Mondy's complaint fails to allege a claim that arises under federal law, diversity jurisdiction is lacking, and Mondy lacks standing. Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1). If the dismissal of Mondy's federal claims were governed by Rule 12(b)(6), the Judge nevertheless would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mondy's state-law claims. For these reasons, Judge Holmes granted the Defendants' amended motion to dismiss. He denied as moot the motion to disqualify counsel and the motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The original motion to dismiss is denied as moot. The case is dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/LWOSxn from Leagle.com. Elijah Mondy, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by J.F. Valley -- james@jamesfvalley.com -- J. F. Valley, Esq., P.A.. Adrian Messina, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A.. Jesse Vescon Hollowell, Jr, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A.. Helena-West Helena City of Arkansas, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A.. Wanda Crockett, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A.. Ever J Ford, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A.. Joe St Columbia, Sr, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A.. Christopher Franklin, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A.. John Huff, Jr, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A.. Larry J Brown, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A.. Monica Davis, Defendant, represented by Andre K. Valley, Andre K. Valley, Esq. P.A.. HT RESTAURANT: Faces "Tasman" Suit over Minimum Wages & OT Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER MARIE TASMAN, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HT RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, D/B/A HIDDEN TREASURE RAW BAR & GRILL, Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00994-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, and liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours during multiple weeks of employment with Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff usually worked six days per week and would work up to 35 hour during only her shifts on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Defendant is a seafood restaurant on the Intracostal Waterway in Flagler Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Henson, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 428 6241 Facsimile: (407) 245 3342 E-mail: jjhenson@forthepeople.com HYATT HOTELS: Sued in N.Y. Over Disabled Inaccessible Facilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Swartz, individually, on her behalf and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-06411 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to remove architectural and communication barriers in existing facilities and the amenities offered, denying equal access to disabled persons and endangered their safety. Hyatt Hotels Corporation operates The Hyatt Centric Times Square Hotel located at 145 West 45th Street, New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq. FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502 North Miami, FL 33181 Telephone: (305) 891-5199 Facsimile: (305) 893-9505 E-mail: Lfuller@fullerfuller.com IHS ACQUISITION: Faces "Obare" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Obare, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. IHS Acquisition No. 129, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Manor Healthcare Center, Case No. 4:17-cv-00589 (E.D. Tex., August 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. IHS Acquisition No. 129, Inc. operates an assisted living facility located at 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. DUNHAM & JONES, P.C. 1800 Guadalupe Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 777-7777 Facsimile: (512) 340-4051 E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com IMPERVA INC: Poinsignon Sues over Background Checks --------------------------------------------------- JULIEN POINSIGNON, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMPERVA, INC., Delaware corporation; INSPERITY PEO SERVICES, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES I through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CIV03879 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and use information from credit and background reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law. Imperva provides cyber security software and services to protect enterprise data and application software and to ensure regulatory compliance. Imperva is headquartered in Redwood Shores, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setatareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888 7771 Facsimile (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com INDEPENDENT BANK GROUP: Subsidiary Still Faces BOH-Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Independent Bank Group, Inc. (IBG) disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that its subsidiary still defends itself in a class action complaint related to Bank of Houston. IBG, through subsidiary Independent Bank, a Texas state banking corporation (Bank) (collectively known as the Company), provides a full range of banking services to individual and corporate customers in the North Texas, Central Texas and Houston areas through its various branch locations. Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH. Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeking to recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks. On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserted previously unasserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH officers. Given the new allegations, Independent Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims made in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially indicated that a "loss" has not yet occurred or that the claims are not covered by the policies. However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue insurance coverage for these claims, as well as for the reimbursement of defense costs, through the initiation of litigation and other means. IBG said, "Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. This is complex litigation involving a number of procedural matters and issues. As such, Independent Bank is unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or potential costs or damages arising from, this case." Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Independent Bank that provides a range of commercial banking products and services to businesses, professionals, and individuals in the United States. It offers various deposit products, including checking and savings accounts, demand accounts, money market accounts, and certificates of deposit, as well as individual retirement accounts. Independent Bank Group, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McKinney, Texas. INTEL CORP: Appeal Pending in McAfee Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2017 that it is waiting on a hearing date from the appellate court on an appeal from the final judgment issued for a consolidated class action suit related to its acquisition of McAfee common stock. On August 19, 2010, the Company announced that it had agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for US$48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be US$62.08. In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. The Company said, "The appeal is fully briefed, and we are waiting on a hearing date from the appellate court. Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously." Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer, networking, and communications platforms worldwide. It operates through Client Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Intel Security Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara, California. JUICE BEAUTY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in E.D. of New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juice Beauty, Inc. The case is styled as Judith Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Juice Beauty, Inc. doing business as: Juice Organics, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 05187 (E.D. N.Y., September 1, 2017). Juice Beauty offers organic skin care and organic beauty products that are clinically validated to show transformative results.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com KBR INC: Metzgar Appeals Ruling in Burn Pit MDL to Fourth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Alan Metzgar, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: KBR, INCORPORATED, Burn Pit Litigation, MDL No. 8:09-md-2083-RWT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt. The Plaintiffs-Appellants are ALAN METZGAR, PAUL PARKER, JOSHUA ELLER, JOANNE OCHS, MELISSA OCHS, JAMES MORGAN, DAVID NEWTON, CHRIS BOGGIANO, EARL CHAVIS, BENNY LYLE REYNOLDS, ALBERT PAUL BITTEL, III, MICHAEL DOUGLAS MOORE, DAVID U. LACKEY, RANDALL L. ROBINSON, MICHAEL AUW, CORY CASALEGNO, RICHARD RONALD GUILMETTE, WILLIAM G. BRISTER, JR., HENRY J. O'NEILL, SMSGT GLEN S. MASSMAN, SSGT WENDY L. MCBREAIRTY, DEAN GUY OLSON, ROBERT CAIN, CRAIG HENRY, FRANCIS JAEGER, DAVID MCMENOMY, MARK POSZ, EL KEVIN SAR, MAURICE CALLUE, DENNIS WAYNE BRIGGS, EDWARD LEE BUQUO, WAYNE E. FABOZZI, SHARLENE S. JAGGERNAUTH, FLOYD JAMES JOHNSON, SR., TAMRA C. JOHNSON, RICHARD LEE KEITH, DANIEL SANTIAGO MORALES, PHILLIP MCQUILLAN, ILDEBBRANDO PEREZ, LUIGI ANTONIO PROVENZA, RUTH ANN REECE, EDUARDO SAAVEDRA, SR., JILL R. WILKINS, MICHAEL DONNELL WILLIAMS, JERMAINE LYNELL WRIGHT, BENJAMIN BOEKE, CRAIG KERVIN, BARRY ZABIELINSKI, PABLO BERCHINI, BRIAN P. ROBINSON, DAVID GREEN, NICK DANIEL HEISLER, JOHN A. WESTER, JR., EDWARD ADAMS, KENNETH BALDWIN, DONNA WU, JOHN DOES 1-1000, JANE DOES 1-1000, KEVIN PAUL ROBBINS, BRIAN BLUMLINE, ROBERT BIDINGER, UNKNOWN PARTIES, DERROL A. TURNER, VINCENT C. MOSELEY, ALEX HARLEY, FRED ROBERT ATKINSON, JR., ROBYN SACHS, JENNIFER MONTIJO, STEPHEN FLOWERS, WALLACE MCNABB, PATRICK CASSIDY, WILLIAM BARRY DUTTON, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL KOZEL, CHARLES HICKS, SEAN ALEXANDER STOUGH, BILL JACK CARLISLE, JR., ANTHONY EDWARD ROLES, DANNY LAPIERRE, ANTHONY RAY JOHNSON, DAVID MICHAEL ROHMFELD, RICHARD MCANDREW, LORENZO PEREZ, THOMAS KELLECK, DAN BOWLDS, TONY ALLEN GOUCKENOUR, JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON, JOHN PETE TROOST, DEBORAH ANN WHEELOCK, GEORGE LUNDY, EUNICE RAMIREZ, MARCOS BARRANCO, JOEL LUGO, SHAWN THOMAS SHERIDAN, JAYSON WILLIAMS, HEINZ ALEX DISCH, JAMES MCCOLLEM, TRAVIS FIDELL PUGH, THOMAS OLSON, BRIAN PAULUS, PAUL MICHAEL WIATR, LEE WARREN JELLISON, JR., JESSEY JOSEPH PHILIP BACA, DANIEL TIJERNIA, JOSHUA DAVID BEAVERS, MATTHEW JOEL FIELDS, MICHAEL FOTH, STEVEN E. GARDNER, KENNETH HARRIS, STEPHEN R. JONES, BRETT ANTHONY MAZZARA, KEVIN SCOTT TEWES, KATHY VINES, ANTHONY JEROME WILLIAMS, HANS NICOLAS YU, JEFFREY MORGAN COX, JAMES WARREN GARLAND, PETER BLUMER, SCOTT ANDREW CHAMBERLAIN, TIMOTHY E. DIMON, WILLIAM PHILIP KRAWCZYK, SR., SEAN JOHNSON, DAVID ROUNDS, LISA ROUNDS, ALBERT JOHNSON, JR., GENE BISHOP, PATRICK BISHOP, SHERRY BISHOP, GENE LEONARD MATSON, TIMOTHY J. WATSON, DAVID JOBES, MICHELLE BROWN, JONATHAN LYNN, ANDREW MASON, CHARLES KINNEY, MICHAEL MCCLAIN, BASIL SALEM, JUSTIN GONZALES, MATTHEW GUTHERY, CHRISTOPHER LIPPARD, DAVID PARR, JOHN F. MONAHAN, AMANDA BRANNON, L. CHANDLER BRANNON, JOHN DOE, ELIYAHU ARSHADNIA, SIMCHA ARSHADNIA, WILLIAM SIMMONS, DAWN LUCIA, DANIEL MEYER, HARMONIE MEYER, JOSE BURGOS, BETHANY BURGOS, STEPHEN HOPPER, STEVEN C. SNEE, VINCENT MOLINO, LARRY ENGLE, RAYMOND CRUZ, ANTONIO CLARK, JAMES KNOUSE, JR., LESLIE SCOTT, SCOTT HURT, JAMES JACKSON, JEFFREY DURHAM, WILLIAM AUSTIN DANIEL, JOSEPH COLLINS, RACHEL GUTIERREZ, BRANDON SHOEMAKE, STACIE MOSER, ALBERT ROBERTS, JEFFREY WILKINS, WILLIAM EATON, TODD GRIMES, GARY MORRIS, MICHAEL GENAW, JOSHUA KEPPLE, WILLIS ROWE, JUSTIN ACOSTA, TRAVIS ADAMS, LEON J. ALEXANDER, MICHAEL DEVINCENT AMICY, THOMAS ANDERSEN, PATTI J. ANDERSON, PHILLIP A. ANDERSON, DOMINICK THOMAS ANDREWS, JULIO A. APODACA, ROSE MARIE APPLEWHITE, FRANCISCO ARAQUE, ANTHONY L. ARRINGTON, TRACY L. ASHER, MATTHEW K. ASHWORTH, RYAN L. ATTAR, DUSTIN JEFFREY AUER, EVERETTE D. AVERY, JR., JOHN ALAN BACON, SCOTT D. BAILEY, JESSE BAKER, LARRY BAKER, STEVEN LEROY BAKKEN, MICHAEL DANIEL BANKS, ANGELA VANETTE BARNES, CHARLES J. BARNES, JULIE BARON-MANNIX, TRAVIS M. BASSETT, JAMES R. BATES, JERICHO N. BEAUCHAMP, CRAIG BELANGER, JUDY-ANN BELLEFEUR, REGINALD J. BELTON, BRANDI L. BENSON, THEODORE J. BILL, JASON R. BILLS, JOHNNIE F. BINES, DENNIS A. BLANCHARD, CLINT ALLEN BLANKENSHIP, ANDREW MICHAEL BOOTH, BRIAN K. BOWER, ANDREW DOULGAS BOWERS, SR., WILLIE ANTONIO BOYKIN, SR., FRANK EARL BRAXTON, ALAN K. BRIDGEWATER, BRANDY E. BROADBENT, RACHAEL BROWN, DAVID F. BRYDEN, DENNIS H. BUDD, ERIK J. BURCH, KENON L. BURNS, THOMAS W. BURNS, TEE JAY BURR, ROBERT P. BUSSE, MICHAEL L. CALDWELL, WILLIAM G. CARDWELL, JOHN ERNEST CARLSON, JASON L. CARMEN, MICHAEL W. CARR, ROBIN A. CARR, ANDREA M. CASTON, FREDDIE E. CAVAZOS, JR., RICHARD D. CELIA, BLAIN L. CHAMBERS, BRUCE R. CHAPLIN, DANIEL C. CHAVEZ, SR., LEONARD RAY CHEEK, GWEN COLLEEN CHIARAMONTE, BLAINE S. CHILD, KENNETH ROGER CHRISTENSEN, SR., SCOTT ALLAN CHRISTIE, MARC J. CHUBBUCK, SR., RICHARD CHARLES CHUMBLEY, JR., JEFFREY S. CHURCH, DERRICK D. CLARK, RICHARD MICHAEL CLEMES, RYAN V. COLLAMORE, CONNIE G. CONLEY, ANDREW E. COUSSENS, KATHLEEN S. COY, CHARLES DONALD CRABBLE, JR., MICHAEL A. CRANFILL, PERRY A. CROSS, JR., CRAIG J. DANIEL, and ROWENA L. DARVIN. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 10, 2017, Judge Roger W. Titus has granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss all the complaints under the litigation. Numerous complaints were filed against the military's use of open burn pits for waste management. Faced with this avalanche of litigation in the federal courts asserting the common question of harm caused by the use of open burn pits, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1407, directed that all such cases be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for consolidated pretrial proceedings. The appellate case is captioned as Alan Metzgar v. KBR, Inc., Case No. 17-1960, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Frederick C. Baker, Esq. James William Ledlie, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLP 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9186 Facsimile: (843) 216-9440 E-mail: fbaker@motleyrice.com jledlie@motleyrice.com - and - Susan L. Burke, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN L. BURKE 1611 Park Avenue Baltimore, MD 21217 Telephone: (410) 733-5444 E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com Defendants-Appellees KBR, INCORPORATED, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, LLC, HALLIBURTON COMPANY, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INCORPORATED, BROWN AND ROOT SERVICES, DII INDUSTRIES, LLC, HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., KBR HOLDINGS, LLC, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, INCORPORATED, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, KBR GROUP HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, and KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, are represented by: Raymond Brian Biagini, Esq. Daniel L. Russell, Jr., Esq. Robert A. Matthews, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: (202) 662-5120 E-mail: rbiagini@cov.com drussell@cov.com rmatthews@cov.com KHBJR ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Sanchez" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KHBJR Enterprise LLC d/b/a 4th Quarter Sports Bar; Bombay Ranch, Inc. d/b/a 8811 Patio Bar; 8811 LLC d/b/a 8811 Patio Bar; Kenneth Henry Baker, Jr.; and Michael Kevin Wade, Case No. 5:17-cv-00811 (W.D. Tex., August 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a bar located at 8779 Wurzbach Road, San Antonio, Texas, 78240. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmond S. Moreland Jr., Esq. Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 13590 Ranch Road 12 Wimberley, TX 78676 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com daniel@morelandlaw.com LIFE INSURANCE: Norman Appeals E.D. Louisiana Ruling to 5th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Weyman Maxon and Ashlee Ane Norman filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Rusty Norman, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 2:16-CV-17271, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act due to improperly reduced disability benefits. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for employers that issued policies through the Defendant. They allege the Defendant improperly reduced the benefits they were owed. The Plaintiffs allege that due to the Defendant's unlawful actions, they suffered monetary losses for not receiving the full amount of benefits due under the long-term disability plan. The Plaintiffs hold Life Insurance Co. of North America responsible because the Defendant allegedly improperly reduced Plaintiffs' disability benefits by offsetting maintenance paid under the general maritime law. The appellate case is captioned as Rusty Norman, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 17-30671, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants WEYMAN MAXON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and ASHLEE ANE NORMAN, daughter and heir to the Estate of Rusty Norman, Decedent, are represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, L.L.C. 8712 Jefferson Highway Baton Rouge, LA 70809-0000 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com - and - Dennis M. O'Bryan, Esq. O'BRYAN BAUN COHEN KUEBLER KARAMANIAN 401 S. Old Woodward Avenue Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 258-6262 E-mail: dob@obryanlaw.net Defendant-Appellee LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA is represented by: Lauren Ann Welch, Esq. MCCRANIE, SISTRUNK, ANZELMO, HARDY, MCDANIEL & WELCH, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 831-0946 E-mail: lwelch@mcsalaw.com LM FUNDING: Agrees to Put $505K in Trust Account Under Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Taylor Martin, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that less than two years after it went public, LM Funding America, Inc. says it might not be able to say in business unless it can refinance its debt by year's end. In its latest filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Tampa debt collection company said it experienced "significant operating losses" through June 30 of this year and had failed to make a quarterly principal payment to its main lender, "The inability to obtain financing would raise substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern," the filing said. It added, however, that LM Funding is negotiating with "several entities" and expects to have a new financing agreement by the end of the year. Founded by Tampa attorney Bruce Rodgers, LM Funding advances money to homeowners' associations for the right to collect their delinquent fees. The company's business model has been controversial, partly because of its close ties to the Business Law Group, a Tampa law firm founded by Rodgers that collects on some of the delinquent HOA accounts owned by LM Funding. The two firms have been the target of lawsuits alleging that while Business Law Group appeared to be working on behalf of the associations, it really was acting in the best interests of itself and LM Funding. LM Funding agreed to put $505,000 into a trust account by Aug. 23 under a settlement agreement in a South Florida class action suit involving scores of homeowners' associations. Attorneys for the class agreed to extend the timeline after the company said it would be unable to fund the trust by that date. In its filing with the SEC, LM Funding reported revenues of $2 million in the six months ended June 30 and a net loss of $1.197 million. The company had $800,000 cash, LM Funding raised $10 million in its initial public offering in late 2015, but had to cut staff and slash salaries last year. Among those taking a pay cut were Rodgers, whose salary dropped from $385,000 to $269,500. On a more positive note, the company says it expects a "significant" decrease in legal expenses as it settles claims. It also is acquiring condos and other real estate through foreclosures -- so far this year, it has sold 14 properties for a net total profit of $623,000. [GN] LOVE'S TRAVEL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Thompson" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Kevin Thompson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kevin Thompson v. Love's Travel Stops, Case No. 3:16-cv-00143, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Thompson v. Love's Travel Stops, Case No. 17-5992, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KEVIN THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Gordon Ball, Esq. GORDON BALL, PLLC 550 W. Main Street, Suite 600 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 525-7028 Facsimile: (865) 525-4679 E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com Defendant-Appellee LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS & COUNTRY STORES, INC., is represented by: William Kyle Carpenter, Esq. WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC P.O. Box 900 Knoxville, TN 37920 Telephone: (865) 215-1000 Facsimile: (865) 215-1001 E-mail: kylew@wmbac.com LTD FINANCIAL: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Order in "Baez" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant LTD Financial Services, L.P., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Liznelia Baez v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., Case No. 6:15-cv-01043-PGB-TBS, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 10, 2017, Judge Paul G. Byron denied the Defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in the case. Ms. Baez initiated this class action against the Defendant, to vindicate her rights and the rights of other similarly situated consumers under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She states that she and approximately 34,000 other consumers received dunning letters from LTD which sought partial payment on debts that are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The appellate case is captioned as Liznelia Baez v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., Case No. 17-13842, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before September 8, 2017, as to Appellant LTD Financial Services, L.P.; -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before September 22, 2017, as to Appellee Liznelia Baez.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LIZNELIA BAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: David K. Lietz, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, PA PO Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Michael Tierney, Esq. MICHAEL TIERNEY, PA 918 Beard Avenue Winter Pk, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 740-0074 Facsimile: (407) 740-0079 E-mail: michael@tierneylaw.us Defendant-Appellant LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., a Texas Corporation, is represented by: Dale Thomas Golden, Esq. Joseph C. Proulx, Esq. GOLDEN SCAZ GAGAIN, PLLC 201 N Armenia Ave. Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 251-5500 Facsimile: (813) 251-3675 E-mail: dgolden@gsgfirm.com jproulx@gsgfirm.com MANDALA HEALING: "Brickhouse" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Brickhouse, Lydia Releford, Lake Howard, and those similarly situated v. Mandala Healing Center, LLC, Behavioral Health Innovations, LLC, Peter L. Walstrom and Joseph A. Petri, Case No. 9:17-cv-80970-DMM (S.D. Fla., August 23, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing addiction recovery treatment to clients suffering from drug and alcohol addiction and substance misuse. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don R. Boswell, Esq. AKERS & BOSWELL, P.A. 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Suite 407 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 547-6300 Facsimile: (561) 828-9212 E-mail: dboswell@akers-boswell.com MDL 2672: "Stokar" Suit vs. Audi Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Elliot H. Stokar, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Audi of America LLC and Audi AG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 10456, was transferred on Aug. 23, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-04881-CRB to the proceeding. The Stokar case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB. Audi of America and its network of U.S dealers offer a full line of highly engineered vehicles, including the newest premium- engineered compact sedans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 Facsimile: (206) 623 0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Christian A Jenkins, Esq. MINNILLO & JENKINS CO., LPA 2712 Observatory Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 723 1600 Facsimile: (513) 723 1620 E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com beth@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: James K. Toohey, Esq. Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. JOHNS & BELL LTD 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: toohey@jbltd.com boehmg@jbltd.com MERCHANT SOURCE: Fails to Pay Earned Commissions, Miller Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER MILLER and MITCHELL MARK, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANT SOURCE INC. and GEORGE GRECO, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 157630/2017 (N.Y. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover damages and costs under New York State Labor Law. The Defendants allegedly failed to fully compensate T-3 and T-2 Sales Representatives for their earned commissions, and failed to provide notice and keep records, in violation of the NYLL. Merchant Source has been providing financing to thousands of small businesses since 2008.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Walker G. Harman Jr., Esq. Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. THE HARMAN FIRM, LLP 220 Fifth Avenue. Suite 900 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212)425 2600 E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com erivera@theharmanfirm.com METRO SHORE: Bessellieu Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------- KAMESHIA BESSELLIEU, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. METRO SHORE SERVICES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY dba METRO PORTS a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC67370 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover wages and penalties for unpaid wages owed, including but not limited to unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week, unpaid premium wages for meal and rest breaks that were missed, short, or late, wages due to discharged employees, penalties for failure to maintain accurate records and to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, under California Labor Code. The Defendant is engaged in the business of operating and managing cruise terminals, stevedoring, ship's agency, and guest services. Defendant employs Assistant Supervisors, which are non-exempt, hourly-paid positions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie K. Realin, Esq. Michael J. Morphew, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 399 3995 Facsimile: (619) 615 2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com mmorphew@markham-law.com - and - Walter F. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (310) 234 5678 Facsimile: (310) 652 2242 E-mail: walter@whaines.com MIDLAND CREDIT: "Mutty" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Dylan Mutty and Robert Gullo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Midland Credit Managment, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 17-CA-4730-CI, was removed on Aug. 23, 2017 from Pinellas County Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-02011-SDM-AAS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday. Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations. MCM provides flexible payment plans and financial education tools.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq. VETHAN & JEREMIAH 2425 W. Loop St., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 552 9100 - and - Christopher W.E. Boss, Esq. BOSS LAW PLLC 9887 4th St N Ste 202 St Petersburg, FL 33702 Telephone: (727) 471 0039 Facsimile: (888) 503 2182 E-mail: CWBservice@protectyourfuture.com The Defendant is represented by: Anthony J. Palermo, Esq. Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq. Lauren Lynn Millcarek, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP - TAMPA 100 N Tampa St-Ste 4100 PO Box 1288 Tampa, FL 33601-1288 Telephone: (813) 227 6320 E-mail: anthony.palermo@hklaw.com cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com lauren.millcarek@hklaw.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Coyne" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff David Coyne filed an appeal from a court order dated July 20, 2017, judgment dated July 21, 2017, and order dated August 1, 2017, in the lawsuit entitled David Coyne v. Midland Funding LLC, et al., Case No. 0:17-cv-00500-PAM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants own and operate a debt collection firm in Minnesota. The appellate case is captioned as David Coyne v. Midland Funding LLC, et al., Case No. 17-2826, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before September 27, 2017; -- Appendix is due on October 10, 2017; -- Brief of Appellant David Coyne is due on October 10, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant David Coyne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Anthony Patrick Chester, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (952) 225-5333 Facsimile: (800) 635-6425 E-mail: tony@westcoastlitigation.com Defendants-Appellees Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc., are represented by: Russell S. Ponessa, Esq. Margaret Ann Santos, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 333 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-3434 E-mail: rponessa@hinshawlaw.com asantos@hinshawlaw.com Defendant-Appellee Messerli & Kramer P.A. is represented by: Derrick Neal Weber, Esq. MESSERLI & KRAMER 3033 Campus Drive, Suite 250 Plymouth, MN 55441 Telephone: (763) 548-7900 E-mail: dweber@messerlikramer.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Foy" Suit over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL FOY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04889-VC (E.D. Mo., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's 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. The 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. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. 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 Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Flint, Esq. FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 222 E. Park St., Suite 500 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 205 2017 Facsimile: (618) 288 2864 E-mail: jflint@flintfirm.com - and - David J. Wool, Esq. Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq. ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C. 7171 W. Alaska Drive Lakewood, CO 80226 Telephone: (303) 376 6360 Facsimile: (303) 376 6361 E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com david.wool@andruswagstaff.com NIC GEORGIOU: Accused of Trying to Scuttle Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that the gloves have come off in the application for leave to appeal by property magnate Nic Georgiou against a judgment that he illegally tried to scuttle a potential class action suit against him. In a strongly worded affidavit Jacques Theron, the attorney representing the Highveld Syndication Action Group (HSAG), responded to allegations made by former HSAG member Helgard Hancke in an application to become an intervening party in Georgiou's application for leave to appeal against a judgment in May. This judgment found that Georgiou acted unethically and abused the court process when he secretly settled the claims of the applicants of the class action application on the condition that they withdraw their application. Mr. Hancke stated in his affidavit that some facts in Mr. Theron's founding affidavit, on which the judgment was based, were false. He also strongly criticised Mr. Theron and said Mr. Theron was not acting in the best interest of investors and was only driving the process for his personal financial gain. But in his opposing affidavit, Mr. Theron alleged that Mr. Hancke "jumped ship" after Georgiou secretly settled his wife's claim and that he was now waging a smear campaign to discredit Mr. Theron in an effort to turn investors against the class action. Allegations denied Mr. Theron strongly denies Mr. Hancke's allegations. "The fact is that Mr. Hancke was paid an undisclosed amount to settle his (Mr. Hancke's wife's) claim, and that he is now actively campaigning against the class action and against me personally on social media and has even set up a disparaging website to 'stop Theron' and to 'prevent a national disaster awaiting investors'." Elsewhere in his affidavit, Mr. Theron states: "It is clear that Hancke is dancing to the tune of Georgiou, who is funding and using Hancke as another of his 'front persons' to further frustrate the class action litigation with delays and additional costs." Mr. Theron also questioned why Mr. Hancke is applying to become an intervening party as his wife's claim was settled, and asked who was paying his legal fees. Hancke's response In response to a draft version of this article, Mr. Hancke in turn strongly denied Mr. Theron's allegation that he "jumped ship", stating that he decided to turn against the class action when believed it was no longer to the benefit of investors. Mr. Hancke stated he was opposing the HSAG's application to have the section 155 Scheme of Arrangement set aside as it would be "devastating" to investors. He also rejected Mr. Theron's contention that Mr. Georgiou paid money to him in secret to settle his wife's claim or that he had received funding from Georgiou. Regarding legal fees, Mr. Hancke said that he instructed his attorneys and that he was responsible for the payment of the fees. 'Orthotouch owns only two properties' Another point of contention is Mr. Georgiou's settlements with investors. In his original affidavit, Mr. Hancke alleged that Mr. Theron was against investors settling their claims, as it was not in his financial interest to do so. These settlements refer to a process through which Georgiou, via Orthotouch, offers to repay around 50% of the capital value of investors' original investments in the Highveld Syndication companies over a period of around three years. Settlements are negotiated individually between investors and Orthotouch. Theron denied that he was against the settlements per se, but said investors should be aware that such agreements with only Orthotouch could severely damage investors' rights. ". . . Orthotouch is a public company, which currently owns a mere two adjacent properties as per the recent deeds search that my offices performed. Of the 50 properties it previously owned, 48 properties were sold or alienated. It is inconceivable that a company that bought two properties for R143 million, with a bond of R72 million in favour of Accelerate (a company steered by Georgiou's son, Michael Georgiou), can now pay monthly the approximately R10 million (an amounted hinted to by Georgiou to Stander, Hancke and myself). . . from these two properties." He added that investors who settled with Orthotouch would be left destitute if the company went into liquidation. Moneyweb sent questions to Georgiou to confirm or deny this statement, but he had not responded prior to publication. 