/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171207.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, December 7, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 242
Headlines
ABSOLUTE COLLECTIONS: Faces "Cook" Suit in E.D. New York
ANDREU PALMA: Faces "Harrison" Suit in Middle District Fla.
ARIZONA: Court Refuses to Appoint Counsel for Inmate
ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Rose Sues Over Share Price Drop
BALLET MAKERS: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
BRIONI AMERICA: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA: Inmate Class Suit Does Not Qualify as Strike
CALIFORNIA: Maria Appeals Ninth Circuit Ruling in Suit vs. Muniz
CENTURY 21: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in Southern District New York
CHARLES TYRWHITT: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Curry" Suit in E.D. New York
COURIER CONNECTION: "Sullivan" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
CR LICENSING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Leaps and Bounds Sues Over Illegal Admin. Fee
DE BEERS DIAMOND: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
DONNA KARAN: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
DR JAY'S INC: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
DVF STUDIO LLC: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Downing" Suit in Minnesota
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Martinez Seeks Refund of Cellphone Charges
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Bank of Ripley Suit in N.D. Georgia
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Independent Community Suit in N.D. Ga.
ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
ESCADA AMERICA: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces "Jorge" Suit in Southern District New York
FMA ALLIANCE: Faces "Korchagina" Suit in E.D. of New York
FORD MOTOR: Debose, et al. Appeal Order in "Vargas" to 9th Cir.
FOREMOST INSURANCE: Lyles Sues Over Insurance Coverage Dispute
FURLA USA: Faces "Jorge" Suit in Southern District New York
GANT USA: Faces "Jorge" Suit in Southern District of New York
GATHERAPP INC: "Churchill" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
GAULT AUTO: FLSA Collective Certification Sought in "Malave" Suit
GBG USA: Faces "Jorge" Suit in Southern District New York
GLASS MOUNTAIN: Faces "Macias" Suit in S.D. of New York
GLOBE ENERGY: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GOLDEN STATE FC: Faces "Palma" Suit in California Superior Ct.
GRISTEDES 59: Faces "Jorge" Suit in Southern District of New York
ILLINOIS: Court Issues CMO in Centralia Inmates' Suit
INDIANA: Court Denies Certification of Westville Inmates Class
INVENTURE FOODS: Smith Files Suit Over Sale to Heron Sub
IPACESETTERS LLC: Summary Judgment in "Dampha" Affirmed
MAPO TOFU: "Yaoxing" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Spread-of-Hours Pay
MARS INC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in "Vigil" Suit
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: "Forman" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach
NAPA CENTER: "Morales" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Seeks OT Pay
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "LaMountain" Suit Alleges Negligence
NATIONAL RESEARCH: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
NDT GLOBAL LLC: "Robbins" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
NEW YORK: Court Dismisses "Zavalidroga" Suit
NEW YORK URBAN: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
OCEAN PROPERTIES: Court Limits Expert Testimony in "Bouton"
OCEAN SPRAY: Court Narrows Claims in "Winters"
PLANET PAYMENT: "Rosato" Suit Hits Fintrax Merger Deal
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Moore" Suit in S.D. Illinois
SILVER SPRING: "Scarantino" Suit Seeks to Block Itron Merger Deal
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces "Lilavois" Suit in E.D. New York
TIVITY HEALTH: Weiner Sues Over Share Price Drop
UMEKEN USA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Shin" Liability Suit
WEINSTEIN COMPANY: Faces Suit Over RICO Violations
WORLD CLASS: "Melikov" Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime
*********
ABSOLUTE COLLECTIONS: Faces "Cook" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Absolute Collections
Corporation. The case is styled as Marie Cook, on behalf of
herself individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Absolute Collections Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06880 (E.D. N.Y., November 24, 2017).
Absolute Collections Corp is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
ANDREU PALMA: Faces "Harrison" Suit in Middle District Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andreu, Palma, Lavin
& Solis, PLLC. The case is styled as Barbara Harrison, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Andreu,
Palma, Lavin & Solis, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02840-VMC-
TGW (M.D. Fla., November 24, 2017).
Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis, PLLC is a law firm in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
Weisberg Consumer Law Group, PA
5846 S. Flamingo Rd., Suite 290
Cooper City, FL 33330
Tel: (954) 212-2184
Fax: (866) 577-0963
Email: aweisberg@afclaw.com
ARIZONA: Court Refuses to Appoint Counsel for Inmate
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jhon Nigel Brisken, Plaintiff, v. Unknown
Griego, et al., Defendants, No. CV-16-02434-PHX-JJT (ESW) (D.
Ariz.) is a civil rights action initiated by Arizona state
prisoner Jhon Nigel Brisken pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff requested that the United States
District Court for District of Arizona appoint him counsel. The
Court denied the request.
On August 11, 2017, Plaintiff again requests in further detail
that the Court appoint Plaintiff counsel because (i) he is
indigent, not trained in the law, receives medication for mental
health, and possesses a sixth grade education, (ii) he is unable
to investigate and prosecute his case due to his segregation
status and limited access to the law library, (iii) he anticipates
the need for medical experts, (iv) discovery and legal issues are
complex, (v) he has limited access to pens and paper, and (vi)
Plaintiff wishes to pursue a class action lawsuit.
In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court send him a
list of lawyers that Plaintiff can write to who specialize in his
type of case.
The Court explained in its denial of Plaintiff's first request for
counsel that there is no constitutional right to the appointment
of counsel in a civil case.
Plaintiff's filings with the Court continue to indicate that
Plaintiff is capable of navigating this proceeding and presenting
arguments to the Court. Having considered the likelihood of
success on the merits and Plaintiff's continued ability to
articulate his claims, the Court does not find that exceptional
circumstances are present that would require the appointment of
counsel in this case. Plaintiff remains in a position no
different than many pro se prisoner litigants. The Court will
deny Plaintiff's second Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Court does
not provide lists of attorneys to litigants.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 27, 2017 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7f7x6kg from Leagle.com.
Jhon Nigel Brisken, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
T Thomas, Defendant, represented by Daniel Patrick Struck --
dstruck@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC,
Kevin Richard Hanger -- khanger@strucklove.com -- Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo PLC & Rachel Love, Struck Love Bojanowski &
Acedo PLC.
Unknown Gilwrath, Defendant, represented by Daniel Patrick Struck,
Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Kevin Richard Hanger, Struck
Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC & Rachel Love -- rlove@strucklove.com
-- Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC.
B Griego, Defendant, represented by Daniel Patrick Struck, Struck
Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Kevin Richard Hanger, Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo PLC & Rachel Love, Struck Love Bojanowski &
Acedo PLC.
ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Rose Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Wendell Rose, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Array Biopharma Inc., Ron Squarer, David
Horin, Jason Haddock, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02789, (D. Colo.,
November 20, 2017), seeks 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Array is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of targeted small molecule drugs
to treat patients afflicted with cancer. Its lead cancer drug
MEK162 was evaluated in multiple trials and combinations,
including a Phase 3 study versus dacarbazine in unresectable or
metastatic NRAS-mutant melanoma patients.
Array's CEO Squarer admitted that Array lacked sufficient data to
support approval of MEK162 use for patients with NRAS-mutant
melanoma thus delaying its launch. On this, over the course of two
trading days, Array's common stock price fell from $10.56 to $9.13
per share between March 17 and March 21, 2017. Plaintiff purchased
Array common stock and lost substantially. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
BERENS LAW LLC
2373 Central Park Boulevard, Suite 100
Denver, CO 80238
Telephone: (303) 861-1764
Facsimile: (303) 395-0393
Email: jeff@jberenslaw.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500 ext. 102
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: ek@zlk.com
BALLET MAKERS: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ballet Makers, Inc.
The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ballet Makers, Inc.
also known as: Capezio/Ballet Makers, Inc. a/k/a Capezio Ballet
Makers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09226 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 23, 2017).
Ballet Makers, Inc. manufactures apparels. The Company, also known
as Capezio Ballet Makers, offers foot wears, body wears, and
accessories for dance, theaters, and recreational activities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
337 Avenue W Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
BRIONI AMERICA: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brioni America, Inc.
The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brioni America, Inc.
and Brioni America Holding, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
09221 (S.D. N.Y., November 23, 2017).
Brioni designs, develops and manufactures Su Misura garments and
sartorial ready-to-wear collections as well as leather goods,
shoes, eyewear and fragrance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
337 Avenue W Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
CALIFORNIA: Inmate Class Suit Does Not Qualify as Strike
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Findings and Recommendation denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned KEENAN WILKINS,
Plaintiff, v. PAUL GONZALES, et al., Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-0347
KJM KJN (E.D.Cal.).
Pending before the court is defendants' motion to revoke
plaintiff's in forma pauperis status.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Title 28
U.S.C. Section 1915 generally permits any court of the United
States to authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit
without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit
indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However,
in no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court
of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
Defendants argue that plaintiff has five strikes pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1915(g).
Defendants argue that Brown aka Wilkins v. North County Jail, No.
3: 97-2298 MMC (N.D. Cal.), counts as a strike. Exhibits attached
to defendants' motion show that the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed 97-2298 for
failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on
August 4, 2017.
