/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171215.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 15, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 248 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Noohi" Suit over Contact Lenses 1-800 CONTACTS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Thompson" 125 COURT STREET: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in 421-A Tenants Suit A TO Z WIRING: Faces "Bunting" Wage-and-Hour Suit AARON'S INC: Court Approves Settlement in "Korrow" Case ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: "Aguirre" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ADVOCATE HEALTH: Magpayo's Bid to Certify Taken Under Advisement ALL COAST: "Adams" Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Seamen ALL HARBOR TRANSPORT: "Nevarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Stays Class Certification Bid ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed AMERICAN FAMILY: Riggins Files 2nd Renewed Bid to Certify Class AMERIGAS PROPANE: Jarrell Seeks Final Approval of $800K Deal AMSHER COLLECTION: Nolet Seeks Class Certification Under Damasco ARKANSAS: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Perry" Suit ARKEMA INC: "Carter" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ARMISTICE PROTECTIVE: Ponce Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code ATLANTIC CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Martin" Suit AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over RAF Firefighting Foam Pending AVALON MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Wages, "Santis" Suit Says BAPTIST HEALTH: "Tishman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class BDS NATURAL: "Reasoner" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code BEACON'S CLOSET: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York BIG RIVER: Court Finds $62K Attorney's Fees Unreasonable BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: "Spisak" Suit Seeks Shift Managers Class BRECK'S RIDGE: Parker Seeks to Certify Collective FLSA Class CENTRAL PONY: "Townsend" Suit Seeks to Certify Class CHICAGO, IL: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass CHURCH & DWIGHT: Ct. Won't Dismiss "Made in the USA" Condoms Suit COLONIAL PARKING: Abraha, et al. Seek to Certify Class CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: "Heisler" Suit Seeks to Certify Class CREDIT CORP: Derosia Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Valdivieso Seeks to Certify COBRA Class Suit CUSTARD INSURANCE: "Wadler" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class DAVID GLADIEUX: Court Denied Class Certification in "Buroff" DEJA VU: Gomez-Ortega Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Worthless Travel Insurance DNB: Faces Class Action Over Fund Management Charges DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Certification of Class Sought in "Ranft" Suit EAGLE EYE: Faces "Geraci" Suit in District of Connecticut EL AL: Tel Aviv Court OKs Class Action Over "Matmid" Flyer Terms EMSER TILE: "Robert" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code ENAGIC USA: "Makaron" Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Accused of Jacking Up Natural Gas Prices FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in Fiorentino Suit FIRST DATA: Certification of Class and Sub-Class Sought in "Fox" FIRST FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification FIRST RESOLUTION: Wins Prelim. OK of Settlement in "Islas" Suit FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Fuller" Suit in N.D. Illinois GLASS NICKEL: Settlement in FLSA Suit Has Final Court Approval GLOBAL TEL: Inmates' Class Action Over Phone Services Pending HAJ INC: Court Defers Ruling on FLSA Suit Pending "Morris" HAMILTON, OH: Robinson, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass HARRY'S NURSES: "McFarlane" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA HOME DEPOT: "Utne" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes HOWARD ZUCKER: Turano et al. Bid to Amend Complaint Okayed IC SYSTEM: Wins Summary Judgment, "Cornette" Class Suit Dismissed ILLINOIS BRICK: Consumers Treated Unjustly in Price-Fixing Case INDUSTRIAL WELDING: Ark. Supreme Court Remands Workers' Suit INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces "Mack" Suit in Calif. Superior Court JACKSON HEWITT: Fla. Court Stays Discovery in TCPA Suit JASON WOLFE: Fails to Pay Wages, "Garcia" Suit Says JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sweeney Appeals Judgment in "Goldemberg" Suit JPAY INC: Faces "Defazio" Suit in District of New Jersey JULIE JONES: "O'Connor" Suit Seeks to Certify Class KEMPER CORPORATION: "Barrett" Suit Moved to S.D. Georgia KENTUCKY: State Appeals Ruling in Minor's Suit KERRY INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit over Sensitive Biometric Data KEW ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lomeli" Suit over Wage Statements KINDRED HEALTH: "Al-Najiar" Suit Seeks to Certify Class KONA GRILL: Cedeno Renews Motion to Certify Class of Sous Chefs LAMBTON COLLEGE: Students to Pursue Class Action Over Strikes LEASING ENTERPRISES: Shaffer Asks to Certify Tipped Workers Class LELAND STANFORD: "Lagos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class LTI TRUCKING: Hearing on Ratliff's Bid to Certify Cont'd to May 2 LULAROE LLC: Refuses to Accept Return of Merchandise, Patton Says LUNA CYCLES: "Damoiseaux" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code MARKHAM, IL: Faces "Murphy" Suit over Collection of Fines MARKHAM, IL: Faces 2nd "Murphy" Suit over Collection of Fines MARRIOTT INT'L: Vazquez Moves to Certify National COBRA Class MCGOUGH BUS: Smith Seeks to Certify Class of Bus Drivers & Aides MDL 2545: Medical Mutual Seeks to Certify RICO Classes MESILLA VALLEY: Hrng on Ratliff's Bid to Certify Cont'd to May 2 MICHAEL BILLINGS: Dean Seeks Conditional Class Certification MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Class in "Arnold" Suit v. DOC MTC FINANCIAL: "Manos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: "Jia" Suit Moved to N.D. Texas NEW BOSTON PIE: Court Certifies Driver Class in "Brayak" Suit NGL TRANSPORTATION: Yoo Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code NPAS SOLUTIONS: Johnson Seeks Prelim. OK of $1.4-Mil. Settlement OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Jan. 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set OXNARD, CA: "Kittel" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes PALATINE, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Collins" PATENAUDE & FELIX: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed PERSONNEL STAFFING: "Haack" Suit Seeks to Certify Class PHILLIP KNOWLES: Certification of Stone Detailers Class Sought PORSCHE FINANCIAL: "Cox" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes POSTMATES INC: "Winns" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: "Safranski" Case Settlement Proceeds PROGRESSIONS BEHAVIORAL: Charles Moves to Certify FLSA Class QUALITY VACATION: More Clients Express Interest in Joining Suit RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Betz Moves for Certification of Class RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Court Denies Bid to Certify 2 Classes ROSS STORES: No Seats for Checkers & Cashiers, "Zumaya" Suit Says RUBIANO INC: Mays Moves to Certify Class of Entertainers/Dancers SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Baird" Suit in N.D. California SAN JOSE, CA: Police Sued Over Undercover Gay Stings SAUL CHEVROLET: Court Denies "Rivera" Bid to Certify Class SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify ISR Class & Subclass SCI DIRECT: Wins Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended "Romano" Complaint SEAGATE TECH: Class Certification Sought in Hard Drive Case SILVERTREE MOHAVE: Court OKs $800K Settlement in "Lewis" Suit SIMMONS FOODS: "Fochtman" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Arkansas SODEXO INC: Court Denies Lazo's Amended Class Certification Bid STATE COLLECTION: Certification of Class Sought in "Bonin" Suit STATE FARM: "Vogt" Suit Seeks to Certify Policy Owners Class SUDLER AND COMPANY: Horist's Motion to Certify Class Withdrawn SUMMITT TRUCKING: Bid to Certify in "Ratliff" Suit Withdrawn SURFSIDE COFFEE: Jerez et al Seek to Certify Store Managers Class SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Fritsch" Suit Remanded to State Court TAUBRA CORP: Agrees to Drivers Class Certification in "Burcham" TD AMERITRADE: "Klein" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes TESLA INC: Former Employees Join Class Action Over Mass Firings TEZOS: Silver Miller Files Class Action in Florida Over ICO THREE SEASONS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Urrutia" Suit TITLE SOURCE: Court Shelves Conditional Certification Bid TK SERVICES: "Nunez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code TOURO COLLEGE: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Feller's Bid to Certify Class Under Submission TT OF PINE: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Mahoney" Suit U.S. HEALTHWORKS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, "Hwang" Suit Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Sue Over Victorian Operations UNITED STATES: Lerner, Paz Want IRS Case Depositions Sealed UNITED TECH: "Millman" Class Cert. Bid Denied as Premature US CARGO: Hall Moves to Certify Delivery Drivers Class Under FLSA VALBIN CORP: Court Grants Saleh's Motion to Certify Class WAFFLE HOUSE: Job Applicants Consolidate FCRA Class Actions WESTERN FEDERAL: Faces "Luna" Suit in Florida Circuit Court WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Dean Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class WHITE CASTLE: "Irwin" Suit Seeks to Certify Class WHOLE FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Kitenge" Suit Says ZTO EXPRESS: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit * NZ Urged to Introduce Australian-Style Opt Out Class Actions * Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Several Class Action Rulings * UK Still Not on Way of Getting US Class Actions Culture Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Union Carbide Dismissed in "Queen" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. App. Denies Bid for Writ of Mandamus ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand "Pitre" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Magistrate's Order in "Savoie" ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kirkland SAC Stricken From Record ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Has $102.8MM Reserve at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver's Insurance Suit at Phase II ASBESTOS UPDATE: 171 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 61,200 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has $60MM Unfavorable Development ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,751 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at Sep. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Had US$6.1MM Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Defends Numerous Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues US$551MM for Respirator Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues US$18MM for Aearo Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remains in Pillsbury Plant ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brazil Asbestos Ban Impacts US Imports ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Council Probe After Asbestos Discovery ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA May Review "Legacy Uses" in Risk Evaluation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered in Homeless People's Shelter ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blue Mountain Hospital in Asbestos Scandal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Water to be Remedied by Filtration ASBESTOS UPDATE: Facility Needs $45,000 to Remove Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Co. Must Pay Fired Worker ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Noohi" Suit over Contact Lenses ------------------------------------------------------ NARGUESS NOOHI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC682489 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 6, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of falsely advertising its sales receipts for its contact lenses and to obtain redress for a California class of consumers who changed position, within the applicable statute of limitations period, as a result of Defendant's false and misleading advertisements. The Defendant represents that consumers have not paid for their contact lenses when they in have paid for their contact lenses, thereby making Defendant's statements that they still need to pay for their contact lenses in fact false. Defendant misrepresented and falsely advertised the nature of the sales of its contact lenses to Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated purchased or attempt to purchase Defendant's contact lenses, and they did so on the basis that Defendant would not attempt to charge consumers multiple times on the same sale. The Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiff and others similarly situated caused them to purchase or attempt Defendant's contact lenses, which Plaintiff and others similarly situated would not have purchased or attempted to purchase absent these misrepresentations by Defendant and its employees. In so doing, Defendant has violated California consumer protection statutes, including the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. 1-800 Contacts Inc. is an American contact lens retailer based in Draper, Utah. The brands that 1-800-Contatcts has includes: Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Ciba Vision, Bausch & Lomb and CooperVision brands. The company was incorporated in 1995.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com 1-800 CONTACTS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Thompson" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled J THOMPSON, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01183-TC- DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Tena Campbell entered an order preliminarily approving settlement agreement, certifying settlement class, and appointing class counsel and class representatives for the settlement class. The Settlement Class is defined as: "[a]ll persons in the United States who made at least one online purchase of contact lenses from 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Arlington Contact Lens Service, Inc., or National Vision, Inc. from March 10, 2010 through September 19, 2017, who do not timely exclude themselves from the Class. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, any alleged coconspirators, government entities and instrumentalities of government, states and their subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities." The Court said, "In the event that the Settlement Agreement is terminated, is vacated, is not approved, or the Effective Date fails to occur for any reason, then the parties to the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed to have reverted to their respective status in the Action as of the Execution Date, and, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, such parties shall proceed in all respects as if the Settlement Agreement and any related orders had not been entered, and the Settlement Agreement and this Preliminary Approval Order shall be null and void, of no further force or effect, and without prejudice to any of the Settling Parties, and may not be introduced as evidence or referred to in any actions or proceedings by any Person; provided, however, that in the event of termination of the Settlement Agreement, and the Settlement Agreement shall nonetheless survive and continue to be of effect and have binding force. Any portion of the Settlement Amount previously deposited into the Escrow Account by the Settling Defendants shall be returned to the Settling Defendants within thirty (30) days after written notification of such event is sent by counsel for Settling Defendants or Class Counsel to the Escrow Agent, except for up to $100,000 of sums actually paid from the Settlement Fund for the reasonable costs of Notice." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dBMlkOUp 125 COURT STREET: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in 421-A Tenants Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs 421-A Tenants Association Inc., Richard Lebed and Vinetta Scrivo filed an appeal from a District Court memorandum and order dated November 2, 2017, and District Court judgment dated November 3, 2017, entered in their lawsuit styled 421-A Tenants Association Inc., et al. v. 125 Court Street LLC, et al., Case No. 17-cv-563, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The lawsuit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The appellate case is captioned as 421-A Tenants Association Inc., et al. v. 125 Court Street LLC, et al., Case No. 17-3865, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants 421-A Tenants Association Inc., Vinetta Scrivo and Richard Lebed, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Robert John Valli, Jr., Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com Defendants-Appellees 125 Court Street LLC, Two Trees Management Co. LLC, 30 Main LLC, DW Associates LP, David C. Walentas, Jed D. Walentas and 194 Atlantic LLC are represented by: Paul L. Shechtman, Esq. BRACEWELL LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 508-6100 Facsimile: (800) 404-3970 E-mail: paul.shechtman@bracewell.com A TO Z WIRING: Faces "Bunting" Wage-and-Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------- LAFARRELL BUNTING, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A TO Z WIRING, LLC, and RWL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00525-JSM- PRL (M.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory and liquidated damages and other relief from Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff trained for approximately 4 weeks without being paid for his training. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are Defendants' current and former employees, who were not paid for their training and who worked overtime hours for Defendants, but were not compensated for those hours because Defendants misclassified them as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Birk, Esq. MATTHEW BIRK, LLC 309 Northeast First Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 244 2069 Facsimile: (352) 372 3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com AARON'S INC: Court Approves Settlement in "Korrow" Case ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARGARET KORROW, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AARON'S INC and John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:10-cv-06317-MAS-LHG (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Lois Goodman entered an order: 1. certifying class and subclass: Class: "all natural persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with Defendant Aaron's, Inc. New Jersey from March 16, 2016, through and including March 31, 2011."; and CFA - "Prorated" Amount subclass: "all members of the Class a defined above who paid Defendant Aaron's, Inc., a first monthly payment that included a "prorated" amount" CFA - "Service" Plus Subclass: "all members of the Class a defined above who paid Defendant Aaron's, Inc., a first monthly payment that included a "ServicePlus" fee"; 2. granting motion for preliminarily approval of proposed settlement Agreement; and 3. provisionally certifying Settlement Class: "those 22,145 natural persons identified on the Class List previously provided by Aaron's, Inc., to A.B. Data, Ltd. on December 6, 2016 and updated ad provided in the Settlement Agreement to exclude the 17 natural persons excluded from the Litigation by the Court's June 16, 2017 Consent Order Granting Request fir Exclusion from Certified Class and the two business entities that were included in the December 6, 2016 list that Aaron's Inc., provided to A.B. Data, Ltd. The Settlement Agreement provides in part for Defendant to pay the amount $5,8000,000 into the Settlement Fund in full and final settlement of all claims in the Litigation to be used to pay (i) the cash component of the Settlement to Settlement Class Members; (ii) all costs related to the pre-settlement litigated class certification Notice of Administration; (iii) all cost administering the Settlement, including but not limited to, all cost of Notice, implementation of the Settlement, providing Settlement Relief Packets to Settlement Class Members and the fees of the Settlement Administrator; (iv) an Individual Service Award to the Class Representative; and (v) Attorney's Fees and Costs of Settlement Class Counsel. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IQ8wufXP ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: "Aguirre" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CARMEN AGUIRRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS CORP.; and BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11111 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "(1) all persons with Illinois addresses, (2) who were sent a letter by Defendants to collect a debt owned by Absolute, (3) which letter stated "because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater," (4) which was sent at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 20 days after the filing of this action." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending a form collection letter that falsely stated that "interest, late charges, and other charges" may continue to accrue when in fact they could not, that threatened to add interest, late charges, and other charges to Plaintiff's account when such actions could not legally be taken and were not intended to be taken, and that used unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt by threatening to collect interest, late charges, and other charges from Plaintiff. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WvbJTl6l The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha C. Chatman, Esq. Michael J. Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757 1880 Facsimile: (312) 265 3227 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com ADVOCATE HEALTH: Magpayo's Bid to Certify Taken Under Advisement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on November 29, 2017, in the case styled Crixenia Magpayo v. Advocate Health Care Network, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01176 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable John Robert Blakey. The minute entry states that: -- motion hearing was held on November 29, 2017; -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is taken under advisement; -- Defendant's motion for summary judgment is taken under advisement; and -- the Court will rule and set additional case management dates, by separate order. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pDxCtlYe ALL COAST: "Adams" Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Seamen -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled WILLIAM ADAMS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALL COAST, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01426-UDJ-PJH (W.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying conditional class of: "all cooks, mates, deckhands, ordinary seamen and able- bodied seamen employed by All Coast, LLC in those workweeks in which they were employed in those classifications in the last three (3) years, except for those employees who signed waiver and release agreements and also excluding all captains, training captains, licensed engineers and unlicensed engineers employed by All Coast LLC in the last three years"; 2. appointing William Adams as class representative; and 3. appointing Moore & Associates as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dLxHqalV The Plaintiff is represented by: Curt Hesse, Esq. Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE &ASSOCIATES 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222 6775 Facsimile: (713) 222 6739 The Defendant is represented by: Armin J. Moeller, Jr., Esq. Ashley Eley Cannady, Esq. BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 1400 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 961 9900 Facsimile: (601) 961 4466 E-mail: amoeller@balch.com ALL HARBOR TRANSPORT: "Nevarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL NEVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALL HARBOR TRANSPORT, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC680274 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct 19, 2017), alleges that the Defendant allegedly failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest periods; failed to timely pay wages, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to indemnify necessary business expenses. All Harbor is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387 7200 Facsimile: (949) 387 6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DEBRA MALONEY, ELAINE BONIN, and EBORAH OZIER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE COLLECTION AGENCIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01610-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Plaintiffs further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DtZkHA0S The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Stays Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled SHARON MEYER et al., the Plaintiffs, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01106-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motions to stay their class certification motion and for relief from the local rules. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. To prevent defendant from mooting the action, plaintiffs move for class certification and to stay that motion. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). A copy of the Court's Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rFsctg5b In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER GAJEWSKI, RACHEL HOLMES, and ANNE O'BOYLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01609-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to stay the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gGZsKrpV The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LORALIE NOLET, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01611-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AETDWvgB The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Riggins Files 2nd Renewed Bid to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DARNITA RIGGINS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-04171-SRB (W.D. Mo.), Darnita Riggins moves the Court for an order certifying Plaintiff's second renewed motion to certify class of: "all persons and entities insured under an American Family homeowner's policy who received one or more "Actual Cash Value" payments from American Family on May 21, 2004 or later for physical loss or damage to their residence or other structure located in Missouri, where in the calculation of Actual Cash Value, the cost of labor was depreciated." The class includes only such persons and entities whose American Family policy defined "Actual Cash Value" as "the amount it costs to repair or replace property with property of like kind and quality less depreciation for physical deterioration and obsolescence." Excluded from the class are those who: received the limit of insurance shown on the declarations page of their policy; or received any supplemental payments, other than additional Actual Cash Value payments on their claim; or submitted their claim for determination through the appraisal process provided in the policy. The Plaintiff also asks the Court that she be appointed class representative, and that her counsel David T. Butsch, Christopher E. Roberts, and Joe D. Jacobson be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=edGBYpUV David T. Butsch, Esq. Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863 5700 Facsimile: (314) 863 5711 E-mail: Butsch@ButschRoberts.com Roberts@ButschRoberts.com - and - Joe D. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS P.C. 168 North Meramec Ave., Suite 150 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 899 9789 Facsimile: (314) 899 0282 E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com AMERIGAS PROPANE: Jarrell Seeks Final Approval of $800K Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JIMMIE JARRELL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERIGAS PROPANE, Inc.; a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-01481-JST (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to grant final approval of the Stipulation Re: Settlement of Class and Collective Action he reached with AmeriGas. Mr. Jarrell also asks the Court to certify the Settlement Class defined as: all Persons who were employed by AmeriGas as a Service Technician (a non-exempt or hourly position) in California from February 16, 2012, through the date of preliminary approval (August 4, 2017). The Defendant agrees that $800,000 represents the maximum amount that it will pay out under this Stipulation. Distributions from the Gross Settlement Fund are as follows: Item Amount ---- ---------- Gross Settlement Fund $800,000.00 Unreimbursed costs to Setareh Law Group ($15,380.54) Third-party administrator charges (RUST) ($20,000.00) Class Representative Service Awards ($10,000.00) Payment to LWDA ($30,000.00) Fees to Class Counsel ($266,640.00) ---------- Net allocation to ($457,979.46) participating Class Members BALANCE FOLLOWING ALL DISTRIBUTIONS = $0.00 Mr. Jarrell further asks the Court to: (i) appoint him as representative for the Settlement Class, (ii) appoint Setareh Law Group as counsel for the Settlement Class, and (iii) enter judgment on the terms specified in the Stipulation and approved by the Court. The Court will commence a hearing on January 11, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PlvU2jqe The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com AMSHER COLLECTION: Nolet Seeks Class Certification Under Damasco ---------------------------------------------------------------- Loralie Nolet moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned LORALIE NOLET, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMSHER COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01657-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff contends, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16- cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff says. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3mwmAvZH The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ARKANSAS: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Perry" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ZECKEYA PERRY, the PLAINTIFF, v. WENDY KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; et al., the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:17-cv-00269-JM-JJV (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge James M. Moody, Jr. entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel; and 2. certifying, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order adopting the recommendations would not be taken in good faith. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lT0DBOma ARKEMA INC: "Carter" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled ROGER D. CARTER, EDDIE DEAN HEWITT, DAVID WAYNE WARREN, and RICKY LYNN WOODS, and a class of others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. ARKEMA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01241-JHM-CHL (W.D. Ken.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action pursuant to FRCP Rule 23(b)(2), with a class defined as: "all participants in the Arkema, Inc. Retirement Benefits Plan, at any time from January 1, 1988 to the present, who were employed by Arkema, Inc. or its predecessors at Arkema's Carrollton, Kentucky plant, and whose initial service dates were "adjusted" to the first day of the month next following their attainment of 25 years of age"; and "all participants in the Arkema, Inc. Retirement Benefits Plan, at any time from January 1, 1988 to the present, who were employed by Arkema, Inc. or its predecessors at Arkema's Carrollton, Kentucky plant, and who are eligible (or may become eligible) for the Rule of 85 due to termination of employment after reaching the age of 55 and 30 years of service". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NE3I9ZRX The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Leightty, Esq. Alison Messex, Esq. PRIDDY, CUTLER, NAAKE & MEADE, PLLC 2303 River Road, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40206 Telephone: (502) 632 5292 Facsimile: (502) 632 5293 E-mail: dleightty@earthlink.net amessex@pcnmlaw.com ARMISTICE PROTECTIVE: Ponce Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO PONCE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. ARMISTICE PROTECTIVE & INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; X ZERO PROTECTIVE & INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC682464 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members often worked at two different locations during their shifts for Defendants. They were given an hour between the end time at the first bar and the start time at the second bar, during which they were required to clock out and commute to the second location, but were also told that this was their meal period and their only break for the shift. However, since Plaintiff and Class Members were required to commute to the second location in their own vehicles for Defendant during the time they were clocked out, and were not paid for this time, Defendants failed to even pay minimum wage for these work hours. Furthermore, based on the hours Plaintiff and Class members worked, the time spent commuting was to be paid at the overtime rate. Armistice Protective is a leading intelligence firm providing protection for home or business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818 Long Beach, California 90802 Telephone: (562) 432 8933 Facsimile: (562) 435 1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com ATLANTIC CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Martin" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Martin moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled CRYSTAL MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01652-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16- cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GWZ1U3F0 The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over RAF Firefighting Foam Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Joanne McCarthy, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon says Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull needs to stand in front of the Williamtown community and outline a timeline for action after the Nov. 19 shock doubling of the contamination red zone to include another 250 houses. Mr Turnbull and other senior politicians needed to "get out of the bubble of Canberra" to appreciate the true impact of the fire fighting foam scandal on people more than two years after confirmation of pollution from Williamtown RAAF base for years, she said. "I don't think he's focused on Williamtown at all because of the pressures the government's under in parliament. "Imagine how terrible that was Nov. 19 for so many people in the Williamtown area -- getting that knock on the door," Ms Rhiannon said after NSW Environment Protection Authority chief Barry Buffier announced on Nov. 19 that health officers were doorknocking the 250 newly-included red zone households on the weekend after new Defence data to the Williamtown Expert Panel. It also came after previous Newcastle Herald reports on residents outside the red zone with blood levels of the per- and poly- fluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS) at 10 times the national average. The expanded red zone announcement came during a surprise meeting at which Mr Buffier and NSW chief scientist Professor Mary O'Kane admitted that if the Department of Defence does not ramp up its remediation efforts, the red zone will exist in its current form until at least 2050. Ms Rhiannon changed her schedule to be at Williamtown on Nov. 20 to meet with residents and commit to taking the fight back to Canberra. But she conceded the plight of Williamtown residents was not cutting through with decision-makers. "This whole thing's been shocking the whole way through in the way it has been handled. Effectively I have to say to these people there hasn't been much progress since the first time I was here two years ago. We're not able to deliver on what's needed," she said. "It is personally upsetting. I have children and grandchildren. You do think of yourself in that situation and what you would do, particularly if you had children. The Prime Minister does need to step in so that he can hear from people directly about the effect this is having on their lives. "It's not as if there's a question about who's caused the contamination. The Department of Defence has admitted total liability. But does the Prime Minister understand what it is like for people living in these areas? No, not at all." Ms Rhiannon said there was every likelihood the government would only act on compensation for people in response to the class action initiated by residents. "A legal precedent can force the government's hands," she said. Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group president Cain Gorfine said the Nov. 19 announcement showed the contamination scandal was "completely out of control". "It's like a train they cannot stop. There are now 250 more families that will wake up tomorrow morning, thinking 'Have I poisoned my kids?' It's not an exaggeration. That's the reality for them," Mr Gorfine said. About 500 affected households and businesses who have suffered losses because of the contamination scandal have so far signed up for a class action against the Department of Defence, litigation funder IMF Bentham said in a statement on Nov. 20. The action, being run by Dentons Lawyers in Sydney, seeks compensation for economic losses suffered by households and businesses because of the contamination, including loss of value of homes and reduced profitability of businesses. The action is also seeking compensation for stress, vexation and inconvenience. The class action is being run on a "closed class" basis which means only people who have signed funding agreements with IMF are eligible to participate. IMF is continuing to accept registrations from anyone in the three management zones announced on Nov. 19. [GN] AVALON MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Wages, "Santis" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR SANTIS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AVALON MANUFACTURING, a Corporation, 20 and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC682709 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants did and do business by manufacturing and selling doughnut and bakery industry equipment, and employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt employees within the Counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, and throughout the state of California. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in March 2006, until Plaintiffs employment with Defendant was terminated Winter of 2016. During Plaintiffs employment, he worked as a non-exempt employee for Defendant's primary business of manufacturing and selling doughnut and bakery equipment, and was paid non-discretionary bonuses, commission and/or other forms of compensation not excludable as a matter of law when calculating an employee's regular rate. The Plaintiffs job as a welder involved fabrication of equipment, including but not limited to, fryers, finishing tables, cooling racks, among other related tasks for Defendant's manufacturing business. During Plaintiffs' employment with Defendants, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for working overtime hours. Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees nondiscretionary incentive pay, including: non-discretionary bonuses, commission and/or other forms of pay not excludable as a matter of law when calculating an employee's regular rate. Despite Defendants' payment of Incentive Pay to Plaintiff, Defendants have failed to include all forms of Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all required overtime wages. Rather, Plaintiff was only paid one-and-a-half times (or two times in the case of double-time hours) the base hourly rate, which is not equal to the regular rate, as Defendants failed to include the various forms of Incentive Pay earned by Plaintiff during corresponding time periods that are required to be included in the regular rate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Burrows, Esq. BURROWS LAW FIRM FILED E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 526 9998 Facsimile: (424) 644 2446 - and - Sean M. Novak, Esq. NOVAK LAW FIRM, P.C. E-mail: smn@novaklawfirm.com 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (323) 424 4313 Facsimile: (323) 424 4357 BAPTIST HEALTH: "Tishman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BLAKE TISHMAN, P.A., a Florida Professional Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., BAPTIST SLEEP CENTERS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-62230-JEM (S.D. Fla.), Mr. Tishman moves the Court for entry of an order certifying a class: "each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages after November 14, 2013 about outpatient diagnostic tests or home sleep tests available from or through Baptist Health South Florida or Baptist Sleep Centers." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=leMXVT3v The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 P.O. Box 416474 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 Facsimile: (312) 658 5555 BDS NATURAL: "Reasoner" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA REASONER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. BDS NATURAL PRODUCTS, INC., a LABOR CODE 98.6 and 1102.5 California corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC680577 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 20, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was prevented from taking her meal periods and rest breaks for reasons including, that she was required to remain at her work station and was not relieved. In March 2015, Plaintiff reported this issue to Martin Oliva, Defendant's Human Resources Manager. She also complained to him that, in addition to not getting her breaks, she was not being paid for her overtime work and instead was only being paid for 8 hours per day even when she worked longer. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was written up for a final warning for not taking a meal period. Plaintiff again complained to Mr. Oliva that she was not being relieved, was required to remain at her work station, and that if was required to list a meal period when she was not able to take one, that would be a lie and illegal. BDS Natural Products offers product knowledge of the world's botanical and spice supply.