1% commission and the 800 HSAG settlement agreements Mr. Hancke also alleged in his original affidavit that Mr. Theron demanded a 1% negotiator's commission on settlements and that Georgiou refused to pay this commission. This demand, according to Hancke, resulted in Mr. Georgiou not settling the claims of around 800 HSAG members who were keen to settle. Mr. Theron strongly denied he ever demanded a 1% commission for settlements. "The allegation that I demanded a 1% commission payment is a blatant lie. I never even mentioned payment of commission to me, let alone demanding some." Mr. Theron said it was, in fact, Mr. Georgiou who did not want to sign the 800 settlements after the parties met for two days to do so. He also alleges that Mr. Hancke "betrayed" the HSAG as he conveyed confidential strategies to Georgiou which resulted in Georgiou not signing the agreements. The applicants Mr. Theron reaffirmed that the six applications in the certification application, who settled with Georgiou on condition that they withdraw their application, did not know each other. Mr. Hancke contended in his affidavit that they did, in fact, know each other. Mr. Theron said that "the only 'proof' that they knew each other, is a blank screen-print of a WhatsApp group of which two of them are members (with me and Visagie). They may have been aware of one another, but they certainly did not know each other -- especially in the sense to have gone to the same attorney simultaneously with the same instructions to withdraw the litigation." [GN] NORTH AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "McGhee" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant North American Bancard, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Gerald McGhee v. North American Bancard, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00586-AJB-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 1, 2017, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit. Defendant NAB is the provider of mobile credit card processing services called "PayAnywhere." McGhee, a merchant, acquired a card reader from NAB, but never used it. After more than one year, NAB began deducting a monthly non-use fee from McGhee's bank account. Despite contacting NAB to stop the charges and demand a refund, NAB continued to charge him for several months and has refused to issue him a refund. The appellate case is captioned as Gerald McGhee v. North American Bancard, LLC, Case No. 17-56248, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant North American Bancard, LLC's opening brief is due on October 16, 2017; -- Appellee Gerald McGhee's answering brief is due on November 16, 2017; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee GERALD MCGHEE, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Eric A. LaGuardia, Esq. LAGUARDIA LAW 3245 University Ave. San Diego, CA 92104 Telephone: (619) 655-4322 Facsimile: (619) 655-4344 E-mail: eal@laguardialaw.com - and - Craig Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org Defendant-Appellee NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, is represented by: Matthew F. Murray, Esq. MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (301) 564-2670 E-mail: mmurray@mrllp.com NOVOCURE LTD: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss the consolidated class action lawsuit filed against NovoCure Limited related to alleged violation of the federal securities laws is bifurcated into two stages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. In January 2017, two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its directors and certain of its officers, as well as the underwriters in the Company's October 2015 initial public offering. The complaints, which purport to be brought on behalf of a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ordinary shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering, allege material misstatements and/or omissions in the Company's initial public offering materials in alleged violation of the federal securities laws and seek compensatory damages, among other remedies. The two actions have been consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 31, 2017. The court granted the defendants' motion to bifurcate the motion to dismiss into two stages: a threshold motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and insufficient process and service of process, due on July 31, 2017; and, if the matter is not dismissed following that threshold motion, a subsequent merits motion to dismiss regarding whether the allegations in the amended complaint state a claim under the securities laws. NovoCure stated, "The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit and plans to defend the consolidated lawsuits vigorously. The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, as a liability is not probable and the amount of any potential liability cannot be reasonably estimated." NovoCure Limited engages in the development, manufacture, and commercialization of tumor treating fields (TTFields) for the treatment of solid tumors. The Company markets its proprietary therapy, TTFields delivery system under the Optune name for use as a monotherapy treatment for adult patients with glioblastoma brain cancer. It is also involved in conducting clinical trials for the use of TTFields in brain metastases, non-small cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, and mesothelioma. The company markets its products in the United States, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and other countries. NovoCure Limited was founded in 2000 and is based in Saint Helier, the Channel Islands. PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Voluntary Dismissed "Cho" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- PayPal Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that the lead plaintiff in the class action captioned Cho v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv- 07371 has voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. The Company said, "On December 28, 2016, a putative securities class action captioned Cho v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-07371 (the "Securities Case"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"). The Securities Case asserted claims relating to our disclosure in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 28, 2016, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC as part of its investigation to determine whether we, through our Venmo service, have been or are engaged in deceptive or unfair practices in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. "The Securities Case purported to be brought on behalf of purchasers of eBay's stock on or after December 19, 2013 who subsequently received the Company's stock pursuant to eBay's spin- off of the Company, effective as of July 17, 2015, and/or purchasers of the Company's stock between July 20, 2015 and April 28, 2016, and asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and former interim Chief Financial Officer, and eBay and certain of its former officers, including the Chairman of our Board of Directors. "The Securities Case alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding our compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the failure to disclose that we were purportedly engaging in unfair trade practices through our Venmo service and that as a result of alleged false and misleading statements or omissions, our stock traded at artificially inflated prices. The Securities Case sought unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class members. "On March 23, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the putative class. On May 12, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that, among other things, did not name eBay or the former eBay officers as defendants. On June 1, 2017, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Securities Case without prejudice." PayPal Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in January 2015 and is a technology platform and digital payments company that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and merchants worldwide. PEOPLES SECURITY: Rakus Sues over Vehicle Foreclosure Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY RAKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 535 Cherry Street Mount Carmel, PA 17851-1709, the Plaintiff, v. PEOPLES SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO., 216 S. Main Street Old Forge, PA 18518, the Defendant Case No. 170802552 (Philly. Cty. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), is a consumer class action brought against an automobile lender to redress systemic violations of Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC requires secured parties who utilize self-help repossession to provide consumers with proper notice when repossessing and reselling a financed vehicle. Defendant has failed to do so, the lawsuit says. According to the compliant, the Defendant regularly finances the purchase of automobiles for consumer use in Pennsylvania. When PBST believes that a consumer has defaulted on a secured vehicle loan, it repossesses and then re-sells the vehicle. In the course of so doing, PSBT failed to provide Plaintiff and the class with the proper notice of disposition of collateral required by Pennsylvania law, including the UCC. Because self-help repossession is effected without judicial authorization or oversight, the UCC requires secured creditors like PSBT to adhere strictly to the Code's notice requirements. Failure to provide proper notice of disposition of repossessed consumer goods is a violation of the Code that yields uniform statutory minimum damages for Plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent. The lawsuit seeks to recover minimum damages of the credit service charge plus 10% of the principal amount of the obligation. The statutory minimum damages are designed to relieve the consumer debtor of the sometimes difficult burden of proof of actual damages. The statutory damages are derived from a simple, straightforward and uniform arithmetic calculation, the lawsuit says. Peoples Security Bank, a community bank, provides a range of banking products and services to individuals, businesses, not-for- profit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cary L. Flitter, Esq. Andrew M. Milz, Esq. FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: (610) 822 0782 PNM RESOURCES: Still Involved in Navajo Nation Allottee Matters --------------------------------------------------------------- PNM Resources, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), is still facing legal proceedings related to Navajo Nation allottee matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities in February 2009 in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation and allege that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights- of-way or both. In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking redress in federal court. In May 2010, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional Director. In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director's decision to the DOI, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of Indian Appeals. Following briefing on the merits, on August 20, 2013, that board issued a decision upholding the Regional Director's decision that the allottees had failed to perfect their appeals, and dismissed the allottees' appeals, without