Defendants next argue that Wilkins v. Ahorn, No. 3: 08-cv-3850 MMC
(N.D.), counts as a strike. Exhibits attached to defendants'
motion to dismiss show that the Northern District dismissed this
action with prejudice on February 9, 2009.
Plaintiff attempted to bring 08-3850 as a class action, although
he had a pending individual suit raising the same claims. Because
plaintiff attempted to bring 08-3850 as a class action, the Court
does not find that it was maliciously brought. While 08-3850
contained the same claims as plaintiff's individual action, it
appears that plaintiff filed it based on the mistaken belief that
he was authorized to represent the class. Based on these
circumstances, the Court finds that 08-3850 does not qualify as a
strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).
Defendants next argue that Brown v. Alameda, 11-cv-2704 LHK (N.D.
Cal.), counts as a strike. On May 1, 2012, the Northern District
dismissed 11-2704 for failing to comply with Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 18 and 20.
The Northern District also did not dismiss 11-2704 on the grounds
that plaintiff's claims were frivolous or of little weight or
importance: having no basis in law or fact.
Because the Northern District did not dismiss 11-2704 on the
grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, the undersigned finds that
11-2704 does not qualify as a strike pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1915(g).
Defendants next argue that the Ninth Circuit's dismissal of
plaintiff's appeal of the district court's order in 11-2704 counts
as a strike.
The Eleventh Circuit in Daker v. Commissioner, Georgia Department
of Corrections, 820 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2016), held that an
appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute, after having been found
frivolous, does not count as a Section 1915(g) strike, apparently
without regard for the reasons behind the dismissal by the
district court.
Based on the circumstances surrounding 12-16170, the District
Court finds that it does not qualify as a strike under Section
1915(g). If the court adopts the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit
in Daker, 12-16170 is not a strike. Appeal 12-16170 can also be
distinguished from Harris and Hafed because the order by the
Northern District did not dismiss plaintiff's case as frivolous,
malicious or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
Instead, the district court dismissed the case based on improper
joinder. Based on these circumstances, even though the district
certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith, which the
Ninth Circuit confirmed, plaintiff's appeal did not ring the PLRA
bell.
Defendants next argue that the Ninth Circuit's dismissal of
plaintiff's appeal no. 13-17060 is a Section 1915(g) strike.
In 13-17060, the Ninth Circuit issued an order confirming that
plaintiff's appeal was frivolous. The Ninth Circuit granted
plaintiff twenty-one days to pay the filing fee. (Id.) On March
17, 2014, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal after plaintiff
failed to pay the filing fee.
Case 13-17060 is not a strike for the same reasons 12-16170 is not
a strike. The district court order appealed in 13-17060 did not
involve a finding of frivolousness, failure to state a claim or
maliciousness. While the district court and the Ninth Circuit
found that plaintiff's appeal was frivolous, 13-17060 did not ring
the PLRA bell.
Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status
be denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2017 Findings
and Recommendation is available a https://tinyurl.com/y87eh9yf
from Leagle.com.
Keenan Wilkins, also known as Nerrah Brown, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Paul Gonzalez, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin, Office
of the Attorney General.
S. Pulley, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin, Office of
the Attorney General.
Couch, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin, Office of the
Attorney General.
Swarthout, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin, Office of
the Attorney General.
Chaiken, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin, Office of the
Attorney General.
Jones, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin, Office of the
Attorney General.
Vasquez, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin, Office of the
Attorney General.
Hurtz, Defendant, represented by David C. Goodwin, Office of the
Attorney General.
CALIFORNIA: Maria Appeals Ninth Circuit Ruling in Suit vs. Muniz
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gray Maria filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Gray Maria, Petitioner v. William Muniz, Warden,
Case No. 15-56272, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.
William Muniz is the warden of the Salinas Valley State Prison.
The appellate case is captioned as Gray Maria, Petitioner v.
William Muniz, Warden, Case No. 17-6851, in the Texas Justice of
the Peace, Lubbock County.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that petition
for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis have been filed. Response is due on December 21,
2017.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner Gray Maria is represented by:
Mark Yim, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
321 East 2nd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
E-mail: mark_yim@fd.org
CENTURY 21: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in Southern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century 21
Department Stores, LLC. The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Century 21 Department Stores, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
09227 (S.D. N.Y., November 23, 2017).
Century 21 Department Stores LLC is a New York City retailer
offering top designer merchandise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
337 Avenue W Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
CHARLES TYRWHITT: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charles Tyrwhitt,
Inc. The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Charles Tyrwhitt,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09222 (S.D. N.Y., November 23,
2017).
Charles Tyrwhitt is a multi-channel British clothing retailer,
specialising in men's shirts, shoes, suits, knitwear and
accessories, with some lines of womenswear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
337 Avenue W Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Curry" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Latrice Curry, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06903
(E.D. N.Y. November 27, 2017).
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is an IT service management
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
COURIER CONNECTION: "Sullivan" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrick Sullivan, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Courier Connection, Inc. and John F.
Lauth, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04655 (N.D. Ga., November 20,
2017), seeks all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney fees, costs and expenses and all other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Courier Connection operates a courier service where Sullivan was
employed as a local delivery driver who delivers packages to
residential and business locations in and around Atlanta, Georgia.
Sullivan alleges that Defendants fail to pay federally-mandated
overtime premium rate for hours worked over 40 per workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
John L. Mays, Esq.
POOLE HUFFMAN LLC
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 344
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 855-3002
Facsimile: (888) 709-5723
Email: dustin@poolehuffman.com
john@poolehuffman.com
CR LICENSING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CR Licensing LLC.
The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CR Licensing LLC also
known as: Cynthia Rowling, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09231
(S.D. N.Y., November 23, 2017).
CR Licensing LlC is a women's accessory and specialty store
located in New York, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
337 Avenue W Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Leaps and Bounds Sues Over Illegal Admin. Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leaps and Bounds, LP, a California limited partnership, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CSC
Serviceworks, Inc. (d/b/a Coinmach), a New York corporation and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC684147,
(N.D. Cal., November 20, 2017), seeks prejudgment interest,
permanent injunction barring Defendants from charging
administrative fees, attorneys' fees and costs of suit herein and
such other and further relief for breach of contract and for
violation of the California Business and Professions Code.
Defendant is a coin-operated laundry service equipment provider,
maintaining and operating laundry equipment at more than 80,000
locations. Defendants entered into standardized lease agreements
with property owners in exchange for exclusive use and possession
of all laundry space at the property, paying either an annual base
rent or a percentage of all gross monthly receipts, whichever is
greater. In May of 2017, Defendants began to illegally withhold an
"Administrative Fee" of 9.75% that was not in the contract. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Rex Parris, Esq.
Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
John M. Bickford, Esq.
PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 10th Street West
Lancaster, CA 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
DE BEERS DIAMOND: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against De Beers Diamond
Jewellers US, Inc. The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
De Beers Diamond Jewellers US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
09233 (S.D. N.Y., November 23, 2017).
De Beers is an international corporation that specialises in
diamond exploration, diamond mining, diamond retail, diamond
trading and industrial diamond manufacturing sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
DONNA KARAN: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donna Karan
International, Inc. The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Donna Karan International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
09281-JMF (S.D. N.Y., November 27, 2017).
Donna Karan International Inc. manufactures men's and women's
clothing, fragrances, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
337 Avenue W Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
DR JAY'S INC: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Jay's Inc. The
case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dr. Jay's Inc. and Dr.
Jay's Ladies of Fordham LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09277
(S.D. N.Y., November 27, 2017).
Dr. Jay's, Inc. engages in the retail of apparel, footwear, and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
337 Avenue W Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
DVF STUDIO LLC: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DVF Studio, LLC. The
case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DVF Studio, LLC also known
as: Diane Von Furstenberg a/k/a Diane Von Furstenberg, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-09314 (S.D. N.Y. November 28, 2017).
Diane von Furstenberg founded her eponymous line in 1972. It has
since become a global luxury fashion brand celebrated for its bold
and creative approach to color and print, and admired for its
sensual femininity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
337 Avenue W Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Downing" Suit in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Danielle Downing, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced
Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-05240-MJD-TNL
(D. Minn. November 28, 2017).
Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services
that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L Vavreck, Esq.
Gonko & Vavreck, PLLC
401 N. Third Street, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: (612) 659-9500
Email: mvavreck@cgmvlaw.com
- and -
Thomas J Lyons, Jr, Esq.
Consumer Justice Center P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Tel: (651) 770-9707
Fax: (651) 704-0907
Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Martinez Seeks Refund of Cellphone Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Martinez as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of San
Francisco, LLC and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
RG17883119 (Cal. Super., November 20, 2017), seeks reimbursement
of all business-related expenses, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the
California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
Defendants operate a rental car company, with multiple locations
in Alameda County and throughout California and employed Plaintiff
as a sales consultant. Plaintiff seeks reimbursements of cellphone
charges she incurred in the performance of her duty calling
clients. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2274 East Maple Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (424) 292-2350
Fax: (424) 292-2355
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
skierig@haineslawgroup.com
- and -
Stephen Danz, Esq.
STEPHEN DANZ & ASSOCIATES
925 B Street, Ste. 605
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 955-8521
Fax: (619) 342-4747
Email: stephen.danz@employmentattorneyca.com
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Bank of Ripley Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is styled as Bank of Ripley, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04763-WSD (N.D. Ga., November 27, 2017).
