/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171205.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 240 Headlines AARP INC: Faces "Levay" Suit over Insurance Policies ACE AMERICAN: Flores Sues over $8 Million Settlement Payment ADORAMA INC: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York ALCON LABORATORIES: 3d Cir. Flips Dismissal of Eye Drops Suit ALFRED DUNHILL: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York ALL STAR CONCRETE: "Hererra" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ALLERGAN INC: Faces 1199SEIU Fund Suit Over Restasis-Price Fixing ALLY FINANCIAL: "Sharpe" Class Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee AMERIMEX SOLUTIONS: Siu Sues over Automated Dialing System ANTARES PHARMA: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ARAMARK SPORTS: Cintron Sues over Collection of Biometric Info ARIZONA: Attorney General Scores Big Win vs Excessive Lawsuits ATTENDING HOME: "Marichal" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay BRAAVOS INC: "Gordon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA CALIFORNIA: Inmates Must Show Why Petition Should Not Be Junked CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Dixon Sues over Debt Collection Practices CONCORDIA COLLEGE: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York COOK COUNTY, IL: Violates Gender Violence Act, "Brown" Suit Says COOK COUNTY, IL: Sued Over Deteriorating Jail Security Situation DALLAS, TX: To Pay Nearly $62 Million in Police Settlement DESH BANGLA: Faces "Alam" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ENVENT CORPORATION: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Sanchez Says EQUIFAX INC: Alcoa Credit Union Sues over Consumer Data Breach ESURANCE INSURANCE: MSP Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Watson" Suit Says FTS USA: Supreme Court Appeal Filed in "Monroe" Case GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Imamura" Suit Seeks Damages Over Disaster GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Monteverde Files Class Action Lawsuit HOME DELIVERY: "Zepeda" Suit Seeks Compensation under Labor Code HOST INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Wilson" Suit Says JANUS ET CIE: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York KIA MOTORS: Class-Action Lawsuit Says Animals Eat Soy-Based Wiring KOMAROV ENTERPRISES: Faces "Martinez" Wage-and-Hour Suit LGE COMMUNITY: Appeal Filed in "Tims" Suit in Eleventh Circuit LOVING HEART: "Larin" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay M&T BANK: "Kim" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud MASA NY: "Tanaka" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA MDL 2818: GM Asks Court to Transfer 4 Cases to E.D. Michigan MEIJER INC: "Warren" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Illinois MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Chazan" Suit in E.D. New York MONA VIE: "Pontrelli" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "McNew" Suit Over Roundup(R) Products MONTANA: State Seeks Dismissal of Drivers License Lawsuit NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Marichal" Suit Seeks Overtime, Back Pay NESTLE WATERS: "Ray" Suit Transferred to District of Connecticut NORDIC NATURALS: Faces "Skylor" Suit over Gummies Product NOVA RESTAURANT: "Butron" Suit Moved to District of Florida OAK LODGE LLC: "Jenkins" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime OCEAN SPRAY: "Hilsley" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: "Kim" Class Suit Transferred to Dist. Mass. OLD DOMINION: "Sanders" Suit Moved to S.D. California OMEGA HEALTHCARE: "Klein" Sues Over Share Price Drop OPTUM INC: In Breach of Fiduciary Duties Claims "Ellis" OPUS BANK: To Pay $17 Million to Settle Shareholders Suit ORBITAL ATK: "Donato" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Northrop P.J. CLARKE'S: Edinbyrd Suit Calls Hiring Practices "Unlawful" PARTS AUTHORITY: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Johnson" Case PENNSYLVANIA: Gerrymandering Suit Fast Tracked in State High Court PERRIGO ISRAEL: Drug Company to Pay Out NIS47.5 Million PF HOLDINGS: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA PHILIP MORRIS: $32.5MM Damage Award in "Ledoux" Affirmed RELIABLE TIRE: Travers Sues over Racial Harassment SELECT PORTFOLIO: California Court Denies Move to Dismiss "Rovai" SHORE FUNDING: Abante Rooter Sues over Robocalls SLIP-N-SLIDE RECORDS: "Murphy" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads TARGET CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Walters" Debit Card Suit TEZOS: Lawyer Argues Suit "Should Be Heard in Switzerland" UNDER ARMOUR: Stull, Stull Files Shareholder Class Suit USAA CASUALTY: "Byorth" Suit Moved to District of Montana VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued over Technical Standards Conspiracy WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Dawson Sues over Background Checks ********* AARP INC: Faces "Levay" Suit over Insurance Policies ---------------------------------------------------- SIMON LEVAY, JUDITH MILLER and LIONEL BROWN, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AARP, INC., AARP SERVICES, INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., UNITED HEATHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 60, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks an Order requiring Defendants to restore all money or other property taken from identifiable persons by means of unlawful acts or practices; and award judgment for damages and restitution in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court to compensate for such losses. This is a consumer class action on behalf of a class of California residents 65 years or older, whom, by the unlawful acts alleged, were deceived into becoming AARP members and paying a membership fee to AARP to be eligible for UnitedHealth's Medicare supplemental health insurance products and services through the improper, deceptive, and misleading marketing, advertising, offers and sale of insurance by AARP and UnitedHealth. According to the complaint, despite its "non-profit status", AARP earns three-quarters of a billion dollars through business partnerships with large insurance companies like UnitedHealth to sell AARP branded insurance policies for Medigap, Medicare Advantage, and Part D prescription drugs. AARP Medigap is the dominant player in the Medigap market. Nationwide, AARP Medigap has over three times as many Medigap enrollees as its closest competitor. The only Medigap plans insured by UnitedHealth are the AARP Medigap plans. This means any consumer that wants to purchase Medigap coverage from UnitedHealth, the largest health insurer in the country, must purchase the AARP Medigap plan, thereby requiring paying AARP a membership fee and 4.95% of the insurance policy payment. AARP is paid hundreds of millions of dollars, tax- free, as "royalties". The Defendants are in the health insurance industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arash Homampour, Esq. Danielle Lincors, Esq. THE HOMAMPOUR LAW FIRM, PC 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1450 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (323) 658 8077 Facsimile: (323) 6588477 - and - Alan Schimmel, Esq. Michael Parks, Esq. SCHIMMEL & PARKS, APLC 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 464 5061 Facsimile: (818) 464 5091 ACE AMERICAN: Flores Sues over $8 Million Settlement Payment ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTORIA FLORES, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08674-AKH (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks an order declaring that ACE breached its duty to defend and, therefore, has to pay Plaintiff Flores (on behalf of the class) the full amount of agreed upon judgment in an underlying action. This dispute arises out of a putative class action that Flores filed against Grubhub, Inc. for making allegedly unauthorized text message calls to individual consumers' cellphones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Flores, on behalf of a class, ultimately reached a classwide settlement of the underlying action, whereby Grubhub agreed to, among other things, the creation of an $8 million non-reversionary settlement fund for the benefit of the class, the entry of a judgment against it in that amount, and an assignment of rights to its relevant insurance policy, the Digital Technology & Professional Liability Policy through Defendant ACE American Insurance Company. Flores, in turn, agreed to pursue recovery of the $8 million from Grubhub's Policy and insurer, ACE, which she's seeking through this action. Following the filing of the Underlying Action, Grubhub attempted to engage ACE and its agent Chubb North American Claims to defend the suit. ACE, however, failed to engage at any point in the matter. In fact, ACE even failed to respond to Grubhub's tender (or notice) of claim under the terms of its Policy for more than three months and ultimately did so -- denying coverage -- only after the parties had reached a settlement in principle to resolve the claims at issue for an amount within the limits of the Policy. ACE American Insurance Company, Inc. provides fire and casualty insurance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Sydney M. Janzen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589 6370 Facsimile: (312) 589 6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com sjanzen@edelson.com ADORAMA INC: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adorama, Inc. The case is captioned as Victor Lopez And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADORAMA, INC. and ADORAMA USED LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08990 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2017). Adorama offers digital cameras, lenses, pro video, televisions and computers.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ALCON LABORATORIES: 3d Cir. Flips Dismissal of Eye Drops Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an Opinion reversing the District Court's dismissal of the action captioned LEONARD COTTRELL; SANDRA HENON; WILLIAM REEVES; GEORGE HERMAN; SIMON NAZZAL; CAROL FREBURGER; JACK LIGGETT; PATRICIA BOUGH; MACK BROWN; DOLORES GILLESPIE; DEBORAH HARRINGTON; ROBERT INGINO; EDWARD ROGERS, JR.; DEBORAH RUSIGNULOLO; DOROTHY STOKES; JOSEPHINE TROCCOLI; HURIE WHITFIELD; THOMAS LAYLOFF; CAROLYN TANNER; PATSY TATE; JOHN SUTTON; JESUS RENTERIA; GLENDELIA FRANCO; NADINE LAMPKIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. ALCON LABORATORIES; ALCON RESEARCH LTD; FALCON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD; SANDOZ INC.; ALLERGAN INC, RP; ALLERGAN USA INC; ALLERGAN SALES LLC; PFIZER INC; VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL; BAUSCH & LOMB INC; ATON PHARMA INC; MERCK & CO INC; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP; PRASCO LLC; AKORN INC., No. 16-2015 (3rd Cir.), and remanded the case for further proceedings. In the putative class action, consumers of prescription eye medication allege that manufacturers and distributors of the medication packaged it in such a way that forced them to waste it, violating the consumer protection statutes of their home states. The District Court dismissed the entire action for lack of jurisdiction, finding the consumers' allegations of injury in fact insufficient to confer standing. The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing the minimal requirements of Article III standing: (1) an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. In assessing whether a plaintiff has carried this burden, the Third Circuit separates its standing inquiry from any assessment of the merits of the plaintiff's claim. To maintain this fundamental separation between standing and merits at the dismissal stage, the Third Circuit assumes for the purposes of its standing inquiry that a plaintiff has stated valid legal claims. Plaintiffs claim economic interests: interests in the money they had to spend on medication that was impossible for them to use. They seek monetary compensation for Defendants' conduct that they allege caused harm to these interests. Plaintiffs' claimed interests arise from state consumer protection statutes that provide monetary relief to private individuals who are damaged by business practices that violate those statutes. These claims fit comfortably in categories of "legally protected interests" readily recognized by federal courts. The Third Circuit acknowledges that the Seventh Circuit held otherwise in a recent case concerning materially identical allegations against many of the same defendants. Eike v. Allergan, Inc., 850 F.3d 315(7th Cir. 2017). In reviewing the defendants' appeal from the district court's grant of class certification, the Seventh Circuit concluded that plaintiffs had failed to allege a legally protected interest, and therefore, lacked standing. The District Court noted that the Plaintiffs' pleading lacked any suggestion of collusion or any claim of misrepresentation or deception by defendants. From the absence of fraud-based allegations, the court went on to reason that the plaintiffs' claims were necessarily based simply on their dissatisfaction with the defendants' products or their prices. The Third Circuit declines to adopt the District Court's rationale. The District Court here, like the Seventh Circuit, cast the Plaintiffs' allegations as mere grumblings that Defendants' products were priced too high or packaged inefficiently, because the allegations lacked notes of fraud, deception, or misrepresentation. But as in Eike, the absence of fraud allegations in the Amended Complaint was purposeful; Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' practices were unfair and unconscionable, not deceptive or fraudulent. And like the statutes at issue in Eike, the statutes enumerated in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint prohibit business practices that are unfair or unconscionable in addition to practices that are fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading; these terms are defined separately and differently in the text of the statutes and in relevant case law interpreting them. Therefore, the District Court's characterization of Plaintiffs' claims as sounding in fraud was inaccurate, and the conclusion that Plaintiffs were without standing due, in part, to the absence of theories of injury normally attendant to consumer fraud claims, misses the mark. Moreover, the District Court's chain of reasoning that because Plaintiffs made no allegations of fraud, they suffered no injury, and therefore had no standing to sue blends standing with merits in the same manner as Eike. The Third Circuit concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged legally protected interests. The Third Circuit turns to the next component of injury in fact: concreteness. For an injury to be concrete, it must be real and actually exist; it cannot be abstract. Here, Plaintiffs do not simply allege that Defendants' practices violated state consumer protection statutes. They allege that those violations caused each of them tangible, economic harm. This satisfies the concreteness requirement. An injury must be both concrete and particularized; these are distinct components of injury in fact. For an injury to be particularized, it 'must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Here, each Plaintiff alleges financial harm that he or she has personally incurred in purchasing medication that was impossible for him or her to use. There can be no dispute that this harm is particularized. Finally, the Third Circuit must determine whether Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are actual or imminent rather than merely conjectural or hypothetical. Plaintiffs illustrated in the Amended Complaint how smaller tipped bottles would reduce the number of bottles needed for a one-year therapy regimen, and the resulting cost savings, by referencing an example in a 2008 scientific study. Plaintiffs also supported this iteration of the pricing theory by citing to numerous other scientific studies in the Amended Complaint. This alternative iteration of the pricing theory is far less speculative than the iteration of the pricing theory that the District Court understood Plaintiffs to be advancing. The alternative iteration of Plaintiffs' pricing theory does not depend on a comparable presumption essential to their allegations of financial harm. The reduced size of the bottle dropper tip is the only change from the status quo. Accordingly, the Third Circuit finds the pricing theory sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. Defendants Falcon, Sandoz, and Akorn, the generic manufacturers, contend that even if the Third Circuit finds that Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims, the circuit court should affirm the dismissal of their Amended Complaint on an alternative ground: because their claims are preempted by federal law. Plaintiffs argue in response that some manufacturers have changed their drop volumes over time without FDA approval, which suggests FDA approval is unnecessary. The District Court did not reach pre-emption in this case, having found that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims. The Third Circuit declines to address it in the first instance on appeal, as the record before it is not adequately developed to evaluate the parties' arguments. A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's October 18, 2017 Opinion and Order is available a https://tinyurl.com/y949d3mbt from Leagle.com. LEAH M. NICHOLLS -- lnicholls@publicjustice.net -- ESQ. [ARGUED], Public Justice, P.C., 1620 L. St. N.W., Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036. RICHARD S. CORNFELD, ESQ. , Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld, 1010 Market St., Suite 1720, St. Louis, MO 63101. JOHN G. SIMON -- simonjg@slu.edu -- ESQ. , KEVIN M. CARNIE, JR., ESQ. , The Simon Law Firm, P.C., 800 Market St., Suite 1700, St. Louis, MO 63101. JEFFREY W. HERRMANN, ESQ., Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP, Park 80 West-Plaza One, 250 Pehle Ave., Suite 401, Saddle Brook, NJ 07663. BRIAN S. WOLFMAN, ESQ. , 600 New Jersey Ave. N.W., Suite 312, Washington, DC 20001, Counsel for Appellants. ROBYN E. BLADOW -- rbladow@kirkland.com -- ESQ. [ARGUED], AUSTIN C. NORRIS -- austin.norris@kirkland.com -- ESQ. , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 333 South Hope Street, 29th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Counsel for Appellee Pfizer, Inc. LIZA M. WALSH -- lwalsh@walsh.law -- ESQ. , ELEONORE OFOSU-ANTWI- eofosuantwi@walsh.law -- ESQ. , Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly & Falanga LLP, One Riverfront Plaza, 1037 Raymond Boulevard, Suite 600, Newark, NJ 07102, Counsel for Appellees Pfizer, Inc., Valeant, Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Bausch & Lomb, Incorporated, and Aton Pharma, Inc. ROGER B. KAPLAN -- kaplanr@gtlaw.com -- ESQ., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 200 Park Avenue, Florham Park, NJ 07932. GREGORY E. OSTFELD -- ostfeldg@gtlaw.com -- ESQ., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100, Chicago, IL 60601. LORI G. COHEN -- cohenL@gtlaw.com -- ESQ., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 3333 Piemont Road NE, Suite 2500, Atlanta, GA 30305, Counsel for Appellees Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Alcon, Research Ltd., Sandoz Inc. and Falcon Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. ALFRED DUNHILL: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alfred Dunhill Americas, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALFRED DUNHILL AMERICAS, LLC and YNAP CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08988 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2017).