prejudice. The allottees have not refiled their appeals. Although this matter was dismissed without prejudice, PNM considers the matter concluded. However, PNM continues to monitor this matter in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM- acquired rights-of-way. In a separate matter, in September 2012, 43 landowners claiming to be Navajo allottees filed a notice of appeal with the BIA appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line. The allottees, many of whom are also allottees in the above matter, generally allege that they were not paid fair market value for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity to make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus denied due process. On January 6, 2014, PNM received notice that the BIA, Navajo Region, requested a review of an appraisal report on 58 allotment parcels. After review, the BIA concluded it would continue to rely on the values of the original appraisal. On March 27, 2014, while this matter was stayed, the allottees filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice. On April 2, 2014, the allottees' appeal was dismissed with prejudice. Subsequent to the dismissal, PNM received a letter from counsel on behalf of what appears to be a subset of the 43 landowner allottees involved in the appeal, notifying PNM that the specified allottees were revoking their consents for renewal of right of way on six specific allotments. On January 22, 2015, PNM received a letter from the BIA Regional Director identifying ten allotments with rights-of-way renewals that were previously contested. The letter indicated that the renewals were not approved by the BIA because the previous consent obtained by PNM was later revoked, prior to BIA approval, by the majority owners of the allotments. It is the BIA Regional Director's position that PNM must re-obtain consent from these landowners. On July 13, 2015, PNM filed a condemnation action in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico regarding the approximately 15.49 acres of land at issue. On December 1, 2015, the court ruled that PNM could not condemn two of the five allotments at issue based on the Navajo Nation's fractional interest in the land. PNM's motion for reconsideration of this ruling was denied. On March 31, 2016, the Tenth Circuit granted PNM's petition to appeal the December 1, 2015 ruling. On September 18, 2015, the allottees filed a separate complaint against PNM for federal trespass. Both matters have been consolidated and are stayed while PNM pursues its appeal before the Tenth Circuit. On June 27, 2016, PNM filed its opening brief in the Tenth Circuit. Amicus briefs were filed in support of PNM's position. On October 5, 2016, the United States, the Navajo Nation, and individual allottees filed their response briefs. After the response briefs were filed, other entities requested leave to file amicus briefs addressing arguments raised in the United States' response brief. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was heard on January 17, 2017. On May 26, 2017, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. On July 8, 2017, PNM filed a Motion for Reconsideration en banc with the Tenth Circuit. On July 21, 2017, the court denied PNM's Motion for Reconsideration. On July 26, 2017, PNM filed a motion to stay implementation of the court's decision. PNM is considering all of its procedural options going forward in the litigation. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters. PNM Resources, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the energy and energy-related businesses in the United States. It operates through Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) and Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TNMP) segments. The PNM segment is primarily involved in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It generates electricity using coal, natural gas and oil, nuclear fuel, solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. The TNMP segment provides regulated transmission and distribution services. PNM Resources, Inc. was founded in 1917 and is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Appeals Ruling in "Pettit" Charmin Wipes Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the entitled Jamie Pettit v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-02150-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 16, 2017, the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting certification of: "[a]ll persons who, between April 6, 2011 and the [date of class certification], purchased in California the Charmin Freshmates Flushable Wipes (excluding purchases for purpose of resale)". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jhx3JT9D The appellate case is captioned as Jamie Pettit v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 17-80168, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent JAMIE PETTIT, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, is represented by: Seth Adam Safier, Esq. Adam Joshua Gutride, Esq. Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 835 Douglass Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (415) 336-6545 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com adam@gutridesafier.com kristen@gutridesafier.com Defendant-Petitioner THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY is represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 E-mail: ehenn@cov.com - and - Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. Sonya D. Winner, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-7078 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 E-mail: clannin@cov.com SWinner@cov.com PSCH CLEAN: "Brown" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Brown, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PSCH Clean Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 711882/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, maximum liquidated damages, including maximum liquidated damages on all wages paid later than weekly, prejudgment interest, maximum recovery for violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 901, on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly-situated current and former employees who were employed by Defendant as manual workers, within the six-year period preceding the filing of this action to the date of disposition of this action, that he and they: 1) were employed by Defendant within the State of New York as manual workers; 2) entitled to maximum liquidated damages (for the period after April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly; and 3) entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law, and the regulations; as well as an injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate the weekly payment requirement for manual workers set forth in NYLL 191.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427. Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 QUIKTURN PROFESSIONAL: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Gonzalez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MARICELA GONZALEZ, individually 11 II and on behalf of all others similarly 12 11 situated, the Plaintiffs, v. QUIKTURN PROFESSIONAL SCREENPRINTING, a California Corporation; PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; CUSTOMLINE SCREENPRINTING & DISTRIBUTION, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00940071-CU-OE- CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages or actual damages under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay all wages owed, including overtime; failed to provide lawful meal periods; failed to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment; failed to reimburse necessary expenses; and unfair competition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Luciov JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387 7200 Facsimile: (949) 387 6676 E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com RADISSON HOTEL: Settles Banquet Servers' Class Action for $1.8MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rochester Business Journal reports that a class-action lawsuit filed by current and former banquet servers who worked at the Radisson Hotel Rochester Riverside has settled for $1.8 million. Settlement checks are scheduled to be mailed in the next few weeks to more than 200 class members who worked as banquet service workers at the hotel at 120 E. Main St. during an almost six-year period. The settlement resolves claims that banquet service workers were illegally deprived of tips in the form of mandatory service charges added to bills for banquet events and did not receive spread of hours pay when they worked 10 or more hours in a single day. The mandatory service charges were retained by the hotel instead of being distributed to the banquet service workers as tips. The class members are represented by attorneys at Thomas & Solomon LLP, who filed the lawsuit in state Supreme Court in Monroe County in early 2016. The settlement received final court approval on Aug. 23, 2017. The lawsuit was filed under provisions of New York State Labor Law making it illegal for employers to retain a gratuity or any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee and requiring employees to be paid an additional hour of pay if they worked in a spread of ten or more hours in a workday. The lawsuit alleged that the hotel failed to advise customers in writing that the mandatory service charge -- which was approximately 20 percent of the food and beverage charge for events, was not a gratuity and was instead being retained by the hotel. [GN] RELAY DELIVERY: "Sawadogo" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- KADAR SAWADOGO, IDRISS MAHAMAED, ABDEL JABA LIGALI, IBRAHIMA MINTE, KPELE GNUAN, and CESSLIN INTADI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RELAY DELIVERY, INC., ALEX BLUM, and individual, and, MICHAEL CHEVETT, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 516630/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs routinely worked between 60 and 70 hours per week for Defendants. They were paid as little as $6.00 per hour for this work, and were not paid overtime. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the federal or state minimum wage for most of their employment, and never paid them overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 each work week. Relay Delivery provides delivery solutions for restaurants. It offers software and delivery team. The company was incorporated in 2014 and is based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 791 5396 SEI INVESTMENTS: Still Faces "Lillie" Class Action Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- SEI Investments Company and its wholly-owned limited purpose federal thrift subsidiary, SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC), still defend themselves in the "Lillie" class action suit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts; four of the cases also name SPTC as a defendant. The procedural status of the seven cases varies. The Lillie case, filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is procedurally the most advanced of the cases. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the certificates of deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust Company. Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and permitting the claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go forward. On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the Northern District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford Entities Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending. On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations pled by plaintiffs. On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs still pending before the District Court in Lillie are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being "all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice of the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class members on October 4, 2016. SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management, asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions, financial services, and investment advisory services to its clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based in Oaks, Pennsylvania. SERVICE CORP: Units Still Faces Vasquez Suit on Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- The subsidiaries of Service Corporation International continue to defend themselves in the lawsuit captioned Adrian Mercedes Vasquez, an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, et al; Case No. BC58837, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. The claims have been ordered to arbitration, with the arbitrator to determine whether the claims will proceed as a class or individual claims. The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in July 2015 against SCI subsidiaries and purports to be brought on behalf of current and former non-exempt California employees of defendants during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff alleges numerous causes of action for alleged wage and hour pay violations. The plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief. In addition, the plaintiff filed an unfair labor practice charge against defendants with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that by enforcing a mandatory arbitration provision, defendants allegedly violated the National Labor Relations Act. The Company said, "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit." Service Corporation International, together with its subsidiaries, provides deathcare products and services in the United States and Canada. The Company operates through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs to Appeal on Dropped Moulton Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that plaintiffs have filed documents indicating that they are appealing the dismissal of the class action filed in connection with the Company's proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and others, Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI and its subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination. The Company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the suit. The case has continued against the Company's subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors. However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have filed documents indicating that they are appealing the dismissal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company said, "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages." Service Corporation International, together with its subsidiaries, provides deathcare products and services in the United States and Canada. The Company operates through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. SERVICE CORP: $15.0MM Settlement Reached in TCPA Class Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Service Corporation International has entered into a US$15.0 million agreement to settle a class action lawsuit related to Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed on August 30, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The settlement is subject to court approval. The case, Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., Case No 16-1033; In the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, case was filed in June 2016 as a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the Act). Plaintiff alleges she received telemarketing telephone calls that were made with a prerecorded voice or made by an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the Act. Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs. In July 2017, the court denied the subsidiary's motion for summary judgment. The parties have scheduled a mediation for August 1, 2017. On August 30, 2017, the Company reported the execution of a binding term sheet outlining the settlement of the lawsuit involving its subsidiary SCI Direct, among others. If final court approval of the settlement is obtained, all claims under the lawsuit will be released. The terms of the settlement call for the subsidiary to pay US$15.0 million to a settlement fund. An insurance carrier has agreed to reimburse the Company US$3.5 million pursuant to the Company's insurance coverage. The settlement of this matter will result in a one-time net charge of US$11.5 million in the Company's third quarter 2017 Statement of Operations. Service Corporation International, together with its subsidiaries, provides deathcare products and services in the United States and Canada. The Company operates through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. SHAMROCK SALOON: Faces "George" Suit in S.D. of New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shamrock Saloon II LLC agent of d/b/a Calico Jack's Cantina. The case is styled as Meghan George agent of on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shamrock Saloon II LLC agent of d/b/a Calico Jack's Cantina, Blitz Marketing, LLC, John L. Sullivan and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06663 (S.D. N.Y., September 1, 2017). The Defendants own and operate a bar/restaurant located at 800 2nd Ave, New York, New York 10017. [BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SHORETEL INC: Faces "Mozeee" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Mitel ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Mozee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Shoretel, Inc., Don Joos, Marjorie Bowen, Mark Bregman, Kenneth Denman, Charles Kissner, Shane Robison, Constance Skidmore, Josef Vejvoda, Mitel US Holdings, Inc., Shelby Acquisition Corporation, and Mitel Networks Corporation, Case No. 4:17-cv-04888-HSG (N.D. Cal., August 23, 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: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Ryan P. Cardona, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (610) 667-9029 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com rcardona@brodskysmith.com SHOWTIME: Sued Over Failed Mayweather-McGregor Streams ------------------------------------------------------ According to Hollywood Reporter's Ashley Cullins, before the sweat was dry in the ring following Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s defeat of UFC champion Conor McGregor on Aug. 26, Showtime had another major fight on its hands -- a class-action lawsuit from customers unhappy because of streaming issues that plagued the fight and the lead-up bouts. Portland, Ore., boxing fan Zack Bartel paid to stream the fight in high-definition through the Showtime app but says all he saw was "grainy video, error screens, buffer events, and stalls." Mr. Bartel is suing Showtime for unlawful trade practices and unjust enrichment, alleging the network rushed its pay-per-view streaming service to the market without securing the bandwidth necessary to support the scores of cable-cutting fans. "Instead of being upfront with consumers about its new, untested, underpowered service, defendant caused likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding as to the source and quality of the HD video consumers would see on fight night," writes attorney Michael Fuller in the complaint filed late on Aug. 26 in Oregon federal court. "Defendant intentionally misrepresented the quality and grade of video consumers would see using its app, and knowingly failed to disclose that its system was defective with respect to the amount of bandwidth available, and that defendant's service would materially fail to conform to the quality of HD video defendant promised." The complaint, which is largely composed of screenshots and tweets, is seeking for each member of the class actual damages or $200 in statutory damages, whichever is greater. The proposed class includes Oregon consumers who viewed Showtime's app advertisement on iTunes and paid $99.99 to stream the fight, but were unable to view the fight live on the app "in HD at 1080p resolution and at 60 frames per second, and who experienced ongoing grainy video, error screens, buffer events, and stalls instead." Showtime senior vp sports communications Chris DeBlasio says anyone who had issues with a cable or satellite feed should contact their provider, but Showtime will handle complaints from anyone who bought the fight through Showtimeppv.com and the ShowtimePPV app. "We have received a very limited number of complaints and will issue a full refund for any customer who purchased the event directly from Showtime and were unable to receive the telecast," he says. Pay-Per-View Live Events Inc. also sent The Hollywood Reporter an email that directed dissatisfied customers to their service providers. "Unfortunately, we are receiving a huge number of complaints from a large number of customers who are not using our services but a different provider (UFC)," says the message. "We can only express that we understand your pain for not being able to see the special event but again we are not the company that provided the stream or actual event. You will need to contact the actual provider such as Xfinity, Showtime, HBO, UFC.tv etc. to request your refund." The plaintiffs are also represented by Geragos & Geragos. [GN] SPARTON CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on Aug. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, case No. 1:17-cv-01663, on behalf of shareholders of Sparton Corporation ("Sparton" or the "Company") (NYSE:SPA) who have been harmed by Sparton's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with Ultra Electronics Holdings plc ("Ultra Electronics"). On July 7, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction"), under which each share of Sparton common stock will be exchanged for $23.50 in cash. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/SPAnotice. The complaint alleges that the Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on August 4, 2017, violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Sparton shareholders. Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN] STARBUCKS CORP: Faces "Naimi" Suit in C. Dist. of Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starbucks Corporation. The case is styled as Oliver Naimi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Starbucks Corporation, Starbucks New Venture Company, PepsiCo, Inc. and North American Coffee Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 06484-VAP-GJS (C.D. Cal., September 1, 2017). Starbucks owns and operates approximately 12,000 coffee shops under the trade name "Starbucks" within the United States with 317 in New York City. Armstead was hired by Defendant as a barista for Starbucks at 6th and Waverly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Faruqi and Faruqi LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (424) 256-2884 Fax: (424) 256-2885 Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com SUBWAY: "Foot-Long" Sandwiches Settlement Approval Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Vielmetti, writing for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports that a class-action lawsuit that almost extracted $520,000 out of Subway over the length of its sandwiches just derailed at a federal appeals court. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Milwaukee federal judge's approval of a settlement in the infamous case about whether Subway's "foot-long" sandwiches were always 12 inches long. Judge Diane Sykes, writing for a three-judge panel, concluded: "Because the settlement yields fees for class counsel and 'zero benefits for the class,' the class should not have been certified and the settlement should not have been approved." After an Australian teenager took a photo of his Subway sandwich coming up short next to a ruler in 2013 and posted it online, people began to sue over the length of their subs. Several were consolidated into a single class-action case that was assigned to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Milwaukee. "In their haste to file suit, however, the lawyers neglected to consider whether the claims had any merit. They did not," Judge Sykes wrote. She noted that early discovery in the case showed Subway already had fairly strict standards about how much dough was in unbaked loaves, and that the minor variations in length were unpreventable, given the nature of baking. Plus, she wrote, no customer really gets less food than they expect, since they watch their subs get made in front of them and can ask for more toppings. Nonetheless, a settlement plan announced in 2015 would have paid the 10 plaintiff law firms involved a total of $525,000 but given most class members -- the millions of people who purchased Subway subs since 2003 -- only some promised new procedures Subway said would further assure that their rolls measured a full 12 inches. The injunctive nature of the settlement was because there really were no damages to any customer. Seeking the other relief from Subway was a way for the lawyers to preserve fees. Some folks objected to the proposed deal. Theodore Frank, "a class member and professional objector to hollow class-action settlements," in Judge Sykes' words, tried to block the planned deal but Adelman approved it. Besides fees to the lawyers, a few named plaintiffs would get $500 each. The class lawyers tried to argue that since the relief to the class was injunctive, Mr. Frank stood to gain nothing if the attorney fees were reduced. But Judge Sykes noted that Mr. Frank's objection was to certification of the class and the settlement itself. She observed that before -- and after -- the settlement, customers could still occasionally get a sandwich in a bun a little under 12 inches or 6 inches long. She was not impressed that some who might find offense could theoretically return to court and try to have Subway found in contempt. "Contempt as a remedy to enforce a worthless settlement is itself worthless. Zero plus zero equals zero," Judge Sykes wrote. Adam Schulman, who represented the objector Frank (who is Ted Frank, director of the Center for Class Action Fairness), said, "It was wonderful to see the principle vindicated," that cases without benefits to absent class members should not be certified. "Subway should really be the happiest," though, he said, as Mr. Schulman read Judge Sykes' language to suggest the case is likely headed for dismissal. But Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., one of the class-action attorneys, said they will now seek to have internal Subway documents that were kept confidential for the purpose of mediation in the case made part of the public court record. "We intend to pursue the cases," he said. "People will definitely have a different view once they see the information the two judges saw." Subway released this statement on Aug. 28: "We are pleased that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized, as had the lower court before it, that the Subway(R) brand did not misrepresent its product. We stand behind our commitment to quality." [GN] SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Cheam Seeks Lost Wages under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- SIRICA CHEAM, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC., a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC873820 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover lost wages and unpaid balance of the premium compensation pursuant to Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in Defendants' failure to: (a) provide paid rest breaks and (b) provide accurate itemized wage statements. Swift Transportation is a Phoenix, Arizona-based publicly held American truckload motor shipping carrier. With over 16,000 trucks, it is one of the largest common carriers in the United States. In 2017, Swift announced that it was merging with Knight Transportation, also of Phoenix, to be called Knight-Swift.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Nick Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 - and - Edward W. Choi, Esq. Paul M. Yi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 381 1515 Facsimile: (213) 465 4885 TD BANK: Penny Arcades Customers Can File Claims Until Oct. 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Everett, writing for NJ.com, reports that if you counted coins using TD Bank's Penny Arcades in the last seven years, you can now file a claim in a class action suit against the bank. The suit was filed in 2016 after NBC's Today Show broke the news that the machines in bank branches were undercounting change. TD Bank, based in Cherry Hill, removed all the coin counters within a few months. In July, U.S. District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle approved a $9 million settlement that will see nearly $7.5 million shared among those who used the machines after April 11, 2010. TD Bank customers who used the coin-counting machines will get paid automatically from the settlement, court documents show. But if you don't have an account with the bank, you will have to submit a claim to get paid. Aug. 28 is the first day that people can submit claims. Here's what you need to know if you think TD Bank owes you money. How to submit a claim Starting on Aug. 28 and until Oct. 27, people will be able to print or submit a claim online at the website pennyarcadesettlement.com. You can also request a form be sent to you by calling 855-312- 1974. Under the terms of the settlement, the claims process is being handled by Garden City Group LLC. That company will also provide information on the website, and answer questions via the toll-free number, questions@pennyarcadesettlement.com or mail at Penny Arcade Settlement, c/o GCG, PO Box 10470 Dublin OH 43017-4070. How much money you'll get If you counted fewer than $3,846 in the machine over the years, you're looking at a single-digit payout. To figure out your payment, multiply the total amount you obtained from the coin-counting machines by .26 percent. That means users will get 26 cents per $100 counted. Both sides agreed on the formula after testing the coin-counting machines, the settlement said. The percentage is actually higher than the percent error of the machines during the testing, the settlement agreement says. The tested machines undercounted by .117 percent and .090 percent, court documents show. Documentation is key With each claim, one must submit the date of the coin counting, the dollar amount of the transaction, and "documentation sufficient to substantiate the claim, if available," according to the preliminary settlement. If you weren't a TD Bank customer when you used the Penny Arcades and you don't have receipts of your transactions, the bank has no way to verify that you used the machines at all. Any non-customer who does not have documentation of their coin- counting transactions will only be able to make a claim on up to $500 in coins. That means the most he or she could recoup is $1.30. TESLA MOTORS: Faces "Platt" Suit over Termination of Employment --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN PLATT, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons; and DOES 1-50, the Plaintiff, v. TESLA MOTORS, INC, a Delaware, corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17873032 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover benefit under Tesla's employment. According to the complaint, Plaintiff was diagnosed on July 24, 2013, with significant decrease in pulmonary function by an Occupational Health Physician and advised to follow up with a pulmonary physician. While Plaintiff was allowed to return to work without restriction on August 2, 2013, the Occupational Health Physician asked that Plaintiff return for a follow up appointment on August 6. On August 6, Plaintiff was cleared by the Occupational Health Physician to continue working without any restrictions. However, on August 26, 2013, at the end of his work shift for that day, Plaintiff was informed that Tesla was terminating his employment. Plaintiff was subsequently paid his wages up and including his wages for August 26. As for his shares, Plaintiff was informed that he is not entitled to any portion of his shares with Tesla because they presumably have not vested. Tesla is an American automaker, energy storage company, and solar panel manufacturer based in Palo Alto, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef Peretz, Esq. Sumy Kim, Esq. PERETZ & ASSOCIATES 22 Battery Street, Suite.202 San Francisco, CA 9411 Telephone: 415 732 3777 Facsimile: 415 732 3791 E-mail: yperetz@peretzlaw.com skim@peretzlaw.com TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Wages, Guzman Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ PHILIP GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL (NYC), LLC and/or TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL (NYC), LLC, TRIUMVIRATE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. and JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 157629/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 25, 2017), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiff and the members of the putative class were contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. projects in New York. According to the complaint, a schedule of prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits established by the New York City Comptroller ("Prevailing Wage Schedule") was annexed to, or incorporated by reference, in each of the Con Ed Contracts. This promise to pay and ensure payment of the prevailing wage and supplemental benefit rates in the Con Ed Contracts was made for the benefit of all workers furnishing labor on the Utility Projects and, as such, the workers furnishing labor on the sites of the Utility Projects are the beneficiaries of that promise. Upon information and believe, the terms and conditions of the Con Ed Contracts were incorporated into Con Ed Subcontracts. Plaintiff Guzman worked for Triumvirate on the Utility Projects in 2016. While working on the Utility Projects, Plaintiff Guzman was paid $14.00 per hour. The proper wage and benefit rate that Plaintiff Guzman was required to receive under the Con Ed Contracts was in excess of $50.00 to $80.00 per hour depending on the location of the project, year, and work being performed. Defendant John Doe Bonding Company furnished Labor and Material Payment Bonds the terms of which insured that the Bonding Company would pay unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits to the Plaintiff and the putative class members in the event Triumvirate failed to pay these wages. Triumvirate Environmental provides innovative environmental, health and safety solutions for Healthcare, Education, Life Sciences, and Industrial markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. Jack Newhouse, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: Lambinder@vandallp.com jnewhouse@vandallp.com UNITIL CORP: Individual Claims in Bellermann Case Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 that individual claims in a putative class action captioned Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company are still pending. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court. The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order denying class certification status in July 2016, though the plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending. Unitil said, "The Company continues to believe that this suit is without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously." The Town of Lunenburg filed a separate action in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts in December 2016 and dismissed the Town's complaint. The Court's decision remains subject to a potential motion for reconsideration and appeal. Unitil said, "The Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel and others, that the ultimate resolution of these suits will not have a material impact on its financial position, operating results or cash flows." Unitil Corporation, a public utility holding company, engages in the distribution of electricity and natural gas in the United States. It operates through three segments: Utility Gas Operations, Utility Electric Operations, and Non-Regulated. Unitil Corporation was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered in Hampton, New Hampshire. VOLUME SERVICES: Faces "Jeffries" Suit in Dist. of Columbia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volume Services America, Inc. (d/b/a Centerplate and Centerplate/NBSE). The case is styled as Doris Jeffries, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Volume Services America, Inc. (d/b/a Centerplate and Centerplate/NBSE) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01788 (D.C., September 1, 2017). Volume Services America, Inc. is the rated subsidiary of Centerplate, Inc. which operates concession, catering and merchandise services in sports facilities, convention centers and other entertainment facilities. Centerplate, the ultimate parent of Volume Services, Inc. and Service America Corporation, has its principal executive office in Stamford, Connecticut and a corporate office in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Through these subsidiaries, Centerplate generated revenues totaling approximately $741 million during fiscal 2007.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Faces "Edelstein" Suit in C.D. of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westlake Wellbeing Properties LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The case is styled as Scott Edelstein and Steven Brooks individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Westlake Wellbeing Properties LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Four Seasons Hotels Limited, a Canada corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06488 (C.D. Cal., September 1, 2017). Westlake Wellbeing Properties LLC is in the Spa business.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE. WORLD CLASS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Paz" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Paz and Maricela Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. World Class Garment Care Corp., World Class Cleaners Long Island City Inc., and Angelo Bolbasis, Case No. 1:17-cv-04977-AMD-CLP (E.D.N.Y., August 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a laundry and dry cleaner business located at 27-09 40th Avenue, Long Island City, New York 11101. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: 718-263-9591 E-mail: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com WW GRAINGER: Trial in "Davies" Complaint Set for February 2018 -------------------------------------------------------------- W.W. Grainger, Inc. still defends itself against a lawsuit filed by David Davies related to violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. On April 5, 2013, David Davies filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), and sought certification of a class of persons who may have received one or more of approximately 400,000 faxes Grainger sent in connection with a 2009 marketing campaign. The TCPA provides for penalties of US$500 to US$1,500 for each noncompliant individual fax. On May 13, 2013, the Company removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "District Court"). On June 27, 2014, the District Court found that Davies was not an adequate class representative. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Davies' petition for immediate review of the ruling. Davies subsequently moved the District Court for reconsideration of its ruling and his motion was denied on September 28, 2016. Davies may seek to pursue an appeal of the ruling at the conclusion of the District Court proceeding. On April 4, 2016, the District Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss Davies' individual claims and subsequently the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court entered judgment for Grainger on Davies' common law claim for conversion while granting partial summary judgment for Grainger on Davies' TCPA claim. On November 21, 2016, the District Court denied Grainger's motion for summary judgment which argued that Davies lacks standing to bring his TCPA claim and held that the issue of whether Grainger's opt-out notice is clear and conspicuous was a contested issue of fact to be resolved by a jury at trial. Trial is currently set for February 5, 2018. W.W. Grainger said, "The Company believes it has strong legal and factual defenses and intends to continue defending itself vigorously in the pending lawsuit. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations." W.W. Grainger, Inc. distributes maintenance, repair, and operating (MRO) supplies; and other related products and services that are used by businesses and institutions in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. It operates through two segments, U.S. and Canada. W.W. Grainger, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is based in Lake Forest, Illinois. ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Sylvander Sues over Inflated Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVE SYLVANDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ANDERS GUSTAFSSON and MICHAEL C. SMILEY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04961 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2017), seeks remedies under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of the alleged fraudulent conduct of Defendant. The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired the Zebra common stock between March 17, 2015 through May 9, 2016, both dates inclusive ("Class Period"). The Company made materially false and/or misleading statements, misrepresenting its business operations and legal compliance. The Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased Zebra common stock at artificially inflated prices and suffered significant losses and damages once the truth emerged. Zebra Technologies is a public company based in Lincolnshire, Illinois, USA, that manufactures and sells marking, tracking and computer printing technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363 7500 Facsimile: (212) 363 7171 E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com aapton@zlk.com ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Davydov" Suit in E.D. of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates, P.C. The case is styled as Yuzef Davydov, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05182 (E.D. N.Y., September 1, 2017). Zwicker & Associates is a law firm whose primary business function is debt collection.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. The Defendant represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com * Mainers May Lose Right to Fight Big Banks' Lending Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Jody Harris, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that if you're like most people, chances are you've signed a bank or credit card agreement without reading the fine print. Not only is the print too small to read, but it is wordy and hard to understand. Even more egregious for consumers in Maine and throughout the country, the legal print you're likely to ignore often includes language that takes away your rights. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wants that to change. That's why last month, the bureau announced a new rule aimed at protecting the right of Mainers and consumers across the U.S. to hold banks accountable in court. Often buried in that fine print is language that prevents consumers from banding together in public, class-action lawsuits against big banks. Instead, the fine print requires them to use private arbitration -- called "forced arbitration" -- and negotiate with the very companies they are fighting. The bureau's rule would prohibit forced arbitration clauses with class-action lawsuit bans in financial contracts and help people take court action against companies' fraudulent practices. The question, however, is whether Congress will move to strip Mainers of their right to hold banks accountable in court. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has already begun the attack, and Rep. Bruce Poliquin voted on July 25 to strike down the new rule. If the House measure passes the Senate, the bureau would be barred from ever issuing another rule to restrict forced arbitration. We hope Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King will once again stand in the best interests of their constituents by voting against repeal of this long-awaited protection. In doing so, they would be siding with Mainers against the rampant abuses of forced arbitration. Study after study has shown that big banks almost always win forced arbitration cases while regularly exploiting working and middle-class families. A recent Economic Policy Institute report found that arbitrators grant consumers relief regarding their claims in only 9 percent of disputes, but when companies make claims or counterclaims, arbitrators side with them 93 percent of the time. Instead of getting the relief he or she seeks through arbitration, the average consumer is ordered to pay their bank or lender $7,725, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Further, class-action lawsuits are critical when small-dollar amounts are at issue. Ultimately, an individual consumer involved in a small dispute of only tens or hundreds of dollars cannot afford to arbitrate on his or her own. An ongoing lawsuit involving Wells Fargo customers illustrates the kind of banking behavior the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule aims to end. For years, Wells Fargo illegally re-ordered the sequence of debit card transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount instead of posting the transactions chronologically. Imagine you have $150 in your checking account, then spend $3 on a cup of coffee in the morning, $5 for a sandwich at lunch, and then $155 for groceries after work. If the transactions were processed in the correct order, you would face a single overdraft fee for the groceries at the end of the day. But what if Wells Fargo took those transactions and applied them to your account from largest to smallest? Now, you must pay three overdraft fees of up to $35 each. For someone living paycheck to paycheck, this can be a devastating sequence of events. America's banks have used this scam to defraud consumers out of billions of dollars. While other big banks ultimately settled their cases, Wells Fargo is attempting to force its customers into private arbitration proceedings to avoid being held accountable in court. If Wells Fargo is successful, consumers will need to pursue secret arbitration one-by-one to recoup their money. And in arbitration, customers routinely lose and end up on the hook for thousands of dollars from bank counterclaims. Most individual customers simply won't take that risk. If the Wells Fargo overdraft scandal, or the myriad other big bank abuses are any indication, we can expect Wall Street to continue to put profits over the rights and welfare of consumers. Consumers need our elected representatives to help protect us against this abusive behavior that has become all too common among big banks. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule is an important part of this protection, but it also will require that lawmakers like Collins and King resist overturning it. ********* 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 * * *