Equifax Inc. operates a global credit reporting agency that
collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on
millions of consumers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen Carney, Esq.
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
519 W. 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Tel: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
- and -
David Michael Cohen, Esq.
Complex Law Group, LLC
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Tel: (770) 335-9322
Email: dcohen@complexlaw.com
- and -
Joseph Hank Bates, III, Esq.
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC -AZ
2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72202
Tel: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Independent Community Suit in N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is styled as Independent Community Bankers of America
as an association on behalf of its members, The First State Bank
and Bank of Zachary, individually and on behalf of a class of all
similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiffs v. Equifax
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04756-MHC (N.D. Ga., November
27, 2017).
Equifax Inc. operates a global credit reporting agency that
collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on
millions of consumers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC
8 E. Liberty Street
Savannah, GA 31401
Tel: (912) 447-8400
Fax: (912) 233-6584
Email: twithers@gwllawfirm.com
ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ermenegildo Zegna
Corporation. The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09284
(S.D. N.Y., November 27, 2017).
Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation is an Italian luxury fashion house
that makes men's clothing and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
337 Avenue W Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
ESCADA AMERICA: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Escada America LLC.
The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Escada America LLC and
Escada Online US, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09318 (S.D.
N.Y. November 28, 2017).
Escada America LLC is in the Sportswear, Women's and Children's
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
337 Avenue W Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces "Jorge" Suit in Southern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fairway Group
Holdings Corp. The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fairway
Group Holdings Corp. and Fairway Group Acquisition Company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09309 (S.D. N.Y. November 28, 2017).
Fairway Group Holdings Corp., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a food retailer in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
Daniel Cohen PLLC
407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11212
Tel: (646) 645-8482
Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com
FMA ALLIANCE: Faces "Korchagina" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMA Alliance, Ltd.
The case is styled as Polina Korchagina, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMA Alliance, Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06934 (E.D. N.Y. November 28, 2017).
FMA Alliance is a privately owned receivables management company
originally formed in 1983 and headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
Daniel Cohen, PLLC
407 Rockaway Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11212
Tel: (646) 645-8482
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com
FORD MOTOR: Debose, et al. Appeal Order in "Vargas" to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Gina Debose, Angela Blakeslee, Brittani Granitto, Ashley
Guffey, Ashlyn McKane, Barbie Medina, Chris Naab, Ashley Riester,
Danny Stewart and Rachel Wilson filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Omar Vargas, et al. v. Ford Motor
Company, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388-AB-FFM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The appellate case is captioned as Omar Vargas, et al. v. Ford
Motor Company, Case No. 17-56764, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ford Motor
has agreed to provide "substantial cash payments" and other
benefits to the owners of about 1.5 million of its Fiesta and
Focus models that had to be repaired due to allegedly
malfunctioning transmissions.
The deal comes after years of litigation, including a year of
settlement negotiations and covers owners and lessees of 2011 to
2016 Ford Fiestas and 2012 to 2016 Ford Focuses, the Plaintiffs
said in their motion for preliminary approval of the agreement.
Other objectors to the settlement have also filed an appeal.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by December 20, 2017;
-- Transcript is due January 18, 2018;
-- Appellants Angela Blakeslee, Gina Debose, Brittani
Granitto, Ashley Guffey, Ashlyn McKane, Barbie Medina,
Chris Naab, Ashley Riester, Danny Stewart and Rachel
Wilson's opening brief is due on February 28, 2018;
-- Appellees Robert Bertone, Ford Motor Company, Michelle
Harris, Sharon Heberling and Omar Vargas' answering brief
is due on March 30, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees OMAR VARGAS, ROBERT BERTONE, MICHELLE HARRIS
and SHARON HEBERLING, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, are represented by:
Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Ryan H. Wu, Esq.
Tarek Zohdy, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com
Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com
tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3038
E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net
Objectors-Appellants GINA DEBOSE, Lead "Opt-Out" Appellant, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, RACHEL
WILSON, ANGELA BLAKESLEE, ASHLEY GUFFEY, ASHLEY RIESTER, ASHLYN
MCKANE, BARBIE MEDINA, BRITTANI GRANITTO, CHRIS NAAB and DANNY
STEWART are represented by:
Dani K. Liblang, Esq.
THE LIBLANG LAW FIRM, P.C.
346 Park Street, Suite 200
Birmingham, MI 48009
Telephone: (248) 540-9270
Facsimile: (248) 433-1989
E-mail: danil@lemonlawlawyers.com
Defendant-Appellee FORD MOTOR COMPANY is represented by:
Tamara Alicia Bush, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 457-1815
E-mail: tbush@dykema.com
- and -
Janet L. Conigliaro, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
400 Renaissance Center, 35th floor
Detroit, MI 48243
Telephone: (313) 568-5372
E-mail: jconigliaro@dykema.com
- and -
Fred J. Fresard, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
39577 Woodward Ave.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 203-0593
Facsimile: (248) 203-0763
E-mail: ffresard@dykema.com
- and -
Krista L. Lenart, Esq.
John Mark Thomas, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
2723 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 214-7613
Facsimile: (734) 214-7696
E-mail: klenart@dykema.com
jthomas@dykema.com
FOREMOST INSURANCE: Lyles Sues Over Insurance Coverage Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wallace Lyles, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio
residents similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Foremost Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. CV17889341 (Ohio Com. Pleas, November
20, 2017), seeks actual damages, costs and expenses of class
notice and claim administration and further relief as just and
appropriate for breach of contract.
This is an insurance coverage dispute involving systematic
adjusting practices used by Foremost to deny coverage for a
portion of the actual cash value of property damage suffered by
its insureds, thereby denying its insureds (including Plaintiff)
the full amount of indemnity to which they are entitled.
Specifically, Foremost routinely denies coverage by depreciating
the labor component of repair costs instead of only the physical
item that is subject to wear, tear and obsolescence.
The residential home owned by Lyles located at 1021 Thornhill
Drive, Cleveland, OH suffered property damage on or about April
16, 2016. The patio of the home was destroyed when struck by a
vehicle. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. DeRoche, Esq.
Stuart I. Garson, Esq.
GARSON JOHNSON LLC
1600 Midland Building
101 West Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: (216) 696-9330
Fax: (216) 696-8558
Email: ideroche@garson.com
- and -
R. Eric Kennedy, Esq.
Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.
1600 Midland Building
101 Prospect Ave., W.
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: (216)781-1111
Fax: (216)781-6747
Email: ekeuuedv@weismanlaw.com
dgoetz@weismanlaw.com
- and -
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Phone: (440) 352-3391
Fax: (440) 352-3469
Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
FURLA USA: Faces "Jorge" Suit in Southern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furla (USA), Inc.
The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Furla (USA), Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09272 (S.D. N.Y., November 27, 2017).
Furla (USA), Inc. offers bags, wallets, jewelry, leather goods,
shoes, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
Daniel Cohen PLLC
407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11212
Tel: (646) 645-8482
Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com
GANT USA: Faces "Jorge" Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gant U.S.A.
Corporation. The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gant
U.S.A. Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09271 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 27, 2017).
GANT is an international clothing brand headquartered in
Stockholm, Sweden.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
Daniel Cohen PLLC
407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11212
Tel: (646) 645-8482
Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com
GATHERAPP INC: "Churchill" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Churchill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GatherApp, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-06590 (N.D. Calif.,
November 15, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for sending
Plaintiff text messages without his consent, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff Robert Churchill is a citizen and resident of the County
of Sacramento, State of California.
Defendant GatherApp, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located at 301 Bryant St #201, San
Francisco, CA 94107. Defendant is the developer and distributor of
a mobile application called Gather. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
KAMBERLAW LLP
401 Center St, Suite 111
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Tel: (212) 920-3072
Fax: (212) 202-6364
E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com
GAULT AUTO: FLSA Collective Certification Sought in "Malave" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivelisse Malave moves for an order conditionally certifying the
matter entitled IVELISSE MALAVE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. GAULT AUTO MALL, INC.; GAULT
CHEVROLET, INC.; and ROBERT GAULT AND CONNIE GAULT, individually
and in their capacities as owners and/or officers of GAULTO AUTO
MALL, INC. and/or GAULT CHEVROLET, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00816-
LEK-DEP (N.D.N.Y.), as a collective action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Malave asks for the issuance of an expedited notice to:
all current and former employees of the Defendants who
are/were employed as Service Advisors, Toyota Service
Managers, Team Service Managers and/or work or worked in
positions that involve greeting customers and assisting them
with their automotive service needs, and who were not paid
at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for
hours worked in excess of forty in one workweek, during the
period commencing July 25, 2014 through the present.
Ms. Malave also asks the Court to direct the Defendants to (i)
provide her counsel with a list of the employee's name, current or
last known address, phone number, e-mail address, location of
employment, position or capacity of employment, rates of pay, and
dates of employment, of all individuals, who meet the class
description, within 15 days of the issuance of the order, and (ii)
post notices and opt-in forms in a conspicuous place, such as
break rooms, locker rooms, time clocks, or other areas of employee
congregation, and at Defendants' locations where employees can see
such notices during the pendency of the lawsuit.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sRNP0OpV
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Mullin, Esq.
FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
7635 Main St. Fishers
P.O. Box 440
Fishers, NY 14453
Telephone: (585) 869-0210
E-mail: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com
GBG USA: Faces "Jorge" Suit in Southern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GBG USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GBG USA, Inc. and Frye
Retail LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09266 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 27, 2017).
Gbg USA Inc. is in the Apparel Belts business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
Daniel Cohen PLLC
407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11212
Tel: (646) 645-8482
Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com
GLASS MOUNTAIN: Faces "Macias" Suit in S.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glass Mountain
Capital, LLC. The case is styled as John Macias, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Glass
Mountain Capital, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
7:17-cv-09243-VB (S.D. N.Y., November 26, 2017).
GMC is a financial services firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42st, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (646) 459-7971
Fax: (646) 459-7973
Email: bwolf@legaljones.com
GLOBE ENERGY: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Craig Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Globe Energy Services, LLC and Gravity
Oilfield Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00235 (W.D.
Tex., November 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
Globe is an oilfield service company with significant operations
in the southwest United States. Globe provides well servicing,
fishing and rental, fluid services, completion systems, production
chemicals and artificial lift services where Sanchez worked for
Defendant as an operator. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
GOLDEN STATE FC: Faces "Palma" Suit in California Superior Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden State FC LLC.
The case is styled as Romeo Palma, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Golden State FC LLC and
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00222744-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., November 27, 2017).
Golden State FC is a Telephone Communication Company located in
Moreno Valley, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H Haffner, Esq.
Haffner Law
445 S Figueroa St #2325
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 514-5681
Fax: (213) 514-5682
Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
GRISTEDES 59: Faces "Jorge" Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gristedes 59 LLC.
The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gristedes 59 LLC and Red
Apple 79th Street, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21:17-cv-09312 (S.D.
N.Y. November 28, 2017).
Defendants are real estate investment firms.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
ILLINOIS: Court Issues CMO in Centralia Inmates' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order for Case Management in the
case captioned COREY TRAINOR, # B-51552, MICHAEL TURNER, # K-
51650, TERRANCE GARRETT, # N-92748, JAMES GROLEAU, # R-52557,
DYLAN METZEL, # B-56652, and KEVEREZ TANZY, # B-76690, Plaintiffs,
v. LARRY GEBKE, ROBERT C. MUELLER, MONICA CHRISTIANSON, and
OFFICER ROVENSTEIN, Defendants, No. 3:17-cv-00627-DRH (S.D. Ill.).
Plaintiff Trainor filed the action naming himself and five other
individuals as Plaintiffs, all of whom are incarcerated at
Centralia Correctional Center (Centralia). Only Trainor signed
the Complaint, however. The Complaint alleges that Defendants
have denied each Plaintiff permission to receive certain
publications, in violation of the First Amendment. Four of the
six Plaintiffs have filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP). The Complaint indicates that Plaintiffs wish to seek class
certification for this action, however, no motion to this effect
has been filed.
Plaintiffs may bring their claims jointly in a single lawsuit if
they so desire. However, the Court must admonish them as to the
consequences of proceeding in this manner including their filing
fee obligations, and give them the opportunity to withdraw from
the case or sever their claims into individual actions.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that each non-lead Plaintiff
(Turner, Garrett, Groleau, Metzel, and Tanzy) must advise the
Court in writing whether he wishes to continue as a Plaintiff in
this group action.
Each non-lead Plaintiff who chooses to continue as a Plaintiff in
this group action must submit a copy of the Complaint bearing his
signature.
If any non-lead Plaintiff wants to pursue his claims individually
in a separate lawsuit, he must advise the Court in writing and he
must submit a signed Complaint.
Each non-lead Plaintiff who chooses to continue as a Plaintiff
either in this action or in a severed individual case, is ordered
to pay his filing fee of $400.00 or file a properly completed
motion for leave to proceed IFP if he has not already done so.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 27, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb3tr98g
from Leagle.com.
Corey Trainor, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
INDIANA: Court Denies Certification of Westville Inmates Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
NATHAN CAUDILL, and RODNEY SMITH, for themselves and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
OFFICER HAYES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-263-TLS (N.D.
Ind.).
The Plaintiffs were housed in the General Services Complex in the
Westville Correctional Facility, located in LaPorte County,
Indiana. The Plaintiffs were affiliated with Caucasian prison
gangs, one of them called the Aryan Brotherhood. As a result of
violence between Caucasian and African American inmates, the two
inmate populations were segregated by prison staff. Caucasian
inmates affiliated with white prison gangs were taken to the
prison gym, where they were housed overnight. The Plaintiffs also
seek certification of a class related to the claims set forth in
the Complaint.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of individuals defined as
the following:
Inmates incarcerated in the General Services Complex of the
Westville Correctional Facility who were repeatedly forced into
their assigned dorms by the Defendants, in spite of the known
imminent danger of attack, and whom, as a result, were attacked by
fellow inmates and then prison personnel responding to the
attacks, thereby subjecting the inmates to cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of their rights under the Eighth Amendment
and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
The inmates that were forced back into their dorms were then
subjected to a denial of adequate medical care for their injuries
and unjustified disciplinary action for the attack that they
themselves suffered, in violation of their Eighth Amendment right
to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and their Fourteenth
Amendment right to due Process.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' class definition is not
adequately identifiable because it requires highly individualized
inquiries regarding the merits of each potential member's claim.
Moreover, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' proposed class
is a failsafe class.
The Court agrees with the Defendants. First, the Plaintiffs begin
by defining the class as those members who were forced into their
assigned dorms by the Defendants, in spite of the known imminent
danger of the attack and whom as a result were attacked by fellow
inmates and then prison personnel, thereby subjecting the inmates
to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of their rights under
the Eight Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Thus, in order to become a class member, the Court must first hold
that the harm suffered by a putative member resulted in a
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights prior to his acceptance
as a class member. In other words, the Court must decide the
merits of each individual's claim prior to his acceptance in the
class. Courts have repeatedly held that this sort of
individualized determination requires denial of a motion to
certify a class.
The Plaintiffs seek to include class members as inmates, that were
forced back into their dorms, then were subjected to a denial of
adequate medical care for their injuries, and unjustified
disciplinary action, in violation of their Eighth Amendment and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Again, the Court would have to conduct an individualized analysis
to determine if an inmate was forced back into his dorm (and did
not return for another reason, for example), was subjected to a
denial of adequate medical care (a legal determination), and was
disciplined in an unjustified manner (another legal
determination).
The Court would thus have to determine the merits of each member's
claim essentially, a trial on the merits that he suffered an
unjustified disciplinary action rising to the level of a violation
of his constitutional rights, prior to accepting him as a class
member.
Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the requisite elements Rule
23(a) for class certification, the Court declines to address the
remaining arguments against class certification, as these issues
are now moot.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 30, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycqxjxnn from
Leagle.com.
Nathan Caudill, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher C. Myers -
cmyers@myers-law.com -- Christopher C Myers & Associates.
Nathan Caudill, Plaintiff, represented by Ilene M. Smith --
ismith@myers-law.com -- Christopher C Myers & Associates.
Rodney Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Ilene M. Smith,
Christopher C Myers & Associates.
Sergeant Burris, Defendant, represented by Jill E. Esenwein,
Indiana Attorney General's Office &Kelly S. Witte, Indiana
Attorney General's Office.
Lieutenant Creasy, Defendant, represented by Jill E. Esenwein,
Indiana Attorney General's Office & Kelly S. Witte, Indiana
Attorney General's Office.
Lieutenant Herr, Defendant, represented by Jill E. Esenwein,
Indiana Attorney General's Office & Kelly S. Witte, Indiana
Attorney General's Office.
Officer Horn, Defendant, represented by Jill E. Esenwein, Indiana
Attorney General's Office & Kelly S. Witte, Indiana Attorney
General's Office.
Mark Sevier, Defendant, represented by Jill E. Esenwein, Indiana
Attorney General's Office &Kelly S. Witte, Indiana Attorney
General's Office.
Andrew Pazera, Defendant, represented by Jill E. Esenwein, Indiana
Attorney General's Office.
Andrew Pazera, Assistant Defendant, represented by Kelly S. Witte,
Indiana Attorney General's Office.
George Payne, Assistant Defendant, represented by Jill E.
Esenwein, Indiana Attorney General's Office & Kelly S. Witte,
Indiana Attorney General's Office.
C Whelan, Defendant, represented by Jill E. Esenwein, Indiana
Attorney General's Office & Kelly S. Witte, Indiana Attorney
General's Office.
INVENTURE FOODS: Smith Files Suit Over Sale to Heron Sub
--------------------------------------------------------
Ian Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Inventure Foods, Inc., Terry E. McDaniel, Macon
Bryce Edmonson, Ashton D. Asensio, Paul J. Lapadat, Timothy A.
Cole and Joel D. Stewart, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04256 (D.
Ariz., November 20, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with
consummating, or closing the acquisition of Inventure Foods by
Heron Sub, Inc., a direct and wholly-owned subsidiary of Utz
Quality Foods, LLC, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger,
costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Utz will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Inventure Foods
common stock through an all cash tender offer at a purchase price
of $4.00 per share.
Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include
financial projections and valuation analyses performed by its
financial advisor, Rothschild Inc., critical to making their
decision on the said merger, says the complaint.
Inventure Foods, Inc. is a marketer and manufacturer of specialty
food brands under a variety of company owned and licensed brand
names, including Boulder Canyon Foods, Jamba, Seattle's Best
Coffee, Rader Farms, TGI Fridays, Nathan's Famous, Vidalia Brands,
Poore Brothers, Tato Skins, Willamette Valley Fruit Company, Fresh
Frozen, Bob's Texas Style and Sin-in-a-Tin. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Urman, Esq.
DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.
2525 E. Broadway, Suite 200
Tucson, AZ 85716
Tel: (520) 322-5000
Fax: (520) 322-5585
Email: gurman@dmyl.com
- and -
James M. Wilson, Jr.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com
IPACESETTERS LLC: Summary Judgment in "Dampha" Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia issued an Opinion
granting Summary Judgment in Plaintiff' favour in the appeals case
captioned IPACESETTERS, LLC, Garnishee Below, Petitioner, v. KACE
DOUGLAS and RANDI DAMPHA, et al. Plaintiffs Below, Respondents,
No. 16-0844 (W. Va.).
Asserting it was statutorily entitled to a jury trial and that
summary judgment was in error due to a material issue of fact, the
petitioner seeks a reversal and either entry of judgment in its
favor or a remand for further proceedings before the circuit
court.
The appeal arises out of a proceeding in aid of execution against
the petitioner brought by the respondents under West Virginia Code
Section 38-5-19. The respondents were previously awarded a
judgment against their employer, Tele-Response Center, Inc., in a
class action alleging violations of the West Virginia Wage Payment
and Collection Act. Tele-Response's appeal of that judgment was
ultimately dismissed in January 2013 due to its inability to post
an appeal bond.
By order, the circuit court denied the petitioner's motion to
dismiss and awarded summary judgment in favor of the respondents,
directing the petitioner to pay to the respondents the amount of
their judgment against Tele-Response. The court found that the
facts regarding the debts, liability, and payments of the
petitioner to Tele-Response had been developed through discovery,
making trial unnecessary; that whether the petitioner's payments
to Tele-Response were fixed or contingent was a question of law
for the court to decide; and that West Virginia Code Section 38-5-
18 (2011) did not supersede the court's role and duty under Rule
56 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure to decide
questions of law.
The circuit court concluded that the petitioner's obligation to
make the payments to Tele-Response was fixed and the fact that the
petitioner did not know the specific amount of the monthly
obligation in advance did not make the contractual obligation
contingent. The circuit court further ruled that even if the sums
the petitioner owed to Tele-Response were for debts that Tele-
Response owed to third-party vendors, those payments were not
insulated from the suggestion proceedings; that the petitioner's
obligation was to Tele-Response not to Tele-Response's lien
holders or other creditors; and that because there was no evidence
that any of Tele-Response's other creditors had attempted
garnishment proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner was
not a party to any other such lien.
The Supreme Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court's
conclusion that the only contingent obligation under the Services
Agreement was the $500,000 payment and that there were no other
contingencies either in that agreement, the Proceeds Agreement, or
the Letter Agreement. This particular payment would only be made
if Tele-Response provided proof to the petitioner that it had
fully and finally discharged all of its outstanding liabilities,
obligations, debts, and claims. There was no such contingency
attached to the $250,000 payment under paragraph 1(b)(iii).
It is clear from the record that the petitioner remitted monthly
payments to Tele-Response from the inception of the Services
Agreement entered into nearly a year before it received the
respondents' suggestion. The expected and routine aspect of these
monthly payments is reflected in a testimony, which explained that
Tele-Response invoices for the Services Agreement typically on a
monthly basis.
Thus, while the amounts of these invoices changed monthly, the
obligation did not. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Appeals agreed
with the circuit court that under the reasoning expressed in
Commercial Bank of Bluefield, Commercial Bank of Bluefield v. St.
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 175 W.Va. 588, 336 S.E.2d 552
(1985), these monthly payments were fixed.
Commercial Bank of Bluefield, 175 W.Va. at 594, 336 S.E.2d at 558,
[1931] clearly provides for the garnishment of unmatured debts:
which debt or liability could be enforced, when due, or which
property could be recovered, when it became returnable. The
Supreme Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court that the
petitioner's payment to Tele-Response under paragraph 1(b)(iii)
was fixed and not contingent.
The Supreme Court of Appeals also agreed that the evidence
demonstrates that the petitioner's monthly obligations to Tele-
Response were fixed with only the amounts being unknown.
Commercial Bank of Bluefield, 175 W.Va. at 594, 336 S.E.2d at 557-
58, where an obligation to pay exists, even though the amount of
that obligation is undetermined, garnishment will lie where the
amount is capable of definite ascertainment by the contract, or by
the facts then known, or by testimony to be taken.
Further, it is clear from the appendix record that the monies the
petitioner paid to Tele-Response after the petitioner was served
with the respondents' suggestion greatly exceed the amount of the
respondents' judgment lien.
Accordingly, under these particular facts, the Supreme Court of
Appeals affirmed the circuit court's summary judgment ruling in
favor of the respondents.
The provision for a jury trial under West Virginia Code Section
38-5-18 contemplates an insufficient factual development or a
dispute involving the facts surrounding the suggestee's failure to
honor a suggestion of personal property. In such instances, the
statute requires a jury to make such determinations of fact. In
the case at bar, however, the parties developed a significant and
undisputed record regarding those factual issues, leaving no
issues of material fact for jury determination.
Moreover, judicially-created rules relating to the function of the
judicial branch of government, such as the West Virginia Rules of
Evidence, will always trump any legislatively-created statutes.
A full-text copy of the Supreme Court of Appeals' October 24, 2017
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaevf2yu from
Leagle.com.
Ancil G. Ramey -- ancil.ramey@steptoe-johnson.com -- Esq., Hannah
C. Ramey -- hannah.ramey@steptoe-johnson.com -- Esq., Stacey L.
Richards-Minig -- stacey.minigh@steptoe-johnson.com -- Esq.,
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, Counsel for the
Petitioner.
James F. Companion -- jfc@schraderlaw.com -- Esq., Yolanda G.
Lambert -- ygl@schraderlaw.com -- Esq., Schrader, Byrd & Companion
PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, and Brent W. Wolfinbarger, Esq.,
Charles Town, West Virginia, Counsel for the Respondents.
MAPO TOFU: "Yaoxing" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yaoxing Xu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mapo Tofu Food Corp. (d/b/a Mapo
Tofu), Jun Zeng and Kailan Feng, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09087
(S.D. N.Y., November 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, gratuity retentions, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium for each
day he worked ten or more hours, compensation for failure to
provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide
paystubs in violation of the New York Labor Laws. The Plaintiff
further seeks attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Yaoxing Xu was employed by Defendants at their restaurant, Mato
Tofu, located at 338 Lexington Ave, New York, NY 10016 as a
delivery worker from approximately March 2013 to September 15,
2017. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jian Hang, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Tel: (718) 353-8588
Email: jhang@hanglaw.com
MARS INC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in "Vigil" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Mars, Inc., and Mars Food US, LLC, filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled MELISSA L. VIGIL,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MARS, INC., a Delaware corporation; MARS FOOD US, LLC,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-03818-VC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
The appellate case is captioned as MELISSA L. VIGIL, individually
and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
MARS, INC., a Delaware corporation; MARS FOOD US, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 17-17353, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
has filed an appeal in the lawsuit. That appellate case is
captioned as Melissa Vigil v. Mars, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-
17207.
In her lawsuit, Ms. Vigil seeks restitution, injunctive,
declaratory, and other equitable relief as may be deemed proper by
the Court relating to the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations
regarding the amount of rice contained in each packet of their
Uncle Ben's Ready Rice products, in violation of the California
False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
and the California Unfair Competition Law.
The allegations of this class action can be summarized simply:
Defendants' Uncle Ben's Ready Rice products do not contain the
amount of rice advertised, Ms. Vigil alleges. California
consumers are, therefore, paying for an amount of rice that they
do not receive, she contends.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- January 22, 2018 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
9th Cir. R. 32-1;
-- February 20, 2018 -- Appellee's answering brief and
excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to
FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1; and
-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief,
pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.[BN]
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: "Forman" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Forman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Meridian Bioscience, Inc., John A. Kraeutler and
Melissa A. Lueke, Case No. 1:17-cv-00774 (S.D. Ohio., November 15,
2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Meridian
securities from March 25, 2016 through July 13, 2017.
Plaintiff Barbara Forman purchased Meridian Securities within the
Class Period.
Meridian is a life science company doing business in (i) the
development, manufacture, sale and distribution of diagnostic test
kits, primarily for certain gastrointestinal, viral, respiratory,
and parasitic infectious diseases, and elevated blood lead levels;
and (ii) the manufacture and distribution of bulk antigens,
antibodies, PCR/qPCR reagents, nucleotides, competent cells, and
bioresearch reagents used by researchers and other diagnostic
manufacturers.
The Individual Defendants are officers of Meridian. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris T. Nolan, Esq.