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADLY G. MARKS 280 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (646) 770 3775 Facsimile: (212) 254 4202 E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com ALL STAR CONCRETE: "Hererra" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Oliverio Hererra individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. All Star Concrete and Mason, Inc. and Kenneth O'Connor, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09014, (S.D. N.Y., November 17, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment interest associated with the bringing of this action, plus any additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendant operates a construction company where Hererra worked as a general laborer. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (718) 263-9591 Fax: (718) 263-9598 ALLERGAN INC: Faces 1199SEIU Fund Suit Over Restasis-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home Care Workers, 1199SEIU Licensed Practical Nurses Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-06755 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2017), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to monopolize the market for prescription Restasis (cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion product) sales in the United States. Allergan, Inc. own and operate a pharmaceutical company in Irvine, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Kelly K. McNabb, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com kmcnabb@lchb.com - and - Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. Bruce W. Leppla, Esq. David T. Rudolph, Esq. Adam Gitlin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com bleppla@lchb.com drudolph@lchb.com agitlin@lchb.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 Facsimile: (206) 343-9636 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com - and - Sona Shah, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 767 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 Facsimile: (212) 371-5969 E-mail: sshah@zsz.com ALLY FINANCIAL: "Sharpe" Class Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on April 8, 2017 styled Mina Sharpe and Belinda McKinnon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ally Financial, Inc., Randstad North America, Inc., and Vaco Charlotte, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01462 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Charlotte Division to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01462 to the proceeding. The case asserts labor-related claims. The Defendants are in the business of providing financial services including auto financing, corporate financing, insurance, mortgages, stock brokerage, and online banking services to customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 15720 Brixham Hill Ave, Suite 331 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 E-mail: pgibbons@stephanzouras.com - and - Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: tbecvar@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com The Defendant Ally Financial, Inc. is represented by: Ann Herlocker Smith, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 3737 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 450 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 760-6460 Facsimile: (919) 760-6461 E-mail: Ann.Smith@jacksonlewis.com - and - David R. Golder, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS LLP 90 State House Square, 8th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 331-1536 Facsimile: (860) 247-1330 E-mail: golderd@jacksonlewis.com The Defendant Randstad North America, Inc. is represented by: Frederick T. Smith, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP One Peachtree Pointe 1545 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056 The Defendant Vaco Charlotte, LLC is represented by: Amy Elizabeth Puckett, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 100 N. Tryon St., Ste. 2690 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 338-6060 Facsimile: (704) 332-8858 E-mail: apuckett@bradley.com - and - James Craig Oliver, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 1600 Division Street, Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37203-0025 Telephone: (615) 244-2582 E-mail: coliver@bradley.com - and - Michael Casin Griffin, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 214 N. Tryon Street, Suite 3700 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 338-6015 Facsimile: (704) 332-8858 E-mail: mgriffin@babc.com AMERIMEX SOLUTIONS: Siu Sues over Automated Dialing System ---------------------------------------------------------- GORDON SIU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERIMEX SOLUTIONS, INC. and AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04498-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks injunctive relief prohibiting AmeriMex and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on AmeriMex's behalf from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by making calls, except for emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers using an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice in the future. The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer privacy provisions of the TCPA, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. In violation of the TCPA, AmeriMex Solutions, Inc. and AmeriMex Communications Corp. initiated automated telemarketing calls to Mr. Siu's cellular telephone number using an automated dialing system, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Mr. Siu never consented to receive these calls. Because automated dialing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, Mr. Siu brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendants. AmeriMex specializes in power equipment for all industries, including motors and controls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven H. Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 513 6651 Facsimile: (404) 549 4654 E-mail: shkoval@aol.com ANTARES PHARMA: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Antares Pharma, Inc. from December 21, 2016 through October 12, 2017, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Antares investors under the federal securities laws. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Antares had provided insufficient data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in connection with its New Drug Application for Xyosted; (2) as a result, Antares had overstated the approval prospects for Xyosted; (3) consequently, Antares's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 22, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1237.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767- 3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action settlements annually obtained for investors. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-686-1060 Toll Free: 866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com [GN] ARAMARK SPORTS: Cintron Sues over Collection of Biometric Info -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH CINTRON, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC and ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2017CH14821 (in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff worked as a grill cook for Aramark Sports at Soldier Field in Chicago from approximately 2013 through September 2015. The Plaintiff worked as a grill cook for Aramark Services, Inc., at BMO Harris Bank's headquarters in Chicago from approximately April 2016 through September 2016. As a condition of employment, Defendants required Plaintiff and others similarly situated to use a biometric time-keeping system to record their time worked. Illinois restricted private entities, like Defendants, from collecting, storing, using, or transferring a person's biometric identifiers and information without adhering to strict informed- consent procedures established by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Defendants collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique biometric fingerprint identifiers of Plaintiff and others similarly situated without following the strictures of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. As a result, Defendants violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy and security of the biometric identifiers of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Aramark Sports provides food services for Soldier Field in Chicago and other sporting and entertainment venues in Illinois. Aramark Services, Inc., provides food services for BMO Harris Bank's headquarters in Chicago and other businesses in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419 1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com ARIZONA: Attorney General Scores Big Win vs Excessive Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Robb, writing for AZ Central, reports that Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has shown a surprising, and welcome, willingness to take on abuses in his own profession. Last year, an outfit called Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities filed well over a thousand cases against small businesses in Arizona alleging violations of parking requirements under state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination against the disabled. This was obviously entrepreneurial litigation, intended more to collect legal fees than to truly make things better for those whom the law was intended to protect. Rather than leaving the targeted small businesses to fend for themselves, Brnovich stepped in. He first sought to have all the cases brought by AID consolidated into one proceeding in which he could intervene. He asked that AID be forbidden from bringing any additional cases. He moved that the existing cases be dismissed. And he asked that AID be sanctioned for misuse of the courts and barred from bringing disability cases in the future. Why aren't more following Brnovich's lead? Brnovich succeeded on every point. A settlement with AID was announced in which it agreed to the sanctions and the injunction against future lawsuits. This attempted litigation shakedown also prompted the Legislature to adopt a sensible change in Arizona's disability act. After notice of a violation, a business will get a chance to cure the alleged problem before things go to court. Brnovich is also going after the attorney fee scam in class action lawsuits, in which lawyers get big bucks and consumers get pennies. He asked the U.S. Supreme Court to create a rule that the lawyers could only get proportionate to actual payouts to the alleged victims, not as a function of a theoretical big pot that will never actually get paid. And he's intervened in specific cases to protest that a proposed settlement gave too much to the lawyers and not enough to the consumers. Entrepreneurial litigation is a distortion of the judicial system and a notable economic drag. Brnovich is one of the few in the country actually trying to do something about it. [GN] ATTENDING HOME: "Marichal" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Josefina Marichal, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Attending Home Care Services, LLC, David Inzlicht, Gwendolyn Rodriguez, Denise Rodriguez and John Does #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06756 (E.D. N.Y., November 17, 2017), seeks minimum wages as required under the Wage Parity Act and New York Labor Law, overtime pay, spread-of-hours premium as required by the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations and damages under the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. Marichal was a home health aide from November 15, 2011 until about January 22, 2015 who worked numerous 24-hour shifts for which she was paid for only 12 of the 24 hours worked with no meal breaks and did not get 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep. She worked for Defendants for more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 286-1425 Fax: (646) 688-3078 BRAAVOS INC: "Gordon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- KAYLA GORDON and JAMES MOLLO, the Plaintiffs, v. BRAAVOS, INC., d/b/a BANNERMAN SECURITY; JONATHAN CHIN; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-06310-MEJ (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, security guards formerly employed by Bannerman, bring this class and collective action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated current and former security guards who perform or performed guard work for Bannerman, regardless of their precise titles. The Bannerman employs security guards across the country, using a software application ("app") to manage employees' assignments and compensation. Bannerman had and continues to have a policy and practice of intentionally misclassifying all of its security guards as independent contractors, and failing to pay them overtime in violation of the FLSA. The Bannerman guards are in fact employees, not independent contractors, and are therefore entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in a single work week. The Plaintiff Gordon also brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated current and former Bannerman guards who worked in the State of California, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to remedy violations of California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, California Business and Professions Code, and supporting regulations, interpretations, and case law. Bannerman is a platform that connects people that need to book security with security personnel.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class and Collective: Jennifer Liu, Esq. Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, Esq. THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C. 1390 Market Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896 4260 Facsimile: (415) 231 0011 E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com rpetersonfisher@liulawpc.com - and - Alison Kosinski, Esq. Emily Thiagaraj, Esq. KOSINSKI & THIAGARAJ, LLP 351 California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 230 2860 Facsimile: (415) 723 7099 E-mail: alison@ktlawsf.com emily@ktlawsf.com CALIFORNIA: Inmates Must Show Why Petition Should Not Be Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Petitioners' Failure to Exhaust State Judicial Remedies in the case captioned RICHARD ACORD, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01089-MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal.). This petition for writ of habeas corpus was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 by Richard Acord, Leandro Angel Gonzales, Anthony J. Ruiz, Thomas Camarillo, Jeff Brown, and Joseph E. Gambler, who seek to bring this petition as a class action. At the time of filing, Petitioners all were incarcerated at the Kings County Jail in Hanford, California pursuant to judgments of the State Court of California. Acord since has been released from custody. A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal basis. Here, there is no allegation that any of the Petitioners have presented any of the claims to the highest state court, the California Supreme Court. Petitioners must inform the Court if, in fact, their claims have been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition or petitions filed in the California Supreme Court along with a copy of any ruling made by the California Supreme Court. Without knowing what claims, if any, have been presented to the California Supreme Court, the Court is unable to proceed to the merits of the petition. Accordingly, Petitioners are ordered to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for Petitioners' failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2bmwg8 from Leagle.com. Richard Acord, Petitioner, Pro Se. Leandro Angel Gonzales, Petitioner, Pro Se. Anthony J. Ruiz, Petitioner, Pro Se. Thomas Camarillo, Petitioner, Pro Se. Jeff Brown, Petitioner, Pro Se. Joseph E. Gamber, Petitioner, Pro Se. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP. The case is captioned as OMAR JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-10329-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., Oct. 31, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton. Capital Management Services, a collections agency, provides delinquent receivables resolutions. It monitors and tracks debt collection laws and state licensing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Dixon Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Takiya N. Dixon, on behalf of herself and similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Capital Management Services, LP, and Jefferson Capital System LLC, the Defendant, Case No. L7950-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are directly engaged in purchasing debts in amounts less than $50,000 and attempting to collect upon those debts against consumers. On January 20, 2017, Capital mailed Plaintiff a collection letter for a debt incurred with First Premier Bank. The debts arose from use of a credit card used for personal, family, and household purposes. Capital was collecting on behalf of the current creditor. The Defendants are debt collector firms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. Zemel Law LLC 78 John Miller Way Suite 430 Kearny, NJ 07032 Telephone: (862) 227 3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com CONCORDIA COLLEGE: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concordia College. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Concordia College, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08651-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite OHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (917) 796 7437 Facsimile: (212) 982 6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Violates Gender Violence Act, "Brown" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL BROWN, SARAN CRAYTON, SAMANTHA SLONIM, CELESTE ADDYMAN, ERIKA KNIERIM and JULIE HULL, on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs, COOK COUNTY; LAW OFFICE OF THE COOK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER; AMY CAMPANELLI, in her official and individual capacity as Public Defender of Cook County; and THOMAS DART, in his official and individual capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08085 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants causing and conspiring to cause female Assistant Public Defenders ("APDs") and female law clerks in the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender to suffer a continuing severe and/or pervasive hostile work environment on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, 1985(3) and 1986 and the Illinois Gender Violence Act. The Public Defenders like the Plaintiffs and the class they represent are tasked with defending the legal rights of those who do not have access to private attorneys. Law clerks are students, many of whom are allowed to practice law in a limited capacity and under the supervision of a licensed attorney, and assist APDs with cases. The Plaintiffs and the APDs represent some of society's most vulnerable members. They work every day to protect their clients' rights and litigate their cases, often with very few resources. The work is grueling and their caseloads are heavy, but they are almost uniformly driven by their love of the important work they do. However, as a result of a toxic work environment caused and perpetuated by Defendants in concert, they are forced to regularly endure heinous sexual misconduct, robbing many of their love of the job, maybe permanently. For at least two years, and continuing through the present, female APDs and law clerks have been increasingly subjected to offensive incidents whereby male detainees in the courtroom lockups and Divisions 9 and 10 of the Cook County Jail have repeatedly exposed their penises, masturbated, and engaged in other acts of sex-based aggression, verbal threats and harassment, and on an almost daily basis. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants have been aware of this offensive and dangerous conduct by detainees for more than two years but have knowingly permitted it to continue. As a result of Defendants' actions and inactions, incidents of obscene exposure, masturbation, and harassment against female APDs have increased in frequency and severity. Male APDs are not similarly targeted by detainees for indecent exposure, masturbation, assault, and battery. To the contrary, detainee masturbation and exposure in lockup and at the jail is specifically and systematically directed toward female APDs and law clerks. As a result of Defendants' deliberate actions and inactions in concert, female APDs and law clerks have suffered and continue to suffer significant damages, including but not limited to severe emotional distress and trauma, both emotional and physical.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin Potter, Esq. M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq. POTTER & BOLANOS, P.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-861-1800 E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org nieves@potterlaw.org COOK COUNTY, IL: Sued Over Deteriorating Jail Security Situation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy B. White, writing for Independent, reports that inmates in a Chicago jail have been offered pizza as a reward for abstaining from masturbation for 30 days, a lawsuit alleges. Female lawyers in the city's main prison say they have faced chronic masturbation and constant sexual harassment from detainees, and a system to reward abstainers with pizza has worsened the situation. A class action lawsuit filed on behalf of female law clerks and assistant attorneys in the Cook County Public Defender's Office describes a deteriorating security situation. It says employees are routinely subjected to harassment and abuse from male detainees at Cook County Jail and courthouses -- and that both the Cook County Sheriff's office and the Cook County Public Defender's Office have failed to protect them. "They are forced to regularly endure heinous sexual misconduct," the lawsuit alleges, adding that male detainees threaten to assault attorneys, deliberately expose themselves to female employees and masturbate at them. When the issue was brought to Sheriff Thomas Dart and Public Defender Amy Campanelli, the lawsuit alleges, they acknowledged the problem was "severe and pervasive" but didn't take effective steps to stop it. In fact, the lawsuit claims, they made matters worse. It says Mr Dart created a system to reward offenders with pizza if they went 30 days without publicly masturbating or exposing themselves. But that only encouraged people who hadn't committed such offences to do so so they could abstain and, 30 days later, obtain their reward, according to the lawsuit. "The sheriff's rewards for intermittent indecent exposure and/or masturbation led to an increase in exposure incidents as detainees without prior incidents were now incentivised to commit indecent exposure and masturbation in order to qualify for a pizza reward," it says. A representative for the Cook County Public Defender's office did not respond to a request for comment. Cara Smith, chief policy officer for the Sheriff's department, called the allegations of a pizza reward system "absurd" and "an absolute untruth with no basis in fact". "The safety and security of our staff -- including our female corrections officers -- is of paramount concern to the sheriff and our office, and we're going to continue to do everything we can to address this despicable criminal behaviour by the detainees," Ms Smith said. "Indecent exposure in correctional settings is unfortunately a reality," she added, "and we use a lot of different techniques to try and address the behaviour". Documents filed with the case show the public defender has tried to curb the abuse for some time. Months before the lawsuit was filed, Ms Campanelli pleaded with the sheriff to address the simmering "crisis". In a March letter filed along with the complaint, the public defender warned detainees were regularly exposing themselves to female law clerks and attorneys, creating an "intolerable" situation and compromising her office's work as staff began to fear speaking with abusive clients. She faulted Mr Dart's response, saying he responded to a request for better security by shackling inmates. "Our attorneys are being forced to work in an environment that is traumatizing and debilitating," she wrote, adding that "the safety of my staff and the constitutional rights of my clients are being violated". [GN] DALLAS, TX: To Pay Nearly $62 Million in Police Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Tanya Eiserer, writing for WFAA.com, reports that the Dallas City Council is set to settle four of the six long-running lawsuits alleging the city underpaid police and firefighters, a move that could potentially save the city billions were it to lose in court. The council is scheduled to vote to pay nearly $62 million to settle with 1,700 current and former police and firefighters in lawsuits filed in Collin County. The City will issue bonds to pay the judgment. It will be up to a court-appointed official to decide how much each of the plaintiffs will receive. That will vary based on tenure and rank. "It's a huge win-win for the citizens of Dallas," Mayor Mike Rawlings told WFAA. "We have that room on our credit card to be able to do it and it's a great use of the money given the potential liabilities." An attorney for the police officers and firefighters in Collin County could be reached for comment. The settlement doesn't impact two class action lawsuits filed in Rockwall County. Neither of those lawsuits has been set for trial. "I think it's good both sides compromised," said Ted Lyon, the lead attorney representing the public safety workers in the Rockwall cases. He said in the spring his side offered to settle all of the cases for $300 million, an offer the city declined. He said they are not currently negotiating with the city on a settlement. "I hope they'll come back to the table with the other 8,600 police and firemen," Lyon said. It wasn't long ago that city leaders were facing potential financial catastrophe. The police fire and pension fund was set on a course to go bankrupt in under 10 years. But with fixes to the pension now in place, City Attorney Larry Casto and Rawlings said the time was ripe to settle looming Collin county lawsuits. If a settlement wasn't reached, those case were set to go to trial this month. A loss in those cases could have bankrupted the City. The lawsuits revolve around a 1979 referendum that voters approved giving police and firefighters a 15 percent pay raise. The voters also approved keeping the different levels of pay among the different ranks in both departments the same. The main point of contention is this: Did voters intend to maintain that pay raise structure for one year or in perpetuity? "It all revolves around three words: 'shall be maintained,'" Casto said. The city has always contended that "shall be maintained" meant for just one year. Police and firefighters say voters meant that it was to be in perpetuity. "Our position and we believe it today that the voters intended that this was a one-time 15 percent pay raise back in 1979," Casto said. "You take those to a jury, I believe, we could convince a jury that was meant to be a one-time pay raise, but if you miss it's a big miss and it's risky for taxpayers and citizens if you get a jury that doesn't agree with you." In 1994, lawsuits were filed in Collin County. The two class actions were filed later in Rockwall County. Public safety workers were able to file the lawsuits in Collin and Rockwall because portions of Dallas are in those counties. The lawsuits have moved up and down the court system for decades. The City has filed appeal after appeal seeking to keep the cases from going before a jury. It long maintained the case had no merit and that the City couldn't sue over it anyway because of sovereign immunity. In 2002, the Dallas-based Fifth Court of Appeals ruled the ordinance is ambiguous because it could be interpreted either way. Eleven years later, the same court of appeals ruled a change in state law had waived the city's immunity from the emergency workers claims. Last September, in the Rockwall cases, a judge denied the city's motion for summary judgement and claims that the court didn't have jurisdiction. The city is currently preparing to file appeal with the Texas Supreme Court. Lyon says if need be, he is willing to go trial. "I know we've got a really strong case and I think we'll prevail at trial, but you never know," he said. "Not only yes do we want to go to trial, but hell yes we'll go to trial." Last year, Elizabeth Reich, the chief financial officer for Dallas, acknowledged that the lawsuits had the potential to be a ticking financial time bomb for the City. She told the council that it could be a $4 billion cost in back pay. It would have an enormous chunk of the Dallas budget potentially for years. City officials had sought to convince legislators in the last session to let them off the hook for the lawsuits but legislators declined to bail the City out. Bonding agencies have also taken an unfavorable stance toward the pay lawsuits. Late last year and earlier this year, two rating agencies lowered the Dallas bond rating, citing the pay lawsuits and the then-failing police and fire pension fund. Those downgrades meant that it could cost the taxpayers millions more to borrow money to make much-needed improvements to infrastructure. Casto says the City didn't settle any of pay lawsuits sooner, in part, because it could have affected the pension. But a provision in the newly passed pension legislation dictated that any money paid related to the pay lawsuits would have no effect on the pension. The mayor said he expects the settlement on the Collin County cases to be paid by early next year. It will take time for Dallas to sell the bonds needed to pay the judgment. "The settlement means that the city can look toward the future with a little more certainty and security about what's ahead," Casto said. [GN] DESH BANGLA: Faces "Alam" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Desh Bangla Inc. The case is titled as MD Nurul Alam, on behalf of himself and all Persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Desh Bangla Inc., The Bangla Times Inc., and Choudhury S. Hasan, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06715 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2017).[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ENVENT CORPORATION: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Sanchez Says ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENVENT CORPORATION, a California corporation, and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wage premiums for meal and rest break violations, statutory penalties, restitution, as well as other damages owed pursuant to the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. According to the complaint, as a result of Defendants' company- wide policies and practices, the Plaintiff and other members of the class were not provided with off-duty, uninterrupted meal and rest breaks because they were routinely compelled to work during and through their meal and rest breaks. The Defendants also failed to pay split shift premiums when its hourly employees worked shifts that were interrupted by non-paid non-working periods established by Defendants, other than bona fide rest or meal periods. Additionally, Plaintiff and other members of the class were not timely paid their wages owed at their separation of employment. The Plaintiff and other members of the class also did not receive accurate itemized wage statements that complied with California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), because the wage statements did not accurately state gross and net wages earned due to Defendants' failure to maintain lawful meal or rest break practices. In an effort to boost profits, the Defendants systematically ignored their obligations under California wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff alleges, that these violations are continuing to this day. The Plaintiff and other members of the class were not provided with off-duty, uninterrupted meal and rest breaks because they were routinely compelled to work during and through their meal and rest breaks. Envent provides industrial and environmental services to refineries, chemical plants, pipeline operations, fuel terminals, oil fields, and pipeline.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shadie L. Berenji, Esq. Oscar A. Bustos, Esq. Brittanee A. Marksbury, Esq. BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 708 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 855 3270 Facsimile: (310) 855 3751 E-mail: berenii@employeejustice.law bustos@employeejustice.law marksbury@employeeiustice.law EQUIFAX INC: Alcoa Credit Union Sues over Consumer Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- ALCOA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial institutions, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 04480-CC (N.D. Ga., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover costs that Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been forced to bear as a direct result of the Equifax data breach and to obtain appropriate equitable relief to mitigate future harm that is certain to occur in light of the unprecedented scope of this breach. On September 7, 2017, Equifax announced that hackers had exploited a vulnerability in Equifax's U.S. website to illegally gain access to consumers' highly sensitive personally identifiable information files. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and similarly situated banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions, that have suffered, and continue to suffer, financial losses and increased data security risks that are a direct result of Equifax's failure to safeguard the financial institutions' customers' highly sensitive, personally identifiable information, alleges as follows based on (a) publicly available information; (b) personal knowledge of those matters relating to itself, and (c) upon information and belief as to all other matters, bring this putative class action against Equifax Inc. Equifax collects and maintains highly sensitive, personally identifiable information, including, but not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and driver's license numbers ("PII") and payment card data, including, but not limited to, credit and debit card numbers, primary account numbers ("PANs"), card verification value numbers ("CVVs"), expiration dates and zip codes ("Payment Card Data") on over 820 million individual consumers and 91 million businesses. Between at least May 2017 and July 2017, intruders gained access to the PII and payment card data of over 145.5 million U.S. consumers -- roughly 44% of the United States population -- as well as the Payment Card Data for an untold number of credit and debit cards in what was one of the largest data breaches in this country's history. To date, Equifax has reported up to 209,000 compromised consumer credit cards. Despite the well-publicized identification in March 2017, of the vulnerability in Apache Struts, and open-source application framework that supports Equifax online dispute portal web application, Equifax systematically failed to take reasonable steps to adequately protect the only product in which it exclusively trades and is responsible for protecting -- the ultrasensitive highly-sought-after personal and financial information of millions of individuals. Equifax's CEO admitted: "The company failed to prevent sensitive information from falling into the hands of wrongdoers. [T]he breach occurred because of both human error and technology failures." The suit contends the data breach was the inevitable result of Equifax's inadequate data security measures and approach to data security. Consequently, the financial harms caused by Equifax's negligent handling of PII and Payment Card Data have been, and will be, borne in large part by the financial institutions that issue payment cards, process and hold various loans and credit products, and service accounts that are held by individuals whose PII and Payment Card Data has been compromised by the breach. These costs include, but are not limited to, canceling and reissuing an untold number of compromised credit and debit cards, reimbursing customers for fraudulent charges, increasing fraudulent activity monitoring, taking appropriate action to mitigate the risk of identity theft and fraudulent loans and other banking activity, sustaining reputational harm, and notifying customers of potential fraudulent activity.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Robert C. Khayat, Jr. THE KHAYAT LAW FIRM 75 Fourteenth Street, N.E., Suite 2750 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 978 2750 Facsimile: (404) 978 2901 E-mail: rkhayat@khayatlawfirm.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Karen Sharp Halbert, Esq. Susan M. Fowler, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle PO Box 241790 Little Rock, AR 72223-1790 Telephone: (501) 821 5575 Facsimile: (501) 821 4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us - and - Charles Barrett, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 238 3647 Facsimile: (615) 293 7375 E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com ESURANCE INSURANCE: MSP Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, the Plaintiff, v. ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-019593- CA-01, was removed on Oct. 31, 2017 from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-23989-DPG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: -- Count I "Breach of Contract for Failure to Pay PIP Benefits"; -- Count II "Breach of Contract for Failure to Pay PIP Benefits [Conventional Subrogation]"; and -- Count III "Breach of Contract for Failure to Pay PIP Benefits [or in the Alternative, Equitable Subrogation". Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. is an American insurance company. It sells auto, home, motorcycle, and renters insurance direct to consumers online and by phone.[BN] Counsel for MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC: Gino Moreno, Esq. John H. Ruiz, Esq. MSP RECOVERY 5000 SW 75th Ave Ste 400 Miami, FL 33155 E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com gmoreno@msprecovery.com jruiz@msprecovery.com FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Watson" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARKLAND WATSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; CITIZENS TELECOM SERVICES COMPANY LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC684111 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs; and expenses. Frontier California, Inc. is a Frontier Communications-owned operating company providing telephone service in former Verizon regions. This included Southern California cities such as Long Beach, Seal Beach, Lakewood, Norwalk and Santa Monica.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531 1900 Facsimile: (310) 5311901 FTS USA: Supreme Court Appeal Filed in "Monroe" Case ---------------------------------------------------- FTS USA, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Edward Monroe, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Case No. 17-637 (U.S., Oct. 31, 2017), is an appeal filed before the United States Supreme Court from a lower court decision in a class action, Case No. 14-6063 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. Ct., June 21, 2017).[BN] A Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. The Petitioners are represented by: Miguel A. Estrada, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20036 GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Imamura" Suit Seeks Damages Over Disaster ------------------------------------------------------------Shinya Imamura, Iryo Hojin Nishikai, Iryo Hoj in Shadan Imamura Clinic, Kabushiki Kaisha Bellevue Trading, Kabushiki Kaisha Maruhi, Koekj Zaidan Hojin Jinsenkai, Konno Geka Clinic, Akita Konno, and Masahiro Yamaguchi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Electric Company (GE) and Does 1 - 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-12278, (D. Mass., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover property and other economic damages caused by the Fukushima Nuclear disaster in Japan. Plaintiffs are property owners, businesses and other commercial enterprises that have been economically devastated and literally ruined by the matters alleged in this complaint. GE designed and largely constructed the entire Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. After the 2011 earthquake, GE has paid literally nothing toward the massive economic and business destruction its actions and failings have caused. Plaintiffs allege that GE did not make the necessary safety systems that could have mitigated further damage. GE was fully aware that the site has a long-recorded history of very large earthquakes and tsunamis dating long back. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy P. Frawley, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY P. FRAWLEY One International Place, 14th Floor Boston, MA 02210 Tel: (617) 535-7712 Email: Timothy.Frawley@tfrawleylaw.com - and - John Donboli, Esq. DONBOLI LAW GROUP, APC 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 252-2015 Facsimile: (858) 724-1490 Email: jd@donboli1awgroup.com - and - Bonnie L. Dixon, Esq. ATSUMI & SAKAI Fukoku Seimei Bldg. 2-2-2 Uchisaiwaicho Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011 Japan Tel: +81(0)3-5501-2111 Fax: +81(0)3-5501-2211 E-mail: bd@aplaw.jp GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Monteverde Files Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, ESQ., founder and managing partner at Monteverde & Associates PC, a boutique securities firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City said a class action lawsuit has been filed against Genocea Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNCA)("Genocea" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 5, 2017 and September 25, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit is based on whether Genocea and its executive violated federal securities law by misleading investors making materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose (1) Genocea's finances were insufficient to support Phase 3 trials of GEN-003; (2) as a result, Genocea had overstated the prospects for GEN-003; and (3) consequently, Genocea's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Mr. Monteverde would like to personally discuss with you how to potentially recover your monetary losses, if incurred during the Class Period. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 2, 2018. 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. Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. [GN] HOME DELIVERY: "Zepeda" Suit Seeks Compensation under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- MINOR ZEPEDA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOME DELIVERY LOGISTICS, INC., a California corporation and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG617882945 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to recover compensation, damages, penalties, and interest in the full extent permitted by the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Orders. This is a putative class action arising out of Defendants' misclassification of its delivery drivers as "independent contractors" instead of "employees." The Defendants operate a "local delivery" service, which makes deliveries of furniture and other items. According to the complaint, under well-established law, Defendants are the legal employer of the Drivers they hire to provide this service to its customers. Indeed, Defendants retain the right to exercise extensive control over the way the Drivers perform their deliveries; Defendants treat the Drivers as employees "in every material respect. Among other things, Defendants retain the right to control the Drivers' schedules, routes, customers, equipment, appearance, pay rate, insurance, helpers, and other details of the job. Yet, by misclassifying the Drivers as independent contractors, rather than as employees, Defendants unlawfully evade their obligation to pay these Drivers the full wages and employment benefits they are due under applicable law. Throughout the proposed class period, Defendant has employed over a hundred Drivers in California. These Driven; take deliveries to the residential customers of Defendants' clients, an integral part of Defendants' home delivery business. No specialized skills are required 16 for the job: Defendants require that the Drivers arrive at Defendant's terminal early in the morning, dressed in a "Home-Delivery Logistics" uniforms or the uniforms of Defendants' clients. They must attend mandatory morning meetings with Defendants before they begin loading their vehicles and making the deliveries in accordance with Defendants' routes and instructions. The Drivers routinely work 12 to 14-hour days.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Konecky, Esq. Leslie H. Joyner , Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 112000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421 7100 Facsimile: (415) 421 7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com Ijoyner@schneiderwallace.com HOST INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Wilson" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER WILSON, an individual, on behalf herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; HMS HOST USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; HMS HOST FAMILY RESTAURANTS, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC684110 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of Defendants, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered, and continue to suffer, from loss of earnings. Host International, through its subsidiaries, operates food, beverage, and merchandise concessions at airports and on toll roads.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Braunson C. Virjee, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 JANUS ET CIE: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Janus Et Cie. The case is entitled as Virginia Norman, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Janus Et Cie, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08975 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2017).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 229 2249 Facsimile: (212) 229 2246 E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com KIA MOTORS: Class-Action Lawsuit Says Animals Eat Soy-Based Wiring ------------------------------------------------------------------ David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Kia Soul owner claims rodents and other animals keep returning to the Soul for breakfast, lunch and dinner on the soy-based wiring under the hood. Plaintiff Tsvetelin Tsonev filed the proposed Kia soy wiring class-action lawsuit on behalf of all current and former owners and lessees of 2012-2015 Kia Soul, Sorrento, Sedona, Sportage, Forte, Cadenza, Optima and Rio vehicles purchased or leased in the U.S. The plaintiff says he leased a 2015 Kia Soul in April 2015 that has allegedly been damaged three times because the automaker keeps replacing soy-based wiring with more soy wiring, inviting more critters to snacktime. Each time, Kia allegedly refused to cover the repairs under warranty, leaving a combined cost of nearly $9,300. While the plaintiff's insurer has covered most of the cost of these repairs, the plaintiff has paid the $500 deductible three times ($1,500). In addition, the plaintiff says he has incurred over $650 in rental car charges while his Kia Soul was being repaired. The lawsuit alleges the dealership admitted parts were damaged and that rodents had eaten the hood insulation, wiring assembly, wiring harness and positive and ground cables. While his 2015 Kia Soul was being repaired, the plaintiff received a 2016 Kia Soul loaner vehicle that allegedly experienced the same fate. In January 2016, the plaintiff paid $1,762 for the repair ($1,262 was covered by the auto insurer and the plaintiff paid the $500 deductible). The dealer invoice allegedly said, "Repaired mouse damaged wiring and replaced positive cable and ground cable." The plaintiff says less than two weeks after getting the "repaired" Soul back, the vehicle refused to start. A check under the hood allegedly showed damage to the soy-based wiring, so the car was towed back to the dealer. Kia allegedly confirmed damage to the main wiring harness for the engine that damaged the fuel line and blocked the workings of the airbags, all to the tune of an estimated $3,200 to repair the problems. The plaintiff says he was again told the chewed wiring would not be covered under warranty, causing the plaintiff to contact Kia directly. However, Kia denied the existence of a defect, denied the warranty claim and denied the request to terminate the lease. The auto insurer came to the rescue again, but it still left the plaintiff to pay another $500 deductible. According to the lawsuit, about four weeks passed and the airbag warning light activated because of gnawed wires under the hood. This caused another tow to the dealer and another estimate of $4,000 to repair the damage, causing the plaintiff to request a loaner vehicle from an automaker other than Kia. That request was allegedly refused and added another $650 the plaintiff paid for a non-Kia loaner. Once again, the insurer picked up the tab but the plaintiff still had to pay another $500 deductible. The lawsuit says in just four months, the soy-based wiring in the Kia Soul caused the plaintiff to incur more than $9,200 in "repair" charges and about $650 in rental car charges. The problem can allegedly continue forever because Kia replaces defective wiring with defective wiring that animals love to munch on. Other Kia owners have described similar problems with the wiring, including a Florida driver of a 2013 Kia Soul who told CarComplaints.com about their experience while driving to work and noticing a warning light that convinced the owner to have the vehicle towed to a dealership. According to the Kia owner, the dealership called and said the soy-based wiring had been chewed by animals, a problem allegedly not uncommon, but one not covered by the warranty. The owner placed mothballs in socks and stuck them under the hood, now being careful about allowing the air to invade the cabin of the Soul. "That happy hamster in the commercial is so happy because it knows it has its next snack. KIA makes and sells these cars knowing if they told the consumer prior to an incident happening such as prior to purchase of the car -- the cars would not be selling!" In the case of plaintiff Tsvetelin Tsonev, Kia told the judge the lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiff can't provide evidence that the wiring causes rodents and other creatures to damage the cars. Additionally, lawyers for Kia argue the plaintiff hasn't presented even one expert witness to support the claims made in the lawsuit. Kia further told the judge the plaintiff can't show the vehicles are even equipped with soy-based wiring. The Kia soy-based wiring class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California -- Tsvetelin Tsonev, et. al., v. Kia Motors America, Inc. The plaintiff is represented by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, and Goldenberg Schneider LPA. The Tsonev lawsuit is similar to previous legal complaints, including suits filed against Kia and Hyundai in July 2017. [GN] KOMAROV ENTERPRISES: Faces "Martinez" Wage-and-Hour Suit -------------------------------------------------------- PABLA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff, v. KOMAROV ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES l through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC680796 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this class action based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order, and the Business and Professions Code against Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other similarly situated current and former employees for unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants' alleged failures to provide all meal periods, fairly compete, provide accurate written wage statements, and timely pay final wages upon termination of employment. The Defendant is in the apparel and textile industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Caroline Tahmassian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 312 Enci.no, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582 3086 Facsimile (818) 582 2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com caroline@spivaklaw.com LGE COMMUNITY: Appeal Filed in "Tims" Suit in Eleventh Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- CAROL TIMS, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff -- Appellant, v. LGE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, the Defendant -- Appellee, Case No. 17-14968 (11th Cir, Nov. 7, 2017), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from a lower court decision in a fraud class action, Case No. 1:15-cv-04279-TWT 2:15-cv-04361- DDP-FFM (N.D. Ga., Nov. 7, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff -- Appellant: Taras Kihiczak, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 201 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 350 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395 2988 - and - G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. Edward Adam Webb, Esq., Esq. WEBB KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange Se Ste 480 Atlanta, GA 30339-2049 Telephone: (770) 444 9325 - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT, LLP 2068 Orange Tree Ln Ste 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557 1250 Attorneys for Defendant -- Appellee: Stephen Paul Dunn, Esq. HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS, PLLC 450 W 4th St Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 645 1483 - and - Kevin Allen Maxim, Esq. THE MAXIM LAW FIRM, PC 1718 PEACHTREE ST NW STE 599 ATLANTA, GA 30309-2454 Business: (404) 924 4272 Personal: (404) 924 4272 - and - Brandon J. Wilson, Esq. HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS, PLLC 450 W 4th St Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 645 1483 LOVING HEART: "Larin" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Maria Larin and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Loving Heart Home Health Care, Inc., Joaquin Marquez, Sonia Marquez, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-24203 (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2017), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire employment period along with court costs, interest, and any other relief. Loving Heart Home Health Care, Inc., is an assisted living facility where Plaintiff worked as a patient attendant, caring for the aged and infirmed, from on or about May 25, 2008 through the present. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com M&T BANK: "Kim" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud -------------------------------------------- Young Man Kim, Kenneth Rhee a/k/a Kun Y Rhee, KKR Partners, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. M&T Bank, Defendant, Case 17-cv-11810 (D. N.J., November 18, 2017), seeks compensatory and rescissory damages, statutory/equitable remedies, rescission of the loan and guarantee and all similar M&T Bank documents and guarantees, other applicable consequential, incidental, nominal and expectation damages, interest, attorney's fees, filing fees, court costs and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. M&T Bank is a New York chartered banking institution licensed to do business in many branches within the State of New Jersey and maintaining several branches in New Jersey. Kim, Rhee, and Sei-Jun Park formed KKR and each acquired 33.33% ownership interests. KKR owns and operate dry-cleaning establishments. Plaintiffs applied for a business loan at a New Jersey branch of M&T Bank. Kim executed an M&T Bank form "Unlimited Guarantee" in which Kim and Rhee promised to guarantee the payment of KKR's loan to M&T Bank. Rhee filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. M&T Bank sued Kim in a separate guarantee action for the entire amount of the KKR/Rhee judgment in Buffalo, New York in the Supreme Court of New York, Erie County. Plaintiff alleges that M&T filed separate suits for the collection cases so that the defendants could not share lawyers and expenses, and thereby mount a more economic, joint defense. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Basil, Esq. THE BASIL LAW GROUP, P.C. 1270 Broadway, Suite 305 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (917) 512-3066 Fax: (831) 536-1075 - and - Neil Grossman, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 144 N. Beverwyck Road, # 187 Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034 Telephone: (973) 335-6409 Telecopier: (973) 335-3717 MASA NY: "Tanaka" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JIMMY H. TANAKA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MASA NY, LLC d/b/a MASA RESTAURANT and BAR MASA, MASAYOSHI TAKAYAMA, JANE DOE and JOHN DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08612-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, statutory and compensatory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt waiter for Defendants' high-end Japanese restaurant and bar, known as Masa and Bar Masa, from January 4, 2017, until October 3, 2017, all which time Defendants unlawfully terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for complaining about being forced to participate in an unlawful tip sharing/pooling arrangement and not receiving all of his tips as a result of Defendants' illegal pay practices. The work performed by Plaintiff was directly essential to the business operated by Defendants. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned minimum wages in direct contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law. The Defendants knowingly and willfully misappropriated from Plaintiff his lawfully earned tips in direct contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER PLLC 708 Third Avenue -6ll 1 floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209 3933 Facsimile: (212) 209 7102 E-mail: info@jcpdaw.com MDL 2818: GM Asks Court to Transfer 4 Cases to E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE GENERAL MOTORS AIR CONDITIONING LITIGATION, MDL No. 2818, General Motors asks the respective courts to transfer these actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the Eastern District of Michigan: -- James Won v. General Motors Co., et al. ("Won"), No. 1:17-cv-04819 (E.D.N.Y.); -- Mohamed Tangara, et al. v. General Motors LLC ("Tangara"), No. 4:17-cv-12786 (E.D. Mich.); -- Marcus Bell, et al. v. General Motors Co. ("Bell"), No. 2:17-cv-00183 (N.D. Tex.); and -- Ryan Jenkins, et al. v. General Motors Co. ("Jenkins"), No. 3:17-cv-05864 (N.D. Cal.). These actions are based on similar factual allegations concerning the same GM trucks and SUVs; seek certification of overlapping and parallel classes; and assert similar claims for relief for breach of warranty, violations of state consumer protection laws,4 and fraudulent concealment. More specifically, the Won, Tangara, and Bell actions all seek certification of nearly identical nationwide classes of owners and lessees of GM trucks and SUVs. These actions also seek certification of nearly identical classes under New York law.[BN] Counsel for General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, and General Motors LLC: Mark S. Cheffo, Esq. Hayden A. Coleman, Esq. Guyon H. Knight, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849 7000 Facsimile: (212) 849 7100 E-mail: markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com haydencoleman@quinnemanuel.com guyonknight@quinnemanuel.com MEIJER INC: "Warren" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled De Antoine Warren, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Meijer, Inc., a Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017 CH 13723, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 20, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-08415 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman. Meijer is a regional American supercenter chain with its corporate headquarters in Walker, Michigan, in the Grand Rapids metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. Ryan F Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com The Defendant is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 212 4949 E-mail: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com meisen@beneschlaw.com MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Chazan" Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC. The case is captioned as Michael Chazan, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06707 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2017). Mercantile Adjustment provides collection and accounts receivable management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and universities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MONA VIE: "Pontrelli" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Lisa Pontrelli, in her individual capacity and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mona Vie Inc., a Utah Corporation and Mona Vie LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-04649, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Central) on Nov. 20, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01215-DN to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David Nuffer.[BN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "McNew" Suit Over Roundup(R) Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin McNew, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-02728 (E.D. Miss., November 17, 2017), is an action for damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A Flint, Esq. FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 222 E. Park St. 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 MONTANA: State Seeks Dismissal of Drivers License Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Bermes, writing for Bozeman Daily Chronicle, reports that the state is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging how Montana suspends driver's licenses for people who fail to pay court fines. In a motion filed in U.S. District Court in Butte in October, the Montana Attorney General's Office asked Judge Sam Haddon to dismiss the class-action suit that calls the system an "unconstitutional wealth-based suspension scheme." The suit was filed in August by attorneys for Michael DiFrancesco, a 22-year-old Bozeman man who they say is unemployed and homeless as a result of having his driver's license suspended because he was unable to pay court fines. Defendants in the suit are Gov. Steve Bullock and Attorney General Tim Fox, Esq. as well as Montana Department of Justice Motor Vehicle Division Administrator Sarah Garcia and Driver Services Bureau Chief Michele Snowberger. The suit was filed by Equal Justice Under Law, a national civil rights nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., in partnership with Helena attorneys Robert Farris-Olsen and Scott Peterson. According to the suit, DiFrancesco was convicted in 2009 of misdemeanor minor in possession. He was fined $185 and ordered to pay for and complete a substance abuse course, neither of which he could afford. DiFrancesco's license was later suspended and he was ordered to pay, in addition what he already owed, a $100 reinstatement fee. While he has since paid for the initial fine, DiFrancesco has racked up $4,000 in unpaid fines for convictions for driving without a license, and he spent about five months in jail for the offenses, his attorneys said. Without a license, DiFrancesco is unable to work consistently, causing him to lose employment and become homeless. "Montana has trapped (DiFrancesco) in an inescapable cycle of poverty," the suit read. "Without driver's licenses, people already facing the harsh realities of owing court debt while living in poverty face additional hurdles of being unable to drive to and from work, get their children to daycare, keep medical appointments, and care for their family members." Attorneys are asking the judge to prohibit the state from this practice and asking the judge to order the reinstatement of DiFrancesco's and others' licenses. The state has not responded to the merits of the suit, but in its motion to dismiss, asked that the case be tossed because of the statute of limitations. Deputy Attorney General Rob Cameron, Esq. -- robert@rwcameronlaw.ca -- who filed the motion on behalf of the state, argued that the statute of limitations for civil rights claims is three years. The clock for DiFrancesco started when he turned 18 in 2012, Cameron argued, and expired in 2015. "DiFrancesco's complaint was not filed until Aug. 31, 2017 -- a full one year and eight months too late," Cameron wrote. DiFrancesco's attorneys countered, saying DiFrancesco's issues with his suspended license and inability to pay continued into 2015 and 2016, which "falls well within the statute of limitations," attorney Phil Telfeyan wrote in their Nov. 7 response. Judge Haddon has not ruled on the motion. [GN] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Marichal" Suit Seeks Overtime, Back Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Cooper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03161 (N.D. Tex., November 17, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and/or overtime wages at the applicable rates, liquidated damages, costs and attorney' fees incurred, prejudgment and post- judgment interest and such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nationstar is a national residential mortgage company that originates and services home loans where Cooper was employed as a Loan Officer from approximately January 2011 through June 2016 at Defendant's offices located in Irving, Texas. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC 8201 Mission Road, Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Tel: (913) 766-5585 Fax: (816) 875-5069 Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com Website: www.rmlegalgroup.com - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Travis Gasper, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 Website: www.overtimelawyer.com NESTLE WATERS: "Ray" Suit Transferred to District of Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Bernadette A. Ray, Fun Cheung Joanna Reslink, Jessica Marie Bartling, Anne Clegg, Noah Wells, Joel B. Nice, Rajesh Karnani, and Ben Knox Miller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Nestle Waters North America Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-00351, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven) on Nov. 20, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01944-JCH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janet C. Hall. Nestle Waters North America, Inc. is a business-unit of Nestle Waters that produces and/or distributes numerous brands of bottled water across North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel W. Krasner, Esq. WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ 270 Madison Ave., Suite 1100 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545 4600 - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS PO Box 11410 Portland, ME 04104-7410 Telephone: (207) 791 3000 Facsimile: (207) 791 3111 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey M. Garrod, Esq. ORLOFF LOWENBACH STIFELMAN & SIEGEL 101 Eisenhower Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (201) 622 6200 E-mail: jmg@olss.com - and - John J. Aromando, Esq. PIERCE ATWOOD LLP Merrill's Wharf 254 Commercial Street Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 791 1100 NORDIC NATURALS: Faces "Skylor" Suit over Gummies Product --------------------------------------------------------- JAY SKYLOR, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC., a California Company, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-17-562382 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks restitution of the monies Plaintiff and Class members paid for Gummies Product, and declaratory and injunctive relief preventing further dissemination of the misleading advertising message and material omissions. The Defendant manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes over- the-counter supplements under its Nordic Naturals brand. These products include: Nordic Omega-3 Gummies. The Product is sold in 60 and 120-count packages in major food and mass retail outlets including, but not limited to GNC, Whole Foods, Sprouts, and Hi- Health. A single container of the Product retails for approximately $20.00-$40.00. The Product prominently states on the front of its label the total number of gummies in the package and the amount (mg) of the featured omega-3 key ingredient. The Plaintiff Skylor purchased the 60-count Product. As shown below, on the front of the Product package, Defendant represents that the Product is "Nordic Omega-3 Gummies 82 mg Omega-3" and contains "60 Gummies" (the "dosage representations") By prominently making the dosage representations on that portion of the package most likely to be seen by consumers, Defendant gives consumers an opportunity to compare prices and cost per unit of its Product with competing products from other manufacturers. However, rather than foster an accurate price comparison, Defendant's Product package is designed to (and does) falsely and misleadingly lead an average reasonable consumer to conclude that the Product contains the represented number of gummies each containing the represented amount of the featured key omega-3 ingredient. For example, the average reasonable consumer would logically conclude that the 60-count Product package contains 60 gummies each providing 82 mg of omega-3, for a total of 4,920 mg omega-3 in the Product. Instead, the Product contains 60 gummies that each contain only 41 mg of omega-3, for a total of 2,460 mg omega-3. Therefore, Defendant's dosage representations are false, misleading and reasonably likely to deceive the public at large because consumers are misled into believing they are purchasing twice as much omega-3 per gummy and in the Product as a whole.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrician Syverson, Esq. Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. BONNETT, F AIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798 4593 E-mail: psvverson@bffb.com mmuecke@bffb.com NOVA RESTAURANT: "Butron" Suit Moved to District of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Patricia J. Daza Butron, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Nova Restaurant, Inc., a Florida profit corporation and McDonald's Corporation, a foreign profit corporation, Case No. 17-024289 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Florida (Miami) on Nov. 20, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-24216-PCH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Senior Judge Paul C. Huck.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com Attorneys for Nova Restaurant, Inc.: Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 2150 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 808 2100 Facsimile: (305) 808 2101 E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com Attorneys for McDonald's Corporation: Jurate Schwartz, Esq. Proskauer Rose, Esq. 2255 Glades Road Suite 421 Atrium Boca Raton, FL 33431-7360 Telephone: (561) 241 7400 Facsimile: (561) 241 7145 E-mail: jschwartz@proskauer.com OAK LODGE LLC: "Jenkins" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Madeline Jenkins, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oak Lodge, LLC, Parc 73, LLC and Michael Stevens, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01673, (M.D. La., November 17, 2017), seeks unpaid wages, overtime compensation, a declaratory judgment, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post- judgment interest associated with the bringing of this action, plus any additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate two catering and reception facilities, Oak Lodge, which is located in Baton Rouge, and Parc 73, which is located in Prairieville. Both are commonly owned and managed by Stevens. Jenkins worked for Defendants from June 6, 2015 through October 7, 2017, performing ministerial payroll tasks, routinely rendering more than forty hours per week but was not paid overtime for all hours worked over forty hours in a workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Landry III, Esq. ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC 5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Telephone: (225) 349-7460 Facsimile: (225) 349-7466 Email: rlandry@landryfirm.com - and - Charles J. Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM, LLC 318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104 New Orleans, LA 70124 Tel: (504) 267-0777 Fax: (504) 513-3084 Email: charles@stieglerlawfirm.com OCEAN SPRAY: "Hilsley" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Crystal Hilsley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.; Arnold Worldwide LLC; and DOE Defendants 1-5, Case No. 37-02017-00034868-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Nov. 16, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17- cv-02335-GPC-MDD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. Ocean Spray is an agricultural cooperative of growers of cranberries and grapefruit headquartered in Lakeville/ Middleborough, Massachusetts. It currently has more than 700 member growers. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Elliot, Esq. THE ELLIOTT LAW FIRM 3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 468 4865 E-mail: david@westonfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Ricky Lynn Shackelford, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586 7700 Facsimile: (310) 586 7800 E-mail: shackelfordr@gtlaw.com OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: "Kim" Class Suit Transferred to Dist. Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on August 3, 2017 captioned Shawna Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., Amarpreet Sawhney, George Migausky, Andrew Hurley, and Eric Ankerud, Case No. 2:17-cv-05704, was transferred from the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-12283 to the proceeding. The case alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the discovery, development, manufacturing and commercialization of innovative drug products focused on the treatment of ocular diseases and conditions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com OLD DOMINION: "Sanders" Suit Moved to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Eugene Sanders, Doug Butler, George Renner, Roger Shrader, and Darrel Foley, individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. a Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02016-00030725-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Nov. 17, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17- cv-02340-DMS-KSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw.[BN] Old Dominion is a less-than-truckload, company. It offers regional, inter-regional and national LTL service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman B Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551 1223 Facsimile: (858) 551 1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Charles Kane, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: (310) 315 8295 Facsimile: (310) 315 8210 E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com OMEGA HEALTHCARE: "Klein" Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Steve Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson and Daniel J. Booth, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09024, (S.D. N.Y., November 17, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Omega is a self-administered real estate investment trust that invests in income producing healthcare facilities, including long- term care facilities located in the United States and the United Kingdom. According to the complaint, Defendants failed to disclose that financial and operating results of certain of the company's operators were deteriorating and experiencing worsening liquidity issues that were significantly impacting the operators' ability to make timely rent payments and that its direct financing leases were impaired and certain receivables were uncollectible. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.11 per share, or 6.8%, to close at $28.86 per share on October 31, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com OPTUM INC: In Breach of Fiduciary Duties Claims "Ellis" ------------------------------------------------------- Susan Ellis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Optum, Inc., OptumRx Holdings, L.L.C., OptumRx, Inc., United HealthCare, Services, Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05154 (D. Minn., November 17, 2017), seeks appropriate equitable relief, along with such other and additional relief, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from overcharging of epinephrine- injecting devices under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Defendants are pharmacy benefit managers that market and sell the EpiPen, a self-injecting device that delivers epinephrine, a synthetic form of adrenaline used to relax muscles around airways and tightening blood vessels to maintain respiratory and cardiovascular function during allergies. Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by causing the highly inflated prices paid by the Plaintiffs for the EpiPen. Instead of negotiating for lower or stable prices for all plan members, Defendants allegedly negotiated for increasingly large rebates from EpiPen's manufacturer, driving up the price of EpiPen. Rather than passing these rebates on in the form of lower or stable prices, Defendants kept significant amounts, resulting in massive revenue increases for themselves and massive price increases. Plaintiffs all have children who suffer from severe allergies and are under health insurance plan for which Defendants provides pharmacy benefit management services. Optum is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California. Optum is a pharmacy benefits manager and currently manages the coverage and policies provided by Unitedhealth. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries are health care companies that offer health insurance plans to individuals and employers. Plaintiff purchased health insurance through UnitedHealth and receives pharmacy benefits. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. David W. Asp, Esq. Kristen G. Marttila, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel.: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: dwasp@locklaw.com kgmarttila@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com - and - Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq. Patrick T. Egan, Esq. Justin N. Saif, Esq. Steven L. Groopman, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One Liberty Square, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 Fax: (617) 542-1194 Email: kdonovanmaher@bermandevalerio.com pegan@bermandevalerio.com jsaif@bermandevalerio.com sgroopman@bermandevalerio.com - and - Christopher Heffelfinger, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Fax: (415) 433-6382 Email: cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com OPUS BANK: To Pay $17 Million to Settle Shareholders Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Brennan, writing for Orange County Business Journal, reports that Opus Bank (Nasdaq: OPB) is settling for $17 million a class-action shareholder lawsuit alleging the Irvine company misled investors about the quality of its loans. Opus said insurance will cover the cost of the settlement with no effect on its income. "We do not view the announcement as having any impact on the company's fundamentals," Keefe, Bruyette & Woods analyst Jacquelynne Chimera Bohlen wrote in a report to investors. Opus expects a finalized agreement by early December; it must eventually be approved by a court. Lead plaintiff Nancy Schwartz a year ago sued Opus, alleging misleading press releases about the quality of its lending from 2014 to 2016. The bank's shares fell 21% after a 2016 third- quarter earnings report that included $38.8 million in charge- offs. Los Angeles-based Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, which has sued other publicly-traded companies, represented Schwartz. Opus shares rose 2% in midday trading to an $898 million market cap. Shares have climbed 32% since April. [GN] ORBITAL ATK: "Donato" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Northrop --------------------------------------------------------------- DIANE DONATO, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ORBITAL ATK, INC., DAVID W. THOMPSON, RONALD R. FOGLEMAN, KEVIN P. CHILTON, ROXANNE J. DECYK, LENNARD A. FISK, RONALD T. KADISH, TIG H. KREKEL, DOUGLAS L. MAINE, ROMAN MARTINEZ IV, JANICE I. OBUCHOWSKI, JAMES G. ROCHE, HARRISON H. SCHMITT, and SCOTT L. WEBSTER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01271-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to enjoin a stockholder vote on a proposed merger transaction unless and until Exchange Act violations are cured. This case is a class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Orbital ATK, Inc. against Orbital ATK and its Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and to enjoin vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Orbital ATK will be acquired by Northrop Grumman Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Neptune Merger, Inc. On September 18, 2017, Orbital ATK and Northrop Grumman issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated September 17, 2017, pursuant to which Northrop Grumman will acquire Orbital ATK. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Orbital ATK stockholders will have the right to receive $134.50 in cash for each share of Company common stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $9.2 billion. On October 2, 2017, Orbital ATK filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC. The Proxy, which recommends that Orbital ATK stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Orbital ATK management's projections, utilized by Orbital ATK's financial advisor, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., in its financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by Citigroup in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii) Orbital ATK insiders' potential conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as Orbital ATK stockholders need such material information in order to cast a fully-informed vote or seek appraisal in connection with the Proposed Transaction. In short, unless remedied, Orbital ATK's public stockholders will be forced to make a voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction without full disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction being provided to them. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th St. NW, Suite 115 Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (202) 524 4290 Facsimile: (202) 333 2121 E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235 1560 Facsimile: (405) 239 2112 P.J. CLARKE'S: Edinbyrd Suit Calls Hiring Practices "Unlawful" -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN EDINBYRD, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. P.J. CLARKE'S ON THE HUDSON, LLC, P.J. CLARKE'S AT LINCOLN CENTER, LLC, P.J. CLARKE'S RESTAURANT CORP., and DAVID MYERS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-08639-RJS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York Executive Law, and New York City Administrative (New York City Human Rights Law). This class action seeks to vindicate the rights of the many qualified African-American servers at Defendants' restaurants who were denied the opportunity to work as bartenders solely based on their race and color. Defendants have implemented unlawful hiring and promotion policies, administered by the all-White supervisors who refuse to hire or promote deserving African-American applicants and employees to work as bartenders. As a result of these policies, Plaintiff and other African-American servers have been repeatedly denied well-deserved employment opportunities and promotions-without explanation, while less qualified non African- American applicants and employees have been hired and promoted as bartenders. The Plaintiff is a highly experienced African-American male, with more than 26 years of bartending experience. Despite Plaintiff's considerable qualifications, Defendants' refused to hire Plaintiff as a bartender and repeatedly passed over Plaintiff for promotions solely because of his race and color. Other African-American employees have faced a similar fate. In fact, upon information and belief, there has been a stark disparity in African-American bartenders in Defendants' restaurants, as opposed to African-American servers. The Defendants refuse to hire qualified African-American individuals as bartenders, and opt to hire them as servers instead. The lack of qualified African-American employees working as bartenders is a direct result of the secret and standard-less hiring and promotion policies that give high-level personnel unchecked direction to hand-pick non-African American candidates for hire and promotion while repeatedly overlooking more qualified African-American individuals.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1020 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 267 2101 PARTS AUTHORITY: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Johnson" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Maurice Johnson, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff -- Appellant v., Parts Authority, LLC; Parts Authority Inc.; Parts Authority Laurel Avenue LLC; Parts Authority Partners Franklin Ave LLC; Parts Authority Southern LLC; Parts Authority-WAW LLC; Parts Authority District of Columbia LLC; Parts Authority Arizona LLC; Parts Authority Georgia LLC; Parts Authority Metro LLC; PA Austin LLC; and Yaron Rosenthal, the Defendant -- Appellees, Case No. 17-3525 (2nd Cir, Oct. 31, 2017), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, from a lower court decision in the class action, Case No. 16-cv-6852 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff -- Appellant: Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298 3284 Attorneys for Defendant -- Appellees: Sharon P. Stiller, Esq. ABRAMS, FENSTERMAN, FENSTERMAN, EISMAN, FORMATO, FERRARA & EINIGER, LLP 160 Linden Oaks Rochester, NY 14625 Telephone: (585) 218 9999 PENNSYLVANIA: Gerrymandering Suit Fast Tracked in State High Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cherri Gregg, writing for CBS Philly, reports that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a class action that could affect the voting districts for the 2018 election will now be fast tracked. Pennsylvania's high court ruled that the Commonwealth Court must decide whether lawmakers should re-draw the congressional districts by the end of this year. "People know that Pennsylvania is a very divided state, a swing state," said Ben Geffen, staff attorney at the Public Interest Law Center. The Public Interest Law Center represents the plaintiffs, the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters, in the lawsuit. They argue the map is unconstitutional because Republicans gerrymandered the map by lumping democrats into a handful of districts and spreading Republicans out into districts with a slight, but comfortable, majority that entrenched GOP power. "The map was drawn in a way to penalize democrats for their political expression and their political association," Geffen said. Hear more about the case, from advocates calling for redistricting reforms, and from the Philly GOP leadership on why the courts should stay out of the process. [GN] PERRIGO ISRAEL: Drug Company to Pay Out NIS47.