Perantinides & Nolan Co., LPA
300 Courtyard Square
80 S. Summit Street
Akron, OH 44308-1736
Tel: (330) 253-5454
Fax: (330) 253-6524
E-mail: cnolan@perantinides.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: ek@zlk.com
NAPA CENTER: "Morales" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Seeks OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliana Morales, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Napa Center, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC684147, (N.D. Cal., November 20,
2017), seeks to recover overtime pay, minimum wages, redress for
missed meal and rest breaks pursuant to California Labor Laws,
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the
California Business and Professions Code.
NAPA Center is a physical therapy clinic in the Del Aire,
California. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Hugo E. Gamez, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HUGO GAMEZ
1999 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (424)442-0623
Fax: (310)693-2538
Email: Hugo@hgamezlaw.com
- and -
Andrew L. Treger, Esq.
BAER TREGER LLP
ATreger@baertreger.com
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310)226-7570
Fax: (310)226-7571
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "LaMountain" Suit Alleges Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------
Sandra LaMountain and Noah Hoffman, as co-personal representatives
of the estate of Ryan C. Hoffman, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Atlantic Coast Conference and National
Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:17-cv-01038 (M.D.
N.C., November 15, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
negligence, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs are residents of the State of Florida.
Defendant ACC is a collegiate athletic conference with its
principal office located in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Defendant NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics and
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including ACC and the
football program at UNC. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Janet Ward Black, Esq.
Nancy R. Meyers, Esq.
WARD BLACK LAW
208 West Wendover Avenue
Greensboro, NC 27401
Tel: (336) 333-2244
Fax: (336) 379-9415
E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com
nmeyers@wardblacklaw.com
NATIONAL RESEARCH: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Gennaro, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. National Research Corporation (NRC), Michael
D. Hays, Joann M. Martin, Barbara J. Mowry, John N. Nunnelly, and
Donald M. Berwick, Case No. 4:17-cv-00441 (D. Nebr., November 15,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary
duties and violation of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law.
Plaintiff is currently a Class B stockholder of NRC, was a Class B
stockholder of NRC at the time of the wrongdoing alleged herein,
and has been a Class B stockholder of NRC continuously since that
time. Plaintiff is a citizen of Indiana.
Defendant NRC is a provider of analytics and information to health
care providers to enable them to understand the experiences of
health care consumers and design their services to best meet their
customers' needs.
The Individual Defendants are directors of NRC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake E. Johnson, Esq.
David D. Cookson, Esq.
BRUNING LAW GROUP
1201 Lincoln Mall, Suite 100
Lincoln, NE 68508
Tel: (402) 261-3475
Fax: (402) 261-4517
E-mail: blake@bruninglawgroup.com
david@bruninglawgroup.com
NDT GLOBAL LLC: "Robbins" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Robbins, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NDT Global, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv-03562, (S.D. Tex., November 20, 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.
NDT is a supplier of ultrasonic pipeline inspection and data
analysis where Robbins worked as a Level II Tool Operator Trainee.
He claims to have worked more than forty hours in a workweek
without overtime premium. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
Tracey D. Lewis, Esq.
ROSENBERG & SPROVACH
3518 Travis Street, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713) 960-8300
Fax: (713) 621-6670
Email: gregg@rosenberglaw.com
tracey@rosenberglaw.com
NEW YORK: Court Dismisses "Zavalidroga" Suit
--------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Northern District of New York
issued Memorandum Opinion and Order accepting the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation dismissing the Complaint in the
case captioned TOMAS ZAVALIDROGA, individually and as Power of
Attorney of Margaret Zavalidroga, Plaintiffs, v. THERESA GIROUARD,
et al., Defendants. No. 6:17-cv-682 (BKS/ATB). (N.D.N.Y.)
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew
T. Baxter, who issued an Order and Report-Recommendation. Having
reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2),
which provides for dismissal of proceedings in forma pauperis if
the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary
relief from an immune defendant Magistrate Judge Baxter
recommended dismissal without prejudice of all the claims brought
on behalf of MZ, and dismissal with prejudice of all the claims
brought directly by TZ as against all Defendants.
The Complaint seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief,
and asserts four causes of action: (1) under 42 U.S.C. Sections
1981, 1983, and 1985, for alleged deprivation of his federal
rights, property interests, and discrimination; (2) under the
First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, for alleged deprivation of due process and
significant liberty and property interests; (3) under state law,
for alleged false arrest and false imprisonment, trespass and
conversion of property; and finally (4) under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for alleged
violations of the international human rights of the Plaintiff and
his privies.
TZ objects to dismissal because the factual background of the
action cannot be established before the requisite pre-trial
conference or Defendants' answer, and because the Magistrate Judge
cannot provide for the amending of the pro se Complaint.
Second, TZ appears to argue that he has alleged new facts and
causes of action and is not precluded from re-litigating issues
decided in prior proceedings.
The pendency of the state criminal proceeding against TZ warrants
the Court's abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54
(1971), but a dismissal under the Younger abstention doctrine is
without prejudice to a federal plaintiff's resumption of federal
litigation after the state criminal proceeding has ended.
Therefore, TZ's complaint is dismissed with prejudice, except for
his false arrest and malicious prosecution claims against
Defendant Ryan Marshall, which are dismissed without prejudice.
For these reasons, the District Court ordered that the Report-
Recommendation is accepted and ordered that, to the extent the
Complaint relates to MZ, that no guardian be appointed, and the
Complaint be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
As it relates to TZ, the Complaint is dismissed.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2017
Memorandum Decision and Order is available a
https://tinyurl.com/y7uno289 from Leagle.com.
Tomas Zavalidroga, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
NEW YORK URBAN: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Urban
Ownership Management LLC. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
New York Urban Ownership Management LLC, The Manhattan Club
Marketing Group LLC and The Manhattan Club Timeshare Association
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09278 (S.D. N.Y. November 27,
2017).
The Manhattan Club Marketing Group LLC is a management service
located in New York, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
OCEAN PROPERTIES: Court Limits Expert Testimony in "Bouton"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Parties' Omnibus Motions in the case captioned JUSTIN BOUTON,
Plaintiff, v. OCEAN PROPERTIES, LTD, et al., Defendants, Case No.
16-cv-80502-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.).
Plaintiff Justin Bouton filed a Daubert Motion to Exclude
Defendant's Proposed Expert Testimony from Eric Laykin.
Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Don
Coker. Oprock Jupiter Fee, LLC and Oprock Jupiter TRS, LLC, filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant GHM Jupiter, LLC, filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant Ocean Properties, Ltd.,
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff brings a lawsuit against Defendants for alleged
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)
amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In the Second
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Ocean
Properties, Ltd., represents that it develops, owns and operates
hotels in several states, including Florida. Defendant Oprock
Jupiter Fee, LLC (Oprock Fee) owns the property Jupiter Beach
Resort & Spa ("Jupiter Beach Resort"), the hotel at which
Plaintiff allegedly received a FACTA non-compliant receipt.
Defendant Oprock Jupiter TRS, LLC (Oprock TRS) leases the Jupiter
Beach Resort property from Oprock Fee. Defendant GHM Jupiter, LLC
(GHM) manages the Jupiter Beach Resort.
The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Daubert
Motion to Exclude Defendant's Proposed Expert Testimony. The
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Don Coker
is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant GHM Jupiter's
Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Defendant Ocean Properties, Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted. Defendants' Oprock Jupiter Fee, LLC and Oprock Jupiter
TRS, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and
denied in part.
With respect to the Plaintiff's motion seeking to exclude the
following three opinions: (1) cybercrime techniques are more
prevalent than criminal techniques involving paper receipts, (2)
certain receipts at the Jupiter Beach Resort were masked, and (3)
Defendants did not act willfully, the Court excluded the opinion.
Plaintiff seeks to exclude Laykin's opinion about the prevalence
of cybercrime activity in today's world, arguing that such an
opinion is not relevant as this case involves a paper receipt not
cybercriminal activity.
In support of Laykin's opinion and their standing argument,
Defendants bring to the Court's attention another recent opinion
from this district, which reached an opposite conclusion. Gesten
v. Burger King, No. 17-cv-22541-RNS (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2017).
The analysis in Burger King is contrary to the Court's prior
analysis on the issue of standing under FACTA as well as the
weight of authority within this District. In fact, Burger King
appears to be the only opinion to date in this District reaching a
contrary result on this issue.
The Court declines to reconsider its prior ruling that Plaintiff
established a concrete injury and, therefore, established this
element of Article III standing. Because Plaintiff's standing has
been decided as a matter of law and Defendants concede that
Laykin's opinions on cybercrime are solely related to the issue of
standing, Plaintiff's Daubert Motion on this specific point has
been rendered moot. Defendants admit that such testimony is solely
for the Court and not the jury's consideration.
Defendants seek to preclude Coker from opining that they violated
FACTA, arguing this is an impermissible legal conclusion. Coker's
report states that Defendants' widespread violation of FACTA was
not an accident but rather was simply a failure or refusal to act
when it should have. It also references instances of Defendants'
reckless conduct. Consistent with this Court's ruling that Laykin
may not opine in the form of legal conclusions at trial, see
Section III(A)(3), the Court held that Coker likewise may not
testify that Defendants violated FACTA or that they acted
willfully or recklessly as those legal conclusions invade the
province of the Court and are not helpful to the jury.
The Court has already stricken some of Coker's opinions or has
otherwise deemed the opinions moot in light of the Court's rulings
on ascertainability and standing. Even if Coker's opinions were
intact, the Court cannot consider his report or rebuttal report at
the summary judgment stage as neither of them are in the form of
an affidavit or attested to under penalty of perjury.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2017 Order is
available a https://tinyurl.com/y9h8tj8d from Leagle.com.
Justin Bouton, Plaintiff, represented by Michael R. Karnuth --
mkarnuth@keoghlaw.com -- Keogh Law, LTD, pro hac vice.
Justin Bouton, Plaintiff, represented by Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr. --
blusskin@lusskinlaw.com -- Bret Lusskin, P.A., Keith James Keogh -
- Keith@Keoghlaw.com -- Keogh Law, Ltd., Patrick Christopher
Crotty -- Patrick@ScottDOwens.com -- The Law Office of Scott D.
Owens, Sean Martin Holas -- sean@scottdowens.com -- Scott D.
Owens, P.A. & Scott David Owens -- scott@scottdowens.com -- SCOTT
D. OWENS, P.A..
Ocean Properties, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Francis
Augustine Zacherl, III -- FZacherl@shutts.com -- Shutts & Bowen,
Jacob Benjamin Monk -- JMonk@shutts.com -- Shutts and Bowen LLP &
Victoria Jean Wilson -- vjw@lklsg.com -- Levine Kellogg Lehman
Schneider Grossman LLP.
Oprock Jupiter Fee, LLC, Defendant, represented by Francis
Augustine Zacherl, III, Shutts & Bowen, Jason Kenneth Kellogg,
Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider Grossman LLP, Stuart Isaac
Grossman, Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider & Grossman, PA &
Victoria Jean Wilson, Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider Grossman
LLP.
Oprock Jupiter TRS, LLC, Defendant, represented by Francis
Augustine Zacherl, III, Shutts & Bowen, Jason Kenneth Kellogg,
Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider Grossman LLP, Stuart Isaac
Grossman, Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider & Grossman, PA &
Victoria Jean Wilson, Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider Grossman
LLP.
GHM Jupiter, LLC, Defendant, represented by Francis Augustine
Zacherl, III, Shutts & Bowen, Jacob Benjamin Monk, Shutts and
Bowen LLP & Victoria Jean Wilson, Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider
Grossman LLP.
Shane Flaum, Respondent, represented by Scott David Owens --
scott@scottdowens.com -- SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A..
Christopher Legg, Respondent, represented by Scott David Owens,
SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
OCEAN SPRAY: Court Narrows Claims in "Winters"
----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum of Decision granting in part and denying in
part Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
BARRY K. WINTERS, et al., v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC., Civil
Action No. 12-12016-RWZ (D. Mass).
Ocean Spray moves for summary judgment on Counts I and II. A
number of plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on Count I.
In this action, some 50 plaintiffs allege that defendant Ocean
Spray Cranberries, Inc., an agricultural cooperative, has
unlawfully manipulated the price of cranberry juice concentrate
and discriminated against B Pool members of the cooperative.
In their Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiffs bring three claims:
(1) that Ocean Spray engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in
violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, Section 11,
thereby injuring the independent growers (Count I); (2) that Ocean
Spray engaged in a pattern of anti-competitive conduct in
violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2,
thereby injuring both B pool and independent growers (Count II);
and (3) that Ocean Spray retaliated against certain plaintiffs in
violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, Section 11
(Count III).
In Count II, plaintiffs allege Ocean Spray violated section 2 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2, by attempting to monopolize
the relevant cranberry market by fixing the prices of fresh and
processed cranberries to harm the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs claim that Ocean Spray engaged in these activities in
order (1) to prevent its grower members from leaving Ocean Spray's
cooperative in search of a fairer price for their crop; and (2) to
force independent growers either to go out of business or to
become members of Ocean Spray's cooperative.
Specifically, plaintiffs maintain that this price-fixing has
solidified the Defendant's market dominance, discouraging the 'B
Pool' growers from leaving the cooperative, and leaving
independent growers with no choice but to either exit the
cranberry market altogether or to join Ocean Spray at a
significant financial disadvantage as members of its disfavored
and underpaid B Pool.
This ultimately benefits the A pool, plaintiffs say, because the
low price, for predominately all growers outside of the A Pool,
creates a desire to return to or be part of the A Pool, which in
turn, enhances the amount of fruit available to Ocean Spray
branded products and creates a monopsony power as Ocean Spray is
the exceedingly dominant handler.
The allegation seems to be that the auction was necessary to
restrain the grower-handler market; the price paid to the B pool
is directly tied to the auction price. Plaintiffs allege, "[t]he
auction is a sham; it is nothing more than a guise for Ocean Spray
to predatorily set cranberry prices below the cost of production."
Understood this way, Ocean Spray needed "to corrupt [the
concentrate] market to achieve [its] illegal ends." In any event,
Aluminum Warehousing is not the law in this circuit, and as such,
it cannot on its own determine the outcome here.
The remaining AGC factors weigh in favor of finding the B pool
growers have standing. They allege harm directly resulting from
the lower returns they received, and the motive for illegally
fixing the price, plaintiffs suggest, is to enrich the A pool at
the B pool's expense. There exist genuine disputes of material
fact with regard to these issues. Further, at least for the B
pool, there seems to be little risk for duplicative recovery or
complex apportionment of damages. Therefore, Ocean Spray's motion
for summary judgment on Count II is denied with regard to the B
pool growers.
The independent grower plaintiffs also allege they suffered harm
as a result of the auction. These growers claim that by
manipulating the price of concentrate, Ocean Spray causes
independent handlers to pay independent growers prices below the
cost of production for their fruit.
Under the facts of this case, the B pool growers and the CLI
growers, having allegedly suffered more direct harm from the
auction, would be better positioned to bring a claim. AGC, 459
U.S. at 542, the existence of an identifiable class of persons
whose self-interest would normally motivate them to vindicate the
public interest in antitrust enforcement diminishes the
justification for allowing a more remote party to perform the
office of a private attorney general. Gelboim v. Bank of Am.
Corp., 823 F.3d 759, 779 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct.
814 (2017), Implicit in the inquiry is recognition that not every
victim of an antitrust violation needs to be compensated under the
antitrust laws in order for the antitrust laws to be efficiently
enforced.
These factors lead to the conclusion that the independent growers
are not the proper party to bring a private antitrust action, and
as such they do not have antitrust standing. Ocean Spray's motion
for summary judgment on Count II is allowed with respect to the
non-CLI independent growers.
The CLI growers are a specific subset of independent growers, who
in some ways are similarly positioned, yet in others are quite
distinct. Specifically, under the TPA, Ocean Spray processes CLI's
fruit into concentrate and returns it to CLI (a handler). Ocean
Spray is then obligated to purchase concentrate that CLI is unable
to sell.
Here, there is evidence suggesting that at least one CLI grower
sells nearly 100% of its fruit to CLI, and Ocean Spray commits to
buying any excess concentrate from CLI. Further, the price CLI
pays for the cranberries is directly determined by the price it
receives from Ocean Spray. Thus, there is at least an issue of
material fact as to whether the direct [seller] will bear no
portion of the [under]charge and otherwise suffer no injury.
Ocean Spray's motion for summary judgment on Count II is DENIED
with respect to the CLI plaintiffs.
In Count I, the independent growers allege that Ocean Spray's
actions constitute unfair and deceptive acts in violation of
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, Section 11.
In Count I, the independent growers allege that Ocean Spray's
actions constitute unfair and deceptive acts in violation of
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, Section 11. Ocean Spray
moves for summary judgment on the basis that the independent
growers are not in a business relationship with Ocean Spray and
that the non-Massachusetts plaintiffs lack a sufficient connection
to Massachusetts.
As the analysis of standing under federal law demonstrates, the
independent growers do not have standing to bring an antitrust
claim. Construing the Massachusetts Antitrust Act harmoniously
with federal antitrust law would dictate that these plaintiffs
lack standing under Massachusetts antitrust law as well, and so
they cannot bring a Section 11 claim that is premised on an
antitrust violation.
Summary judgment is allowed on Count I only insofar as the non-CLI
independent growers' 93A claim is based on Ocean Spray's alleged
attempted monopsonization and monopsonization. As to what remains
of the independent growers' 93A claim, summary judgment is denied.
CLI growers move for partial summary judgment on their 93A claim.
Plaintiffs previously brought a motion for partial summary
judgment, which the Court denied because questions of material
fact remained. This included questions as to the fairness of the
auction and any causal connection to plaintiffs' harms. These
disputes remain. The CLI plaintiffs' motion is denied.
Ocean Spray's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and II of
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint is allowed in part and denied
in part. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
denied, and, to that extent, Ocean Spray's Motion to Defer or Deny
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is allowed.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2017
Memorandum of Decision is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ya5fn2mq from Leagle.com.
John Doe Growers, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz --
dlenz@lawtoncates.com -- Lawson & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.