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------- Stuart Winer, writing for the Times of Israel, reports that an Israeli drug company has agreed to pay out NIS 42.7 million ($12.14 million) in compensation to users of one of its drugs that left hundreds suffering from significant side effects after a change was made in the formula for the medicine. Perrigo Israel Agencies, the local branch of US drug manufacturer Perrigo, reached an agreement with plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed over Eltroxin, a drug used to treat underactive thyroids, the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported November 12. A deal was reached after months of mediation between the two sides led by former Supreme Court president Asher Grunis. The agreement is to be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval. Those entitled to compensation are patients who were regularly taking Eltroxin before February 2011, and then used the new formula without being told by the doctor to have a blood test to verify there were no unwanted side effects from the drug, the report said. Under the terms of the agreements patients will be entitled to payouts of between NIS 4,200 ($1,100) and NIS 9,000 ($2,560). An additional NIS 5.2 million ($1,480,000) is to be earmarked as a public donation toward improving treatment and followup for endocrinology patients. Eltroxin was distributed in Israel in 2010 and used by some 250,000 patients. In February 2011 the formula was changed by the manufacturer supplying the medicine to Perrigo. Although Perrigo informed local clients such as health care organizations and doctors, prosecutors argued the company did not stress to doctors and pharmacists the need for patients to have a blood test after taking the new formula. It also did not change the instructions on packaging until August 2011, despite worrying side effects having been found in New Zealand and Denmark. Within weeks hundreds of users began to complain of side effects that in some cases included depression and hair loss. In the panic that followed, the Health Ministry set up an investigative committee that found a connection between the introduction of the new formula and the reported side effects. A class action lawsuit was approved in 2015 against Perrigo Israel. Following an appeal, mediation was ordered. [GN] PF HOLDINGS: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARK WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PF HOLDINGS LLC, PF HOLDINGS MANAGEMENT LLC, PF ALABAMA MANAGEMENT LLC, PF RALSTON LLC, and RALSTON GA LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06521 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover all unpaid compensation and overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek inclusive of hours worked while on-call duty during periods outside their scheduled shifts under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from January 30, 2017 until June 23, 2017 as an hourly-paid Maintenance Worker primarily at Defendants' housing complex.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd St., Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561 0000 Facsimile: (855) 582 5297 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com PHILIP MORRIS: $32.5MM Damage Award in "Ledoux" Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, issued an Opinion affirming the Final Judgment of Trial Court in Favor of Roland Ledoux. Defendants Philip Morris USA, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company appeal from a final judgment following a jury trial and a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Plaintiff, Roland Ledoux, as the personal representative of the estate of Patricia Mary Ledoux, brought an Engle-progeny claim against Defendants, alleging that Patricia died from lung cancer caused by an addiction to smoking cigarettes manufactured and marketed by Defendants. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for strict liability, fraud by concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud, and negligence. The case proceeded in two phases. In Phase I, the jury determined: (1) whether Patricia was addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine; if so, (2) whether her addiction was the legal cause of her lung cancer and death; if so, (3) the amount of compensatory damages; and (4) whether punitive damages were warranted against Defendants. In Phase II, the jury determined the amount of punitive damages. At the conclusion of Phase I, the jury found that Patricia was addicted to smoking cigarettes containing nicotine manufactured by Defendants and as a result she died from lung cancer. The jury found for Plaintiff, allocating 47% of the comparative fault to each Defendant and 6% to Patricia. The jury awarded Plaintiff $10 million in compensatory damages for his pain and suffering. The jury also found for Plaintiff on the intentional torts of concealment and conspiracy to conceal. In addition, the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants' conduct warranted punitive damages. In Phase II, the jury awarded $12.5 million in punitive damages against each Defendant. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of Plaintiff holding Defendants jointly and severally liable for the $10 million in compensatory damages and each Defendant liable for $12.5 million in punitive damages. Defendants argue that the trial court erred in allowing Plaintiff to introduce evidence and present argument regarding the number of deaths caused by smoking. Defendants contend this evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, requiring a new trial. The Fla. App. concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Plaintiff to introduce evidence and present argument regarding the number of deaths caused by smoking as it was relevant to the issue of entitlement to punitive damages (an issue determined by the jury during Phase I of the trial), and bears upon the question of reprehensibility. In determining whether punitive damages are warranted, the Court held, "you may not punish a Defendant for any harm suffered by any individuals others than Mr. Ledoux or Mrs. Ledoux. You may consider harms suffered by other persons not parties to this lawsuit in deciding whether to punish a Defendant for the reprehensibility or wrongness of its conduct." Defendants assert that three arguments made by Plaintiff's counsel during closing argument, were improper and therefore require a new trial. On appeal, Defendants assert that these arguments were a violation of the Golden Rule. A Golden Rule argument asks the jurors to place themselves in the plaintiffs' position and urges them to award an amount of money they would desire if they had been the victims. Although it is evident that Plaintiff's counsel was attempting to illustrate the practical limitations of the civil justice system by arguing to the jury that no monetary award regardless of the amount would suffice to give Roland what he truly wanted, the argument was presented in an overly-dramatic manner such that it could evoke the jury's sympathy. The Fla. App. said it has expressed in prior opinions the impropriety of similar arguments. But while the Fla. App. concludes that these arguments were improper, it also concludes that the trial court properly denied Defendants' motion for mistrial and motion for new trial. As to Comment Number One, Defendants are urging, as a basis for reversal, a different objection than the one they raised at trial. Defendants contend in this appeal that the argument was a Golden Rule violation; however, the objection actually interposed at trial was Objection, there's no evidence of this. This objection failed to place the trial court on notice of the error that Defendants now assert in this appeal. By failing to properly preserve this objection, Defendants waived the issue for appeal, absent a showing of fundamental error. In like fashion, Defendants' failure to make any contemporaneous objection to Comment Number Three also waived this claim for appellate review absent a showing of fundamental error. As to these unpreserved comments, the Fla. App. concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. Comment Number Two was properly preserved by an objection. The trial court correctly sustained that objection but no curative instruction was requested or given and a motion for mistrial was thereafter denied. The Fla. App. reviews the trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial and motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. If the issue of an opponent's improper argument has been properly preserved by objection and motion for mistrial, the trial court should grant a new trial if the argument was 'so highly prejudicial and inflammatory' that it denied the opposing party its right to a fair trial. The Fla. App. finds no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the motion for mistrial and subsequent denial of the motion for new trial, and conclude that the argument was not so highly prejudicial as to deny Defendants a fair trial. Defendants argue that the $10 million compensatory damage award is excessive and that the trial court erred in denying Defendants' motion for remittitur. Upon the Fla. App.'s consideration of the record in this case as well as other compensatory damages awards in similar Engle-progeny cases, and giving proper deference to the jury's award and the trial court's subsequent review of that award, it says it cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendants' motion for remittitur, as it cannot say that the damages award obviously exceeds the 'reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate.' Defendants next contend that they are entitled to a reduction in compensatory damages based on the jury's finding of comparative fault. In R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sury, 118 So.3d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), the trial court denied the defendant's motion to reduce the plaintiff's compensatory damages award by the smoker's comparative fault based on its conclusion that the core of the plaintiff's suit was founded upon an intentional tort. The First District found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that although the plaintiff pleaded negligence and strict liability, the additional allegations of the intentional torts and the proof of affirmative, calculated misrepresentations in the tobacco companies' advertising and other publications supported its conclusion that at its core, the action involved an intentional tort. Upon de novo review, the Fla. App. holds that, in the instant case, the trial court properly denied Defendants' request because at its core this was an "action based upon an intentional tort." Merrill Crossings Assocs. v. McDonald, 705 So.2d 560, 563 (Fla. 1997), acknowledging that the words chosen 'based upon an intentional tort,' imply the necessity to inquire whether the entire action against or involving multiple parties is founded or constructed on an intentional tort. In other words, the issue is whether an action comprehending one or more negligent torts actually has at its core an intentional tort by someone. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendants' motion to reduce the compensatory damages award by the percentage of comparative fault assigned by the jury to Patricia. The Fla. App. finds that the other arguments advanced by Defendants are without merit and affirms on those points without further discussion. The appeals case is captioned Philip Morris USA, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Appellants, v. Roland Ledoux, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Patricia Mary Ledoux, Appellee, Case No. 3D16-675 (Fla. Dist. App.). A full-text copy of the Fla. App.'s October 18, 2017 Opinion is available a https://tinyurl.com/y8rma2v3 from Leagle.com. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Daphne O'Connor -- daphne.o'connor@apks.com- and Geoffrey J. Michael -- geoffrey.michael@apks.com -- (Washington, DC); Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Frank Cruz-Alvarez -- falvarez@shb.com -- King & Spalding, William L. Durham, II -- bdurham@kslaw.com -- and Val Leppert -- vleppert@kslaw.com -- (Atlanta, GA), for appellants. Gordon & Doner, Robert E. Gordon -- rgordon@fortheinjured.com -- and Gary M. Paige -- gpaige@fortheinjured.com -- (Davie); Trop Law Group and Adam Trop -- info@troplawgroup.com -- (Tamarac); David J. Sales, 1001 North U.S. Highway One, Suite 200, Jupiter, FL 33477 and Daniel R. Hoffman -- danrhoffman@yahoo.com -- (Jupiter), for appellee. RELIABLE TIRE: Travers Sues over Racial Harassment -------------------------------------------------- DAVID TRAVERS, the Plaintiff, v. RELIABLE TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-004299- 17 (N.J. Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages, non-economic compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just. On April 5, 2017, the plaintiff complained about the racial harassment to Andy Clavins, Mr. Welker's supervisor. Mr. Clavins was a member of upper management as that term is defined under the Law Against Discrimination. The Plaintiff specifically advised Mr. Clavins that he believed he was being singled out because he was the only black employee in the store. The Plaintiff requested a transfer to a different manager or different branch, but that request was denied. Even after that complaint, Mr. Welker continued to refer to plaintiff as a "coon" and a "monkey." In August 2017, plaintiff heard Mr. Welker refer to him as a "nigger" while Mr. Welker was on the telephone with his wife. In or about September 2017, plaintiff complained about the harassment to Scott Williams, the Director of Sales and the person who recruited plaintiff to the company. The Plaintiff requests that the Court order the defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made herein going forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly situated.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Daniel T. Silverman, Esquire COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727 9700 SELECT PORTFOLIO: California Court Denies Move to Dismiss "Rovai" ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction the case captioned ADRIANA ROVAI, Plaintiff, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-01738-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal.). At the time SPS began servicing Rovai's mortgage loan in December 2011, Plaintiff alleges that her outstanding loan balance included $9,013.02 of interest she incurred in earlier years of her loan but did not pay. Accordingly, she alleges that SPS's reporting was incorrect. Plaintiff noticed the discrepancy in SPS's Form 1098 reporting in late 2013. She reached out to SPS in April 2014 regarding its method of calculating reported interest, but SPS rejected Rovai's complaint and declined to change its reporting policy. Rovai alleges that the IRS exclusively relies on the amounts contained in a Form 1098 and rejects any attempts by taxpayers to claim a different amount of interest from that which appears on the taxpayer's Form 1098. Rovai alleges that due to SPS's conduct she has been unable to correctly state her taxes or obtain the full mortgage interest deduction to which she is entitled under applicable tax law. SPS argues that Rovai fails to show an injury-in-fact because there is no legally protected or cognizable interest in this case and her allegations of injury are conclusory. Rovai alleges two injuries due to SPS's incorrect Forms 1098 and their method of calculating interest payments: (1) Rovai filed erroneous tax returns in 2011 and 2012 in reliance on those forms and (2) Rovai received smaller tax deductions in 2011 and 2012 than she would have because she relied on those forms. The FAC, like the original complaint, also alleges that Rovai has suffered damages of the accountancy fees that will be necessary to amend her tax returns. SPS concedes that the FAC pertains to Rovai's own Forms 1098. Indeed, Rovai's allegations concern the Forms 1098 SPS provided her, the federal tax returns she filed by relying on those forms, and the smaller federal tax deductions she received. Rovai also alleges that SPS was obligated or had a duty to accurately report her deferred interest payments on the 2011 and 2012 Forms 1098 it provided her by virtue of Section 6050H. These allegations satisfy the particularity requirement because they show Rovai suffered the alleged injury in a personal and individual way. Citing no supporting authority, SPS argues that Rovai nevertheless fails to allege a particularized injury because she has not alleged facts showing that SPS breached a legal duty or norm as to her in particular. SPS's argument appears to engage a Rule 12(b)(6)'s merits inquiry in the guise of a constitutional standing inquiry about whether the plaintiff has plausibly pleaded a claim upon which relief may be granted. As the Ninth Circuit has indicated, such an inquiry is ill-suited to application in the constitutional standing context. For the purposes of Article III standing, Rovai's allegations of tax deduction injury are sufficient at the pleading stage. The third injury Rovai alleges are the accountancy fees that will be necessary to prepare and file amended returns. Accountancy fees incurred to file an amended tax return could be a sufficient injury-in-fact for Article III standing. However, Rovai does not allege that she has ever incurred such fees in order to file an amended tax return, nor does she allege an intent to file an amended return. Therefore, she has not alleged an injury-in-fact based on accountancy fees related to filing an amended return. SPS argues that Rovai has failed to allege that her injury is fairly traceable to SPS because any lost tax deduction was due to Rovai's conduct, not that of SPS. SPS argues that Rovai could have claimed a higher tax deduction before filing her tax returns or could have amended her returns, but failed to do so. Rovai explicitly alleges that she relied on the 2011 and 2012 Forms 1098 SPS provided her and she did not notice the discrepancy in SPS's interest reporting until late 2013. Assuming the truth of these allegations, Rovai would not have known before she filed her 2011 and 2012 tax returns that the information on her Forms 1098 was incorrect. Even assuming Rovai were aware of the discrepancy before she filed her returns, Rovai also alleges that the IRS like everyone else exclusively relies on the information contained in a Form 1098, and will reject any attempt by a taxpayer to claim an amount of mortgage interest different than the amount reported on that form. Even if SPS's conduct is not the very last step in the chain of causation Rovai alleges, these allegations still show that her alleged injury is fairly traceable to SPS's conduct. The Court is also not persuaded by SPS's argument that Rovai's failure to amend breaks the causal chain between SPS's provision of incorrect 2011 and 2012 Forms 1098 to Rovai and her tax deduction injury in those years, which was completed when she received smaller tax deductions. Lastly, the Court finds the authorities on which SPS relies for its causation argument are inapplicable. SPS makes two arguments against redressability in this case. First, SPS argues that this case is not the proper arena to address Rovai's alleged injury, but rather Rovai's proper recourse is to the IRS. Second, SPS argues that there is no remedy this Court can award Rovai because only the IRS could have approved a higher deduction and determined the impact on Rovai's tax liability. Accordingly, SPS argues a damages award is not an option. Rovai seeks three forms of relief: damages for receiving smaller 2011 and 2012 tax deductions, an order requiring SPS to provide corrected Forms 1098, and a declaratory judgment that SPS's conduct is unlawful. These forms of relief would likely remedy Rovai's injury, which was produced by SPS's allegedly incorrect method of calculating mortgage interest, SPS's allegedly incorrect Forms 1098, and the resulting economic harm to Rovai. It is in this Court's power to provide a damages award. The Court also rejects as misguided SPS's second argument that only the IRS could have approved a higher tax deduction and determined the impact on Rovai's tax liability. This dispute is not about the IRS's determinations of Rovai's mortgage interest tax deductions in 2011 and 2012, nor is it about the IRS's determinations concerning her tax liability in those years. Rovai is suing SPS for its "completely separate actions and omissions, which resulted in negative tax consequences. The Court denies SPS's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7qeeyy8 from Leagle.com. Adriana Rovai, Plaintiff, represented by David J. Vendler -- dvendler@mpplaw.com -- Law Offices of David J. Vendler. Adriana Rovai, Plaintiff, represented by Michael R. Brown -- mbrown@mrbapclaw.com -- Michael R. Brown APC. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer L. Gray -- grayjen@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP. SHORE FUNDING: Abante Rooter Sues over Robocalls ------------------------------------------------ ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHORE FUNDING SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06499-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its calls to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendants contacted or attempted to conduct Plaintiff from telephone numbers belonging to Defendants including without limitation (0925) 350-6277 and (209) 266 5059.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross H. Schmierrer, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 979 3642 Facsimile: (856) 797 9951 E-mail: rschierer@denitislaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC 21550 Oxnard St., Ste 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumer.com SLIP-N-SLIDE RECORDS: "Murphy" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads -------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Patrick Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Slip-N-Slide Records, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-24199, (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease all solicitation text-messaging activities to cellular telephones without first obtaining prior express written consent, as well as an award of statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant is a record label that produces and distributes music to consumers throughout the United States. To promote its artists, Defendant sends text messages to consumers using an autodialer on their cellular telephones without their prior express written consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498.8946 Email: law@stefancoleman.com TARGET CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Walters" Debit Card Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration in the case captioned JAMES WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv- 01678-L-MDD (S.D. Cal.). Defendant Target Corp filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's partial denial of Target's motion to dismiss. This case is a putative class action stemming from Target's issuance of a product called a Target Debit Card (TDC). By swiping a TDC, a cardholder can purchase merchandise from target at a five percent discount. Plaintiff filed a first amended putative class action complaint alleging (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) unconscionability; (5) conversion; (6) violation of California Business and Professions Code (UCL); and (7) violation of California Civil Code (CLRA). Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims both allege Target misrepresented the true nature of the TDC by labeling and marketing it as a debit card. To succeed, these claims require a showing that Target made an actionable misrepresentation by marketing and labeling the TDC as a debit card. First, Target argues that the TDC is a debit card' as a matter of federal law. The Court pointed out that Target does not cite to any federal law that specifically discusses the TDC. Rather, Target cites to Regulation E, which, among other things, regulates the provision of electronic funds transfer (EFT) services. Regulation E contemplates that companies like Target who do not hold a customer's deposit account can provide EFT services that access the customer's deposit account. This argument lacks merit. Regulation E plainly does not attempt to define the term debit card. It simply lists provision of a debit card as one mechanism among others that a non-deposit account holding company like Target can use to provide EFT services linked to a customer's deposit account. Regulation E therefore provides no basis by which to conclude the TDC is a debit card as opposed to another variety of deposit account access device. Target rehashes the argument that a reasonable consumer would not be misled by the term debit card because the Agreement explains the TDC does not function in the manner Plaintiff alleges a normal debit card functions. Whether a representation would mislead a reasonable consumer is rarely a question suitable for determination on a motion to dismiss. It may be true that, prior to incurring RPF or NSF charges, a reasonable consumer would read the several pages of fine print contained on the Agreement and thus learn that the TDC is not actually what Plaintiff alleges Target affirmatively misrepresents the TDC as being: a debit card that process transactions immediately. That said, a reasonable jury could conclude otherwise. The Court denies Target's motion for reconsideration as to the UCL and CLRA claims. IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING In ruling on Target's motion to dismiss, the Court declined to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim ("bad faith claim") because "a reasonable jury could conclude that Target exercised its discretion in bad faith by always delaying EFT's and charging maximum RPF's when [the Agreement] said only that [Target] may engage in such practices. Target contends that this ruling was clear error because the Agreement expressly permits such practices. Target's argument is partially correct. The Court agrees with Target and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), modifies its previous order such that the bad faith claim is dismissed as to the dollar amount charged as RPF fees. Section 6 of the Agreement expressly sets the upper limit as to how much Target can charge as RPFs. The Agreement simply states "you agree that any EFT may occur several business days after your transaction(s) have occurred and after the date shown on your transaction receipt". Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the bad faith claim as to the allegations of unreasonable delay in EFT processing. However, the Court dismisses all other allegations under Plaintiff's bad faith claim because they run directly against the express and unambiguous language of the Agreement. The Court grants in part and denies in part Target's motion as follows: -- Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims may proceed. -- Plaintiff's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims may proceed, but only as to the alleged delay in EFT processing. -- All other claims are dismissed. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybeypb45 from Leagle.com. James Walters, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP. Target Corp., Defendant, represented by James R. McGuire -- jmcguire@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster. TEZOS: Lawyer Argues Suit "Should Be Heard in Switzerland" ---------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Haig, writing for news.Bitcoin.com, reports that Drew Hinkes, a Miami-based partner at legal firm Berger and Singermann has discussed the legal dispute over the approximately $232 million USD raised by the Tezos ICO. In October, news.Bitcoin.com reported that the founders of Tezos had entered into a legal battle with the chairman of a Swiss foundation comprising an independent third party tasked with managing funds raised during the Tezos ICO. Mr. Hinkes has not dismissed the possibility that the suit filed against Tezos may be successful, stating that a key factor in determining the outcome of the litigation will be "how the court treats the terms and conditions of Tezos' initial coin offering (ICO)." "One of the first issues argued might be whether the case can be heard in California, and whether the case can be filed as a class action, or whether the terms and conditions, which bar class or collective proceedings and require claims to be brought in an ordinary court in Zug, Switzerland, will be enforced against the plaintiff, which may result in the California case being dismissed." Mr. Hinkes anticipates that "Tezos will probably defend itself in the class action suit. The court may decide that, based on the terms that govern the 'contributions' by investors to Tezos." In his opinion, "the suit should be heard in Switzerland, and cannot be brought as a class action." Mr. Hinkes adds that such " would effectively mean that investors waive their right to sue Tezos for restitution through a mass proceeding, and cannot sue Tezos anywhere but in Zug." Mr. Hinkes emphasizes the contingent factor that the early and evolving juridical apparatus pertaining to the regulation of cryptocurrencies and ICOs may play in influencing the outcome of the case. Mr. Hinkes states: "This also depends on the treatment of tokens. In prior cases like the DAO, the SEC has concluded that some cryptocurrencies will be considered securities under U.S. law. That means selling them without proper registration and without making proper disclosures to consumers could open up an issuer to civil and criminal sanctions. Many issuers try to avoid liability in the U.S. by not registering or marketing their crypto assets in the U.S." Although company money was raised in a Swiss foundation, Mr. Hinkes believes that United States Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) and other U.S. institutions will be able to act against the company. "The U.S. government and specifically the SEC can act beyond the U.S.'s boundaries. Simply saying, 'I'm in Switzerland and I'll use a foundation model to get favorable tax benefits' does not necessarily fully inoculate an issuer from liability." [GN] UNDER ARMOUR: Stull, Stull Files Shareholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody reminds investors that a class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of stock of Under Armour, Inc., between September 16, 2015 and January 30, 2017 (the "Class Period"). During the same period of time, Company employees were purchasing stock in the Under Armour, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "ESPP"). SS&B is investigating whether Under Armour's registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that allowed the ESPP to purchase Under Armour stock violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by omitting material facts and otherwise containing inaccurate, misleading and untrue statements of fact pertaining to, among other things, Under Armour's prospects. The complaint filed alleges, among other things, that the Company's carefully cultivated image as a fast-growing, cutting- edge sports brand and a legitimate challenger to industry leaders was misleading. The case further alleges that faced with declining demand and excess inventory due to unsold products, Under Armour abandoned its fundamental sales philosophy of competing on brand strength over price, instead resorting to lowering prices and offering promotions, and the Company had to liquidate excess inventory at steep discounts. If you participated in Under Armour's ESPP during the Class Period, your rights may be affected. If you purchased or acquired Under Armour stock in the ESPP during the Class Period, and you wish to discuss this your rights or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Michael Klein, Esq. -- mklein@ssbny.com -- of SS&B at UAA@ssbny.com, telephone 212-687-7230 x147, or by fax to 212-490-2022. SS&B has litigated class actions for violations of securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty on behalf of defrauded investors over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. SS&B has offices in New York and Beverly Hills. SS&B's website (www.ssbny.com) has additional information about the firm. [GN] USAA CASUALTY: "Byorth" Suit Moved to District of Montana --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Peter Byorth and Ann McKean, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company and John Does I-X, the Defendant, Case No. DV 15-00511, was removed from 13th Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, Montana, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (Billings) on Nov. 17, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00153- SPW-TJC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan P. Watters. USAA Casualty Insurance Company provides property and causality insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colette B. Davies, Esq. BISHOP, HEENAN & DAVIES 1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste 1 Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839 9091 Facsimile: (406) 839 9092 E-mail: colette@bhdlawyers.com - and - John C. Heenan, Esq. BISHOP, HEENAN & DAVIES 1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste 1 Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839 9091 Facsimile: (406) 839 9092 E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com The Defendant is represented by: Ian McIntosh, Esq. Kelsey E. Bunkers, Esq. CROWLEY FLECK, PLLP 1915 South 19th Avenue PO Box 10969 Bozeman, MT 59719-0969 Telephone: (406) 556 1430 Facsimile: (406) 556 1433 E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com kbunkers@crowleyfleck.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued over Technical Standards Conspiracy ---------------------------------------------------------- John R. Antonini and John A. DeVITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft; BMW of North America, LLC; Daimler Aktiengesellschaft; Mercedesbenz USA, LLC; Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Audi Aktiengesellschaft; Audi of America, LLC; DR. ING. H.C.F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft; and Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-06635 (N.D. Cal., November 17, 2017), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged illegal "technical standards" conspiracy, in which the five car manufacturers agreed to use "only certain technical solutions" in new vehicles. No one of the five should be so far ahead of the others with a new model that the others would encounter problems selling their cars. A manufacturer could only introduce breakthrough technology if the others were able to offer the same technology relatively quickly. Rather than compete by selling innovative technology, they agreed to cooperate and to forgo competing, says the complaint. The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef D. Cooper, Esq. Tracy R. Kirkham, Esq. John D. Bogdanov, Esq. COOPER & KIRKHAM, P.C. 357 Tehama Street, Second Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 788-3030 Facsimile: (415) 882-7040 E-mail: jdc@coopkirk.com trk@coopkirk.com jdb@coopkirk.com WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Dawson Sues over Background Checks -------------------------------------------------------- Torres Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. BC683872 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages; punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and interest as provided by law as a result of Defendant's alleged policies and practices in procuring or causing to be procured consumer reports for employment purposes which violates provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC grows, processes, and markets almonds and pistachios for a range of consumer and industry markets in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883 4900 Facsimile: (818) 883 4902 E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com - and - Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599 8255 Facsimile: (213) 402 3949 E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com - and - Jeff Holmes, Esq. HOLMES LAW GROUP, APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (310) 396 9045 Facsimile: (970) 497 4922 E-mail: ieffholmesih@gmail.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, 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 * * *