John Doe Growers, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Olson --
jolson@lawtoncates.com -- Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice,
Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac vice, Manuel
C. Hernandez, Hernandez and Associates, LLC, 14631 SW Millikan Way
#2 Beaverton Oregon 97003, pro hac vice, Norman H. Jackman,
Jackman & Roth LLP, 7-2 Overbrook Hamlet Way Box 1377
Lincoln, NH, 03251, Paul S. Hassett, Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac
vice, Shala McKenzie Kudlac, Carleton Law Offices, pro hac vice
&Frederick J. Carleton, Carleton Law Offices, 301 Highway 101,
Bandon, OR 97411, pro hac vice.
John Doe B Pool Grower 1, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S.
Lenz, Lawson & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton &
Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and
Associates, pro hac vice, Manuel C. Hernandez, Hernandez and
Associates, LLC, pro hac vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth
LLP, Paul S. Hassett, Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, Shala
McKenzie Kudlac, Carleton Law Offices, pro hac vice & Frederick J.
Carleton, Carleton Law Offices, pro hac vice.
Barry K. Winters, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson
& Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.
BKW Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson &
Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.
Rick Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson &
Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.
Jackson Farms, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz,
Lawson & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton &
Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and
Associates, pro hac vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP &
Paul S. Hassett, Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.
James M. Schaer, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson
& Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.
Julie A. Schaer, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson
& Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.
Scott Vierck, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson &
Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.
Fred P. Bussman, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson
& Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alfred C.
Pfeiffer -- al.pfeiffer@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Elyse M.
Greenwald -- elyse.greenwald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Jessica N. Boluda -- jessica.bratten@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP, pro hac vice, Lawrence E. Buterman --
lawrence.buterman@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, pro hac vice,
Margaret M. Zwisler -- margaret.zwisler@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP, Jennifer L. Giordano -- jennifer.giordano@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins, LLP & Marguerite M. Sullivan --
marguerite.sullivan@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.
Cliffstar LLC, Interested Party, represented by D. Alicia Hickok -
- alicia.hickok@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac
vice, John J. Powers -- john.powers@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP, David L. Ferrera -- dferrera@nutter.com -- Nutter,
McClennen & Fish, LLP & Katy O. Meszaros, Nutter, McClennen &
Fish, LLP.
Cliffstar LLC, Interested Party, represented by Norman H. Jackman,
Jackman & Roth LLP, 7-2 Overbrook Hamlet Way Box 1377
Lincoln, NH, 03251
Cott Beverages, LLC, Interested Party, represented by D. Alicia
Hickok, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Powers,
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, David L. Ferrera, Nutter, McClennen &
Fish, LLP, Katy O. Meszaros, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP &
Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP.
PLANET PAYMENT: "Rosato" Suit Hits Fintrax Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
John Rosato, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Planet Payment, Inc., Carl J. Williams,
Shane H. Kim, Cameron R. M. Mccoll, Jonathan Kaiden, Fintrax
Group, Franklin Uk Bidco Limited and Fintrax US Acquisition
Subsidiary, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06770 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 20, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the acquisition of Planet Payment by Fintrax Group and its
affiliates, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger.
The lawsuit also seeks costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Shareholders of Planet Payment will receive $4.50 in cash for each
share of Planet Payment common stock.
The complaint says the merger agreement contains a "no
solicitation" provision that prohibits the Planet Payment from
soliciting alternative proposals and constrains their ability to
communicate and negotiate with potential buyers who wish to submit
or have submitted unsolicited alternative proposals. By agreeing
to this, Defendants have locked up the deal and have precluded
other bidders from making successful competing offers.
Moreover, the Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to
include financial projections and valuation analyses performed by
its financial advisor, FTP Securities LLC, critical to making
their decision on the said merger.
Planet Payment is a provider of international payment and
transaction processing and multi-currency processing services to
merchant locations in 21 countries and territories across the Asia
Pacific region, North America, South America, Middle East, Africa
and Europe, primarily through its acquiring bank and processor
customers. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy J. McFall, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
(516) 683-3516
- and -
Brian D. Long
Gina M. Serra
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Tel: (302) 295-5310
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Moore" Suit in S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Securus
Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony T. Moore, Jr. and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Securus Technologies,
Inc., St. Clair County, Illinois, Richard Watson
Sheriff, St. Clair County and Austin Everett Commissary
Supervisor, St. Clair County Jail, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01285-JPG (S.D. Ill., November 27, 2017).
Securus Technologies is U.S. prison technology company based in
Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
SILVER SPRING: "Scarantino" Suit Seeks to Block Itron Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Scarantino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc., Scott A.
Lang, Michael Bell, Laura D. Tyson, Warren M. Weiss, Thomas R.
Kuhn, Richard A. Simonson, Jonathan Schwartz, Thomas H. Werner,
Peter Van Camp, Itron, Inc. and Ivory Merger Sub, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06688, (N.D. Cal., November 20, 2017),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of Silver Spring Networks by Itron, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Ivory Merger Sub, Inc., rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event
defendants consummate the merger, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Spring's shareholders are entitled to receive $16.25 in cash for
each share of Silver Spring they own.
According to the complaint, Defendants filed a proxy statement
that failed to include financial projections and valuation
analyses performed by its financial advisor, Evercore Group
L.L.C., critical to making their decision on the said merger.
Silver Spring is into creating, building and deploying large scale
networks and solutions enabling the Internet of Things (system of
physical devices with the capacity to communicate using internet
technologies) for critical infrastructure including the smart
grid, a networking platform and solution that enable control over
electric utilities. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long
Gina M. Serra
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Tel: (302) 295-5310
- 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
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces "Lilavois" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Credit
Systems L.P. The case is styled as Regine Lilavois, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Southwest
Credit Systems L.P., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06881 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 24, 2017).
Southwest Credit is a debt collection company located in
Carrollton, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (347) 665-1545
Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com
TIVITY HEALTH: Weiner Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Eric Weiner, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Tivity Health, Inc., Donato Tramuto, Glenn
Hargreaves and Adam Holland, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01469,
(M.D. Tenn., November 20, 2017), seeks to recover damages for
violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Tivity Health is a fitness program provider focused on targeted
population health for people aged 50 and older where one program
is offered to members of Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement
and Group Retiree plans.
Tivity Health allegedly artificially inflated the price of its
securities, misrepresenting their business prospects and its
contract renewal negotiations with United Healthcare customer.
Tivity Health's stock price declined $16.45, or nearly 34.24%,
from a close of $48.05 per share on November 3, 2017, to close of
$31.60 per share on November 6, 2017. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Al Holifield, Esq.
HOLIFIELD JANICH RACHAL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
11907 Kingston Pike, Ste. 201
Knoxville, TN 37934
Tel: (865) 566-0115
Fax: (865) 566-0119
Email: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
Email: ek@zlk.com
UMEKEN USA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Shin" Liability Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Min Sook Shin filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Min Shin v. Umeken USA, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-00315-CJC-SS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.
The nature of suit is stated as personal injury-product liability.
The appellate case is captioned as Min Shin v. Umeken USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 17-56767, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Min Sook Shin's opening brief is due on
January 22, 2018;
-- Appellees Brian Han and Umeken USA, Inc.'s answering brief
is due on February 22, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MIN SOOK SHIN, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Juan Hong, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUAN HONG
4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 509-6505
Facsimile: (949) 335-6647
E-mail: jhong48@gmail.com
Defendants-Appellees UMEKEN USA, INC., and BRIAN HAN,
individually, are represented by:
Steven Feldman, Esq.
HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 788-4272
E-mail: sfeldman@hueston.com
- and -
John Charles Hueston, Esq.
HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 226-6740
E-mail: jhueston@hueston.com
WEINSTEIN COMPANY: Faces Suit Over RICO Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, Miramax, LLC,
Harvey Weinstein, and John Does 1-50, Case No. 2:17-cv-08323 (C.D.
Calif., November 15, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, civil battery, assault, and intentional and negligent
infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of Lancaster, California. Jane Doe 1 auditioned with
Weinstein for a part in a Miramax production. During her audition,
Jane Doe 1 was assaulted by Weinstein, threatened, falsely
imprisoned, and suffered emotional and physical distress, and was
injured in her property or livelihood as a result of Weinstein's
actions, says the complaint.
Defendant The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company whose principal place of business is in
New York, New York.
Defendant Miramax LLC is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Santa Monica, California.
Defendant Harvey Weinstein is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Cris Armenta, Esq.
Credence E. Sol, Esq.
THE ARMENTA LAW FIRM, APC
1230 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 300
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Tel: (310) 826-2826 Ext. 108
E-mail: cris@crisarmenta.com
credence.sol@orange.fr
- and -
Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com
WORLD CLASS: "Melikov" Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjar Melikov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. World Class Limousine, LLC & Victor Ten,
Defendant, Case No. 17-3402, (Mass., November 20, 2017), seeks to
recover damages arising from the Defendants' illegal
misclassification of him and other workers as independent
contractors, statutory treble damages, prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
World Class Limousine provides non-emergency medical
transportation services to individuals, which generally includes
driving individuals to doctor's appointments, to and from clinical
facilities, and other related medical appointments. Melikov worked
as a driver for World Class. Defendants never paid him overtime
for any hours he worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
92 State Street Boston, MA 02109
Tel: (617) 723-7700
Fax: (617) 227-0313
Email: ashafran@rflawyers.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 * * *