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432 8933 Facsimile: (562) 435 1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com BEACON'S CLOSET: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beacon's Closet, Inc. The case is captioned as Jason Camacho, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Beacon's Closet, Inc., Beacon's Closet Jr., Inc., Beacon's Closet III, Inc., and Beacon's Closet IV, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-08498-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick. Beacons Closet is a clothing store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naresh M. Gehi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF N. M. GEHI, P.C. 118-21 Queens Boulevard, Ste. 411 Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263 5999 Facsimile: (718) 263 1685 E-mail: nmgehi@gmail.com BIG RIVER: Court Finds $62K Attorney's Fees Unreasonable -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division, issued an Order denying Parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement in the case captioned KIM PIERCE, on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BIG RIVER STEEL LLC, Defendant, No. 3:17-cv-63-DPM (E.D. Ark.). The parties want to settle their dispute about unpaid overtime. Pierce used to work at Big River's steel mill. She filed the case, alleging that the mill had shorted her and other employees in paying overtime. She proposed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action under the parallel Arkansas statute. Pierce and her colleagues were paid production bonuses. Big River, she alleged, hadn't included those bonuses in calculating the correct rate for the overtime everyone routinely worked at the mill. Under the proposed deal, Pierce agrees to dismiss the case with prejudice, release a basket of other potential claims (reserving those asserted in a pending EEOC charge), and not to seek or accept employment with Big River in the future. There's no release of co-workers' claims. Big River agrees to provide a neutral reference. The parties acknowledge the $2,978.68 already paid Pierce for unpaid overtime, an equal amount of liquidated damages, and interest. The parties propose that Big River pay Pierce $10,720 more representing an incentive award for settlement. They also propose that Big River pay Pierce's lawyers $62,000 in fees and expenses. The lawyers are out of pocket $487.49 for the filing fee, service, and copies. Rounding for simplicity, Pierce's lawyers worked 51 hours, which generated (at healthy hourly rates ranging from $175 to $290) an $11,500 bill. Other circumstances, though, weigh against the deal, decisively so, in the Court's view. First, no collective action or class has been certified. An incentive award to Pierce and a non-lodestar attorney's fee reflect group-wide litigation that didn't really happen. Second, the proposed incentive award to Pierce is not fair. The payment she got for overtime represents a 100% recovery of everything she could have gained by winning the case. She did not earn a service fee by giving a deposition, attending hearings, or being the public face of workers in an extended dispute with their employer. The proposed attorney's fee is unreasonable. The parties' proposal seeks a multiplier of more than 5. In lodestar terms, the proposal seeks an hourly rate of more than $1200. "That's unreasonable," the Court said. "Counsel deserves credit, and probably some reasonable compensation for raising the storm flag, but approximately $50,000 more than a generous hours-based fee is just too much," the Court held. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7hkwmcp from Leagle.com. Kim Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by April Rheaume, Sanford Law Firm, 103 West Parkway Drive Suite C, Russellville, AR 72801 Kim Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Sanford -- josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm & Stephen Rauls, Sanford Law Firm, 103 West Parkway Drive Suite C, Russellville, AR 72801 Big River Steel LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathlyn Graves - kgraves@mwlaw.com --, Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. & Nathan Andrew Read -- Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.. BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: "Spisak" Suit Seeks Shift Managers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ANGELA SOMMERVILLE, MARIAH ANDERSON, HOLLY SPISAK and KHAMECIA ROBINSON, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs, v. FLSA Opt-In Collective Action BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and BOJANGLES', INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-565 (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order conditionally certifying a class of: "all current and former hourly-paid Shift Managers (a/k/a Shift Leaders) employed by Defendants in the United States at any time during the applicable limitations period covered by this Collective Action Complaint (i.e. two years for FLSA violations and, three years for willful FLSA violations) up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter, and who is a Named Plaintiff or elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)." The individuals comprising this class have been subject to Defendants' common policy of working hourly-paid Shift Managers a/k/a Shift Leaders off the clock. Thus, they have been under compensated because Defendants, in violation of the FLSA, failed and willfully refused to pay for all unpaid straight time work, unpaid minimum wages, and premium pay for overtime work for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xGs9PNe7 The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754 8001 Facsimile: (901) 754 8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com - and - Christopher R. Strianese, Esq. Tamara L. Huckert, Esq. STRIANESE HUCKERT PLLC www.strilaw.com 401 North Tryon St., 10th Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 998 2577 Facsimile: (704) 998 5301 E-mail: chris@strilaw.com tamara@strilaw.com BRECK'S RIDGE: Parker Seeks to Certify Collective FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Garry Parker On behalf of himself and other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Breck's Ridge, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00633-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for entry of an order: 1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective FLSA class; 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to: "all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants who performed general labor and had an automatic meal deduction applied in any workweek that they were scheduled and worked over 40 hours for the period beginning three years immediately preceding the filing of this Motion until final disposition of this case"; and 3. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants at any time from three years preceding the filing of this Motion through the present. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=co35hBeb The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, Ohio 43207 Telephone: (614) 949 1181 Facsimile: (614) 386 9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, Ohio 43207 Telephone: (614) 704 0546 Facsimile: (614) 573 9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com CENTRAL PONY: "Townsend" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MICHELE TOWNSEND, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL PONY EXPRESS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00552-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class; 2. directing Defendant to produce a list of names, last known addresses, and last known email addresses, and telephone numbers for all current and former Dispatchers who worked for Defendant during relevant time period; 3. authorizing dissemination of suggested notice to potential members of this collective action; and 4. scheduling a 60-day notice period following complete production of the aforementioned employee contact information, and awarding Plaintiff all other relief to which they may be justly entitled. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0pq6AHHG The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Cowan, Esq. Justin Jenson, Esq. Katie McGregor, Esq. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC Marathon Oil Tower 5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 425 7100 Facsimile: (713) 425 7101 E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com jjenson@bpblaw.com kmcgregor@bpblaw.com CHICAGO, IL: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DARNELL SMITH, DARREN NATHAN, GREGORY DAVIS, MARK NEVILLES, ARACELI FONTANEZ, as Parent and Next Friend of HECTOR FONTANEZ, a minor, MARCELL DAVIS, ANTHONY POLK, CALVIN JACKSON, CARL N. MCCORD, TIMOTHY THIGPEN, MELVIN THOMPSON, REBECCA SANDERS, as Parent and Next Friend of STEVE MCABEE, a minor, HERBERT DYER, JR., SHANTAY JOHNSON, ARTHUR MOTON, EDGAR MARSHALL, JR., MICHAEL SANDERS, RASHAWN LINDSEY, and SIDNEY BELL, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv- 03467 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify class and subclass of: Fourth Amendment Class: "all persons subjected to an investigatory stop by the Chicago Police Department at any time since April 20, 2013, which resulted in the creation of a contact information card"; and Fourteenth Amendment Subclass: "all African-Americans and Hispanics subjected to an investigatory stop by the Chicago Police Department at any time since April 20, 2013, which resulted in the creation of a contact information card." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8KjtCu2z The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Eldridge, Esq. Steven A. Hart, Esq. Kyle Pozan, Esq. John (Jack) B. Prior, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC 121 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1050 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 955 0545 E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com beldridge@hmelegal.com kpozan@hmelegal.com jprior@hmelegal.com - and - Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq. Martin D. Gould, Esq. ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 458 1000 E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net mgould@rblaw.net - and - Robert S. Peck, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION 777 6th Street NW, Suite 520 Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 944-2874 E-mail: robert.peck@cclfirm.com - and - Rodney G. Gregory, Esq. THE GREGORY LAW FIRM 3127 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite 3 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Telephone: (904) 398 0012 E-mail: rod@gregorylawfirm.net CHURCH & DWIGHT: Ct. Won't Dismiss "Made in the USA" Condoms Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned KENRICK CLAIBORNE, Plaintiff, v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00746-L-JLB (S.D. Cal.). This is a false advertising case. Defendant is a major manufacturer of household goods. Among its product lines are Trojan brand male condoms. At least two lines of Trojan brand condoms have the words Made in U.S.A. printed on the packaging. According to Plaintiff, Defendant's Made in U.S.A. representation violates California law because more than ten percent of the Condoms' wholesale value derives from natural latex material produced outside of the United States. The central question the motion to dismiss presents is whether Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that more than ten percent of the Condoms' wholesale value comes from outside of the United States. Under California law, it is unlawful to market as Made in U.S.A. any product if more than ten percent of the product's final wholesale value represents products or services hailing from outside of the United States. Defendant contends that Plaintiff lacks standing because the allegations of the Complaint establish that it is not possible for a natural latex condom to carry a lawful Made in U.S.A. label because of insufficient domestic natural rubber production. This argument, according to the Court, misreads the Complaint. The Complaint does not allege that it is impossible for Defendant to produce the Condoms with domestically produced natural latex. Rather, it simply alleges that because of the current natural latex domestic supply and demand imbalance, Defendant currently uses imported natural latex. From this, it does not follow that Defendant could not switch to using domestic natural latex. If Defendant did thus change its sourcing, Defendant might elect to keep the Made in U.S.A. representation in place. Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff could encounter difficulty in determining whether such information is accurate. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9fl4sfb from Leagle.com. Kenric Claiborne, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP. Kenric Claiborne, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Fitzgerald -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Kevin A. Seely -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, Melanie Rae Persinger -- melanie@jacktfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, Steven M. McKany, Robbins Arroyo LLP & Trevor Flynn -- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- Hillcrest Professional Building. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Baldassare Vinti -- bvinti@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Lindsay Jones -- jljones@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose, Lawrence Ira Weinstein, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Qian Jennifer Yang - jyang@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice & Richard Martin Goldstein -- rgoldstein@proskauer.com -- pro hac vice. COLONIAL PARKING: Abraha, et al. Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled BENYAM ABRAHA, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. COLONIAL PARKING, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00680-CKK (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order certifying a class of: "any person who was entitled to a benefit from the Forge Health and Welfare Plan at any time from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2015." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QKJslvup The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Scallet, Esq. EASCOLAW, PLLC 2756 Stephenson Lane, NW Washington, DC 20015 CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: "Heisler" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled CHAD H. HEISLER, on behalf of himself and the class, the Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES, INC., an Illinois Corporation; and JOHN DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01344-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), Chad H. Heisler moves the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification of: "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom CHRI mailed an initial written communication in an attempt to collect a debt that was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service which listed "Re: WF, Inc. - Elmwood Mem" as a means for identifying the creditor on or after October 6, 2015 and on or before October 27, 2016." Excluded from the Class is CHRI and its officers, members, partners, managers, directors and employees and their respective immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action and all members of their immediate families. The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Stern Thomasson LLP and Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GW17sA9g The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis R. Greene, Esq. Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 917 4500 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 E-Mail: dedelman@edcombs.com fgreene@edcombs.com - and - Heather B. Jones, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1329 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 Facsimile: (973) 532 5868 E-Mail: heather@sternthomasson.com philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com CREDIT CORP: Derosia Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco ---------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Derosia moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled DENISE DEROSIA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC d/b/a TASMAN CREDIT CORP, Case No. 2:17-cv-01671-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff contends, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence, according to the Plaintiff. The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice, the Plaintiff says. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff contends, they have not. In dicta, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts. Campbell- Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."). The Plaintiffs argues that one defendant has already attempted the scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald. In Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016), the defendant moved the Court for leave to deposit funds. Judge Randa denied the request on grounds that a motion for class certification was pending at the time of the defendant's motion. Id. Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff asserts. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. One of the judges in this District has, in the past, specifically requested of Plaintiff's counsel that he not file a brief and supporting documents in support of a class certification motion filed with a complaint pursuant to Damasco, the Plaintiff notes. But doing so would violate the local rules absent the type of relief sought in this motion, the Plaintiff argues. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S4rZb9U8 The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Valdivieso Seeks to Certify COBRA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LUIS A. VALDIVIESO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00118-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a Improper COBRA Election Notice National Class of: "all participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan who were sent the COBRA election notice, during the time period February 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, who did not elect continuation coverage." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FqQKRxNb The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com mk@wfclaw.com - and - Chad A. Justice, Esq. BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS 201 S Westland Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Telephone: (813) 254 1777 Facsimile: (813) 254 3999 E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Merry E. Lindberg, Esq. Todd S. Aidman, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 1450 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 325 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 CUSTARD INSURANCE: "Wadler" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled PERRY WADLER, GERALD SPRINGER, TROY WILLIS, and KEITH TYNER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CUSTARD INSURANCE ADJUSTERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05840-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a class under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xd5XqmuH The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Corey B. Bennettt, Esq. Mark G. Griffin, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC www.scalaw.com 1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 891 9800 Facsimile: (510) 891 7030 E-mail: scole@scalaw.com cbenette@scalaw.com mgriffin@scalaw.com DAVID GLADIEUX: Court Denied Class Certification in "Buroff" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled DEMETRIUS BUROFF and IAN BARNHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, in his official capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00124-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an order on November 13, 2017: 1. denying, with leave to refile, Plaintiff's first amended motion for class certification of: "all individuals held at the Allen County Jail on November 8, 2016, who on that date were U.S. citizens, residents of Indiana, were at least eighteen years of age, were not serving a sentence for a conviction of a felony crime, had not previously voted in the 2016 general election, were provided neither an absentee ballot nor transportation to a voting center, and were registered to vote or had been denied the opportunity to vote while held in the Allen County Jail."; and 2. dismissing Plaintiff Demetrius Buroff. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u5sQBF8W DEJA VU: Gomez-Ortega Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------- ELAINE P. GOMEZ-ORTEGA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEJA VU-SAN FRANCISCO, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DEJA VU INC., a Nevada corporation; DEJA VU SERVICES, INC., a Michigan corporation; PINE TREE ASSETS, INC., a Michigan corporation, DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS OF SAN FRANCISCO, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DEJA VU SHOWGIRLSSACRAMENTO, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DEJA VU-HIGHLAND PARK, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-17- 562247 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid premium and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide him and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them without discount; failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Levian, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888 7771 Facsimile (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Worthless Travel Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Carlson, writing for The Virgin Islands Daily News, reports that Delta and American airlines are facing a class-action lawsuit that claims they aggressively marketed worthless travel insurance to Virgin Islands residents, according to court documents. Plaintiff Leslie Davis filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on St. Croix on Nov. 15 on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The lawsuit is claiming more than 100 class members and an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. [GN] DNB: Faces Class Action Over Fund Management Charges ---------------------------------------------------- Ole Petter Skonnord, writing for Reuters, reports that the asset management arm of Norwegian banking giant DNB overcharged customers for investing in three of its funds, an Oslo court heard on Nov. 20 in the country's largest ever class action lawsuit. The Norwegian Consumer Council is seeking to reclaim 690 million crowns ($85 million) on behalf of 180,000 customers with DNB who had placed money in the funds between January 2010 and December 2014. DNB Asset Management is accused of charging customers for actively managing the funds but in reality was simply tracking a stock market index -- a claim DNB denies. "When the Consumer Council takes this case to court it is not just about claiming money back for those who paid too much," Steinar Mageli, representing the council, told the court in his opening statement. "Saving money in a fund is the way we save for pensions now, so its conditions are very important for people's pensions . . . when people have to save much more money themselves." "Second, it raises a legal and financial question: has the customer got what he paid for? And third, from a consumer power perspective, lacking services need to see consequences." DNB says the funds were actively managed. "DNB denies its obligations to fund owners have been breached," the bank said in court documents. "The . . . funds have been managed properly and in accordance with the Securities Funds Act, the funds' articles of association and investor information and often given fund owners more excess returns than costs." The case at Oslo's district court is scheduled to last until Dec. 8 with the judgment expected to follow in January. [GN] DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Certification of Class Sought in "Ranft" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Ranft moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled JANE RANFT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DOBBERSTEIN LAW FIRM, LLC, and CREDITBOX.COM, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01673-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16- cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2qUyJFuE The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com EAGLE EYE: Faces "Geraci" Suit in District of Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eagle Eye Marketing Group, Inc. The case is captioned as Peter Geraci, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Eagle Eye Marketing Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01839- MPS (D. Conn., No. 1, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea. Eagle Eye Marketing Group Inc. was founded in 2004. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of home furnishings and housewares.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223 6444 Facsimile: (212) 223 6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com EL AL: Tel Aviv Court OKs Class Action Over "Matmid" Flyer Terms ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Yeshiva World reports that the Tel Aviv District Court is recognizing a class action lawsuit against El Al Airlines in the amount of 1.28 billion shekels. The petitioner requested the court view the case as a class action lawsuit based on changes made by the airline almost three years ago regarding terms of a "Matmid" flyer. The change in conditions included three changed conditions in respect of which the plaintiffs request the legendary sum: 1. Goals for which a bonus ticket will be required - more points will be required. 2. Goals for which a bonus ticket will be required - 50% more points will be required. 3. Ending the ability to purchase a ticket open for one year using bonus points. The Tel Aviv District Court approved the filing of the class action and defined the members of the group as members of the four different levels of the club: regular, silver, gold and platinum - - at the time of each of the changes in the plan they held points whose value was reduced due to the changes. The court decision states: "A member of the club who buys a plane ticket to a certain destination knows that apart from the ticket he will accumulate points of economic value, so when he chooses to fly with the respondent, he may agree to pay for the ticket he offers more than he would pay the competitor. Until the change in the plan, in February 2015, the price of bonus tickets was fixed and did not change for a decade. Thus, the members of the club were expected that the number of points that would be needed to obtain a ticket would not change easily, and certainly would not apply to the points they accumulated." [GN] EMSER TILE: "Robert" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- LA'RIT A ROBERT, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMSER TILE, LLC, a Limited Liability 21 II Company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17881668 (Cal Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay proper overtime wages; failed to provide accurate records; failed to pay waiting time penalties; and engaged in Unfair Business Practices, all in violations of the Labor Code and IWC Wage. Emser Tile supplies ceramic and porcelain tiles and natural stone products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Nick Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 E-mail: wlee@diversitylaw.com - and - Edward W. Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 381 1515 Facsimile: (213) 465 4885 E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531 4214 Facsimile: (831) 634 0333 - and -- Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 ENAGIC USA: "Makaron" Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Edward Makaron, on behalf of himself and of all others similarly situated, the Respondent, v. Enagic USA, Inc., the Movant, Case No. 215CV5145DDP, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Gainesville) on Oct. 9, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-mi-00001- RWS-JCF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard W. Story. Enagic USA is the sole dedicated distribution arm within the United States for Enagic (Headquartered in Japan). Enagic manufactures, distributes and services the entire line of Kangen Water(R) electrolysis devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Esq., at Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. Enagic is represented by: Brian Joel Levy, Esq. STITES & HARBISON, PLLC-ATLANTA 303 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30308-3345 Telephone: (404) 739 8800 Facsimile: (404) 739 8870 E-mail: blevy@stites.com EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Accused of Jacking Up Natural Gas Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit has accused two utilities of conspiring to drive up energy costs in New England in a multi-year scheme that affected millions of customers. The lawsuit filed in Boston federal court alleges Eversource Energy and Avangrid Inc. used their market power to "unlawfully jack up" consumer electric bills, according to a statement from attorney Tom Sobol, of the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Court records show 12 people are listed as plaintiffs. The suit seeks $3.6 billion in damages -- the amount it claims customers were overcharged. It accuses the utilities of manipulating the amount of natural gas available to power plants by reserving more than they needed from 2013 to 2016. The scheme raised electric prices by at least 20 percent for New England residents, affecting 7.1 million electricity customers. "Not since Enron's greedy heyday during the California energy crisis, nearly two decades ago, have American energy markets been manipulated for private profit at such expense to everyday electricity consumers," the suit says. Eversource, headquartered in Boston and Hartford, and New Haven- based Avangrid own multiple electric utility subsidiaries throughout New England. The two companies are being investigated by the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel and the state's public utilities authority on charges of market manipulation. Eversource has denied any wrongdoing. A spokesman for Avangrid said the company "will vigorously defend against these claims." [GN] FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in Fiorentino Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARYANN FIORENTINO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:17-cv-60801-BB (S.D. Fla.), asks the Court to certify a class defined as: All persons in the state of Florida who FRS sent a collection letter containing an out of statute statement substantially similar to the Letter attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Maryann Fiorentino moves the Court for an order certifying the Class, to secure redress for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She alleges that the case arises from the Defendant's unlawful use of false information to induce consumers into making payments on stale or "zombie debts," thereby, reviving the statute of limitations. Ms. Fiorentino also asks the Court to appoint her as class representative and her attorneys as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PV2Tuud7 The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Edward H. Zebersky, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com ezebersky@zpllp.com - and - Darren R. Newhart, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 721 US Highway 1, Suite 201 North Palm Beach, FL 33408-4520 Telephone: (561) 692-6013 Facsimile: (305) 574-0132 E-mail: darren@cloorg.com FIRST DATA: Certification of Class and Sub-Class Sought in "Fox" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM FOX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 9:17-cv-80949-DMM (S.D. Fla.), asks the Court to enter an order certifying the Class and Sub- Class: * Class: All persons and entities in the United States who paid First Data (a) a lease fee for credit card processing equipment and/or (b) the purported insurance fee. * Sub-Class: All persons and entities in Texas who paid First Data (a) a lease fee for credit card processing equipment and/or (b) the purported insurance fee. Excluded from the Classes are: (a) Defendant and any entities in which Defendant have a controlling interest; (b) Any entities in which Defendant's officers, directors, or employees are employed and any of the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of Defendant; (c) The Judge(s) to whom this case or any transferred case is assigned and any member of the Judges' immediate family and any other judicial officer assigned to this case; (d) Persons or entities with claims for personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress; (e) All persons or entities that properly execute and timely file a request for exclusion from the Class; (f) Any attorneys representing the Plaintiff or the Class; and (g) All governmental entities. The Plaintiff further asks to be appointed as a Class Representative and for the appointment of John Yanchunis, Esq., of Morgan & Morgan, Complex Group and Tiffany Yiatras, Esq., of Consumer Protection Legal, LLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TrsgshtU The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Patrick Barthle, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602-5157 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 275-9295 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com pbarthle@forthepeople.com - and - Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC 308 Hutchinson Road Ellisville, MO 63011-2029 Telephone: (314) 541-0317 Facsimile: (855) 710-7706 E-mail: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com FIRST FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Kevin Do, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. First Financial Security, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-07608- SVW-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice; and 2. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction without prejudice. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts regarding the amount of their individual breach of contract damages, let alone facts demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In fact, the TAC asserts only that they "have each been harmed in an amount calculable by First Financial." Dkt. 117, TAC 34. Based on First Financial's records, the total amounts attributable to the individual Plaintiffs for the period May 10, 2014 to September 1, 2017 are far less than $75,000: Plaintiff Kevin Do - $17,707.15; Plaintiff Tata Insixiengmay - Tran - $21,653.64; and Plaintiff Polly Luangaphay - $59,701.10. Dkt. 143, Caine Decl. The Plaintiffs also cannot aggregate their claims to allege a controversy exceeding $75,000." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6WYNmL95 FIRST RESOLUTION: Wins Prelim. OK of Settlement in "Islas" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Greg N. Stivers grants preliminary approval of a class settlement in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH L. ISLAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT CORP., UNIFUND CCR, LLC, and UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Case No. 1:16-cv-00141-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ky.). For settlement purposes only, the Court certifies the classes of persons described in the Settlement Agreement and defined as: a. Class I: Prejudgment Court Costs Class All Kentucky consumers against whom First Resolution Investment Corp., Unifund CCR, LLC and or Unifund CCR Partners and or their respective predecessors in interest, agents, employees, or representatives (collectively, "Defendants"), filed a lawsuit in Kentucky, obtained a judgment against the consumer, and attempted to collect or did collect via a post-judgment garnishment between September 1, 2015 and the date the Court signs the order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, prejudgment court costs from the consumer without filing a bill of costs itemizing the prejudgment court costs Defendants attempted to recover, or actually recovered. Subclass A: Those members of Class I against whom Defendants actually collected prejudgment court costs without filing a bill of costs itemizing the costs recovered from the consumer. Subclass B: Those members of Class I against whom Defendants attempted to, but did not collect prejudgment court costs without filing a bill of costs itemizing the costs sought to be recovered from the consumer. b. Class II: Judgment Lien Filing Fee Class All Kentucky consumers against whom First Resolution Investment Corp., Unifund CCR, LLC and or Unifund CCR Partners and or their respective predecessors in interest, agents, employees, or representatives (collectively, "Defendants"), filed a lawsuit in Kentucky, obtained a judgment against the consumer, and attempted to collect or did collect via a post-judgment garnishment between September 1, 2015 and the date the Court signs the order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, a post-judgment filing fee paid by Defendants to file a "Notice of Judgment Lien Upon Real Estate" pursuant to a judgment entered against the consumer. Subclass A: Those members of Class II against whom Defendants actually collected a post-judgment filing fee paid by Defendants to file a "Notice of Judgment Lien Upon Real Estate" pursuant to a judgment entered against the consumer. Subclass B: Those members of Class II against whom Defendants attempted to, but did not collect a post-judgment filing fee paid by Defendants to file a "Notice of Judgment Lien Upon Real Estate" pursuant to a judgment entered against the consumer. c. Class III: Garnishment Fee Class All Kentucky consumers against whom First Resolution Investment Corp., Unifund CCR, LLC and or Unifund CCR Partners and or their respective predecessors in interest, agents, employees, or representatives (collectively, "Defendants"), filed a lawsuit in Kentucky, obtained a judgment against the consumer, and attempted to collect or did collect via a post-judgment garnishment between September 1, 2015 and the date the Court signs the order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, a post-judgment garnishment fee paid by Defendants to either a garnishee or a clerk of court to file a garnishment to enforce a judgment entered against a consumer. Subclass A: Those members of Class III against whom Defendants actually collected a post-judgment garnishment fee paid by Defendants to file a garnishment to enforce a judgment entered against the consumer. Subclass B: Those members of Class III against whom Defendants attempted to, but did not collect a post-judgment garnishment fee paid by Defendants to file a garnishment to enforce a judgment entered against the consumer. d. Class IV: Prejudgment Interest Rate Class All Kentucky consumers against whom First Resolution Investment Corp., Unifund CCR, LLC and or Unifund CCR Partners and or their respective predecessors in interest, agents, employees, or representatives (collectively, "Defendants"), filed a lawsuit in Kentucky, obtained a judgment against the consumer, and attempted to collect or did collect via a post-judgment garnishment between September 1, 2015 and the date the Court signs the order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, prejudgment interest at a rate or amount in excess of 8% per annum simple interest. Subclass A: Those members of Class IV against whom Defendants actually collected prejudgment interest at a rate or in an amount in excess of 8% per annum simple interest on a judgment entered against the consumer. Subclass B: Those members of Class IV against whom Defendants attempted to, but did not collect prejudgment interest at a rate or in an amount in excess of 8% per annum simple interest on a judgment entered against the consumer. e. Class V: Post-Judgment Interest Rate Class All Kentucky consumers against whom First Resolution Investment Corp., Unifund CCR, LLC and or Unifund CCR Partners and or their respective predecessors in interest, agents, employees, or representatives (collectively, "Defendants"), filed a lawsuit in Kentucky, obtained a judgment against the consumer, and attempted to collect or did collect via a post-judgment garnishment between September 1, 2015 and the date the Court signs the order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, post-judgment interest in a rate or amount in excess of the statutory rate of 12% per year, compounded annually, from the date of judgment. Subclass A: Those members of Class V against whom Defendants actually collected post-judgment interest at a rate or in an amount in excess of the statutory rate of 12% per year, compounded annually, on a judgment entered against the consumer. Subclass B: Those members of Class V against whom Defendants attempted to, but did not collect post-judgment interest at a rate or in an amount in excess of the statutory rate of 12% per year, compounded annually, on a judgment entered against the consumer. The Court has also set this schedule: -- Defendants must provide the Class List to Class Counsel on December 29, 2017; -- Class Notice must be mailed by January 13, 2018; -- Deadline for Filing and Serving Requests for Exclusion is on March 26, 2018; -- Deadline for the filing of Motion for Final Approval and other papers in support of Settlement is on April 5, 2018; and -- Deadline for filing and serving objections is on April 20, 2018. The Fairness Hearing will be held on May 10, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pF287rSs The Plaintiff and the Class are represented by: James H. Lawson, Esq. LAWSON AT LAW, PLLC 115 S. Sherrin Ave., Suite 5 Louisville, KY 40207 Telephone: (502) 473-6525 Facsimile: (502) 473-6561 E-mail: james@kyconsumerlaw.com - and - James R. McKenzie, Esq. JAMES R. MCKENZIE ATTORNEY, PLLC 115 S. Sherrin Ave., Suite 5 Louisville, KY 40207 Telephone: (502) 371-2179 Facsimile: (502) 257-7309 E-mail: jmckenzie@jmckenzielaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph N. Tucker, Esq. R. Brooks Herrick, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 540-2360 E-mail: joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com brooks.herrick@dinsmore.com FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Fuller" Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC. The case is captioned as Janis Fuller, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, the Defendant; LVNV Funding, LLC; and Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07901 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 1, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman. Frontline Asset is a collection firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757 1880 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com - and - Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757 1880 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com GLASS NICKEL: Settlement in FLSA Suit Has Final Court Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement agreement in the case captioned CHAD ROGERS-COXHEAD, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GLASS NICKEL PIZZA CO. d/b/a MADISON'S DOUGH BOYS, INC., Defendant, No. 16-cv-706-wmc (W.D. Wis.). Pursuant to an unopposed motion, plaintiff Chad Rogers-Coxhead seeks final approval of a settlement of the hybrid action, which alleges wage and hour violations (1) as collective actions under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and (2) as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 under the wage and hour laws of Wisconsin. Based on the fairness hearing, plaintiff's written submissions, the fact that only one class member excluded himself or herself from the settlement and that no class members objected, and that slightly over half of the class members opted into the FLSA class, as well as the record in this case as a whole, the Court concludes that the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and that the settlement represents a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute of FLSA provisions. The settlement agreement contemplates an enhancement payment of $10,000 to the named plaintiff. Without diminishing Rogers- Coxhead's role, a $10,000 enhancement fee strikes the Court as excessive in light of the limited period of time of this lawsuit and the fact that Rogers-Coxhead's involvement stopped short of having to be deposed. Accordingly, the court will reduce the enhancement payment to $7,500. Also before the Court is class counsel's petition for attorneys' fees and costs, which will be approved. The named plaintiff originally agreed to a 33% contingency fee plus costs in this case, but that is not controlling. Indeed, after adjustments, class counsel seeks approximately 30% of the claimed settlement fund, $56,129.55. While this amount suggests a smaller award may be appropriate, the Court is convinced that an award reflecting approximately 30% of the claimed settlement amount is reasonable in light of (1) class counsel's efforts in evaluating the claims' merits, initiating suit, engaging in discovery and preparing for and participating in mediation of this lawsuit, including review of time records, sufficient to bring this case to an early resolution; (2) the factual and legal uncertainties that remain with respect to plaintiff's claims; (3) market rates; (4) fee awards for similar hybrid FLSA and Rule 23 class actions in this district; and (5) a resolution of the entire case in the best interest of the class members, none of whom have objected to the fee request. Accordingly, the court will award attorneys' fees in the total amount of $56,129.55. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd6cz877 from Leagle.com. Chad Rogers-Coxhead, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Marie Madden -- cmadden@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C.. Chad Rogers-Coxhead, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Zoeller -- dzoeller@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C.. Glass Nickel Pizza Co., Defendant, represented by Michael J. Modl -- mmodl@axley.com -- Axley Brynelson, LLP. GLOBAL TEL: Inmates' Class Action Over Phone Services Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Martin, writing for IndyStar, reports that in an effort to reduce recidivism, the Indiana Department of Correction is negotiating with a company to provide tablets packed with educational and entertainment materials for all inmates, free of charge. But there's a catch: Most services would carry a hefty price for access, according to a bid recommended by the state -- with a 10- percent cut of the profits shared with IDOC. Renting a movie? $8. Buying a music subscription? $25 per month, compared to $10 for the average consumer buying Spotify. Even podcasts, which are free on the outside, would cost $9 per month. "It's unjustifiable to me how they can have prices that are this high knowing what alternatives are out there for people who are not in prison," said Kristin Casper, public affairs officer for the Indiana Public Defender Council. Background: Why every Indiana inmate could soon have a tablet The higher prices are part of the business model for companies supplying tablets in prisons and jails. States and counties -- and their taxpayers and inmates -- generally aren't charged for the hardware. But money spent on entertainment offerings become profits for the companies. "This isn't supposed to be a source of revenue for the department," William Wilson, an IDOC executive director, told IndyStar in March. Another reason for the increased cost is to create a secure network for the tablets and accompanying software. It's not as simple as connecting your iPad to a home's wireless internet network. But those music subscriptions and movie rentals add up -- to potentially millions each year -- joining other pricey for-pay services like phone calls, emails and video visitations. State officials are recommending IDOC select a bid from Virginia- based Global Tel Link, which boasts on its website of providing services to more than 1.8 million offenders across more than 2,300 correctional facilities, including 32 state correction departments. The company's tablet services are already being provided in Indiana's Allen and Marion county jails. Global Tel Link would expect to generate $6.5 million each year through the tablets program in Indiana prisons, according to the bid, primarily from inmates' thousands of entertainment purchases. IDOC, meanwhile, would collect $750,000 for its cut. How that money would be spent, including whether it would be used more generally for inmates, is unclear. IDOC declined to discuss the revenues during contract negotiations. IDOC officials highlight the benefits of a tablets system, such as providing educational, legal and self-help materials for those seeking betterment while behind bars. Potential content could include GED study materials and substance abuse and anger management programming. The entertainment options, which also would include games and books, could be used to reward good behavior. "Historically, corrections has always been based on consequences, but what we've learned is that sometimes through positive reinforcement you gain better performance, better behavior," Wilson said. Such efforts are championed as a potential solution to lowering the state's recidivism rate, which stood at 37 percent in 2016, according to IDOC data. Ms. Casper, of the Indiana Public Defender Council, isn't so sure. She noted that movies and music aren't the only services that cost money. Comparable to IDOC's existing fees, Global Tel Link would charge $9.95 for holding a video visitation between an offender and loved ones. To reduce recidivism, Casper said, the state should make it as easy as possible for inmates to stay in touch with families back home. Charging fees for a visitation makes it harder. And it's not the inmates picking up the costs, Ms. Casper said. It's their families, many who can't afford to pay for phone calls, emails and visitations. "They've already gone through enough because their loved one is in prison. Now they have to pay these fees," Ms. Casper said. And while Global Tel Link is providing services to numerous correctional facilities, the company recently came under fire regarding its relationship with Mississippi's corrections system. In February, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood accused Global Tel Link of bribing the state's former corrections commissioner, Chris Epps, in exchange for no-bid contracts. Mr. Hood said the company defrauded taxpayers by using consultants to pay bribes and kickbacks to Epps. Mr. Epps was sentenced to almost 20 years in federal prison, according to a U.S. Attorney news release. Global Tel Link agreed to a $2.5 million settlement with the state, Mr. Hood announced in August. Global Tel Link declined an interview request and instead shared an August statement: "We have always acted with integrity," CEO Brian Oliver said. "So why are we settling? We can spend the next three years focused on innovation or litigation. We choose innovation." A class-action suit, filed on behalf of the inmates who paid to use the company's phone services, is pending in federal court in Mississippi, according to online court records. In Indiana, Global Tel Link joined three other companies in bidding for the tablets contract. The Indiana Department of Administration scored the proposals based on companies' business and technical abilities, and on the costs for processing trust fund payments, according to state documents released to IndyStar. Global Tel Link gained the agency's recommendation. That bidding process serves as a safeguard against what happened in Mississippi, an IDOC spokesman told IndyStar. IDOC said negotiations will begin soon. PROPOSED PRICES FOR TABLET SERVICES Photograph: $0.38 Email: $0.38 Video gram: $1.14 Video visitation: $9.95 30-day streaming music subscription: $24.99 30-day gaming subscription: $5.99 30-day digital books subscription: $3.99 30-day audiobooks subscription: $19.99 30-day TV audio subscription: $6.99 30-day podcast subscription: $9.99 Movie rentals for 48 hours: $7.99 Source: Global Tel Link's bid to Indiana (August 2017) [GN] HAJ INC: Court Defers Ruling on FLSA Suit Pending "Morris" ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order staying the case captioned JOHN RALPH, Plaintiff, v. HAJ, INC.; D.O.S. PIZZA, INC.; NORTH COUNTY PIZZA, INC.; PIZZAFELLA, LLC.; SLAMMED PIZZA, INC.; and SLAMMED PIZZA JR., INC., Defendants, Case No. 17cv1332 JM(JMA) (S.D. Cal.). Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Defendant D. O. S. Pizza, Inc., moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff John Ralph's claims. Plaintiff John Ralph filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) in this federal question collective action by alleging four claims for relief: (1) violation of the FLSA; (2) violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 2802; (3) violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, and IWC Minimum Wage Order and Wage Order No. 5; and (4) Cal. Bus & Prof Code Section17200. Even though Plaintiff is directly employed DOS, he alleges that Defendants, collectively, operate about 74 Domino's Pizza stores in Southern California, and operate as a single integrated enterprise and jointly operate the Domino's restaurants as they maintain interrelated operations, centralized control of labor relations, common management and common ownership and financial control. During Plaintiff's employment, the parties signed an Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement. The FAA provides that a written provision in a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising will be valid, irrevocable and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or equity for the revocation of any contract. Plaintiff contends that he is unsophisticated and, therefore, the arbitration provision is not enforceable. Plaintiff's argument lacks factual and legal support, the Court held. The FAC and Plaintiff's declaration establish that he has worked for DOS as a delivery driver for about four years, graduated from high school, and completed one year of junior college. Further, Plaintiff fails to establish that he suffers from a disability or other condition which would undermine his capacity to enter into an agreement. Plaintiff also fails to establish his legal argument that being unsophisticated is somehow a defense to arbitration. Under California law, the unconscionability doctrine provides a defense to arbitration. However, Plaintiff does not argue that California's unconscionability doctrine applies under the circumstances nor does he provide an appropriate analysis. In sum, the court provisionally grants the motion to compel arbitration of all state law claims, but not the FLSA claim. After Morris v. Ernst & Young, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2017), the parties dispute whether a FLSA claim is subject to arbitration. Based upon the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Morris, Plaintiff argues that his FLSA claim is not subject to arbitration. The Ninth Circuit concluded, based upon the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 151 et seq., and the FLSA, that the statutory concerted action provisions afford employees substantive rights that cannot be waived by a class or concerted action waiver provision in an arbitration agreement. In essence, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the ability of an injured employee to bring a concerted action is part and parcel of a FLSA claim. As noted by the dissent in Morris, the opinion is at odds with the Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, which hold that the NLRA and FLSA do not invalidate collective action waivers in arbitration agreements. In sum, the Court concludes that resolution of the issues on appeal in Morris will directly impact the course of this litigation. Accordingly, the Court defers ruling on the arbitrability of the FLSA claim until after the Supreme Court issues its opinion in Morris. In light of the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari, the court stays this entire action. While a stay is an extraordinary remedy, a short stay is presently warranted as the Supreme Court is likely to determine whether FLSA claims are subject to arbitration. The court provisionally grants the motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's state law claims, defers ruling on the motion to compel arbitration of the FLSA claim pending resolution of the Morris case, and stays the entire action. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7yqngcz from Leagle.com. John Ralph, Plaintiff, represented by Malcolm Roberts -- mroberts@landayroberts.com -- Landay Roberts LLP. John Ralph, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Alan Potashnick -- markp@wp-attorneys.com -- Weinhaus & Potashnick, pro hac vice & Richard M. Paul, III -- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes LLP, pro hac vice. North County Pizza, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony J. Zaller -- azaller@vzrlaw.com -- Van Vleck Zaller & Robinson LLP, Lisa J. Borodkin -- lborodkin@vzrlaw.com -- Van Vleck, Zaller & Robinson LLP & Nicole D. Kirkilevich -- nkirkilevich@vzrlaw.com -- Van Vleck Zaller & Robinson LLP. Slammed Pizza, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad Daniel Bernard -- BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Aimee E. Axelrod -aimee.axelrod@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis. Slammed Pizza Jr. Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad Daniel Bernard, Jackson Lewis P.C. &Aimee E. Axelrod, Jackson Lewis. HAJ, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lisa J. Borodkin, Van Vleck, Zaller & Robinson LLP. D.O.S Pizza, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lisa J. Borodkin, Van Vleck, Zaller & Robinson LLP. HAMILTON, OH: Robinson, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SAMUEL ROBINSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v, SHERIFF JIM NEIL, individually and In his capacity as Sheriff of Hamilton County Ohio, Case No. 1:17-cv-00652-SJD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class of: "all inmates detained in the Hamilton County Justice Center, including the following two (2) subclasses: (1) all inmates detained in the Hamilton County Justice Center awaiting trial and who are not serving time pursuant to a judgment of conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment; (2) all inmates detained in the Hamilton County Justice Center who are serving time pursuant to a judgment of conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZLMigARQ The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Newman, Esq. 215 E. 9th St. Ste. 650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: 513-639-7000 E-mail: robertnewman@newman-meeks.com - and - Michael J. O'Hara, Esq. O'HARA, TAYLOR, SLOAN & CASSIDY 25 Town Center Blvd. Ste. 201 Covington, KY 41017 Telephone: 859-221 2000 E-mail: mohara@oharataylor.com - and - Marc D. Mezibov, Esq. MEZIBOV & BUTLER 615 Elsinore PI. Ste. 105 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621 8800 E-mail: mdm@mezibov.com HARRY'S NURSES: "McFarlane" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARJORIE MCFARLANE, VELMA PALMER, and CLAIRE WILLIAMS, the Plaintiffs, v. HARRY' NURSES REGISTRY, HARRY'S HOMECARE INC., and HARRY DORVILIEN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06350-PKC-PK (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover for unpaid wages, improperly withheld wages, unpaid overtime wages, improper pay stubs, and all other statutorily required compensation owed to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are employees by Defendants as Licensed Practical Nurses. The Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. The Plaintiffs' work duties required neither discretion nor independent judgment. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for overtime hours worked. The Defendants did not require Plaintiffs to keep track of their time, nor did Defendants utilize any time tracking device such as punch cards, that accurately reflected actual hours worked. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with notification, in either the form of posted notices or other means, regarding overtime and wages under the FLSA and NYLL. Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. operates as a provider of nursing care.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Hilferty, Esq. Matthew Crawford, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT P. WHITE 570 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 380 0038 HOME DEPOT: "Utne" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOHN UTNE, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01854-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on February 22, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. for an order: 1. certifying classes of: Rounding Class: "all individuals employed by Home Depot in hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in California at any time since March 8, 2012, for whom each such individual's total hours paid since March 8, 2012 is less than the total hours recorded as worked in Home Depot's timekeeping system"; Lock-in Class: "all individuals employed by Home Depot in hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in Home Depot stores in California at any time since March 8, 2012, and who worked at least one shift ending after the time that the Home Depot store was scheduled to close to the public for the evening. Hourly Employee Class: "all individuals employed by Home Depot in hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in California at any time since March 8, 2012." 2. appointing the Plaintiff John Utne as representative of the proposed classes or later proposed and approved by the Court and any other sub-class the Court may devise; and 3. appointing Shaun Setareh, Thomas Segal and H. Scott Leviant of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel; and 4. issuing such other Orders as necessary to effectuate the Court's certification Order. This is wage and hour class action lawsuit involving over 130,000 Home Depot hourly employees in California. The Plaintiff alleges and can establish that Home Depot (1) underpaid approximately 74,000 employees by rounding down recorded time worked, (2) underpaid all employees for off-the-clock work occurring at the start of their shifts, and (3) underpaid tens of thousands of employees for off-the-clock work occurring during shifts ending after Home Depot stores closed to the public for the night. Despite the size, this matter is well suited to class certification because the violations are systematic, the policies are uniform, and the aggregate harm is massive. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RszCtdji The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com HOWARD ZUCKER: Turano et al. Bid to Amend Complaint Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARIE TURANO, LEONARD TURANO, and GEMMA SAMELE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, the Defendant, Case No. 17- cv-3397 (ADS)(AKT) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to amend the complaint; 2. instructing Plaintiffs' counsel to serve a copy of the amended complaint, ECF 16-3, on all parties within 15 days from the date of this order. The amended complaint must include an updated caption that reflects the additional Plaintiffs; and 3. directing the Clerk of Court to terminate the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class as the amended complaint adds new putative class representatives. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have exhibited no evidence of bad faith or undue delay. This is the Plaintiffs' first request to amend the complaint. Also, the Defendant is not prejudiced by the proposed amendments as the Plaintiffs are not seeking to change the definition of the proposed class and discovery is in its infancy. Finally, "[n]or can it be said that the amendments the plaintiff[s] seek[] to make are futile." Feliciano v. Circulation Promotion & Res., Inc., No. 98-civ.-8727, 1999 WL 1102798, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 1999); accord Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. Of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2002). Therefore, since there has been no undue delay, bad faith, futility or prejudice to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to amend the complaint is granted. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DjwlbOav The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth Goldman, Esq., Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq., Elizabeth Jois, Esq., Ben W. Taylor, Esq., Stewart Dearing, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 The Defendant is represented by: Dorothy O. Nese, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 200 Old Country Road, Suite 460 Mineola, NY 11501 IC SYSTEM: Wins Summary Judgment, "Cornette" Class Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Marcia G. Cooke entered an omnibus order on cross motions for summary judgment filed in the lawsuit titled FAUSTIN CORNETTE v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC. and M.D. NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-24454-MGC (S.D. Fla.). Judge Cooke: -- denies Plaintiff Faustin Cornette's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; -- grants Defendant I.C. System, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment; and -- grants Defendant MD Now's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed and all pending motions, if any, are denied as moot, according to Judge Cooke. Judge Cooke adds that a separate judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall issue concurrently. The case arises out of a $37.79 collection charge added to the Plaintiff's account as a result of unpaid medical costs. MD Now contracts with ICS to collect unpaid debt from consumers in Florida on its behalf. A copy of the Omnibus Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tJyiMsPc ILLINOIS BRICK: Consumers Treated Unjustly in Price-Fixing Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Automotive News reports that a core principle of the American legal system is that all are equal before the law. But equality is missing in the matter of distributing more than $1 billion to dealers and consumers harmed by a supplier price-fixing scandal. Class-action settlement funds collected from suppliers -- fallout from the largest antitrust case in U.S. history -- can only be paid to consumers and dealers in 29 states and the District of Columbia. Those in 21 other states are not eligible to file a claim or receive compensation, even though they were also injured by price fixing and bid rigging. The reason? A 40-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibited, short of state-level intervention, the payment of damages to secondary buyers of items involved in antitrust activity. In the 1977 case, Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, the court found that contractors could file claims because the price of bricks they purchased had been jacked up through anti-competitive behavior. But homeowners who hired the contractors using the bricks had no federal claim. After that decision, 29 states and the District of Columbia passed so-called repealer statutes to allow their citizens to recover damages as secondary purchasers. Twenty-one other states took no action. The resulting patchwork of unequal protection is unfair, as is evident by the auto parts settlement distributions. A consumer or auto dealer in Texas or Ohio or 19 other states shouldn't be denied compensation because of where they live or transact business. To fix this, we could wait for the court to take up another case to overturn Illinois Brick. Or voters -- and dealers -- in the 21 states currently locked out could petition their state legislators to pass the same repealer statutes that those in the 30 other jurisdictions already live under. [GN] INDUSTRIAL WELDING: Ark. Supreme Court Remands Workers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion remanding to the Union County Circuit Court the case captioned INDUSTRIAL WELDING SUPPLIES OF HATTIESBURG, LLC; AIRGAS, INC.; AND AIRGAS USA, LLC, Appellants, v. JOHN PINSON AND LARRY MURPHY ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, No. CV- 17-86 (Ark.). Appellants Industrial Welding Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC, Airgas, Inc., and Airgas USA, LLC, bring an interlocutory appeal of the Union County Circuit Court's order certifying a class action filed by appellees John Pinson, Larry Murphy, and others similarly situated (employees). The employees were employed by Industrial Welding in one of their fifteen locations in Arkansas, Mississippi, or Alabama. On appeal, appellants argue that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the motion for class certification because (1) the employees failed to meet the commonality requirement by presenting proof that common issues of law or fact exist; (2) common issues of law and fact do not predominate over individual issues; and (3) a class action is not the superior method of resolving this controversy. The employees alleged claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on Industrial Welding's failure to compensate the employees for earned but unused vacation time. Specifically, the employees argued that each member of the class worked for Industrial Welding during the 2011 calendar year and earned vacation that was due to be paid in 2012. The employees filed their amended motion for class certification to certify a class of "All persons who were employed by Industrial Welding Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC on December 31, 2011, were so employed for at least one year prior thereto, and continued to be so employed until Industrial Welding Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC on March 31, 2012." A hearing on the motion for class certification was held. During the hearing, the circuit court granted the employees' motion for class certification. On appeal, the appellants argue that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the employees' motion for class certification. Specifically, as to the breach-of-contract claim, the appellants contend that the employees failed to demonstrate commonality, predominance, and superiority. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. An order certifying a class action must define the class and the class claims, issues, or defenses. The state Supreme Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied all elements of Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and class certification is appropriate in this case. The Court further finds that the named Plaintiffs, John Pinson and Larry Murphy, have demonstrated sufficient interest in and knowledge of this case such that they are each appropriate to serve as class representative in this matter. The Court has also considered the pleadings and other filings, as well as the presentations in hearings before this Court, and finds that the attorneys for the Plaintiffs have sufficient expertise and experience to serve as class counsel in this matter. The requirements in Rule 23(b), compel more than a cursory mention of the six criteria or bare conclusions that those criteria have been satisfied. Here, the state Supreme Court simply has the bare conclusion that the "Plaintiffs have satisfied all elements of Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and class certification is appropriate in this case." This finding is clearly insufficient. After the 2006 amendment to Rule 23, Rule 23 and Rule 52 will continue to intersect. However, both rules also impose separate and distinct requirements. Rule 23 requires, at a minimum, that the circuit court define the class claims, issues, or defenses. In contrast, Rule 23 is not as exacting as Rule 52, which imposes a heightened standard because it requires the circuit court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Here, even in the absence of a Rule 52 motion, the circuit court is not relieved from its duty to comply with the minimum requirements of Rule 23. Accordingly, because the order granting class certification fails to comply with Rule 23(b), the state Supreme Court remands with instructions to enter an order that complies with Rule 23. Because the state Supreme Court remands, it is unable to address the remaining points on appeal. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's November 16, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmz5923 from Leagle.com. Dover Dixon Horne PLLC, by: Thomas S. Stone -- tstone@ddh-ar.com - - Todd Wooten -- twooten@ddh.law -- and Carl F. "Trey" Cooper, III -tcooper@ddh-ar.com -for appellant. McMath Woods P.A., by: Charles D. Harrison and Neil Chamberlain, 711 West Third Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 for appellees. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces "Mack" Suit in Calif. Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Paper Company. The case is captioned as Mack, Jamal on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and International Paper Company, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00221622-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017). The International Paper Company is an American pulp and paper company, the largest such company in the world. It has approximately 55,000 employees, and it is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade St. San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 JACKSON HEWITT: Fla. Court Stays Discovery in TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT INC., JACKSON HEWITT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, ASTRO TAX SERVICES LLC, JOHN DOES 1-5 and NAVEEN MATHUR, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-24- FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued an Order granting in part Defendant's Second Motion to Stay and Bifurcate Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, in that all discovery is stayed pending a determination of the Jackson Hewitt's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Plaintiff initially filed a class action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Inc., Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC, Astro Tax Services LLC, John Does 1-5, and Naveen Mathur, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Junk Fax Prevention Act (JFPA). The Complaint alleged that Plaintiff received an unsolicited facsimile from Defendants. Plaintiff also alleged that the facsimile did not display a proper opt-out notice as required by 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200, and that at least 40 other recipients were sent the same advertisement. Because there is a pending motion by Jackson Hewitt challenging the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiff's amended complaint, which after taking a preliminary peek the Court finds meritorious, the Court will again stay discovery pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. As the Court noted in its previous Order, the Court is not making a determination at this time on the merits of the Jackson Hewitt Defendants' dispositive arguments; however, based on its review of the relevant pleadings and motions, the Court finds that delaying discovery until the Court rules on whether Plaintiff has stated a viable cause of action will cause Plaintiff little harm and promote judicial efficiency. For the reasons discussed in its previous Order, the Court will again decline to make a bifurcation determination pending a ruling on Jackson Hewitt's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9jbz743 from Leagle.com. Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good - - rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice. Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale A. Evans, Jr. -- dale.evans@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De Simone -- Michael.desimone@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas Justin Cunningham icunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP. Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Dale A. Evans, Jr., Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De Simone, Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas Justin Cunningham, Locke Lord, LLP. Astro Tax Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Jarred D. Duke - - jarred.duke@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC. Naveen Mathur, Defendant, represented by Jarred D. Duke, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC. JASON WOLFE: Fails to Pay Wages, "Garcia" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------- HARLEM GARCIA 7812 Lewis Chapel Cir. Apt 304 Lorton, VA 22079; and PATRICIO AGUIERRE 8535 Braxted Lane Manassas, VA 20110, the Plaintiffs v. JASON WOLFE 41056 Pacer Lane Paeonian Springs VA 20129 and HERMAN JAYNE 14561 Marlow St. Gainesville VA 20155, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-15402 (in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime, minimum wages liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the common law of Virginia and Section I6(b) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, for the time worked per week by Plaintiffs in excess of 40 hours, Defendants paid Plaintiff no overtime wages or complete overtime wages, thereby violating the overtime requirements of the FLSA. The Defendants should have paid Plaintiffs at the rate of one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked each week in excess of 40.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. Sutter & Terpak, PLLC 7540A Little River Turnpike, First Floor Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: 703 256 1800 Facsimile: 703 991 6116 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sweeney Appeals Judgment in "Goldemberg" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Pamela A. Sweeney filed an appeal from a District Court order and judgment dated November 1, 2017, in the lawsuit titled Goldemberg, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-3073, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court has certified classes of consumers that purchased Aveeno Active Naturals products in New York, California and Florida. The appellate case is captioned as Goldemberg, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 17-3875, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Objector-Appellant Pamela A. Sweeney appears pro se.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Michael Goldemberg, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Annie Le, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and Howard Petlack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3283 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com Defendant-Appellee Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., is represented by: Harold Paul Weinberger, Esq. KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 715-9132 Facsimile: (212) 715-8000 E-mail: hweinberger@kramerlevin.com JPAY INC: Faces "Defazio" Suit in District of New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPay, Inc. The case is captioned as ANTHONY DEFAZIO, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JPAY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-10212-KM-SCM (D.N.J., Nov. 2, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty. JPay is a privately held corrections-related service provider based in the United States with its headquarters in Miramar, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JULIE JONES: "O'Connor" Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MYKA O'CONNOR, the Plaintiff, v. JULIE JONES, ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01387-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to certify class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=avt6B1Gp The Plaintiff appears pros se. KEMPER CORPORATION: "Barrett" Suit Moved to S.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Chester Barrett, James White, Mary White, Monroe Ford, Robert Bartley Turner, Vertola Stubbs, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. United Insurance Company of America, Inc. and The Kemper Corporation, Case No. STSV2017000113, was removed on Nov. 6, 2017 from the State Court of Liberty County, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Georgia (Savannah). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00215-WTM-GRS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon, Judge William T. Moore, Jr. United Insurance Company of America, Inc. offers life and health insurance products and services. It offers life, fire, accident, and health insurance products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Bartley Turner, Esq. SAVAGE & TURNER, PC P.O. Box 10600 102 E. Liberty Street, 8th Floor Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 231 1140 Facsimile: (912) 231 9157 E-mail: bturner@savagelawfirm.net The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth J. Campbell, Esq. LOCKE LORD, LLP 3333 Piedmont Road, NE Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 870 4600 Facsimile: (404) 872 5547 E-mail: ecampbell@lockelord.com KENTUCKY: State Appeals Ruling in Minor's Suit ---------------------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY (EX REL. VICKI YATES BROWN GLISSON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY), the Appellant v. EZRACLAYCOMB (A MINOR, BY & THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND), the Appellee, Case No. 2017-CA-001770 (Ken. Ct. of Appeals, Nov. 1, 2017), is an appeal filed before the Kentucky Court of Appeals, from a lower court decision in a class action, Case No. 17-CI-00708 (Cir. Ct., Oct. 30, 2017).[BN] Attorneys for Appellant: Mark Stephen Pitt, Esq. S Chad Meredith, Esq. Matthew Kuhn, Esq. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, 700 Capital Ave, Suite 101, Frankfort, KY 40601 - and - Johann F Herklotz, Esq. Catherine E York, Esq. Matthew H Kleinert, Esq. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, OFFICE OF LEAGAL SERVICES, 275 East Main Street 5w-B- Frankfort, KY 40621 Attorneys for Appellee: J. Guthrie True, Esq. TRUE GUARNIERI AYER, LLP, 124 West Clinton Street, Frankfort, KY 40601 - and - Paul A. Casi II, Esq. HOFFMAN & CASI, PLLC, 440 South Seventh Street, Suite 100, Louisville, KY 40203 KERRY INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit over Sensitive Biometric Data --------------------------------------------------------------- MAXIMO FERNANDEZ, ARTURO CORDONA, SERGIO DURAN, RODRIGO PUENTES, and ISAIAS VILLANUEVA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KERRY INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-14831 (in the Circuit of Cook County Ill., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs' and proposed Class's sensitive biometric data. The case is an action under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of similarly- situated individuals, namely, all Illinois citizens who performed work for Kerry in Illinois who had their fingerprints improperly collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained or disclosed by Kerry. Kerry Inc. produces and distributes food and beverage ingredients, concentrates, and flavor products for the food and beverage industry in the United States and internationally. It offers dairy, meat, cereal, culinary, sweet, beverage, and infant nutrition products; flavors, natural extracts, taste modulators, and authentic culinary foundations; and nutritional actives and functional systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone (312) 763 6880 KEW ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lomeli" Suit over Wage Statements --------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA LOMELI, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KEW ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC682728 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar., 2017), seeks to recover penalties and/or damages for Defendant's failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of California Labor Code.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 KINDRED HEALTH: "Al-Najiar" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TINA MARIE FATIAH AL-NAJIAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06166-PSG-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 26, 2018, for an order to certify a class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jLxjuANg The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario. Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553 3600 Facsimile: (310) 553 3603 E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com jdesario@nourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com KONA GRILL: Cedeno Renews Motion to Certify Class of Sous Chefs --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MIGUEL CEDENO Individually, and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Who Consent to Their Inclusion in a Collective Action v. KONA GRILL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and KONA MACADAMIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-01039-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), renews his motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and order notice to be sent to members of a class of all current and former sous chefs of Kona Grill, Inc. and Kona Macadamia, Inc. after June 1, 2014, who worked overtime but were not paid overtime wages. This is his second attempt at conditional certification in this case, Mr. Cedeno states. He says the Court denied his initial motion because (1) he did not provide sufficient evidence that other employees desired to opt-in to the action, and (2) he failed to establish that the proposed class of putative Plaintiffs were similarly situated. Mr. Cedeno contends that he has remedied these two issues, as the proposed class has been narrowed to the singular position of "sous chef," and three other individuals have filed Consent to Sue affidavits with the Court. As such, he argues, this case now meets the standard for conditional certification as outlined in the Court's Order. The Court should also order the Defendants to provide his counsel with the last known addresses of all putative class members and the telephone number, date of birth, and last four digits of the social security number of any potential class members whose notice is returned by the post office, so that his counsel may provide effective notice to the class, Mr. Cedeno asserts. A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=igDm4p8U The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Castellano, II, Esq. BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A. 2023 Constitution Blvd. Sarasota, FL 34231 Telephone: (941) 923-7700 Facsimile: (941) 923-7736 E-mail: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com The Defendants are represented by: Laura E. Prather, Esq. Andrew R. Lincoln, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Wells Fargo Center 100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 512-3225 Facsimile: (813) 512-3211 E-mail: laura.prather@jacksonlewis.com Andrew.lincoln@jacksonlewis.com LAMBTON COLLEGE: Students to Pursue Class Action Over Strikes ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarnia Observer's Tyler Kula, Canadian Press and London Free Press, report that Lambton College paramedic student Jade Flay has been biding her time, reading her textbooks and trying to stay up to date over the last few weeks. She's ready to go back to school. "I'm so excited," she said Sunday, hours before Queen's Park passed back-to-work legislation, ending a strike that's seen 500,000 students at 24 Ontario colleges out of class since Oct. 15. Bill 178 passed with Liberal and Progressive Conservative support -- New Democrats voted against it, calling it anti-worker -- over a rare weekend session in the legislature, making way for students to head back to class. At Lambton College in Sarnia, operations were resuming on Nov. 13 and classes Nov. 14, college president Judith Morris said in a written statement to students. The legislation also pushes outstanding disputes between the 12,000 striking professors, librarians and counselors and their employers to binding mitigation-arbitration. "We support and appreciate the government intervening and working with all parties to introduce back to work legislation," Ms. Morris said. The fall term at Lambton has been extended to Jan. 12, with classes breaking Dec. 22 to Jan. 2, her statement reads. There's no official fall exam week, reading week has been cancelled, and the second term is scheduled to start Jan. 22 and finish April 27, it says. The April end date is the same as before the strike began. Flay, a 20-year-old St. Thomas native studying in her first year of Lambton's paramedic program, said she's confident she can salvage her year. "I have a super-amazing set of teachers, so I trust that they're going to put us in a position where we can . . . learn what we need to learn," she said. Losing reading week is stressful, she said. "Because that week is meant for students' mental health." It's also unclear what will happen with placements and the finer details of her program, she said. "I think we're going to get a bunch of emails tomorrow morning." One thing the resolution doesn't change, she said, is a potential class-action lawsuit by students from each of the strike-affected colleges. Recently filed with the College Employer Council via Toronto-based law firm Charney Lawyers, the potential suit seeks damages for breach of contract and breach of the Ontario Consumer Protection Act. "It doesn't really change our opinion on the money situation," said Flay, the spokesperson at Lambton on the issue. "We are still going forward with the class-action lawsuit." No dates have been set, she said. [GN] LEASING ENTERPRISES: Shaffer Asks to Certify Tipped Workers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MARK SHAFFER et al. v. LEASING ENTERPRISES, LTD., d/b/a PERRY'S RESTAURANTS, LTD., Case No. 5:16-cv-01193-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex.), ask the Court to conditionally certify the action as Fair Labor Standards Act collective action on behalf of a class consisting of: all current and former employees of Defendant who were tipped employees performing dual jobs in excess of 20% of their workweek between September 8, 2014 and September 8, 2017. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to direct the Defendant to provide contact information for potential class members and to approve both the notice and the accompanying Web site proposed by the Plaintiffs' counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1c5KjwbK The Plaintiffs are represented by: Howard L. Steele, Jr., Esq. STEELE LAW GROUP, PLLC 500 Dallas, Suite 3440 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 659-2600 Facsimile: (713) 659-2601 E-mail: hsteele@steele-law-group.com The Defendant is represented by: Lionel M. Schooler, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 1401 McKinney Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 752-4200 Facsimile: (713) 308-4156 E-mail: lschooler@jw.com LELAND STANFORD: "Lagos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Thomas Lagos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University, a California corporation, and Does 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 4:15- cv-04524-KAW (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Thomas Lagos will move the Court on January 18, 2018, for an Order certifying a class of: "all persons residing in the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) as to whom The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University or any of its related companies procured or caused to be procured a consumer report for employment purposes on or after August 18, 2013 to the date of the judgment entered herein without first providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing to the consumer at any time before the report was procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes, including without limitation those persons who executed the Defendant's standard form to procure a consumer report." The Plaintiff further asks the Court that he be appointed Class Representative and that Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C. and The Blanchard Law Group, APC be appointed to Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BqBFHkLK The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883 4900 Facsimile: (818) 883 4902 E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com - and - LONNIE C. BLANCHARD, III, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599 8255 Facsimile: (213) 402 3949 E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com LTI TRUCKING: Hearing on Ratliff's Bid to Certify Cont'd to May 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on November 30, 2017, in the case titled Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. LTI Trucking Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-07190 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. The minute entry states that: -- status hearing was held and continued to May 2, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.; -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and continued to May 2, 2018; -- Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion to dismiss shall be filed by January 12, 2018; -- Defendant's reply in support shall be filed by January 25, 2018; -- The court will rule electronically; -- All fact discovery shall be noticed in time to be completed by May 31, 2018; and -- The Court will stay the deadline for Defendant's answer and the participation in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot program in this case until ruling on the motion to dismiss. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yiTn4ttr LULAROE LLC: Refuses to Accept Return of Merchandise, Patton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JINI PATTON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LULAROE, LLC d/b/a LuLaRoe, a California Limited Liability Company, LLR, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover damages and for other relief based on LuLaRoe's unfair and deceptive practices involving its refusal to accept the return of merchandise and issue refunds as promised. According to the complaint, pursuant to and in reliance upon Defendants' stated policy, Plaintiff placed orders and accepted unwanted inventory from Defendants, believing that the unwanted inventory could be returned for a full refund at no cost or expense, the Plaintiff faced greater than expected challenges in selling Defendants' products. The market for Defendants' product had simply become too saturated with Consultants who were trying to move the inventory that they were requested to perpetually purchase. As a result of Defendants' conduct on May 30, 2017, Plaintiff had no choice but to quit the company, or she would continue to lose money purchasing inventory over which she had no control and could not sell. She was unable to attain recovery of her investments in Defendants' products.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Jonathan Shub, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South B Road Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238 1700 E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867 2399 Facsimile: (267) 685 0676 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Ronald Jay Smolow, Esq. THREE PONDS LANE Newtown, PA 18940-3001 Telephone: (215) 579 1111 Facsimile: (215) 579 7949 E-mail: ron@smolow.com LUNA CYCLES: "Damoiseaux" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD DAMOISEAUX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representatives of other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. LUNA CYCLES, LLC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.BC682463 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 6, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the California Labor Code According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully misclassified its employees as independent contractors to avoid properly paying them for their services and providing them with all benefits to which employees are entitled, including breaks and overtime, despite the fact they were clearly employees. The Plaintiff and class members performed duties including, but not limited to, helping to assemble bikes, assisting in mailing of bike kits and batteries for those kits, and performing other company tasks at Defendants' location. Luna is a company that makes and sells kits to turn regular bikes into electric motorized bike and also sells electric motorized bikes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432 8933 Facsimile: (562) 435 1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com MARKHAM, IL: Faces "Murphy" Suit over Collection of Fines --------------------------------------------------------- KAREN M. MURPHY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MARKHAM, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-14835 (in the Circuit Court of Cook County Ill., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks declaratory relief to avoid Defendant's unjust enrichment collecting fines and late fees despite its failure to comply with two mandatory provisions of the state law governing red light cameras. The case is a class action arising from Defendant's unlawful collection of money from vehicle owners through its Photo Enforcement Program. The Defendant has been issuing red light violation notices and collecting fines and late fees despite its failure to comply with two mandatory provisions of the state law governing red light cameras. First, Defendant has failed to publish on its website the location of all red light cameras within the City. Second, Defendant has failed to make available to the public and publish on its website a statistical analysis assessing the safety impact of each red light camera within its boundaries. Because Defendant has failed to comply with these two mandatory provisions, the violation notices it has issued are void and the fines and fees it collected must be returned.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Christopher M. Hack, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606 0500 MARKHAM, IL: Faces 2nd "Murphy" Suit over Collection of Fines ------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN M. MURPHY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MARKHAM, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-14834 (in the Circuit Court of Cook County Ill., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks declaratory relief to avoid Defendant's unjust enrichment collecting fines and late fees despite its failure to comply with two mandatory provisions of the state law governing red light cameras. The case is a class action arising from Defendant's unlawful collection of money from vehicle owners through its Photo Enforcement Program. The Defendant has been issuing red light violation notices and collecting fines and late fees despite its failure to comply with two mandatory provisions of the state law governing red light cameras. First, Defendant has failed to publish on its website the location of all red light cameras within the City. Second, Defendant has failed to make available to the public and publish on its website a statistical analysis assessing the safety impact of each red light camera within its boundaries. Because Defendant has failed to comply with these two mandatory provisions, the violation notices it has issued are void and the fines and fees it collected must be returned.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Christopher M. Hack, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606 0500 MARRIOTT INT'L: Vazquez Moves to Certify National COBRA Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ALINA VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-00116-MSS-MAP (M.D. Fla.), moves the Court to certify the case as a class action for this National COBRA Putative Class: All participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan who were sent a COBRA notice by Defendant in the form attached as Exhibit A during the applicable four-year statute of limitations period, as a result of a qualifying event as determined by Defendant who did not elect continuation coverage. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff Alina Vazquez alleges that the Defendant violated the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA") by failing to provide her and the putative class members with the required notices of their right to continued health care coverage under COBRA and as to the sub- class, with certain information in Spanish. Ms. Vazquez also asks the Court to appoint her as Class Representative, to appoint Luis A. Cabassa, Esq., and Brandon J. Hill, Esq., of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., and Chad Justice of Black Rock Trial Lawyers LLC, as class counsel, and to allow the counsel to notify the Class members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5PrI1Qhk The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com - and - Chad Andrew Justice, Esq. BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS 201 South Westland Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 254-1777 Facsimile: (813) 254-3999 E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com MCGOUGH BUS: Smith Seeks to Certify Class of Bus Drivers & Aides ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Smith, Desiree Laws-Burton, Diana Melendez, Monaee Dotson Cooper, Nancy Rodriguez, Teri Briggs, Marisol Pabon, Joyce Butts, Brielle Wynn, Gladys Singleton and Anessa Brown Muns ask the Court to conditionally certify the lawsuit captioned Edwin Smith, et aux v. McGough Bus Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08192-JHR- AMD (D.N.J.), as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Named Plaintiffs filed the action on November 20, 2015, asserting that they were subject to unlawful conduct by Defendant McGough Bus Company, Inc., wherein the Company failed to pay them for all hours worked and for overtime compensation for certain overtime hours worked. The Named Plaintiffs are similarly situated to all other non-exempt employees, who worked for the Defendant in the capacity of bus driver or bus aide. The Named Plaintiffs also seek the Court to facilitate notice to all non-exempt employees, who worked in the capacity of bus driver or bus aide for the Defendant since three years preceding the filing of the instant action. The Named Plaintiffs further ask that the Court compel the Defendants to provide, in electronic and importable format, the names, addresses, and phone numbers of each member of the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HlY9xoyk The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven A. Berkowitz, Esq. Patrick Cronin, Esq. CRONIN BERKOWITZ, LLC 10000 Lincoln Drive, East, Suite 202 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 350-6060 Facsimile: (856) 751-1677 E-mail: sberkowitz@berkpc.com MDL 2545: Medical Mutual Seeks to Certify RICO Classes ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO, the Plaintiff, v. ABBVIE INC., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT PRODUCTS, INC., SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., UNIMED PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, AUXILIUM, INC., GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, OSCIENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, LILLY USA, INC., ACRUX COMMERCIAL PARTY LTD., ACRUX DDS PARTY LTD., ACTAVIS PLC, ACTAVIS, INC., ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., ANDA, INC., and ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-08857 (N.D. Ill.), MMO asks the Court to certify a Nationwide Class and an Ohio State Subclass. The case is part of the multi-district litigation, IN RE: TESTOSTERONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2545. The Nationwide Class is defined as with respect to MMO's claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act: "all third-party payors ("TPPs") in the United States and its territories from January 1, 2000 through January 31, 2014, that have (1) covered the cost of one or more of Defendants' TRT drug products through insurance or employee benefit programs, and (2) included one or more of Defendants' TRT drug products on a formulary. TPPs include insurance companies, healthcare benefit plans, health maintenance organizations, union health and welfare plans, self-funded employer health and welfare plans, and employee or retiree health plans." Excluded from the class are: a. The Defendants and their officers, directors, employees, predecessors-in-interest, successors-in-interest, assignees, affiliates and subsidiaries; b. All governmental entities, except for government funded employee, retiree and Medicare Part D plans provided through private insurance companies; c. All pharmaceutical wholesalers or distributors that purchased one or more of the Defendants' TRT drug products for purposes of resale; and d. Pharmacy Benefit Managers. The Ohio State Subclass is defined as with respect to MMO's claim of negligent misrepresentation under Ohio common law: "all third-party payors ("TPPs") in Ohio from January 1, 2000 through January 31, 2014, that have (1) covered the cost of one or more of Defendants' TRT drug products through insurance or employee benefit programs, and (2) included one or more of Defendants' TRT drug products on a formulary. TPPs include insurance companies, healthcare benefit plans, health maintenance organizations, union health and welfare plans, self-funded employer health and welfare plans, and employee or retiree health plans." Excluded from the class are: a. The Defendants and their officers, directors, employees, predecessors-in-interest, successors-ininterest, assignees, affiliates and subsidiaries; b. All governmental entities, except for government funded employee, retiree and Medicare Part D plans provided through private insurance companies; c. All pharmaceutical wholesalers or distributors that purchased one or more of the Defendants' TRT drug products for purposes of resale; and d. Pharmacy Benefit Managers. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Eo7RsshS Attorneys for Plaintiff Medical Mutual of Ohio: Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq. Allan Kanner, Esq. Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq. Layne C. Hilton, Esq. Marshall L. Perkins, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 524 5777 Facsimile: (504) 524 5763 - and - W. Scott Simmer, Esq. Thomas J. Poulin, Esq. SIMMER LAW GROUP PLLC The Watergate, Suite 10-A Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 333 4562 Facsimile: (202) 337 1039 - and - Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 985 9177 MDL Co-Lead Counsel: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 - and - Trent B. Miracle, Esq. Brendan A. Smith, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 259 2222 Facsimile: (618) 259 2251 - and - Ronald E. Johnson, Jr., Esq. Sarah N. Lynch, Esq. SCHACHTER HENDY & JOHNSON PSC 909 Wright's Summit Parkway, Suite No. 210 Ft. Wright, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 578 4444 Facsimile: (859) 578 4440 MESILLA VALLEY: Hrng on Ratliff's Bid to Certify Cont'd to May 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on November 30, 2017, in the case captioned Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. Mesilla Valley Transportation, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-07192 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. The minute entry states that: -- status hearing held and continued to May 2, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.; -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and continued to May 2, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.; -- Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be filed by December 15, 2017; -- Parties' joint oral motion for leave to file motion and response in excess of fifteen pages is granted to three additional pages; -- Plaintiff's response shall be filed by January 16, 2018; -- Defendants' reply in support shall be filed by January 30, 2018; -- The Court will rule electronically; -- All fact discovery shall be noticed in time to be completed by August 1, 2018; and -- The Court will stay the deadline for Defendant's answer and the participation in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot program in this case until ruling on the motion to dismiss. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=goqWc3wB MICHAEL BILLINGS: Dean Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled URIKA DEAN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL BILLINGS (d/b/a) MIDWAY ISLAND, and MIDWAY ISLAND, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-CV-01459-M (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional class certification of: "current and former exotic dancers who worked for Defendants and were collectively subject to Defendants' intentional misclassification of Dancers as independent contractors in order to deny payment of minimum wages and other employment benefits owed to them, as well as the unlawful tip sharing policy imposed by Defendants requiring Dancers to share their gratuities with Defendants and other employees"; 2. approving proposed notice and consent forms; 3. directing Defendants to identify putative class members within a reasonable time frame; and 4. authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to send notice and consent forms to the proposed class members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=39xx9CYD Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: William B. Federman, Esq. Joshua D. Wells, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235 1560 Facsimile: (405) 239 2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jdw@federmanlaw.com MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Class in "Arnold" Suit v. DOC ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL ARNOLD, the Plaintiff, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, the Defendant, Case No. 4:13-cv-14137-LVP-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon .Judge Linda V. Parker entered an order: 1. granting Arnold's motion for class certification and certifying class with respect to claims in Arnold's first amended complaint: "all Jewish individuals confined with the Michigan Department of Corrections who are designated by the prison system to receive kosher meals." 2. designating Arnold as the representative plaintiff for that certified class; and 3. designating Daniel E. Manville and Michael Steinberg as lead class counsel. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tr9nmxar MTC FINANCIAL: "Manos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOHN MANOS, TARA BORRELLI, AND JESSIE MANOS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the PLAINTIFFS, v. MTC FINANCIAL INC; MALCOLM CISNEROS, ALC; DITECH FINANCIAL LLC; CITIMORTGAGE INC; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1-5, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 8:16-cv-01142-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to certify classes and subclasses: FDCPA Assignment Class: "(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed the promissory note underlying the security instrument (2) against whom Defendants or their agents recorded a standard form assignment of deed of trust to Ditech (3) when, at the time of recordation, Fannie Mae owned the loan, note, and deed of trust; and (4) the debt was incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The period covered is from 18 June 2015 to the time of the class certification determination"; FDCPA Corporate Advances Class: "(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed the promissory note underlying the security instrument (2) against whom Defendants or their agents collected, or attempted to collect, directly or indirectly, post- acceleration late fees, flat legal fees, 'corporate advances' for property inspections and appraisals, and/or unspecified bankruptcy/foreclosure expenses, fees, and costs; (3) when the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (4) the servicer was Ditech; and (5) the debt was incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The period covered is from 18 June 2015 to the time of the class certification determination." The Corporate Advances Class should include the following sub- classes: Late Fees Subclass: class members assessed post-acceleration late charges; Foreclosure Fees Subclass: class members assessed fixed legal fees, trustee fees, unspecified bankruptcy/foreclosure expenses, fees, and costs in relation to a non-judicial foreclosure"; and Preservation Fees Subclass: class members assessed flat fees for repeated property inspections and/or appraisals after default; TILA/FDCPA Force-placed Insurance Class: "(1) all borrowers charged for a force-placed hazard insurance policy placed on a property located within the State of California (2) where the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (3) the servicer was Ditech; and (4) the debt was incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The period covered is from 18 June 2015 to the time of the class certification determination. RICO/Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 12700 Delinquency Class: "(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed the promissory note underlying the security instrument; (2) where the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (3) the servicer was either Ditech or CitiMortgage; and (4) where the servicer reported the loan to Fannie Mae as code 80 (Breach Letter Sent) or its equivalent. The period covered is from 18 June 2012 to the time of the class certification determination. The Class should be subdivided into the following sub-classes: Ditech subclass: class members whose mortgages were directly serviced by Ditech or its predecessor Green Tree Servicing; and CitiMortgage subclass: class members whose mortgages were directly serviced by CitiMortgage RICO/Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 12700 Insurance Class: "(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed the promissory note underlying the security instrument; (2) where the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (3) the servicer was either Ditech or CitiMortgage; and (4) where Defendants mailed to the borrower notice of the placement of force-placed insurance and a certificate of insurance identifying the servicer as the insured-mortgagee. The period covered is from 18 June 2012 to the time of the class certification determination." The Class should be subdivided into the following sub-classes: Ditech subclass: all class members whose mortgages were directly serviced by Ditech or its predecessor Green Tree Servicing; and CitiMortgage subclass: all class members whose mortgages were directly serviced by CitiMortgage. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xLpSotXp The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicolette Glazer Esq. Larry R Glazer Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R GLAZER 1875 Century Park East No. 700 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 407 5353 Facsimile: (310) 407 5354 E-mail: nicolette@glazerandglazer.com larry@glazerandglazer.com NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: "Jia" Suit Moved to N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Helen Jia, an individual, and Sarah Sormillon, an individual and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Nerium International LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company; Nerium Skin Care Inc., a Texas Corporation; Natural Technology Inc., doing business as: Naturtech; Jeff Olson, an individual; Renee Olson, an individual; Amber Olson Rourke, an individual; Michael Shouhed, an individual; and Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05686, was removed on Nov. 6, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-03057-C to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Senior Judge Sam R. Cummings. Nerium International offers exclusive age-defying skincare and wellness products with patented ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake J Lindemann, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM APC 433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 279 5269 Facsimile: (310) 300 0267 E-mail: blake@lawbl.com The Defendants are represented by: Mike Margolis, Esq. MARGOLIS & TISMAN LLP 444 South Flower Street Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683 0300 Facsimile: (213) 683 0303 E-mail: margolis@winlaw.com - and - Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq. Harrison Maxwell Brown, Esq. Naki Margolis, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239 3465 Facsimile: (424) 239 3398 E-mail: atagvoryan@blankrome.com hbrown@blankrome.com nmargolis@blankrome.com - and - Jeffrey S Jacobson, Esq. Andreas Becker, Esq. KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 808 7800 Facsimile: (212) 808 7897 E-mail: jjacobson@KelleyDrye.com abecker@kelleydrye.com NEW BOSTON PIE: Court Certifies Driver Class in "Brayak" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BADR BRAYAK, AHMED GHARRARI, HAMID KACI, ADIL ABDELJALIL, KHALID AKOUHAR, MOHAMED ESSAFI, and TAOUFIK BOUCHRIT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NEW BOSTON PIE, INC., and CHARBEL RIZKALLAH, Case No. 1:16-cv-12322-RWZ (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Rya W. Zobel entered an order allowing Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the "Driver Class" on the inside work and delivery charge claims (Counts I and II), and denying as to the "Overtime Class" (Count V). The Driver Class is certified as: "all individuals who have worked as delivery drivers for the defendants at any time from November 19, 2013 to the present." The court also appoints Stephen Churchill and Brian Casavant of Fair Work, P.C., as class counsel based on their qualifications and experience. The court further appoints the named plaintiffs as class representatives. By December 7, 2017, after conferring with defendants' counsel, class counsel shall submit a proposed Notice to the Class -- which shall include a description of the claims in this case, the class, the class representatives, and class counsel -- and propose to the court a plan for providing notice of the certification of the class to the class. Defendants may file any response to the proposed notice and plan no later than fourteen days thereafter. A hearing is scheduled for January 9, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=88GHfpUG NGL TRANSPORTATION: Yoo Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------- SAM YOO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NGL TRANSPORTATION, LLC, and DOES 17 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No. BC682160 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California law. The Plaintiff and the Class were required to work in excess of eight hours in any day and/or more than 40 hours during the workweek. The Plaintiff and the Class were not compensated for this time at the rates required by Labor Code Section 510. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the rest of the Class are entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime that they incurred within the applicable limitations period until the date that the Class is certified, interest, together with their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. NGL Transportation is a full logistics service provider that has been in business since 2007.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 542 2100 Facsimile: (213) 542 2101 - and - Marshall A. Caskey, Esq. Daniel M. Holzman, Esq. N. Cory Barari, Esq. CASKEY & HOLZMAN 24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 657 1070 Facsimile: (818) 297 1775 NPAS SOLUTIONS: Johnson Seeks Prelim. OK of $1.4-Mil. Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CHARLES T. JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NPAS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 9:17-cv-80393-RLR (S.D. Fla.), asks the Court to preliminarily approve the parties' settlement and enter the proposed order. Mr. Johnson also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative, and to appoint Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as class counsel. After months of contested litigation, Plaintiff Charles T. Johnson and Defendant NPAS Solutions, LLC, have reached an agreement to resolve the class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. At issue in this case are autodialed calls made by NPAS Solutions intended for consumers alleged to owe health care- related debts, but that reached parties different from those NPAS Solutions was trying to call. Mr. Johnson and his counsel firmly believe the settlement -- which calls for the creation of a $1.432 million, non-reversionary common fund from which participating class members will receive a pro-rata portion after deducting attorneys' fees, expenses, and notice and administration costs -- is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the class, particularly in light of the substantial risks and uncertainties of protracted litigation. The Agreement defines a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure comprised of: All persons in the United States who (a) received calls from NPAS Solutions, LLC between March 28, 2013 and the date of preliminary approval that (b) were directed to a phone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, (c) for which NPAS Solutions' records contain a "WN" designation, and (d) were placed using an automatic telephone dialing system. Participating class members will receive a pro-rata share of the $1.432 million settlement fund, after expenses are deducted. Thus, the common fund equates to approximately $8 for each potential class member -- a result that compares favorably to similar TCPA settlements, the Plaintiff asserts. Subject to Court approval, the costs of notice and administration, an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and an incentive award for him also will be deducted from the $1.432 million fund, Mr. Johnson tells the Court. To that end, NPAS Solutions agrees not to oppose an incentive award to Mr. Johnson of $6,000. He will also seek the reimbursement of class counsel's costs and expenses not to exceed $6,000, and an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed 30% of the common fund. The Agreement also requires a robust notice program, including direct mail notice to each class member who can be identified through NPAS Solutions' call records. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wRj4Qafm The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-3912 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Maura K. Monaghan, Esq. Jacob W. Stahl, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 Facsimile: (212) 909-6836 E-mail: mkmonaghan@debevoise.com jwstahl@debevoise.com - and - Martin B. Goldberg, Esq. Alan D. Lash, Esq. Lorelei J. Van Wey, Esq. Michael L. Ehren, Esq. LASH & GOLDBERG LLP Miami Tower 100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33131-2158 Telephone: (305) 347-4040 Facsimile: (305) 347-4050 E-mail: mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com alash@lashgoldberg.com lvanwey@lashgoldberg.com mehren@lashgoldberg.com OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Jan. 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. ("Omega" or the "Company") (NYSE:OHI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-09024, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Omega securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Omega securities between February 8, 2017, and October 31, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until January 16, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and amount of shares purchased. Omega is a self-administered real estate investment trust ("REIT") that invests in income producing healthcare facilities, including long-term care facilities located in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) financial and operating results of certain of the Company's operators were deteriorating; (ii) as a result, certain of the Company's operators were experiencing worsening liquidity issues that were significantly impacting the operators' ability to make timely rent payments; (iii) as a result, certain of the Company's direct financing leases were impaired and certain receivables were uncollectible; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Omega's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On July 26, 2017, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release entitled "Omega Announces Second Quarter 2017 Financial Results; Increased Dividend Rate for 20th Consecutive Quarter." On the next day, July 27, 2017, the Company held a conference call to discuss its second quarter results. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.35 per share, or 4%, to close at $32.10 per share on July 27, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] OXNARD, CA: "Kittel" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled APRIL KITTEL, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OXNARD, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY; SYLVIA PANIAGUA, IN IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; ERIC SONSTEGARD, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; AND DOES 1-10, inclusive, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:17-cv-06709-MWF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 8, 2018 for certification of the following classes and subclasses: CLASS NO. 1 "Oxnard Police Department Disabled Employees Class" "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those employees who have been absent from work while receiving either workers compensation or short or long-term disability insurance benefits, and (i) Have worked in the Oxnard Police Department; and (ii) Have been absent from work at the Oxnard Police Department because of medical reasons; and (iii) Did not return to work at the Oxnard Police Department due to a disability at a time when they were, with respect to such disability, qualified individuals with a disability within the meaning of Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. sections 12102), section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. section 794(a)), or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and (iv) (A) Did not return to work at the Oxnard Police Department by reason of the Oxnard Police Department's alleged 100% healed policy; or (B) Did not return to work at the Oxnard Police Department by reason of the Oxnard Police Department's allegedly discriminatory implementation of its allegedly discriminatory Policy on Modified Duty. Excluded from the Class are all presently working City of Oxnard management employees with supervisory authority over the formulation or implementation of the Oxnard Police Department's policies and practices alleged in this action to violate Title I of the Americans With ADA), the Federal Rehabilitation Act, or the FEHA.; CLASS NO. 2 "City Disabled Employees Class" "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those employees who have been absent from work while receiving either workers compensation or short or long-term disability insurance benefits, and (i) Have been absent from work because of medical reasons; and (ii) Did not return to work due to a disability at a time when they were, with respect to such disability, qualified individuals with a disability within the meaning of Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of the Federal Rehabilitation Act, or the FEHA, and (iii) (A) Did not return to work by reason of the City of Oxnard's allegedly discriminatory implementation of its allegedly discriminatory Policy on Reasonable Accommodation; or (B) Did not return to work by reason of the allegedly discriminatory use by the City of Oxnard of uniform pretextual job descriptions; or (C) Did not return to work by reason of the allegedly discriminatory use by the City of Oxnard of work restrictions attributed to a Qualified Medical Examiner compared to work restrictions attributed to the employee's treating physician. (D) Did not return to work by reason of the City of Oxnard waiting to initiate an interactive process for their reasonable accommodation until the employee's disability is declared to be "Permanent and Stationary" in a worker's compensation proceeding related to the disability" Excluded from the Class are all presently working City of Oxnard management employees with supervisory authority over the formulation or implementation of the City of Oxnard's policies and practices alleged in this action to violate the ADA, Sec. 504, or FEHA.; CLASS NO. 3 "Class Of City Employees Subjected To An Employer- Controlled Fitness For Duty Examination" "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those employees who have been absent from work while receiving either workers compensation or short or long-term disability insurance benefits, and (i) Have been absent from work due to a disability at a time when they were, with respect to such disability, qualified individuals with a disability within the meaning of Title I of the ADA, the Federal Rehabilitation Act, or the FEHA, and (ii) (A) At any time during the absence from work, were directed by the City of Oxnard to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination when the City already had sufficient medical documentation from the employee's own medical or health care provider to satisfy any of its business need for disability inquiry or medical examination of the employee; or (B) At any time during the absence from work, were directed by the City of Oxnard to undergo a fitness-for- duty examination; and (I) Who underwent such fitness-for-duty examination; and (II) Requested disclosure to the employee of the results of the examination; and (III) Were not provided the results of the examination"; CLASS NO. 4 "Oxnard Police Department Disabled Employees Class - Discrimination Under 34 Cfr Section 100.7(E)" "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those employees who have been absent from work while receiving either workers compensation or short or long-term disability insurance benefits, and (i) Have worked in the Oxnard Police Department; and (ii) Have been absent from work at the Oxnard Police Department because of medical reasons; and (iii) (A) Did not return to work at the Oxnard Police Department by reason of the Oxnard Police Department's alleged 100% healed policy; or (B) Did not return to work at the Oxnard Police Department by reason of the Oxnard Police Department's allegedly discriminatory implementation of its allegedly discriminatory Policy on Modified Duty" Excluded from the Class are all presently working City of Oxnard management employees with supervisory authority over the formulation or implementation of the Oxnard Police Department's policies and practices alleged in this action to violate Title I of the Americans With ADA, the Federal Rehabilitation Act, or the FEHA; CLASS NO. 5 "City Disabled Employees Class - Discrimination Under 34 Cfr section 100.7(E)" "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those employees who have been absent from work while receiving either workers compensation or short or long-term disability insurance benefits, and (i) Have been absent from work because of medical reasons; and (ii) (A) Did not return to work by reason of the City of Oxnard's allegedly discriminatory implementation of its allegedly discriminatory Policy on Reasonable Accommodation; or (B) Did not return to work by reason of the allegedly discriminatory use by the City of Oxnard of uniform pretextual job descriptions; or (C) Did not return to work by reason of the allegedly discriminatory use by the City of Oxnard of work restrictions attributed to a Qualified Medical Examiner compared to work restrictions attributed to the employee's treating physician. (D) Did not return to work by reason of the City of Oxnard waiting to initiate an interactive process for their reasonable accommodation until the employee's disability is declared to be "Permanent and Stationary" in a worker's compensation proceeding related to the disability" Excluded from the Class are all presently working City of Oxnard management employees with supervisory authority over the formulation or implementation of the City of Oxnard's policies and practices alleged in this action to violate the ADA, or FEHA. CLASS NO. 6 "Class Of City Employees Subjected To An Employer- Controlled Fitness For Duty Examination Class - Discrimination Under 34 Cfr Section 100.7(E)" "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those employees who have been absent from work while receiving either workers compensation or short or long-term disability insurance benefits, and (i) Have been absent from work for medical reasons; and (ii) (A) At any time during the absence from work, were directed by the City of Oxnard to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination when the City already had sufficient medical documentation from the employee's own medical or health care provider to satisfy any of its business need for disability inquiry or medical examination of the employee; or (B) At any time during the absence from work, were directed by the City of Oxnard to undergo a fitness-for- duty examination; and (I) Who underwent such fitness-for-duty examination; and (II) Requested disclosure to the employee of the results of the examination; and (III) Were not provided the results of the examination; and CLASS NO. 7 "Class Of All City of Oxnard Employees - Discrimination Under 34 Cfr Section 100.7(E)" "all persons currently employed, or in the future will be employed, by the City of Oxnard who, during such employment, may now be, or in the future will become qualified individuals with disabilities under the ADA, Sec. 504, or FEHA and, at such time, need or will need the City of Oxnard to timely engage in a good faith interactive process with them for their reasonable accommodation within the meaning of these statutory provisions." A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=artGJ4qc The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Salzwedel, Esq. 144 Yucca Ln. Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Telephone: (805) 497 4511 Facsimile: (805) 497 3014 E-mail: williamsalzwedel@yahoo.com PALATINE, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Collins" ----------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court dismissing the claims in the case captioned MICHAEL COLLINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF PALATINE, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-3395 (7th Cir.), as time-barred. The question before the Seventh Circuit is whether a dismissal with prejudice also strips a case of its class-action character. On a summer day in June 2007, a police officer in the Village of Palatine issued a parking ticket to Michael Collins. When Collins returned to his car later that day, he found the bright yellow ticket under his car's windshield wiper blades. The ticket listed personal information about him, including his name, address, driver's license number, date of birth, sex, height, and weight. Collins claims that the display of his personal information violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). So on March 29, 2016, he sued the Village of Palatine on behalf of himself and a proposed class. Palatine moved to dismiss, arguing that Collins's claim was time- barred because the statute of limitations resumed when the district court dismissed Senne v. Village of Palatine, 695 F.3d 597, 599-600 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc), which had a similar scenario. Collins responded that the dismissal on timeliness grounds was inappropriate at the pleadings stage, and even if procedurally proper, the suit was timely because the limitations period was tolled until the Supreme Court denied Senne's petition for certiorari. He also separately moved to certify a class. The District Court agreed with Palatine that Collins's claim was time-barred and granted the motion to dismiss. The judge summarily denied the motion for class certification, apparently on mootness grounds, though he did not give a reason. Here, timeliness turns on the question of tolling. If tolling ended and the limitations clock resumed when the Senne suit was dismissed, Collins's claim is untimely. But if tolling continued until the appeals in Senne were exhausted, then Collins's claim is still live. This is a pure question of law: At what point does class-action tolling end? Here, the dismissal of Collins's claim made the class certification question irrelevant. When the plaintiff's own claim is dismissed, he "can no longer be the class representative." At that point either another class representative must be found or the suit is kaput. No one stepped forward to pick up the spear after Collins's claim was dismissed. That makes sense. Because the limitations period was not tolled during the pendency of the Senne appeal, it's not likely that any class member has a timely claim. That's not to say that no one could step forward to bring a class claim. If there are class members for whom the statute of limitations has not run, the district court's summary denial of class certification would not bind them. The limitations clock on Collins's claim resumed when the Senne class action was dismissed with prejudice prior to class certification. The Seventh Circuit adopts a simple and uniform rule: Tolling stops immediately when a class-action suit is dismissed -- with or without prejudice -- before the class is certified. Accordingly, his claim is time-barred, the Seventh Circuit held. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's November 16, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y73me22l from Leagle.com. Martin J. Murphy -- mmurphy@davisyoung.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Brandon K. Lemley -- blemley@querrey.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Michael E. Kujawa -- mkujawa@schainbanks.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. PATENAUDE & FELIX: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled WENDY UNTERSHINE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01612- WED (E.D. Wisc), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UX1ixWGP The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com PERSONNEL STAFFING: "Haack" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROMAN HAACK, CODY CLAY and RYAN BANTA, and all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, DANIEL S. BARNETT, individually, DAVID BARNETT, individually NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE dba COMPLETE NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE or "CNI", COMPLETE FENCE, INC., US INSTALLERS, dba NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE, and RAYMOND HOHE, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02854 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify class under Fair Labor Standards Act: "all individuals who were employed by or who are currently employed, by one or more of the Defendant named in this action, who have performed work as a fence installer of either commercial or residential fences, at any time during the five year period." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZJrwV0Yo Plaintiffs withdrew a previously filed Motion to Certify Class. The case is an action to redress Defendants' systematic, companywide wrongful classification of Plaintiffs as piece workers and systematic underpayment of journeyman fence installers in violation of the rate Defendants agreed to pay them with Local 63 of the Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Union and Defendants' failure to pay them overtime wages or pay them overtime wages at the correct amount. A copy of the prior Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LCgQIxo1 The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Steven Platt, Esq. ROBBINS, SALOMON & PATT, LTD 180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 Chicago IL, 60601 Telephone: (312) 456 0285 E-mail: lsplatt@rsplaw.com - and - Mr. William Provenzano LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM J. Provenzano & ASSOCIATES, LTD 1580 S. Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 530 Libertyville, IL 60048 Telephone: (847) 816 6588 E-mail: wjprovenzano@ameicatech.net PHILLIP KNOWLES: Certification of Stone Detailers Class Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled PEDRO MORFIN-ARIAS, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employee, the Plaintiffs, v. PHILLIP KNOWLES, DBA CEFRAMIC & STONE DESIGN, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-06114-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Dec. 21, 2017, to certify a class of: "all persons who were, are, employed by Defendant Philip Knowles dba Ceramic & Stone Design in Santa Clara County, California, from October 23, 2013 through the date of final judgment as hourly non-administrative employees working installing stone detailers and drivers paid on an hourly basis stone." A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KPqHQYFD The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert David Baker, Esq. ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC. 80 South White Road San Jose, CA 95127 Telephone: (408) 251 3400 Facsimile: (408) 251 3401 PORSCHE FINANCIAL: "Cox" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled STEVEN MICHAEL COX, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., PORSCHE LEASING LTD., and PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23409-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify two Classes: Inaccurate Disclosure Class: "persons who leased a Porsche vehicle in Florida through the standard form Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement from Defendants and, as part of the transaction, traded in a vehicle with a positive monetary value that was not assigned a positive Net Trade-in Allowance. This Class only covers individuals whose leases either are outstanding or were terminated within four years before the filing of this action"; and Overcharge Class: "persons who leased a Porsche vehicle in Florida through the standard form Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement from Defendants and, as part of the transaction, traded in a vehicle with a positive monetary value that was not properly credited as a Capitalized Cost Reduction. This Class only covers individuals whose leases either are outstanding or were terminated within four years before the filing of this action." The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint himself as Class Representative, and appoint his attorneys Ronald P. Weil and Mark A. Schweikert (WEIL SNYDER SCHWEIKERT & RAVINDRAN, P.A.) and Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, F. Jerome Tapley, and Adam W. Pittman (CORY WATSON, P.C.) as class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1). This putative class action seeks to remedy Porsche's unlawful leasing practices of inflating its profit by "swallowing" its lessees' equity in their trade-in vehicles on the face of their standard form Porsche (TM) leases. A consumer's "trade-in value [is] 'swallowed'" by a lessor's failure "to list the value of a consumer's trade-in vehicle in a contract" and "credit the consumer with the value of the trade-in vehicle." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a3SPsZKq The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Schweikert, Esq. Ronald P. Weil, Esq. WEIL SNYDER SCHWEIKERT RAVINDRAN, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 850 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372 5352 Facsimile: (305) 372 5355 E-mail: rweil@weilquaranta.net mschweikert@weilquaranta.net - and - F. Jerome Tapley, Esq. Hirlye R. Lutz, Esq. Adam W. Pittman, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue Birmingham, Alabama 35205 Telephone: (205) 328 2200 Facsimile: (205) 324 7896 E-mail: jtapley@corywatson.com rultz@corywatson.com apittman@corywatson.com POSTMATES INC: "Winns" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- MELANIE ANNE WINNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. POSTMATES INC., a California Corporation, DOES 1-10, individuals, and DOES 11-20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-17-562282 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief against Defendant among other things, unpaid wages and gratuity, interest, attorneys' fees, penalties, costs and expenses pursuant to California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been non-exempt employees working for Defendant in California within the meaning of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have not been paid all earned wages. The Defendant willfully withheld, collected and received 15 cents from Plaintiffs and Class Members' wages every pay period that Defendant direct deposited earned wages into individual bank accounts. Postmates Inc. is a logistics company that operates a network of couriers who deliver goods locally. Postmates is closely compared to other online delivery services such as Uber, Lyft, or Waiter.com.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amir Mostafavi, Esq. MOSTAFAVI LAW GROUP, APC 11835 W Olympic Blvd., Suite 1055 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 473 1111 Facsimile: (310) 473 2222 PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: "Safranski" Case Settlement Proceeds ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled KATHY L. SAFRANSKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC; a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00129-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Court entered an order: 1. certifying a Settlement Class of: "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom Professional Placement Services, LLC mailed an initial written communication to collect a debt, between January 27, 2016 and February 17, 2017, which states "Re: Partnership Community Health Center." 2. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative; 3. appointing Stern Thomasson LLP as Class Counsel; 4. appointing Heffler Claims Group as the Settlement Administrator to send notice of the Settlement to Class Members and administer the Settlement; 5. approving Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs that it be mailed to the last known address of Class Member as shown in PPS's business records; 6. directing Settlement Administrator to mail the Class Notice to Class Members on or before December 5, 2017; and 7. directing Class Members until January 19, 2018, to return a claim form seeking a payment from the Class Recovery, or to exclude themselves from, or object to, the Settlement. A copy of the Plaintiff's Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xs9rJ06e A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a5YdMDGe Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kathy L. Safranski, and all others similarly situated : Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Heather B. Jones, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 Facsimile: (973) 532 2056 E-Mail: philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com heather@sternthomasson.com PROGRESSIONS BEHAVIORAL: Charles Moves to Certify FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Charles, Shanna Griffin and Antonio Simon, Originating Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TRACY CHARLES, et al. v. PROGRESSIONS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv- 02439-JP (E.D. Pa.), move under the Fair Labor Standards Act for conditional certification of this collective: All persons presently or formerly employed by Defendant in the positions of Behavioral Health Worker and/or Therapeutic Staff Support who worked at least thirty-two (32) hours of "billable" work in two (2) or more workweeks from May 30, 2014 to the present. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SzH4xtbj The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com The Defendant is represented by: John J. Higson, Esq. Eric B. Meyer, Esq. DILWORTH PAXSON LLP 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 575-7000 E-mail: higsonjj@dilworthlaw.com emeyer@dilworthlaw.com QUALITY VACATION: More Clients Express Interest in Joining Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Cairns, writing for Moneyweb, reports that consumer protection lawyer Trudie Broekmann is planning a class action against holiday club companies to demand that they refund their clients. Ms. Broekmann says that she has been studying contracts of points-based time-share schemes, and believes that none of them are enforceable. She has already legally cancelled 48 such contracts, primarily with Quality Vacation Club and Flexi Holiday Club, and has many more clients who have expressed an interest in instituting a class action against these and similar companies. "The first basis for cancellation is that there has been a breach by the timeshare provider, the second is that the contracts themselves don't comply with legislation, and third is that the contract is subsequently void or invalid," Ms. Broekmann explained. "That is what I am intending the class action to be about." If a contract is void, this only needs to be drawn to the attention of the other party, and they are then obliged to return everything that has been provided under the agreement. In the case of the holiday club contracts, Ms. Broekmann argues that this means that the providers must return all money paid by their customers for points, levies or management fees since the contract was signed. Problem contracts Ms. Broekmann argues that a primary problem with the contracts is that the Holiday Clubs simply to do not deliver on their obligations. "One of the standard problems that consumers face is that they pay for what they think will be a right to use accommodation every year, but, somehow, more than half of my clients have never managed to make a single booking," she explains. "The consistent experiences of my clients creates the impression that the booking system is set up to ensure that bookings cannot be made." This of course benefits the holiday club, because if it is impossible to make a booking, they don't have to supply the accommodation. Ms. Broekmann says that the contracts she has seen also do not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the Property Timesharing Control Act. "The CPA has a whole raft of requirements, such as that contracts have to be in plain language, and that the consumer has to agree each time that there is an onerous provision that takes away their rights under common law, and these have not been complied with," Ms. Broekmann argues. "Section four of the Property Timesharing Control Act also requires a provider to disclose all kinds of information to consumers, and these contracts don't." Stonewalled Ms. Broekmann says that she has sent letters to providers on behalf of 48 clients cancelling their contracts on the basis that they are void, but has had only one instance where a refund has been paid. In all of the other cases, she has received no response at all. "There have been no letters coming back saying 'no, you have misunderstood', or 'no, we haven't committed any breach', or 'no, we have complied with the law and here's the proof'. There's been none of that," says Ms. Broekmann. "Just silence. It's sort of a stonewalling approach." Moneyweb also approached both Quality Vacation Club and Flexi Holiday Club through their management companies for a response to Ms. Broekmann's claims, however neither replied to the request. Furthermore, Ms. Broekmann says that 16 of the 48 clients whose contracts she has cancelled are still seeing monthly debit orders go off their bank accounts. They are having to ask their banks to reverse these transactions every month. "In certain other cases, which I think are more extreme, the clients have been hounded by debt collection agencies and threatened with being blacklisted," says Ms. Broekmann. "But you don't owe anything under a cancelled contact. It's a completely groundless debt collection procedure. In fact it amounts to a breach of section 68 of the CPA, which specially prohibits harassing a person if they enforce their rights." Class action Ms. Broekmann says that on top of the 48 clients whose contracts she has cancelled, she has around 30 more that she is assisting. "My intention is to go to court on behalf of these clients and anyone else who wants to join them and register as a class," she explains. "Generally how class actions unfold -- at least in the US where they are more common -- is that there are very serious settlement negotiations, since most suppliers are unwilling to face court time with so many consumers complaining about them. If not, we go to court and convince a judge that these contracts are void, and that the suppliers must subsequently pay everyone out, plus interest over the years." Ms. Broekmann notes that she is waiting for the finalisation of an investigation into holiday clubs by the National Consumer Commission (NCC) before taking this step. She wants to give that process the opportunity to conclude. The NCC held a first round of public hearings on holiday clubs earlier this year and is set to hold a second round starting this month. It is also expected to release a first report during November. Ms. Broekmann says that there is also a second group of a few thousand holiday club clients who are also disgruntled. Moneyweb reported two years ago on how the Freedom Front Plus was assisting them. "I'm hoping we could join forces," Ms. Broekmann says. "I've met with their advocate on that front and it sounds positive, as their constituency's interests and my clients' interests are exactly the same, so we could formulate some kind of joint approach. I think that would be wonderful." [GN] RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Betz Moves for Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Betz moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled ROBIN BETZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01672-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16- cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Uem6OgFv The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Court Denies Bid to Certify 2 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled A.A. a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, the Plaintiff, v. County of Riverside, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-02556-VAP-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class of: Injunctive Relief Class: "[a]ll natural persons, who, as minors, were seized, or are likely to be seized, from their parents or legal guardians' care and custody without a removal warrant by the County of Riverside from December 12, 1994 through the date of trial"; and Damages Class: "[a]ll natural persons, who, as minors, were seized from their parents['] or legal guardians' care and custody, without a removal warrant, by the County of Riverside from December 12, 1994 through the date of trial, and where the primary reason for removal in the [Child Welfare System/Case Management System ('CWS/CMS')] database is 'neglect'" The Court finds that in light of Pittman's declaration, which indicates that the County does not conduct warrantless removals of children on weeknights and weekends in the absence of exigent circumstances, and Plaintiff's lack of evidence to the contrary, that Plaintiff's Injunctive Relief class fails under Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirement that she demonstrate that the County "has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class." Amchem, 521 U.S. at 614 (2009). fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and (2) that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. See In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2009). As the Court previously found in this Order that Plaintiff had failed to sustain her burden under Rule 23(a)(2), it "need not address whether [the] Rule 23(b)(3) requirements have been met." See Gonzalez, 381 F.R.D. at 466. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UB9tHZzU ROSS STORES: No Seats for Checkers & Cashiers, "Zumaya" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ZUMAYA, individually, and as a representative of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROSS STORES, INC., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC680817 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 23, 2017), alleges that Ross failed to provide him and other checkers and/or cashiers with seats in violation of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the plaintiff has worked as a checker and/or cashier at Ross in the Sherman Oaks, California store. The cubicle area is sufficiently spacious to provide adequate room to provide a seat for a checker and/or cashier. Ross checkers and/or cashiers' duties include several duties where the checker and/or cashier work in place for an entire work shift. During these time periods, a seat is required by law, the lawsuit says. Ross is a nationwide retail chain operation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre E. Jardini, Esq. K.L. Myles, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547 5000 Facsimile: (818) 547 5329 E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com klm@kpclegal.com - and - Michael V. Jehdian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 247 9111 Facsimile: (818) 247 9222 E-mail: jehdian@lawyer.com RUBIANO INC: Mays Moves to Certify Class of Entertainers/Dancers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ELIZABETH MAYS and ALESSANDRA MALMQUIST individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RUBIANO, INC. and SHARON RUBIANO, Case No. 4:17-cv-00048-JVB- JEM (N.D. Ind.), move the Court to conditionally certify a collective action and to facilitate notice to collective plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs seek leave to send Notice and Consent to all similarly situated hourly, non-exempt employees employed by Rubiano, Inc. as Entertainers or Dancers at any time during the three years preceding the filing of the Plaintiffs' Complaint to the present. Pursuant to the FLSA, they are entitled to send court-approved Notice to all other similarly situated current and former employees, who have experienced violations of the FLSA similar to those experienced by them, the Plaintiffs contend. Such similarly situated employee positions are limited to those persons employed by Rubiano, Inc., in positions of Entertainers or Dancers, who were entitled to be classified as employees, instead of independent contractors, and were not paid properly for hours worked and hours worked in excess of forty-hours per week, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order the Defendant to promptly produce to the Plaintiff's counsel a list the names, last known addresses, and last known telephone numbers of all potential plaintiffs, and to approve the issuance of the Notice and Consent in the forms hereto to all such persons. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BOZncmb2 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan Sullivan, Esq. BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1300 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 575-4108 Facsimile: (812) 424-1005 E-mail: rsullivan@bdlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Nicholas C. Deets, Esq. HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS LLC 10201 N. Illinois Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46290 Telephone: (317) 660-2941 E-mail: ndeets@hovdelaw.com SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC., and E & G, INC. individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly- situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, LP and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-1638-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for class certification of: Class A - 2013 Faxes: "all persons or entities successfully sent one or more facsimiles on or about September 4, 2013, and September 6, 2013, stating "Free month (average value $500 per 100 rooms," "Free Battery replacement every 18 months for initial term of contract (3 times)," and "1 Free Safe for Office""; Class B - 2015 Fax: "all persons or entities successfully sent a facsimile on or about December 1, 2015, stating "Attention owners and hotel employees: Increase Cash Flow at NO COST!" and "Learn more today at Safemark.com." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=94pgO0eW The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Baird" Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The case is captioned as Lance Baird, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-06407-JSW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics and digital products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Raymond Ongaro, Esq. ONGARO PC 50 California Street, Suite 3325 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433 3900 Facsimile: (415) 433 3950 E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com - and - Jacob L Karczewski, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACOB KARCZEWSKI PLLC 43611 N 30th Street, Seattle Tacoma, WA 98407 Telephone: (253) 229 3173 E-mail: jkarczewski@rrexparris.com SAN JOSE, CA: Police Sued Over Undercover Gay Stings ---------------------------------------------------- Brandon Voss, writing for NewNowNext, reports that a federal lawsuit has been filed against the San Jose Police Department over undercover lewd-conduct stings that unfairly targeted gay men, Mercury News reports. The lawsuit comes more than a year after Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jose S. Franco ruled that these "decoy" operations, conducted during a 17-month period in 2014-15 at a public men's room in Columbus Park, were unconstitutional. Judge Franco dismissed the misdemeanor charges against six men accused of loitering with intent to commit a lewd and lascivious or unlawful act. The new complaint seeks monetary damages of at least $1 million for five of the six defendants cleared by the June 2016 ruling. Prominent gay-rights attorney Bruce Nickerson is also seeking class-action status for the lawsuit in hopes that it will help end the undercover police solicitation of gay men in public parks and restrooms. "They're invalid and discriminatory," said Mr. Nickerson of the stings, "because they target male-male public sex and not also male-female public sex." San Jose police say that while the stings were conducted due to citizen complaints and officer observations of unlawful activity in the park, these operations have since been discontinued. "We have a responsibility to respond to complaints of crimes and are always looking for other ways to do so," police chief Eddie Garcia said in a statement. "We have not used these type of undercover operations in response to public complaints of unlawful lewd-conduct in the more than two years since these arrests occurred. We are still responding and enforcing the law by utilizing other techniques." "The LGBT community often gets forgotten in efforts to increase trust with the police, but in the past two years, we are doing more than ever to make sure that is not the case in San Jose," Mr. Garcia continued. "We created an LGBT advisory committee, established an LGBT liaison officer program and launched a first- in-the-nation police recruiting campaign featuring same-sex couples." Judge Nickerson argues that the undercover enforcement preys on men struggling with their sexuality and looking for a safe place to explore it. "I have no objection to uniformed cops doing patrol, but when they go decoy, that's what makes it invalid," he said, explaining how the officers falsely express sexual interest in their vulnerable targets. "It's one thing to be arrested. What's worse is to be arrested and deprived of your liberties because you're gay. That's essentially what's going on." [GN] SAUL CHEVROLET: Court Denies "Rivera" Bid to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARCOS RIVERA, the Plaintiff, v. SAUL CHEVROLET, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-05966- LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order denying with prejudice Plaintiff's second motion to conditionally certify collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court said, "The Court's July 31, 2017 order denying Plaintiff's first motion to conditionally certify a FLSA collective action, the Court set forth the deficiencies in Plaintiff's first motion in great detail and warned that "[f]ailure to cure the deficiencies identified in this order will result in a denial with prejudice of conditional certification of FLSA collective action." The Plaintiff was unable to cure those deficiencies when granted leave to file a second motion to conditionally certify a FLSA collective action." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZhKJtksD SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify ISR Class & Subclass --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SCI Direct, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on December 4, 2017, for an order to certify a Class consisting of the following Class and Subclasses: ISR Class: all persons who worked for Defendants in California, as an Independent Sales Representative, who were, at any time within four years of the filing of the Complaint, classified as an independent contractor"; and Terminated ISR Subclass: "all members of the ISR Class whose working relationship ended during the Class Period." The Plaintiffs will also move the Court for appointment of themselves as Class Representatives, and for appointment of their attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wDrGzVek Attorneys for Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com SCI DIRECT: Wins Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended "Romano" Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Otis D. Wright, II, entered an order in the lawsuit captioned NICOLE ROMANO and JONATHAN BONO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI DIRECT, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), -- granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim; -- dismissing as moot and without prejudice Plaintiffs' motions for class certification under both Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Fair Labor Standards Act; and -- dismissing as moot and without prejudice Plaintiffs' application to file under seal documents in support of those Motions. The action arises out of alleged violations of California labor and wage laws. Plaintiffs Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono worked as Independent Sales Representatives ("ISRs") for Defendant. In their role as ISRs, the Plaintiffs allege they were misclassified as independent contractors, rather than employees, as a part of Defendant's "elaborate scheme to skirt the requirements" of the California Labor Code and the FLSA. The Court orders that the Plaintiffs will be permitted to re-file their Motions for Class Certification no more than 30 days following either: (1) Defendant's substantive answer to Plaintiffs' third-amended complaint, or (2) the date of an order from this Court ruling on Defendant's subsequent Motion to Dismiss. The hearing dates on Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification are vacated. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GDfYsVqY SEAGATE TECH: Class Certification Sought in Hard Drive Case ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit RE: SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC LITIGATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-00523-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the plaintiffs will move the Court on February 9, 2018, for an order certifying pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and California law, a class of: "all individuals in the United States who purchased new, not for resale, on or before February 1, 2016, at least one Seagate model ST3000DM001 hard drive or at least one drive with any of the following model numbers on the box it was sold in or on the hard drive's casing or chassis: STAC3000100, STAC3000102, STAC3000202, STAC3000402, STAC3000403, STAC3000404, STAC3000602, STAM3000100, STAM3000400, STAY3000100, STAY3000102, STBC3000101, STBC3000102, STBD3000100, STBM3000100, STBN6000100, STBP12000100, STBV3000100, STBV3000200, STCA3000101, STCA3000600, STCA3000601, STCA3000602, STCB3000100, STCB3000101, STCB3000201, STCB3000400, STCB3000401, STCB3000900, STCB3000901, STCP3000100, STCP3000400, STDT3000100, STDT3000400, STDT3000402, STDT3000600, STDU3000101, STDU3000400, STEB3000100, STEB3000200, STEB3000400, STEG3000100, STEG3000400, STFM3000100, or STFM3000400." In the alternative, the plaintiffs propose these state classes under the omissions theory in these jurisdictions' consumer protection laws: "all individuals in the jurisdictions of California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, who purchased new, not for resale, on or before February 1, 2016, at least one Seagate model ST3000DM001 hard drive or at least one drive with any of the following model numbers on the box it was sold in or on the hard drive's casing or chassis: STAC3000100, STAC3000102, STAC3000202, STAC3000402, STAC3000403, STAC3000404, STAC3000602, STAM3000100, STAM3000400, STAY3000100, STAY3000102, STBC3000101, STBC3000102, STBD3000100, STBM3000100, STBN6000100, STBP12000100, STBV3000100, STBV3000200, STCA3000101, STCA3000600, STCA3000601, STCA3000602, STCB3000100, STCB3000101, STCB3000201, STCB3000400, STCB3000401, STCB3000900, STCB3000901, STCP3000100, STCP3000400, STDT3000100, STDT3000400, STDT3000402, STDT3000600, STDU3000101, STDU3000400, STEB3000100, STEB3000200, STEB3000400, STEG3000100, STEG3000400, STFM3000100, or TFM3000400." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SKVhp3c8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Ashley Bede, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 Facsimile: (206) 623 0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com ashleyb@hbsslaw.com - and - Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 725 3000 Facsimile: (510) 725 3001 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Marc A. Goldich, Esq. Noah Axler, Esq. AXLER GOLDICH, LLC 1520 Locust Street, Suite 301 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 534 7400 E-mail: mgoldich@axgolaw.com naxler@axgolaw.com SILVERTREE MOHAVE: Court OKs $800K Settlement in "Lewis" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement in the case captioned DOMENICA LEWIS, JEROLD LEWIS, DOMENICA LEWIS as guardian ad-litem for her minor children, and PROJECT SENTINEL, Plaintiffs, v. SILVERTREE MOHAVE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., CAROL LEE ADAMS, MARILYN BLACK, ANAND BHASKARAN, and TAMELA DURANT, individually and as members of the Board of Directors, and DONALD MURPHY individually and d/b/a/MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, Defendants, No. C 16-03581 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Defendant Silvertree Mohave Homeowners' Association adopted a "no sports play" rule, which prohibited any children under the age of 14 from being in the complex's common areas without adult supervision, and from engaging in any sports activities in the common areas. The homeowners' association board of directors enforced this rule, including by posting notice of the rule in the HOA's monthly newsletters and fining parents of children in breach of the rule. Plaintiffs filed suit against the HOA, its board members, and the complex manager, Donald Murphy (d/b/a/Management Solutions). The complaint alleged seven claims for violations of federal and state fair housing and anti-discrimination laws, and sought monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of residents of the complex who had minor children living with them in the complex during the class period. While plaintiffs' motion for class certification proceeded, the parties reached a settlement agreement during a conference. Here, there is no intimation of collusion or self-interest on the part of class counsel. Indeed, to guard against this concern, class counsel has agreed that it will not receive any fees as part of the settlement, and instead were required to make a separate fee application, which in no way bears upon the class members' recovery. Plaintiffs secured substantial relief for the class, including all of the injunctive relief sought as well as a monetary award of approximately $2,335 per plaintiff (under which scheme a family of four will receive approximately $9,340). This is a reasonable recovery when weighed against the risk of going to trial. Moreover, the release in the proposed class settlement is tailored to the claims actually pursued in this action, and does not bind any class member who could not be located with reasonable diligence, or who opts out. Finally, no class member has objected to the proposed class settlement, and the time for written objections has passed. Accordingly, the Court finds the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate so as to warrant final approval. Here, plaintiffs' counsel seek $468,888 total based on the expenditure of 897.32 hours. This amount is divided between the two firms that represented plaintiffs, Winston & Strawn billing $253,547.50 for 410.25 hours, and the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley billing $215,340.50 for 487.07 hours. In support of their billing amounts, both firms have provided task-by-task billing narratives, as well as the position, experience, and rates of each biller. Defendants contend that the rates plaintiffs' counsel have billed are unreasonable, and should be adjusted downward. Here, total class recovery is $800,000. Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking $468,888, which is approximately 37% of the total outlay. The reductions applied by this order, however, reduce the recovery to $296,020, which amounts to 27% of the total outlay. Given the substantial injunctive relief secured by plaintiffs' counsel, this is well within the range of a reasonable recovery. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and costs is granted in part. Applying reductions to plaintiffs' counsel's fee request, plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to $296,020 in attorneys' fees. The order further approves $3,461 in costs. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybjp3hgc from Leagle.com. Domenica Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham -- annettek@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. Domenica Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Corey David Attaway -- cattaway@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis - kyrak@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Matthew Frederick Warren -- matthew.warren@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Nadia Aziz -- nadia.aziz@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley & Robert Alan Julian -- rjulian@winston.com -- Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP. Jerrold Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley,Corey David Attaway, Winston and Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley & Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. Jerrold Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley & Robert Alan Julian, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP. S. L., Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley & Robert Alan Julian, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP. E. L., Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley & Robert Alan Julian, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP. Project Sentinel, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Corey David Attaway, Winston and Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley & Robert Alan Julian, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP. Silvertree Mohave Homeowners' Association, Inc., Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams, McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, 3480 Buskirk Ave Ste 250. Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-7310, Jacy C. Dardine -- jacy.dardine@mcnamaralaw.com -- McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP, 1211 Newell Ave, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Carol Lee Adams, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams, McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C. Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP. Marilyn Black, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams, McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C. Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP. Anand Bhaskaran, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams, McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C. Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP. Tamela Durant, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams, McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C. Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP. Donald W Murphy, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams, McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C. Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP. SIMMONS FOODS: "Fochtman" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Mark Fochtman and Shane O'Neal, Individually, and on behalf of all others Similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Caair, Inc.; Simmons Foods, Inc.; Darp, Inc.' Hendren Plastics, Inc.; and John Does 1-30, Case No. 04cv-17- 02190, was removed on Nov. 6, 2017 from the Circuit Court of Benton County, Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-05228-TLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy L. Brooks. Simmons Foods is a supplier of poultry, pet, and ingredient products based in Siloam Springs, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Holleman, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATE P.A. 1008 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975 5040 Facsimile: (501) 975 5043 E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net Attorneys for Simmons Foods, Inc. John R. Elrod, Esq. CONNER & WINTERS, LLP 4375 N. Vantage Drive, Suite 405 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 582 5711 Facsimile: (479) 587 1426 E-mail: jelrod@cwlaw.com SODEXO INC: Court Denies Lazo's Amended Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TRACEY LAZO, JAMEN HARPER, MUSTAPHA JARRAF, NY'COLE YOUNG THOMAS, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SODEXO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv- 13366-GAO (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. entered an order denying Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. The Court said, "The three named plaintiffs worked together at One Lincoln Street, so they have at least some things in common with each other. What they have not shown is that there are questions of fact or law that can be given a common answer across the various services provided by Sodexo over the range of various locations, governed by differing contractual terms and fees between Sodexo and the client. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the named plaintiffs were not "aggrieved by the same practice or policy as the putative class members" because there appears to be no "practice or policy" common to the multiple locations where the putative class members worked. For example, a determination that Sodexo violated the Tips Act with respect to the three named plaintiffs working at One Lincoln Street would do nothing to determine whether the statute had been violated at other locations where other services were rendered on varying terms. It follows, of course, that the plaintiffs' individual claims are therefore not typical of the variety of different claims that would have to be asserted by workers at other locations. In sum, the plaintiffs have failed to show a consistent practice or policy regarding the imposition of fees across their proposed class locations that would permit classwide resolution of their claim, by permitting the determination of a "common answer" to a classwide issue. See Wal-Mart Stores, 564 U.S. at 350. Accordingly, they have not established either commonality or typicality as required by Rule 23(a)(2)-(3). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=15xlYPxd STATE COLLECTION: Certification of Class Sought in "Bonin" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Bonin and Amy Vega move the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled ELAINE BONIN and AMY VEGA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01646- JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16- cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs contend. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3gYQH2bY The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com STATE FARM: "Vogt" Suit Seeks to Certify Policy Owners Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL G. VOGT, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-04170-NKL (W.D. Mo.), Mr. Vogt moves for an order certifying a class of policy owners: "all persons who own or owned a universal life insurance policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the State of Missouri." This case presents overarching common questions, the answers to which will resolve tens of thousands of claims without the need for individualized testimony: whether State Farm deducted cost of insurance and expense charges from each policy owner's Account Value in amounts greater than those authorized by the Policy. Because this case involves the interpretation of materially identical form contracts, all claims will turn on the Policy's terms and conditions." Few cases are better suited for class treatment. The Policy is a "universal life" insurance policy. Universal life insurance is a type of "permanent" life insurance that, unlike standard "term" insurance, is intended to provide lifetime. Excluded from the Class are: State Farm; any entity in which State Farm has a controlling interest; any of the officers, directors, or employees of State Farm; the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of State Farm; anyone employed with Plaintiff's counsel's firms; and any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and his or her immediate family. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YPTB9FnO The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq. Ethan M. Lange, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MI 64112 Telephone: (816) 714 7100 Facsimile: (816) 714 7101 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com siegel@stuevesiegel.com perkins@stueveseigel.com lange@stueveseigel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, Missouri 64111 Telephone: 816 561 6500 Facsimile: 816 561 6501 E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com SUDLER AND COMPANY: Horist's Motion to Certify Class Withdrawn -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on November 29, 2017, in the case styled Keith Horist, et al. v. Sudler and Company, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08113 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiffs' placeholder motion to certify class is withdrawn without prejudice; -- Defendant Sudler and Company's motion for extension of time to December 19, 2017, to answer or otherwise plead is granted; -- Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motions to dismiss is due by January 30, 2018; -- Defendants' replies are due by February 20, 2018; and -- Status hearing is set for May 3, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=61i6MqIz SUMMITT TRUCKING: Bid to Certify in "Ratliff" Suit Withdrawn ------------------------------------------------------------ The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on November 30, 2017, in the case entitled Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. Summitt Trucking, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-07208 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. The minute entry states that: -- status hearing held and continued to May 2, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.; -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn; -- Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be filed by December 15, 2017; -- Parties' joint oral motion for leave to file motion and response in excess of 15 pages is granted to three additional pages; -- Plaintiff's response shall be filed by January 16, 2018; -- Defendants' reply in support shall be filed by January 30, 2018; -- The court will rule electronically; -- All fact discovery shall be noticed in time to be completed by August 1, 2018; -- The Court will stay the deadline for Defendants' answer and the participation in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot program in this case until ruling on the motion to dismiss. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Oi9avbte SURFSIDE COFFEE: Jerez et al Seek to Certify Store Managers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ELIZABET JEREZ, WANDA ADORNO, and RONALD HUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SURFSIDE COFFEE COMPANY LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and CHRISTOPHER MELLGREN, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22969-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant motion to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to similarly situated employees on behalf of: "all current and former store managers employed by Defendants throughout the state of Florida and classified as exempt, and not properly paid for hours worked in excess of 40 and employed for any length of time since three (3) years prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, should be provided notification of the pendency of this action and of their right to opt-into this action should they file a notice of consent with the clerk of this court." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eBmA0rJh The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE LLP 3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 544-8900 Facsimile: (561) 544-8999 E-mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com Counsel for Defendant Surfside Coffee Company John C. German, Esq. Rebecca R. Anguiano, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE P.A. 9150 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 350 5300 Facsimile: (305) 373 2294 E-mail: cody.german@csklegal.com rebecca.anguiano@csklegal.com - and - Allison Folk, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577 7600 E-mail: Allison.Folk@jacksonlewis.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Fritsch" Suit Remanded to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GRANT FRITSCH, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02226-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), Judge Jesus G Bernal entered an order on December 7, 2017, (1) granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; (2) remanding the case to state court; and (3) vacating a December 11, 2017 (in chambers). Judge Bernal held that Defendant has proven the amount in controversy is approximately $4,778,575, which does not exceed the jurisdictional minimum. Thus, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. The action is remanded to San Bernardino County Superior Court, CIVDS81518012. Mr. Fritsch was scheduled to move the Court on December 11 for an order certifying a class, designating himself as Class Representative, and appointing Daniel J. Palay and Brian D. Hefelfinger of Palay Hefelfinger, APC, and Michael A. Strauss of Strauss & Strauss, APC, as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NFEUGptF Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq. PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC 1484 E. Main Street, Suite 105-B Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 628 8220 Facsimile: (805) 765 8600 E-mail: bdh@calemploymentcounsel.com - and - Michael A. Strauss, Esq. Rabiah A. Rahman, Esq. STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC 121 North Fir Street, Suite F Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 641 6600 Facsimile: (805) 641 6607 E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com TAUBRA CORP: Agrees to Drivers Class Certification in "Burcham" --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit entitled JAMES BURCHAM AND GRADY HILL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. TAUBRA CORP., AN OHIO CORPORATION, D/B/A MERCURY SERVICE, and JUDITH BOWERS FRANCIS, Individually, Case No. 3:17-cv-00168-TMR-MJN (S.D. Ohio), file a joint stipulation for conditional certification of collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to facilitate notice to putative opt-in plaintiffs. The Defendants, while entering the Joint Stipulation with the Plaintiffs, do not concede that final certification is appropriate, that any other Rule 23 certification is appropriate, reserve all rights to object to final certification and/or to file a motion for decertification, and do not waive any arguments or defenses they may assert in support of a later motion for decertification. The Parties have agreed to the following definition for conditional certification and notice purposes only: All delivery drivers classified as independent contractors who worked for Defendants within the last three years who were not paid at least minimum wage for some hours worked and/or who were not compensated at time-and-one half for hours worked in excess of forty hours in one or more workweeks. The Parties also ask the Court to: (1) direct the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the names, the last known addresses, telephone numbers, last four digits of their social security numbers, e-mail addresses, and dates of work of each putative class member; (2) authorize the Plaintiff's counsel to send the Class Notice to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants by first-class mail and e-mail; and (3) provide all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff. A copy of the Joint Stipulation is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xOm3iFrd The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew Biller, Esq. MARKOVITZ, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC Easton Town Center 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 583-8107 E-mail: ABiller@msdlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael W. Sandner, Esq. Matthew D. Stokely, Esq. PICKREL, SCHAEFFER & EBELING, CO., LPA 2700 Kettering Tower Dayton, OH 45423 Telephone: (937) 223-1130 Facsimile: (937) 223-0339 E-mail: msandner@pselaw.com mstokely@pselaw.com TD AMERITRADE: "Klein" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled GERALD J. KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and FREDRIC TOMCZYK, the Defendants, Case No. 8:14-cv-00396-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order to certify a class of: "all clients of TD Ameritrade between September 15, 2011 and September 15, 2014 who placed orders that did not receive best execution, in connection with which TD Ameritrade received either liquidity rebates or payment for order flow, and who were thereby damaged". The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a class for injunctive relief as follows: "all clients of TD Ameritrade between September 15, 2011 and September 15, 2014 who placed orders in connection with which TD Ameritrade received either liquidity rebates or payment for order flow and who continue to be clients of TD Ameritrade (Injunctive Class)". The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Plaintiff to serve as Class Representative; and appoint Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SiHJWSng The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory C. Scaglione, Esq. Patrice D. Ott, Esq. KOLEY JESSEN P.C., L.L.O. One Pacific Place, Suite 800 1125 South 103rd Street Omaha, NE 68124 Telephone: (402) 390 9500 Facsimile: (402) 390 9005 E-mail: Greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com Patrice.ott@koleyjessen.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623 3000 Facsimile: (973) 623 0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 992 4523 E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com stornatore@zlk.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363 7500 Facsimile: (212) 363 7171 E-mailk: ek@zlk.com ckupka@zlk.com TESLA INC: Former Employees Join Class Action Over Mass Firings --------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Hansen, writing for The Mercury News, reports that Frank Morales joined Tesla about four years ago, eager to work for a growing company. Mr. Morales handled the aggressive deadlines of the Tesla warehouse -- until October. He said he received years of strong performance reviews, but was fired one day "with no warning." A friend and a cousin recently asked him if they should go to work for the car maker. "I told them no," Mr. Morales said, "stay where you're at." Tesla's October dismissal of 700 workers has left former employees angry and outspoken. Some, like Mr. Morales, have refused to a sign a separation agreement they feel is unfair and restrictive. The agreement bars former employees from disparaging the company or the executives who fired them, according to a copy obtained by this news organization. Tesla also faces ongoing protests, lawsuits and federal complaints from ex-workers and workers seeking to unionize -- and is once again aggressively defending its image. The disruptions come as the company battles the enormous task of hiring, training and expanding a skilled workforce to produce a new vehicle -- the delayed, lower-cost Model 3 -- that's key to its success and survival. Experts in human resources and employment law say the abrupt dismissals and upheaval could have lasting consequences for the Tesla brand and the company's ability to attract talented engineers and factory workers. "You really need to plan (terminations) very, very carefully, because it's about people," said Sanjay Sathe, CEO of placement support agency RiseSmart. The former workers could be future customers or even rehired as production demands increase, Mr. Sathe said. And bad word-of-mouth reviews can spread quickly on social media. CEO Elon Musk acknowledged for the first time the company had fired 700 employees, saying it was for poor performance. Tesla sets high worker standards, he said, because it must be better than its bigger competition. "They're high because, if they're not high, we will die," Mr. Musk said. He complained that the October terminations, first reported by this news organization, became public and added that journalists should "be ashamed" for writing about a turnover of 2 percent of the public company's employees. The company also shot back at critics questioning its treatment of workers, who have raised concerns about lax worker safety rules and low pay. Chief people officer Gaby Toledano wrote an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee touting the company's employee stock program and innovative environment. The company lists more than 2,500 open positions on its job board. "Our employees have many paths towards promotion and long-term careers," Mr. Toledano wrote in response to a critic. "We also believe it is important for everyone to be an owner of the company so, unlike other automakers, everyone is awarded company stock upon hiring." Palo Alto-based Tesla says workers remain attracted to the automotive and clean tech company. A company spokesman said Tesla received more than 73,000 applications worldwide in October, a 16 percent increase from January. Any suggestion that the firings would hurt Tesla hiring in the long-term, the company said, "is purely speculation." The company's stock price hit record highs this year, but fell in recent weeks. Analysts have kept a close watch on employee turnover in key positions. High-profile executives in autonomous driving, batteries, finance and business development have left the company this year. More than a dozen current and former employees interviewed said their dismissals came with little or no warning and were unrelated to performance. Some said they were fired weeks before stock options vested. Many added that morale suffered at the plant, as workers were unsure of their job status. The company has also angered outgoing employees by requiring them to sign a broad non-disparagement clause as part of their separation package. The separation agreements ban ex-employees from bad-mouthing the company, its executives, investors, affiliated companies, and contractors and products. Fired employees are prohibited from specifically criticizing Mr. Musk, in return for two weeks severance pay. Irving Arguello, a former Tesla mechanic from San Francisco, refused to sign the agreement. "I got spit out," said Mr. Arguello, an expert in automotive electronics. "It's a lot to ask." Mr. Arguello spent months in Norway, Canada and in U.S. cities fixing Tesla cars and training mechanics. He enjoyed learning the cutting edge technology, but said he became disillusioned with company managers ignoring worker needs, and Tesla's demand for secrecy. "Tesla relies a lot on perception," he said. "They want to keep the positive perception." Scores of workers and supporters have protested at the Fremont factory since the terminations. Some former employees have joined a class action suit, saying the dismissals were actually layoffs - - a distinction that could bring ex-employees up to 60 days of back pay. Like the Argus Facebook page for neighborhood news and conversation from Fremont and beyond. Employment lawyers say it's unusual to fire hundreds of employees within weeks for performance issues. "If an employee is doing poorly, you would just fire him," said Nick Rosenthal, a Los Angeles attorney for several ex-workers. "You wouldn't fire hundreds at the same time." Randy Strauss, an employment attorney based in Oakland, questioned Tesla's explanation for the dismissal. "On its face, it seems highly unlikely," Mr. Strauss said. "Have you ever heard of a company that fires up to 1,000 people at one time, for cause?" Josie Camacho, an executive at the Alameda Labor Council, said the terminations shocked many in the community. Labor organizers had high hopes for Mr. Musk leading a new era of auto manufacturing in the Bay Area and restoring the former Toyota NUMMI plant to regional, economic powerhouse. Ms. Camacho said remaining factory workers she's spoken with are upset. "As far as I'm concerned," she said, "this employer needs to be held accountable." Mr. Morales, 46, insists he's not bitter about his time at Tesla. He's found a new, better-paying job closer to his home in San Jose. "Things happen for a reason." But still, he said, "I don't think it was right." [GN] TEZOS: Silver Miller Files Class Action in Florida Over ICO ----------------------------------------------------------- JD Alois, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that The Tezos Initial Coin Offering (ICO) has been hit with another class action filing, this time in Florida. Filed by the law firm of Silver Miller in Coral Springs, the legal action is on behalf of plaintiff Alejandro Gaviria. The suit names founders Kathleen and Arthur Breitman, along with Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. and the Tezos Foundation (based in Switzerland) as defendants. Tezos sold "Tezzies" tokens in an ICO this past summer that raised $232 million. Some estimates have placed the total take at $600 million as the price of Bitcoin and other crypto having skyrocketed in value in the ensuing months following the crowdsale. Much of the filing is similar to the first class action filed in California by Taylor-Copeland Law in San Diego. The suit alleges securities fraud and highlights the fact Tezos has disintegrated into a very public squabble between the Breitman's and Johann Gevers who manages the Tezos Foundation. The suit says the corporate infighting has caused concern the Tezos Blockchain may never be launched. The law suit says the defendants have already pocketed "tens of millions of dollars" for their promotional efforts that included "many misrepresentations, factual commissions, and unlawful activities." The plaintiff is concerned he will never receive any return on their investment. Mr. Gaviria apparently transferred 25.0799 ETH and 28 ETH in July, an amount that is now worth approximately $17,347.22. The filing notes that prominent VC Tim Draper allegedly backed Tezos with a $1.5 million minority stake in DLS and his participation helped to bolster the perception of legitimacy. The document references the terms of the Tezos ICO where apparently 8.5% of the total offering went to DLS and its shareholders. With the rise in the price of Bitcoin and Ether this amount was pegged at $50 million. As part of the class action, the law firm has included the terms of the ICO that indicates Tezos sought to define the offering as a donation and not an investment. [GN] THREE SEASONS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Urrutia" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JUAN URRUTIA Y URRUTIA, the Plaintiff, v. THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE CONTRACING ERVICES, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-06416-TR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon Judge Timothy Rice entered an order: 1. dismissing Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and Defendants' motion to stay as moot; and 2. dismissing Counsel's June 30, 2017 motion to withdraw as moot. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oy1scAVb TITLE SOURCE: Court Shelves Conditional Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SOM SWAMY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TITLE SOURCE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01175-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order: 1. holding Swamy's motion for conditional certification in abeyance; and 2. denying Swamy's motion for a protective order. The plaintiff shall have an opportunity to renew his motion at the same time he seeks Rule 23 certification, the Court said. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c8COIdpg TK SERVICES: "Nunez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- RAUL NUNEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TK SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC682512 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the California Labor Code Defendants maintain shops/branches/locations at which they manufacture, sell and service their temperature control units in California in Los Angeles, San Diego, Fontana, Stockton, Redding, San Leandro and Sacramento. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee in various positions, the last of which was Shop Foreman, from 1987 through February 26, 2016. The Plaintiff performed various duties during his employment with Defendants, including, without limitation, installing and servicing temperature control units. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was typically scheduled to work commencing at 7:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. However, Plaintiff would often arrive at work and commence working prior to his scheduled start time. Despite clocking in and commencing work prior to the scheduled start of his shift, Defendants would only pay Plaintiff from the scheduled start of his shift, rather than from the time that he clocked in and actually began performing work for Defendants. The Defendants knew and/or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff was working and providing services to Defendants at their direction and control. The Defendants would keep track of Plaintiff s time worked and would unlawfully shave Plaintiffs work time and/or round Plaintiffs work time such that Plaintiff would not be fully paid for all time worked. This time shaving/rounding practice utilized by Defendants was not even-handed over time and would almost exclusively round and shave in Defendants' favor such that Plaintiff was routinely underpaid for his time worked. For example, on February 19, 2016, Plaintiffs time records indicate he worked a portion of the day from 7:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m., yet was only allotted 4.5 hours of work time instead of the actual 5 hours worked. There are many instances within Plaintiffs records indicating his time was rounded and/or shaved by Defendants and in their favor, resulting in Plaintiff being routinely underpaid his wages. Further, had Plaintiff been properly allotted all the time he actually worked, including the time unlawfully shaved/rounded and the time he worked before and after his scheduled shift, he would have often worked in excess of 8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week resulting in overtime which was either not paid, or underpaid.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. Daniel J. Brown, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com dbrown@haineslawgroup.com TOURO COLLEGE: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touro College. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Touro College, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08416-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla. Touro College is a private college of higher and professional education in New York City, New York, in the United States. It was founded by Bernard Lander in 1971 and named for Isaac and Judah Touro.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite OHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (917) 796 7437 Facsimile: (212) 982 6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Feller's Bid to Certify Class Under Submission ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Christina A. Snyder has under submission these motions submitted in the lawsuit captioned GORDON FELLER; ET AL. v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:16-cv-01378-CAS- AJW (C.D. Cal.): -- Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; -- Plaintiff's motion for provisional class certification, appointment of class representative, appointment of class counsel, and issuance of class notice; and -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel. "Hearing held and counsel are present. Tentative Orders provided. The Court confers with counsel and counsel argue. The Court takes the above-referenced motions under submission," according to the Court's civil minutes. The Court further confers with counsel, as stated in Court and on the record. The Court continues the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Defendant's Motion to Strike. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UzuMJj5e The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Friedman, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 E Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 776-5902 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com - and - Harvey Rosenfield, Esq. THE FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER & CONSUMER RIGHTS 1750 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 392-0522 Facsimile: (310) 392-8874 E-mail: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org - and - Adam Moskowitz, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Nancy Thomas, Esq. Dan Marmalefsky, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 E-mail: nthomas@mofo.com dmarmalefsky@mofo.com TT OF PINE: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Mahoney" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TOM MAHONEY, the Plaintiff, v. TT OF PINE RIDGE, INC, the Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80029-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order: 1. certifying a Settlement Class of: "all persons or legal entities in the United States who, during the Class Period, received a non-emergency call, text, or voicemail message from or on behalf of Naples Nissan through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice"; 2. appointing Plaintiff Mahoney as representative of the settlement class, and appointing The Law Offce of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC, and Brandon J. Hill, of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. as Class Counsel; 3. approving an award of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the total amount of $344,447.08 and $15,184.91 in costs/expenses; 4. dismissing the action with prejudice and without taxable costs to any Party, and judgment is entered in accordance with this Order and the settlement agreement; 5. granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for entry of final approval order and judgment; 6. granting in part Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and a class representative service award; and 7. directing Clerk of Court to close this case and deny all pending motions as moot. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F2ABPdNQ U.S. HEALTHWORKS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, "Hwang" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY HWANG aka ASHLEY A. SLAYTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS INC., a Delaware corporation and subsidiary of DIGNITY HEALTH; JOSEPH MALLAS, an individual; KEVIN COYLE, an individual; MICHAEL MORRISON, an individual, WAEL MOHAMED, an individual; MARK MARTINEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC682528 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), seeks to recover all earned wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, every other week, Defendants required Plaintiff to be "on-call" from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to respond immediately to emergency calls. The Defendants compensated Plaintiff by paying her a lower hourly rate for such "on-call" time. However, Defendants failed to add the "on-call" time worked by Plaintiff with her regular hours worked in the same day and thereby failed, timely or otherwise, to pay her accurate overtime compensation. In addition, Defendants did not authorize and permit Plaintiff to take meal and rest periods, did not keep track of meal periods, did not provide Plaintiff with accurate itemized wage statements showing each hourly rate and the corresponding hours worked, and did not timely pay Plaintiff all earned wages and compensation upon termination of her employment with Defendant. U.S. HealthWorks, Inc. is an American health care provider network headquartered in Valencia, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq. HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS, CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ, APC 5450 Telegraph Road, Suite 200 Ventura, CA 93003 Telephone: (805) 644 7111 Facsimile: (805) 644 8296 - and - Robert W. Skripko, Jr. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR., APLC 38 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (949) 476 2000 Facsimile: (949) 476 2007 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Sue Over Victorian Operations -------------------------------------------------------- Matt Johnston, writing for Herald Sun, reports that taxi and hire- car drivers are preparing to launch a multimillion-dollar class action against ride-share giant Uber. Law firm Maurice Blackburn will open a registration system for drivers and licence holders who believe they lost earnings as a result of Uber's conduct. The potential action would be based on allegations that the company acted unlawfully when operating in Victoria between 2013 and earlier this year, and resulted in loss and damages to taxi and hire-car licence holders and operators. The move follows similar action taken in Quebec, Canada, where taxi drivers are taking on the global ride-share operator for loss of earnings. Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions, Andrew Watson, said the firm's current investigation was to confirm that "unlawful action" by Uber had occurred, and if enough taxi drivers showed interest in joining the action, then it may proceed. "It's no secret that Uber's entry to the market has, in some instances, had devastating consequences," he said. Mr Watson said the case wasn't against the government or the regulator -- the Taxi Services Commission -- and whether law- breaking behaviour had been pursued. Registrations were set to open on Nov. 20, with the Victorian Hire Car Association to be informed at its annual general meeting. VHCA president Rod Barton said drivers "have been treated so unfairly since the arrival of Uber in Victoria". "We are very supportive of Maurice Blackburn investigating the possibility of a class action against Uber regarding the way they entered the market in Victoria," he said. Uber has been on Melbourne roads since 2013, and allows passengers to book a journey through an app for an estimated fare. When it began operating, its drivers were not registered with a regulatory body, unlike taxis and hire cars, and the state government only created new laws only this year that covered the ride-share company. It also removed licence fees for taxis and hire-cars and forced those "who provide a booking service for the use of a commercial passenger vehicle to be accredited". In response to industry anger about the value of taxi plates being destroyed, the government has promised owners $100,000 compensation for the first licence, and $50,000 for up to three other licences. A second round of legislation, which would deregulate the industry and allow taxi operators to set their own fares, is currently before State Parliament. The portal for driver applications will be at mauriceblackburn.com.au/uberclassaction [GN] UNITED STATES: Lerner, Paz Want IRS Case Depositions Sealed ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times, reports that former IRS executive Lois G. Lerner told a federal court that members of her family, including "young children," face death threats and a real risk of physical harm if her explanation of the tea party targeting scandal becomes public. Ms. Lerner and Holly Paz, her deputy at the IRS, filed documents in court on Nov. 16 saying tapes and transcripts of depositions they gave in a court case this year must remain sealed in perpetuity, or else they could spur an enraged public to retaliate. "Whenever Mss. Lerner and Paz have been in the media spotlight, they have faced death threats and harassment," attorneys for the two women argued. Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz gave taped depositions in a class-action lawsuit brought by tea party groups demanding answers and compensation for having been subjected to illegal targeting for their political beliefs. The government settled the class-action lawsuit in Ohio and another tea party challenge in the District of Columbia in two agreements in October, admitting to the illegal behavior. The Ohio settlement also called for the government to pay $3.5 million to the tea party groups, according to one of the plaintiffs. Ms. Lerner came in for particular criticism, with the government admitting she not only didn't stop the targeting -- contradicting the Obama administration's claims -- but also hid it from her superiors in Washington. During the course of the Ohio case, the tea party groups filed thousands of pages of documents, but testimony from Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz was left out of the public record because of their earlier request for privacy. Now Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz say that since the case has been settled, there is no reason for their testimony to ever become public. "The voluminous record of harassment and physical threats to Mss. Lerner and Paz and their families during the pendency of this litigation provides a compelling reason to seal the materials," the women's attorneys said. They particularly blamed Mark Meckler, a tea party leader whose organization helped fund the class-action lawsuit, saying he helped stoke the threats against them by calling IRS agents "criminal thugs." "These words matter. They have created a fertile environment where threats and harassment against Mss. Lerner and Paz have flourished," the lawyers said. Mr. Meckler laughed when he learned about the filing. "Four years of harassing innocent American citizens for their political beliefs, and she's scared of a guy in a cowboy hat talking to a bunch of little old ladies at a tea party event?" he said, recounting the speech where he called IRS agents "thugs." He said if the depositions didn't show any bad action on her part, then Ms. Lerner should have nothing to fear from their release to the public. "The reality is because she knows she is guilty as the day is long and she doesn't want people to know what she actually did," he said. "It's hard to have any sympathy for the women. And frankly, I don't believe she's genuinely scared," Mr. Meckler said. The Trump administration backs making the documents public, according to court documents, which leaves Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz fighting a rearguard action. So far, they have had Judge Michael R. Barrett on their side. As the case was proceeding, he kept the two IRS employees' testimony secret at their request, allowing only the lawyers involved to see the information. Papers filed by the tea party groups' attorneys repeatedly made reference to their testimony in documents, but it was always redacted. The Cincinnati Enquirer, a newspaper that covers the Cincinnati office of the IRS that initially handled tea party groups' applications and that Ms. Lerner initially blamed for the targeting, has been fighting to make her version of events public. The paper renewed that request last month, the day the government and the tea party groups announced their settlement. The paper has argued that there is no "clear and imminent danger" to Ms. Lerner or Ms. Paz. Ms. Lerner has refused to talk publicly about her handling of the tea party cases, even being held in contempt of Congress when she botched her assertion of Fifth Amendment rights during testimony. But the Obama Justice Department refused to prosecute the case, saying it concluded Ms. Lerner's assertion of Fifth Amendment rights was correct. Under President Obama, the department, in its own investigation into the IRS handling of tea party cases, also credited Ms. Lerner with being one of the bright spots, saying she attempted to curtail the targeting when she learned of it. But the government now says that is not true. In its settlement last month, the government says Ms. Lerner not only didn't stop the targeting, but also hid the behavior from superiors. Ms. Lerner has yet to comment on that settlement. [GN] UNITED TECH: "Millman" Class Cert. Bid Denied as Premature ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled OPAL MILLMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, LEAR CORPORATION EEDS AND INTERIORS, as successor to United Technologies Automotive Inc., ANDREW DAIRY STORE, INC., L.D. WILLIAMS, INC., CP PRODUCT, LLC, as successor to Preferred Technical Group, Inc., and LDW DEVELOPMENT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00312-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an order denying motion to certify class as premature, but without prejudice to refiling at the appropriate juncture of the case. The Court also denies as moot the Rule 12(f) motion to Strike the first amended complaint. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bJ3XRU9s US CARGO: Hall Moves to Certify Delivery Drivers Class Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Hall, Dustin Bryan and Nick Thompson, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned David Hall et al. v. U.S. Cargo and Courier Service, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00330-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), ask the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective Fair Labor Standards Act class as defined herein; (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to: All individuals who have performed or currently perform delivery services for the Defendant as delivery Drivers within the State of Ohio, at anytime from March 15, 2014 through and including the present and until the final resolution of the case, and who have not been paid the statutory minimum and/or overtime wage during anytime in their employment (hereinafter "the FLSA Class"); (3) requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0rASyJjm The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Trent R. Taylor, Esq. Molly K. Tefend, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com bderose@barkanmeizlish.com mtefend@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Mark Weiker, Esq. ALBEIT WEIKER, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 519-6918 E-mail: mark@awlawohio.com VALBIN CORP: Court Grants Saleh's Motion to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RESHAD SALEH, the Plaintiff, v. VALBIN CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00593-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order: 1. granting Saleh's motion to conditionally certify a collective action comprising: "all current and former role players who worked for Valbin Corporation at Fort Hunter Liggett at any time between February 6, 2014 and the present"; 2. directing Saleh to submit for the Court's approval a revised Proposed Notice and a revised Consent to Sue Form incorporating changes within threedays of the date of this Order; 3. directing Valbin to provide Saleh with an electronic importable list of all current and former role players who were employed by Valbin at Camp Hunter Liggett at any time since February 6, 2014 within 10 days of the date of this Order; and 4. directing Saleh to mail Notice of this action and the Consent to Sue Form to the potential collective action participants within 30 days of the date of this Order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Hb5Om7Sy WAFFLE HOUSE: Job Applicants Consolidate FCRA Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News, reports that former job applicants who claim Waffle House violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) with background check reports have filed a new complaint that "consolidates claims brought by 23 plaintiffs in two Waffle House class action lawsuits filed earlier this year," according to a report from TopClassActions.com. Top Class Actions reports the first lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in April 2017. Plaintiff William Jones filed the second lawsuit in the same court, claiming "he was denied a new job because of background check results he never had a chance to explain or correct." Top Class Actions reports the plaintiffs claim defendant Waffle House failed to provide them with both a copy of the background check report and the document "A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act" before taking adverse action against them as required by the FCRA: Employers are expected to provide an applicant with a "pre-adverse action notice" before taking any adverse employment action based on the information in the background check. The notice is supposed to include a copy of the background report and a summary of the applicant's FCRA rights. The consolidated class action lawsuit is Jones, et al. v. Waffle House Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01637-RBD-GJK. Enacted in 1970, the FCRA is federal legislation that promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information in the files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and protects consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate information in their background check reports. [GN] WESTERN FEDERAL: Faces "Luna" Suit in Florida Circuit Court ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Federal Credit Union. The case is captioned as LUNA, EDITH, AKA: INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED AS COLLECTIVE ACTION REPRESENTATIVE, the PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER, v. WESTERN FEDERAL CREDIT UNION P.O. BOX 10018, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90267, the Defendant, Case No. 502017CA012034XXXXMB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A., 1515 S. Federal Highway Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Dean Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled URIKA DEAN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, LLC and ELSIE EDWARDS (DBA) WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01460-M (W.D. Okla.), Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant conditional certification, approve proposed notice and consent forms, order Defendant to identify putative class members within a reasonable time frame, and authorize Plaintiffs' counsel to send notice and consent forms to the proposed class members. The class is defined as: "current and former exotic dancers who worked for Defendant and were collectively subject to Defendant's intentional misclassification of Dancers as independent contractors in order to deny payment of minimum wages and other employment benefits owed to them, as well as the unlawful tip sharing policy imposed by Defendant requiring Dancers to share their gratuities with Defendant and other employees". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vTVzad03 The Plaintiff are represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Joshua D. Wells, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235 1560 Facsimile: (405) 239 2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jdw@federmanlaw.com WHITE CASTLE: "Irwin" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JACKIE IRWIN, individually and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WHITE CASTLE ROSE, LLC, and BOBBY McCONAL, individually and in his official capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00525-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a class of: "ALL HOURLY EMPLOYEES OF [DEFENDANT] WHO WORKED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS TO THE PRESENT (1) AND WERE ALLEGEDLY PAID A PERCENTAGE OR COMISSION OF THEIR LOAD AND (2) WORKED OVER FORTY HOURS IN A WEEK. (PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS)." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PDiLYzkT The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn D. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY 906 West Basse, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: (210) 822 5666 Facsimile: (210) 820 5650 E-mail: glenn@glennlevylaw.com WHOLE FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Kitenge" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LUHEMBWE KITENGE on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. CGC -17-562250 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated Non-Exempt Employees, were not provided all straight time and overtime wages owed, meal period and rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof, as mandated under the California Labor Code, and the implementing rules and regulations of the Industrial Welfare Commission California Wage Orders. Whole Foods is an American supermarket chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. Matthew Crawford, Esq. TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street 2017 3 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 404 ZTO EXPRESS: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting The Wong Family Trusts' motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and to approve Movants' selection of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as lead counsel in the case captioned RUSTEM NURLYBAEV, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZTO EXPRESS (CAYMAN) INC., et al., Defendants, No. 17-CV-06130 (LTS)(SN)(S.D.N.Y). Three parties filed motions to be appointed class representative: Nurlybaev, ZTO Investor Group, and the Wong Family Trusts. Plaintiff Rustem Nurlybaev commenced a securities class action against ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., various underwriters, and certain individuals alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action seeks damages on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities traceable to ZTO's registration statement and were damaged thereby. The Court held that the Wong Family Trusts timely filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff, satisfying the requirement that it make a motion in response to a notice of the putative class action. The Wong Family Trusts also have the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class of the other two movants. The Wong Family Trusts purchased 100,000 shares (100,000 net shares), spent $1,840,000 in net funds, and suffered approximately $473,000 in losses. Under all four factors under Lax v. First Merch. Acceptance Corp., No. 97 Civ. 2715, 1997, the Wong Family Trusts have the largest financial interest. Moreover, the Wong Family Trusts meet the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Wong Family Trusts is also an adequate representative. Plaintiff's counsel is Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a firm with extensive experience representing classes in securities actions. Finally, because there is no opposition to the Wong Family Trusts' motion, the presumption that it is the most adequate class representative is not rebutted. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qmlzkj from Leagle.com. Wong Family Trusts, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Rustem Nurlybayev, Plaintiff, represented by Albert Yong Chang -- achang@cfsblaw.com -- Johnson Bottini, LLP & Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr. -- Isquith@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. ZTO Investor Group, Movant, represented by Shannon Lee Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott D. Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. * NZ Urged to Introduce Australian-Style Opt Out Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Stock, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that New Zealand should introduce Australian-style "opt out" class action lawsuits, says leading class action lawyer Adina Thorn. Class action civil lawsuits, in which groups of claimants club together to sue companies or government departments for compensation, can be taken in New Zealand. But they can only be taken in the names of claimants who actively "opt in" to them, contrasting with Australia where class actions can be "opt out" affairs where all potential claimants in a case are included, unless they choose to actively opt out. Thorn's call comes amid rising calls for the booming class action industry, and the controversial litigation lending that bankrolls it, should be regulated by acts of Parliament. Early next year the Law Commission will begin consulting on whether Parliament should create a "specific legislative regime dealing with class actions . . . and, if so, what features such a regime should include," said commission spokesman Stephen Day. Thorn knows there will be opposition to opt out class actions, including potentially from state-owned enterprises and government ministries. The Ministry for Primary Industries is currently being sued by kiwifruit growers over the PSA virus outbreak in 2010. "All the big commercial enterprises, the banks and the insurers, will be strongly opposed," Thorn said. That's because opt out class actions are easier for lawyers to launch, and can end up being bigger than is the case when lawyers like Thorn have to advertise to build their books of claimants. The Law Commission consultation, ordered by former Justice Minister Amy Adams in August, will also probe litigation lending, a rapidly growing industry in which private lenders make loans to allow civil lawsuits to take place. Countries like the UK and Australia already have litigation lending laws supporting an industry many believe play an important role in allowing consumers to hold deep-pocketed companies to account. But some, including Chief Justice Sian Elias, question the legality of litigation funding agreements. In a Supreme Court judgment in a case in which liquidator Robert Walker is suing PricewaterhouseCoopers over its role as auditor of failed finance company Property Ventures Limited, Elias said litigation funder LPF had so much control over the case (including to withdraw its funding, access all information about the case, and even replace the lawyers taking the case) it "arguably allows the claim to be treated as an investment to be maintained to the extent to which it provides a commercial return to the litigation funder." "I think it well arguable that the litigation funding agreement in issue here is contrary to law," Justice Elias said. Her comments prompted LPF to complain to the Judicial Complaints Commissioner, with LPF director Phil Newland calling her comments "unfair", "unjustified" and "incorrect and highly concerning remarks about the legitimacy of litigation funding". LPF claimed Justice Elias, who would not comment on the complaint, had not disclosed her husband Hugh Fletcher was chairman of IAG New Zealand, an insurance company LPF believed to be the largest professional indemnity insurer in the country. "The defendants in this case, as in most of the high-profile cases LPF Group is currently funding, have professional liability insurance," Mr. Newland said. Both Justice Elias and Mr. Newland believe Parliament should look at regulating the industry, potentially ending lengthy costly legal jousting over whether funding arrangements are legal. "It may well be that the law should be developed further, perhaps by legislation as in other jurisdictions," Justice Elias said in her judgment. There was talk of a class actions bill in 2009. "We are disappointed these discussions have not progressed," Mr. Newland said. Legislating litigation funding could also lead to litigant protections, who can pay dearly for their loans, and cede a lot of control to lenders. In the PWC case, for example, LPF was entitled to a fee of 42.5 per cent share of the net recovery costs, the Supreme Court heard. [GN] * Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Several Class Action Rulings ------------------------------------------------------------ James M. Beck, Esq. -- jmbeck@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that he has not been shy in predicting that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017) ("BMS"), and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ("Bauman"), should restrain certain abusive class action practices -- specifically those involving attempts to bring multi-state class actions in any location other than where the defendant is "at home" and therefore subject to general personal jurisdiction under Bauman. Note use of "the." A nationwide class purporting to sue multiple defendants "at home" in different states shouldn't be possible at all, as BMS makes crystal clear that each defendant's personal jurisdiction must be determined separately. For this reason, Reed Smith's Beck has been careful to note the class action nature of any case that appears on his original post- Bauman and current post-BMS cheat sheets. The first of these cases is Demaria v. Nissan N.A., Inc., 2016 WL 374145 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2016), an automotive consumer fraud case with eighteen class representatives from sixteen states. Id. at *1. Following Bauman, the court found no general jurisdiction, also rejecting a claim of consent to general jurisdiction by registering to do business in the forum state. Id. at *6. Specific jurisdiction failed as to every would-be class representative except the one resident of the forum state. Id. at *7. Plaintiffs also raised a "pendent personal jurisdiction" claim similar to that later rejected in BMS: Under the circumstances of this case, where each plaintiff's claim is predicated on the law of the particular state where he or she purchased a car and the claims of the other plaintiffs as alleged remain unrelated to anything that transpired in [the forum state], imposing personal jurisdiction for all of the claims because specific jurisdiction may lie as to this one plaintiff's claims would run afoul of the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Id. at *8. The multi-state class action was no more. "The consumer protection claims for violation of the laws of states other than [the forum state] . . . are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction." Id. at *14. Then came Matus v. Premium Nutraceuticals, LLC, 2016 WL 3078745 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016), which involved a California consumer fraud class action brought by an in-state resident. After finding no general jurisdiction under Bauman, id. at *2, the court also found no specific jurisdiction. The defendant's website was not oriented towards any particular state, nor did plaintiff claim to have used it to purchase anything from the defendant. Id. at *3. Simply "purchas[ing the product] through an unnamed reseller" -- that is to say, stream of commerce -- was insufficient, notwithstanding other product sales to other in-state residents. Id. at *4. Back in Illinois, Bauman also did in a multi-state junk fax class action in Kincaid v. Synchrony Financial, 2016 WL 4245533 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2016). Anticipating BMS, the court refused to find specific jurisdiction based on forum contacts with the "putative class members" in the forum state counting as "suit-related contacts." Id. at *2. Plaintiffs' general jurisdiction claims fell far short of the "outsized proportion" of forum contacts required to establish an exceptional case under Bauman. Id. at *3. Nor did the defendant's initiation (as a plaintiff) of unrelated litigation in the forum state create general jurisdiction. Id. Next, in Bauer v. Nortek Global HVAC LLC, 2016 WL 5724232 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 30, 2016), "five Plaintiffs from four different states" brought a panoply of product liability-related claims against a non-resident defendant, purportedly as a class action. Id. at *1. Bauman killed the out-of-state class representative's claims, since there was nothing approaching exceptional case facts. Id. at *6. Specific jurisdiction failed because "units [that] were purchased and installed in [the class representatives'] respective . . . Home States" could not possibly "arise out of or relate to" any actions by the defendant in the forum state. Id. at *6. "[T]he Amended Complaint does not offer any factual allegations that the out-of-state Plaintiffs had any dealings with the Defendants in the" forum state. Id. Therefore, "those Plaintiffs and the classes they represent will be dismissed." Id. A third Illinois multi-state class action likewise failed in Demedicis v. CVS Health Corp., 2017 WL 569157 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2017). This time, a forum plaintiff sought to assert "purely class-based claim[s] on behalf of others for violations of similar state consumer fraud statutes in other states." Id. at *3. While that claim could have been decided on the basis of non- extraterritoriality, Demedicis disposed of them on personal jurisdiction grounds: Because specific personal jurisdiction is based on claims arising out of a defendant's conduct within the forum state, this Court has no jurisdiction over claims based on out-of-state consumer fraud laws. . . . As Defendants argue, "[p]ersonal jurisdiction over the defendant must be established as to each claim asserted." Here, Plaintiff has not established personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state claims as he is the sole connection between Defendants and Illinois. Id. at 4-5 (citations omitted). In Famular v. Whirlpool Corp., 2017 WL 2470844 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2017), nine would-be class representatives from nine states brought consumer protection claims against non-resident defendants. Decided less than two weeks before BMS, Famular threw out all of the claims by non-resident class representatives against the non-resident defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. Anticipating BMS, Famular held that "the Court must determine whether there is general personal jurisdiction over each defendant" individually. Id. at *3. By then plaintiffs had given up arguing "exceptional case" general jurisdiction, and the court rejected their consent by virtue of registration to do business argument. "[T]he Court agrees with defendants that . . . a foreign defendant is not subject to the general personal jurisdiction of the forum state merely by registering to do business with the state, whether that be through a theory of consent by registration or otherwise." Id. at *4. Famular also rejected specific jurisdiction under a "pendent personal jurisdiction" rationale. Relying in part on Demaria, Famular recognized that "neither specific personal jurisdiction nor pendent personal jurisdiction allow[s a court] to hear plaintiffs' claims against the foreign defendant based on defendant's actions occurring solely outside the forum state. Id. at *7. Good by non-forum-state class action allegations. BMS, of course expressly held that specific personal jurisdiction must be decided as to each plaintiff and each defendant separately, so that neither the presence of other, in-state plaintiffs making similar claims, nor the presence of an in-state defendant against which personal jurisdiction could properly be asserted permitted the assertion of personal jurisdiction by non- resident plaintiffs against non-resident defendants. 137 S. Ct. at 1781 (lack of specific jurisdiction "remains true even when third parties (here, the plaintiffs who reside in California) can bring claims similar to those brought by the nonresidents"), 1783 (personal jurisdiction requirements "must be met as to each defendant over whom a state court exercises jurisdiction"; the "bare fact" of a "contract[] with" an in-state resident "is not enough"). After BMS, a consumer protection class action alleging "violations of the consumer protection laws of forty-eight additional [to the forum] states and two territories" was trimmed to just the forum state. Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan v. Apotex Corp., 2017 WL 3129147, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 24, 2017). There was no general jurisdiction against defendants not "at home" in the forum. Id. at *4. Nor could defendants that did not sell in the forum be subject to specific jurisdiction. Id. at *7-8 (even if stream of commerce jurisdiction is viable, it cannot lie without in-state sales). All of the claims asserted under the laws of the 50 non-forum jurisdictions likewise bit the dust. Only [plaintiffs'] Pennsylvania Claims arise out of or relate to Selling Defendants' sales of generic drugs in Pennsylvania. . . . [T]he Non-Pennsylvania Claims do not arise out of or relate to any of Selling Defendants' conduct within the forum state. Accordingly, the Court cannot exercise specific jurisdiction over the Non-Pennsylvania Claims brought against Jurisdiction Defendants. Id. at *9 (following Demaria and Demedicis). Another multi-state (four non-forum jurisdictions) consumer class action was trimmed in Spratley v. FCA US LLC, 2017 WL 4023348, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2017). General jurisdiction by consent based the non-forum defendant's registration to do business was rejected. Id. at *3-4. BMS precluded adjudication of claims asserted by the non-resident classes. "[T]he out-of-state Plaintiffs have shown no connection between their claims and [defendant's] contacts with the forum state. Therefore, the Court lacks specific jurisdiction over the out-of-state Plaintiffs' claims." Id. at *7. For similar reasons, plaintiffs' "different" assertion of "pendent jurisdiction" was also rejected. Id. (following Famular and Demaria). In an anti-trust case, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, 2017 WL 4217115 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017), non-forum class action allegations based on sales made by a defendant's independent intermediate sellers were dismissed under Bauman and BMS. General jurisdiction, by this time was not even argued. Id. at *3. The would-be class representatives did not buy any of the defendant's products in the forum state. Id. at *6. BMS precluded assertion of personal jurisdiction based merely on the defendant's contract with an independent distributor, which in turn sold into the forum state. Id. at *9. Most significantly, Dental Supplies firmly rejected plaintiffs' argument that personal jurisdiction requirements should be loosened in the class action context. "A putative class representative seeking to hale a defendant into court to answer to the class must have personal jurisdiction over that defendant just like any individual litigant must." Id. at *6 (quoting Newberg on Class Actions Section 6:25 (5th ed. 2011)). Plaintiffs attempt to side-step the due process holdings in [BMS] by arguing that the case has no effect on the law in class actions because the case before the Supreme Court was not a class action. This argument is flawed. The constitutional requirements of due process does not wax and wane when the complaint is individual or on behalf of a class. Personal jurisdiction in class actions must comport with due process just the same as any other case. Id. at *9 (citation omitted). Most recently, in McDonnell v. Nature's Way Products, LLC, 2017 WL 4864910 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2017), the plaintiffs brought class action claims under "seven states' consumer fraud laws" in addition to the forum state, against a non-resident defendant. Id. at *1. Bauman and BMS killed the non-forum claims: [A]ny injury [that non-resident plaintiffs] suffered occurred in the state where they purchased the products. Because the only connection to [the forum] is that provided by [resident plaintiff's] purchase . . ., which cannot provide a basis for the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the claims of nonresidents where [defendant] has no other connection to this forum, the Court dismisses all claims . . . brought on behalf of non-[forum]residents or for violations of [other states' consumer protection] law without prejudice. Id. at *4. Thus, we are now running out of fingers for the cases that have refused, on post-Bauman personal jurisdictional grounds to allow class actions where the effect would be to allow non-resident class members to sue a non-resident corporate defendant. There is good reason for this. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in particular Rule 23, being "rules" are prohibited by the Rules Enabling Act from "abridg[ing], enlarg[ing] or modify[ing] any substantive right." 28 U.S.C. Sec2072(b). See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 367 (2011) ("[b]ecause the Rules Enabling Act forbids interpreting Rule 23 to 'abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right,' a class cannot be certified on the premise that [a defendant] will not be entitled to litigate its statutory defenses to individual claims") (citations omitted). Jurisdiction is, if anything, even more "substantive" than the defenses in Dukes. Without jurisdiction, a plaintiff cannot litigate anything at all. Nothing could be more "substantive" than to create jurisdiction where none would otherwise exist. Fundamentally, this is why we disagree with the one decision, Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., 2017 WL 4224723 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017) that goes the other way. Plaintiffs in Fitzhenry-Russell purported to bring a "nationwide" class action, even though all of them were California residents and all the causes of action were under California law . Id. at *1, 5. The court held that because "citizenship of the unnamed plaintiffs is not taken into account for personal jurisdiction purposes," it was perfectly all right for the action to adjudicate claims by non-resident class members -- who made up a "lopsided" 88% of the class -- against a non-resident corporation. Id. at *5. Fitzhenry-Russell refused an "extension of [BMS] to class actions" by supposing that "this may be one of the those contexts" in which "[n]onnamed class members . . . may be parties for some purposes and not for others" to jurisdiction. Id. That's all there is -- a "may be." Moreover, the case quoted for that proposition, Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1, 9-10 (2002), dealt with intervention, not any form of jurisdiction. Fitzhenry-Russell cited no class action case -- let alone one since Bauman (cf. In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, 894 F. Supp. 2d 819, 858 (E.D. La. 2012) (severing non-resident class member claims in identical situation pre-Bauman), aff'd, 742 F.3d 576 & 753 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2014)) - - that had permitted personal jurisdiction in a litigation tourist situation, where non-resident absent class members were suing a non-resident corporation. It found Plumbers' Local. 690 "unpersuasive" because it supposedly contained "no analysis" of BMS. 2017 WL 4224723, at *5 n.4. That is a misleading characterization because Plumbers' Local. 690 devotes four full paragraphs to the issue, although discussing Demaria and Demedicis rather than BMS. 2017 WL 3129147, at *9. Moreover, other than the footnote reference to Plumbers' Local. 690, Fitzhenry-Russell addresses neither the other class action personal jurisdiction cases we have discussed in this post (although it must have been aware of at least Demaria and Demedicis) nor the Rules Enabling Act. We think that the adjective "unpersuasive" more properly applies to Fitzhenry-Russell itself. Thus, based on what our research has found, we think that our prediction, made shortly after Bauman, that personal jurisdiction would become a major obstacle to nationwide class actions based on state laws is accurate and has even more force after BMS. Whenever faced with a state-law class action that is structured so that a non-resident (that is, not "at home" under Bauman) corporate defendant would be facing claims brought by non-resident class members (whether named or unnamed), the defendant should strongly consider moving to dismiss that non-resident claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. [GN] * UK Still Not on Way of Getting US Class Actions Culture --------------------------------------------------------- Denisa Luchian, writing for The Lawyer, reports that White & Case Partner Marc Israel talks about the chances of the UK getting a US class actions culture, ahead of his session at The Lawyer's Managing Risk and Litigation conference next month. Is Britain on its way of getting a US 'class actions culture'? "Not any time soon. Whilst there are changes that may superficially look like class actions in some respects in my area of competition law -- e.g. the ability to bring opt-out collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal -- there are still a large number of differences. "We have certainly seen a cultural shift in the willingness of claimants to bring actions for damages following cartel and other competition law infringements, but they are different to US-style class actions." Is the risk of class actions significant only for businesses with exposure in the US? "Not in my area of competition law. The collective actions, as well as follow-on damages cases, that we see here relate to conduct that occurred in Europe. The companies concerned may also have been involved in anti-competitive conduct in the US -- which may lead to litigation there -- but is often quite separate. " Can arbitration eliminate the risk of class actions? "In the area of competition law, I'm not sure that many damages cases have been arbitrated. To the extent arbitration is used it is likely to involve the more substantial claimants so could well reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of collective proceedings here. " If you hadn't become a lawyer, what would you have done instead? "Become an architect, but was put off by another 7 years of study." Marc Israel is one of the 30+ speakers at this year's Managing Risk and Litigation conference taking place in London on the 5th December. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Union Carbide Dismissed in "Queen" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina has dismissed the claims against Union Carbide Corporation in the case styled JONATHAN A. QUEEN, as Executor of the Estate of WILLIAM HAROLD QUEEN, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 1:16-CV- 00330 (M.D.N.C.). Plaintiff's decedent, William Harold Queen, contracted mesothelioma allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos- containing products, including during his employment as a laborer at DuPont from 1964 until 1991. More specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Queen would have been exposed to asbestos both while working as a laborer and while working around insulators who mixed, cut, and manipulated pipe and equipment insulation. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges negligence, product liability, breach of implied warranty, willful and wanton conduct, failure to warn, and conspiracy. Two of Mr. Queen's co-workers were offered for deposition in this case by the Plaintiff. Both testified that they are unaware of any asbestos exposure Mr. Queen had related to Union Carbide. The Plaintiff has no other evidence of any exposure of Mr. Queen to asbestos manufactured, distributed, or handled by Union Carbide. Based on this dearth of evidence, Union Carbide contends it is entitled to summary judgment. Union Carbide argues that under North Carolina and Fourth Circuit law, the Plaintiff cannot show that exposure to its product was a proximate cause of Mr. Queen's injury. The Fourth Circuit articulated that a plaintiff must present "evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked." The Court describes that it is axiomatic that in the absence of any demonstrated exposure, a defendant's product cannot be a factor, much less a substantial factor, in a plaintiff's disease. The Court concludes that because the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Mr. Queen was exposed to any Union Carbide asbestos-containing product, the Plaintiff's claims fail. Because Union Carbide has shown that there is no genuine dispute of any material fact, the Court says that Union Carbide is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 7, 2017 is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8mb6r5o from Leagle.com. JONATHAN A. QUEEN, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM HARLD QUEEN, DECEASED, Plaintiff, represented by KEVIN W. PAUL, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC. JONATHAN A. QUEEN, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM HARLD QUEEN, DECEASED, Plaintiff, represented by JANET WARD BLACK, WARD BLACK LAW. DANIEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by MOFFATT G. MCDONALD, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., SCOTT E. FRICK, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., W. DAVID CONNER, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A. & CHARLES M. SPRINKLE, III, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A.. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER M. TECHMAN, EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF. GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, TRAVIS ANDREW BUSTAMANTE, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP & WILLIAM MICHAEL STARR, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by KEITH E. COLTRAIN, WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. App. Denies Bid for Writ of Mandamus ---------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Texas for the Fourteenth District has issued a memorandum opinion denying the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Jolanta Stephenson, Relator. In her petition, the Relator asks the court to compel the Hon. Mark Davidson, presiding pre-trial judge for asbestos multi- district litigation cases and visiting judge for the 11th District Court of Harris County, Texas, to vacate his orders denying Relator's motion to remand the action to the 134th District Court of Dallas County, and motion to reconsider. To obtain mandamus relief, the Court explains that the Relator generally must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. The Court finds, however, that the Relator has not established that she is entitled to mandamus relief. The case is IN RE JOLANTA STEPHENSON, Relator, No. 14-17-00903-CV, (Tex. App. 14d). A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 7, 2017 is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwfrf9q from Leagle.com Eugene Zemp Dubose, for Jolanta Stephenson, Relator. Clayton E. Devin, Esq. -- cdevin@macdonalddevin.com -- and Bryan Gerald Rutherford, Esq. -- brutherford@macdonalddevin.com -- at Macdonald Devin, for TNP Oakwood Tower 1, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company, BF Oakwood Tower LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Et Al., Real party in interest. Kirk Florence, Esq. -- Kflorence@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Stuart C. Atwell, Esq. -- Satwell@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and Jason Steed, Esq. -- JSteed@kilpatricktownsend.com -- at Kilpatrick Townsend, for LSBC, LLC d/b/a Lone Star Building Services, a Limited Liability Company, Real party in interest. Scott B. Aston, Esq. -- dstone@grayreed.com -- at Gray Reed, for Baruch Montiel d/b/a 911 Construction Company, Real party in interest. Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Brown. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand "Pitre" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denies Defendants Huntington Ingalls, Inc. and Lamorak Insurance Company's motion for review of the Magistrate Judge's order granting Plaintiffs Diane Pitre and her children's leave to amend their complaint. The Court also denies the motion to remand filed by the Plaintiffs and retains federal question jurisdiction in the case DIANE PITRE, ET AL., v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., ET AL., Civil Action No. 17- 7029, (E.D. La.). Stewart Pitre worked as a pipefitter for Avondale Shipyard in Avondale, Louisiana from 1963 to 1972. Mr. Pitre developed lung cancer, allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos at Avondale Shipyard, and passed away on July 15, 2016. On April 6, 2017, Mr. Pitre's wife and children filed an action in state court for wrongful death and survival.6 Plaintiffs named numerous defendants, including Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (Avondale) and Foster Wheeler, LLC. The Plaintiffs' original petition included, among other causes of action, failure to warn and other negligence claims against Avondale, and strict products liability and failure to warn claims against Foster Wheeler. Foster Wheeler allegedly produced boilers with asbestos-containing insulation that Mr. Pitre came into contact with aboard vessels at Avondale. On June 27, 2017, Chester Rodrigue, a former coworker of Mr. Pitre's, testified in a deposition that he worked with Mr. Pitre on Destroyer Escorts built by Avondale. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended petition adding Occidental Chemical Corporation as a defendant, and asserting strict liability claims against both Avondale and Occidental Chemical. Avondale and its alleged insurer, Lamorak Insurance Company, removed this case to federal court on July 24, 2017, arguing that they are entitled to remove this matter because the claims of the Plaintiffs are for or related to acts performed under color of federal office while Avondale was acting under the authority of an officer of the United States. On August 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs requested and the magistrate judge granted leave to file an amended complaint to delete their strict liability claims against Avondale. Avondale and Lamorak Insurance now appeal the magistrate judge's decision, arguing that the Plaintiffs' amendment is improper because it is intended to defeat federal jurisdiction, and that the amendment is futile because it cannot destroy federal jurisdiction. Avondale removed this case to federal court based on its work as a military contractor. Avondale argues that it is a person under the statute, it was acting under an officer of the United States, the use and installation of asbestos-containing materials was required by its contracts with the U.S. Navy, and it has colorable federal defenses to plaintiffs' claims. The Court explains that the purpose of the federal officer removal provision is to protect the lawful activities of the federal government from undue state interference. Additionally, the Court says that removal does not require the consent of co-defendants -- it "authorizes removal of the entire case even though only one of its controversies might involve a federal officer or agency." The Plaintiffs argue that, in light of the amended complaint, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and this case must be remanded to state court. The Plaintiffs represent that the addition of strict liability claims against Avondale in the first amended petition was an inadvertent error. The Plaintiffs explain that they requested leave to amend in state court to add a new defendant, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and never requested leave to add new claims against Avondale. The Plaintiffs, however, acknowledge that their second amended complaint is intended to support their motion to remand. The evidence before the Court indicates that the U.S. Government required the use of asbestos at Avondale for most of the time period between 1963 and 1972 when Mr. Pitre was employed there. Avondale submits the affidavits of Commander Thomas McCaffery, Edward Blanchard, and Danny Joyce. McCaffery, a retired Commander in the U.S. Navy (Reserve), attests that the contracts between Avondale and the U.S. Government to build warships specified the materials that could be used in the construction of U.S. Navy ships. He further represents that, until mid-1969, all approved pipe insulation products for use on pipes whose normal operating temperature exceeded 370 degrees Fahrenheit contained asbestos. Blanchard, a former supervisor and vice-president at Avondale, attests that all aspects of work on federal vessels at Avondale were performed under the close and detailed surveillance of the U.S. Navy and other federal agencies. Further, Blanchard states that federal inspectors retained ultimate decision-making authority over all construction, and that every component installed on a Navy vessel had to be on the Navy's list of qualified products. Joyce, a former industrial hygienist at Avondale, represents that he has reviewed the contracts and specifications pertaining to the construction of federal vessels at Avondale. He states that federal inspectors monitored the site to ensure that the supplies used were those required by the contracts and specifications, including asbestos-containing insulation and other asbestos- containing materials. Thus, Avondale has provided evidence that the U.S. Navy required it to comply with precise specifications, including the use of asbestos-containing pipe insulation. The evidence suggests that the U.S. Government was at least as knowledgeable about the dangers of asbestos as Avondale. Joyce attests that Avondale did not have any information regarding the hazards of asbestos that was not known by the federal government, including the U.S. Navy. Avondale also offers the deposition testimony of Dr. Richard Lemen, a retired Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, who testified that the U.S. Public Health Service collected and reviewed scientific literature on asbestos beginning in the 1930s. The Court finds that Avondale has stated a colorable defense of federal contractor immunity to plaintiffs' strict liability claims. As such, Avondale's notice of removal is valid, and consequently, the Court properly acquired jurisdiction over this matter. The Court notes that although an amended complaint deleting federal claims may permit a discretionary remand, it does not destroy federal jurisdiction over a validly removed case. Thus, the Court finds that remand is not justified. Further, the Court says that Foster Wheeler was not affected by the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, and remains entitled to a federal forum under the federal officer removal statute. The Plaintiffs argue that, even if the Court properly acquired jurisdiction, the amended complaint has removed the federal question in this case and the Court has discretion to remand the remaining state law claims. Although the Plaintiffs' amended complaint deleted the strict liability claims as to Avondale, the Plaintiffs continue to press strict liability claims against Foster Wheeler. Foster Wheeler asserts in its opposition to the motion to remand that it independently qualifies for federal officer removal and has a colorable federal defense in this case. The Plaintiffs contend that Foster Wheeler has forfeited its right to assert federal jurisdiction under section 1442(a)(1) because it did not join in the original notice of removal or file its own timely supplemental notice of removal. The Court points out that when two defendants independently assert federal officer removal jurisdiction, separate notices of removal are not strictly required to protect each defendant's right to a federal forum. Although Foster Wheeler was served before removal, the Court finds that Foster Wheeler has asserted a federal contractor defense in its answer to the Plaintiffs' state court petition, and incorporated this defense into its answer to the amended petition in federal court. Given that Avondale properly removed this matter to federal court, the Court finds that barring Foster Wheeler from invoking federal jurisdiction simply because it did not file a separate notice of removal would be an impermissibly "narrow, grudging interpretation" of section 1442(a)(1). The Court finds that Foster Wheeler has presented sufficient evidence to show that it satisfies the requirements of section 1442(a)(1) as to Plaintiffs' design defect claims. Further, Foster Wheeler has shown that it acted under the U.S. Navy's directions during the period that Mr. Pitre was employed at Avondale, and that an apparent causal nexus exists between its actions under color of federal office and Plaintiffs' design defect claims. Foster Wheeler has also offered evidence that it was required to construct its boilers in conformity with detailed Navy specifications, that its relationship with Mr. Pitre derived from its official authority to provide products to the Navy, and that this authority relates to Foster Wheeler's alleged use of asbestos in its boiler products. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 6, 2017 is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7fbvkh2 from Leagle.com. Diane Pitre, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Esq. -- info@mbfirm.com -- Martzell & Bickford. Diane Pitre, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Heidi M. Gould, Heidi Mabile Gould, Attorney at Law, Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Roshawn H. Donahue, Martzell & Bickford & Spencer R. Doody, Martzell & Bickford. Wesley Pitre, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford, Heidi M. Gould, Heidi Mabile Gould, Attorney at Law, Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Roshawn H. Donahue, Martzell & Bickford & Spencer R. Doody, Martzell & Bickford. Rachel Pitre, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford, Heidi M. Gould, Heidi Mabile Gould, Attorney at Law, Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Roshawn H. Donahue, Martzell & Bickford & Spencer R. Doody, Martzell & Bickford. Katie Gibbens, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford, Heidi M. Gould, Heidi Mabile Gould, Attorney at Law, Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Roshawn H. Donahue, Martzell & Bickford & Spencer R. Doody, Martzell & Bickford. Kurt Pitre, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford, Heidi M. Gould, Heidi Mabile Gould, Attorney at Law, Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Roshawn H. Donahue, Martzell & Bickford & Spencer R. Doody, Martzell & Bickford. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., formerly known as Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. formerly known as Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Industries, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Shipyards, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Company formerly known as Viacom, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Daniel S. Roberts, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Reilly Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP. McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, As alleged insurer of Wayne Manufacturing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq. -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Esq. -- bmoore@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Esq. -- jburg@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Esq. - - msemmes@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Esq. -- tbell@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. Lamorak Insurance Company, Erroneously referred to as One Beacon American Insurance Company, in its capacity as alleged insurer of deceased Avondale Executive Officers Henry Zac Carter, C.E. Hartzman, and Hettie Dawes Eaves, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, David Michael Melancon, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Edward Winter Trapolin, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Gustave A. Fritchie, III, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Timothy Farrow Daniels, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP. Uniroyal Holding, Inc., Incorrectly named as Uniroyal, Inc. formerly known as United States Rubber Company, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Amy Louise Maccherone, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C.. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. International Paper Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Daniel S. Roberts, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Reilly Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP. McCarty Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Magistrate's Order in "Savoie" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Review Magistrate Judge's Order granting Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim in the case styled LORITA M. SAVOIE, ET AL., v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., ET AL., Civil Action No. 15-1220, (E.D. La.). Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "A magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive motion may be appealed to the district court. When objections are raised to such a ruling the district judge must consider them timely and "modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Under this standard, a magistrate judge's decision must be affirmed unless "on the entire evidence [the court] is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." The Court finds that no such mistake has been made and that the Plaintiffs have not shown that the magistrate judge's ruling is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 5, 2017 is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8svc2mw from Leagle.com Lorita M Savoie, Widow of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr. Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement. Lorita M Savoie, Widow of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr. Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Marcia Savoie Medlin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Craig M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Tania Savoie Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Rodney A Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Greta Savoie Boudoin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Dale J Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., also known as Blaine Joseph Savoie, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel & Clement, Dylan A. Wade, TMG Consulting, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. formerly known as Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Industries, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Shipyards, Inc formerly known as Avondale Marine Ways, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Executive Officer of Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Executive Officer of Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, as Successor to Commercial Union Insurance Company and Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, formerly known as American Employers' Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Bayer CropScience, Inc., successor to Rhone Poulenc AG Company, formerly Amchem Products, Inc., formerly Benjamin Foster Company, Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey. Eagle Inc, formerly known as Eagle Asbestos & Packing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Daniel J. Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, formerly known as Foster-Wheeler Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente- Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. McCarty Corporation, Successor to McCarty Branton, Inc., and Predecessor and Successor to McCarty Insulation Sales, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Owens Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP. Travelers Indemnity Company, formerly known as Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Travis Brendon Wilkinson, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporatioin, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as the insurer of Wayne Manufacturing Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. International Paper Company, as successor to the interest of U.S. Plywood Corporation, Third Party Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc. formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporatioin, Cross Defendant, represented by Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Eagle, Inc., formerly known as Eagle Asbestos & Packing Co., Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Daniel J. Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP & Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jeanette Seraile- Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP. Uniroyal, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, formerly known as Foster-Wheeler Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Esq. -- efoundas@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Esq. -- fdeblanc@pugh-law.com -- Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Esq. -- mricheson@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N. St. Julien, Esq. -- mstjulien@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Daniel J. Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. McCarty Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. 3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Sophia L. Lauricella, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP. McCarty Corporation, Successor to McCarty Branton, Inc., and Predecessor and Successor to McCarty Insulation Sales, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Owens Illinois, Inc, Counter Claimant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Lorita M Savoie, Widow of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr. Counter Defendant, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Lorita M Savoie, Widow of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr. Counter Claimant, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Owens Illinois, Inc, Counter Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the First Department unanimously affirmed the Order entered by the New York Supreme Court on January 13, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied Defendant/Third- Party Defendant LVI Services, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law Section 200 and common-law negligence claims and all third-party and cross claims against it, and granted Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs' motion for conditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against LVI. The Court finds that LVI Services failed to establish prima facie that plaintiff was not exposed to toxins at sufficient levels to cause his claimed respiratory illness. The record contains ample evidence of Plaintiff's exposure to toxins at the construction site, and LVI Services' expert did not opine that those toxins were not capable of causing plaintiff's respiratory illness. Nor did LVI Services establish prima facie that it was not responsible for the release into the air of toxins that allegedly caused plaintiff's respiratory illness. LVI Services was responsible for asbestos abatement, lead abatement, and concrete demolition on the job site. The record shows that there was demolition going on throughout the building generating dust clouds thick enough to be visible in progress photographs and that there were widespread complaints about the air quality, including the presence of silica dust, which occurs naturally during concrete demolition. Under its subcontract with defendant/third-party defendant Turner Construction Company, LVI Services must defend and indemnify Turner Construction and defendant/third-party defendant MSG Holdings, L.P., for liability and loss, including legal fees, merely claimed to have resulted from injury arising out of or in connection with LVI Services' work, unless and until the injury is determined to have been caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Turner Construction, MSG Holdings, or another of Turner's subcontractors. Since there has not yet been a determination of that issue, Turner Construction and MSG Holdings are entitled to conditional summary judgment on their claim against LVI Services for contractual indemnification. The appealed case is MARTIN FLYNN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants-Respondents, LVI SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ET AL., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. FIVE STAR ELECTRIC CORP., Third-Party Defendant, LVI SERVICES, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, 5120, 113859/11, 590270/13, (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept.) A full-text copy of the Decision and Order dated December 5, 2017 is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8wcb94r from Leagle.com McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn (Patrick W. Brophy, Esq. -- pbrophy@mmglawyers.com -- of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Barry M. Sweeney, New Suffolk (Barry M. Sweeney of counsel), for Martin Flynn, respondent. Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass LLP, New York ( Steven A. Torrini of counsel), for Turner Construction Company and MSG Holdings, L.P., respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kirkland SAC Stricken From Record -------------------------------------------------- Judge John C. Gargiulo of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi has issued an order striking Plaintiff Johnny Kirkland's Second Amended Complaint from the record for non-compliance for failure to obtain written consent from the Defendant or obtain leave of court before filing his Second Amended Complaint. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), "a party may amend its pleadings only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." The case is JOHNNY KIRKLAND, Plaintiff, v. INGALLS SHIPYARD, CORPORATION c/o J.T. Thorpe Settlement Trust, Defendant, Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-135-HSO-JCG, (S.D. Miss.). A full-text copy of the Order dated December 5, 2017 is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya8f7nkk from Leagle.com Johnny Kirkland, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, c/o J.T. Thorpe Settlement Trust, Defendant, represented by Richard P. Salloum, FRANKE & SALLOUM, PLLC & Traci M. Castille, FRANKE & SALLOUM, PLLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Has $102.8MM Reserve at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. has recorded a total litigation reserve of US$102.8 million as of September 30, 2017 with respect to potential liability arising from the its asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. Gardner Denver states, "The Company has also been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants. "Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products. "Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure, many of the companies that did engage in such activities or produced such products are no longer in operation. This has led to law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related injury. "The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable matters. However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet include a total litigation reserve of US$102.8 million and US$108.5 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 respectively, with respect to potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. "The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary. The Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$97.3 million and US$97.3 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 which was included in "Other assets" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. "The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions. There are a number of key variables and assumptions including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect the future liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal legislation. The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of an interim date." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/YMAkSF ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver's Insurance Suit at Phase II ------------------------------------------------------------ Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that an insurance coverage lawsuit related to asbestos matters against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., is still proceeding at Phase II discovery process. The case was filed by Gardner Denver, Inc., on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case"). The Company states, "In the lawsuit, the Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Company. In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and excess policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's policies which were subject to the lawsuit. Since then, the case has been proceeding through the discovery and motions process with the remaining insurer defendants. "On January 29, 2016, the Company prevailed on the first phase of that discovery and motions process ("Phase I"). Specifically, the Court in the Adams County Case ruled that the Company has rights under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and conditions, even though the policies were sold to the Company's former owners rather than to the Company itself. "On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling now rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as is normally required. The case is now proceeding through the discovery process regarding the remaining issues in dispute ("Phase II")." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/YMAkSF ASBESTOS UPDATE: 171 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Colgate-Palmolive Company had 171 individual cases pending in state and federal courts throughout the United States as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. Colgate-Palmolive states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos. Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain asbestos. "As of September 30, 2017, there were 171 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 174 cases as of June 30, 2017, 146 cases as of March 31, 2017 and 115 cases as of December 31, 2016. During the three months ended September 30, 2017, 22 new cases were filed and 25 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, appeal or settlement. "During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, 99 new cases were filed and 43 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, appeal or settlement. The value of settlements in the quarter and the year-to-date period presented was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each such period's results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/jh2uRo ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 61,200 Claims at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company had 61,200 asbestos-related claims pending as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 127,400 claims by defending, obtaining the dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately US$529 million through September 30, 2017 and US$517 million through December 31, 2016. "We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$177 million and US$171 million at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. In determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten-year period. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that increase could be significant. "We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a particular recovery. "We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$121 million and US$123 million at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. We expect that approximately 70% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, US$12 million was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers. "We believe that, at December 31, 2016, we had approximately US$430 million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place agreements. We also had additional unsettled excess level policy limits potentially applicable to such costs. We had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements. "With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by us." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/xnsBx9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has $60MM Unfavorable Development ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation recognized a net unfavorable prior year development of US$60 million before consideration of cessions to the Loss Portfolio Transfer (LPT) for the nine months ended September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. CNA Financial states, "Based upon the Company's annual A&EP reserve review, net unfavorable prior year development of US$60 million and US$200 million was recognized before consideration of cessions to the LPT for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016. The 2017 unfavorable development was driven by modestly higher anticipated payouts on claims from known sources of asbestos exposure. The 2016 unfavorable development was driven by an increase in anticipated future expenses associated with determination of coverage, higher anticipated payouts associated with a limited number of historical accounts having significant asbestos exposures and higher than expected severity on pollution claims. While this unfavorable development was ceded to NICO under the LPT, the Company's Net income in both periods was negatively affected due to the application of retroactive reinsurance accounting. "As of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the cumulative amounts ceded under the LPT were US$2.9 billion and US$2.8 billion. The unrecognized deferred retroactive reinsurance benefit was US$334 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016. "NICO established a collateral trust account as security for its obligations to the Company. The fair value of the collateral trust account was US$2.9 billion and US$2.8 billion as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016. In addition, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. guaranteed the payment obligations of NICO up to the aggregate reinsurance limit as well as certain of NICO's performance obligations under the trust agreement. NICO is responsible for claims handling and billing and collection from third-party reinsurers related to the Company's A&EP claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/tS7Qpp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,751 Claims at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., remains a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos-induced illness involving claims by approximately 3,751 plaintiffs as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 54,573 of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (one of which was appealed by defendants and was remanded to the trial court for a new trial), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 774 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/MDZR2r ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at Sep. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., still defends itself against asbestos-related lawsuits pending in Louisiana, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "We are one of several unrelated defendants in lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard our drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. "We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation. We are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/9IU051 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Had US$6.1MM Liability at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to US$6,042,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. Columbus McKinnon states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos- related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable. "Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between US$4,700,000 and US$7,400,000 using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from September 30, 2017. The Company's estimation of its asbestos- related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates US$6,042,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2017. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. "The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by pre-existing insurance policies. The Company has engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred. When the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a gain will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is recovered. In July 2017, the Company received a US$1,741,000 settlement payment, net of legal fees, from one of its insurance carriers as partial reimbursement for asbestos-related expenses. This partial payment has been recorded as a gain in cost of products sold. The Company is continuing its actions to recover further past costs and to cover future costs." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/PZZmFN ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had approximately 1,200 claims were pending for allege exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past several decades and through September 30, 2017, we have been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving approximately 6,200 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately 1,200 claims were pending and 5,000 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. "Over the past several decades and through September 30, 2017, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of approximately two thousand dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals based on the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. Although we have seen an increase in the number of recent filings, especially in one specific venue, we do not believe the increase or any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial position or cash flow, and at September 30, 2017, we had approximately US$7,100 accrued for liability and related expenses. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. "While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles or the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies for the years in question." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/jrdjGh ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Xylem Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017 that ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) still has an obligation to indemnify the company from liabilities associated with asbestos matters. The Company states, "From time to time claims may be asserted against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products resulting from asbestos exposure. We believe there are numerous legal defenses available for such claims and would defend ourselves vigorously. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement among ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis and Xylem, ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) has an obligation to indemnify, defend and hold Xylem harmless for asbestos product liability matters, including settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs associated with all pending and future claims that may arise from past sales of ITT's legacy products. We believe ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) remains a substantial entity with sufficient financial resources to honor its obligations to us. "As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis Inc. and Xylem will indemnify, defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect to such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement or related spin agreements. The former parent's indemnification obligations include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica liability claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence of asbestos or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold prior to October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to limited exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in the structure or material of any building or facility, subject to exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem buildings or facilities. The indemnification associated with pending and future asbestos claims does not expire. Xylem has not recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect to be indemnified by the former parent or Exelis Inc. through the Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us under such indemnifications. "On May 29, 2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis. As the parent of Exelis, Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis's indemnification obligations under the Distribution Agreement." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/kDXLA9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Suits at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries remain as defendants in legal proceedings on alleged asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business activities. As of September 30, 2017, December 31, 2016 and September 30, 2016, our condensed balance sheets included liabilities for these legal actions of US$15.9 million, US$13.6 million and US$22.9 million, respectively. These liabilities do not include costs associated with legal representation. "Based on our analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal actions will materially adversely affect our financial position, cash flows or results of operations. "In connection with the Acquisition, TDCC retained liabilities related to litigation to the extent arising prior to the Closing Date. In addition to the aforementioned legal actions, we are party to a dispute relating to a contract termination. The other party to the contract has filed an Amended Demand for Arbitration alleging, among other things, that Olin breached the contract and claims damages in excess of the amount Olin believes it is obligated for under the contract. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for the fourth quarter 2017. Any additional losses related to this contract dispute are not currently estimable because of unresolved questions of fact and law but, if resolved unfavorably to Olin, they could have a material effect on our financial results." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/2GXsrs ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Defends Numerous Suits at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company continues to defend against numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,330 individual claimants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. "The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company has prevailed in all twelve cases taken to trial, including ten of the eleven cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2015, and the cases tried in 2016 and 2017), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The remaining case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. In August 2016, 3M received a unanimous defense verdict from a jury in state court in Kentucky, in 3M's first respirator trial involving coal mine dust. The estate of the plaintiff alleged that the 3M 8710 respirator is defective and caused his death because it did not protect him from harmful coal mine dust. The jury rejected plaintiff's claim and returned a verdict finding no liability against 3M. The verdict is final as the plaintiff did not file an appeal. In September 2017, 3M received a unanimous verdict in its favor from a jury in state court in Kentucky in 3M's second respirator trial involving coal mine dust. The jury ultimately determined that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial. "The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Pb5tnc ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues US$551MM for Respirator Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company had an accrual of US$551 million as of September 30, 2017, for liabilities associated with respirator mask and asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The accrual excludes liabilities related to Aearo Technologies. 3M Co. states, "The Company annually conducts a comprehensive legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review. "The Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and (iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data"). "As part of its comprehensive legal review, the Company provides the Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs. The third party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and resolve pending and future claims. The Company uses these estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability. "Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the Company's accrual, including, the number of future claims, the nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers. "In the first nine months of 2017, the Company made payments for legal fees and settlements of US$44 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation, US$10 million of which occurred in the third quarter of 2017. "As of September 30, 2017, the Company had an accrual for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of US$551 million. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050. "The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of liabilities. "As of September 30, 2017, the Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was US$4 million. The Company is seeking coverage under the policies of certain insolvent and other insurers. Once those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Pb5tnc ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues US$18MM for Aearo Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company had an accrual of US$18 million as of September 30, 2017, for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future asbestos and silica-related claims associated with Aearo Technologies, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies ("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. "As of September 30, 2017, Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. "As of September 30, 2017, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of US$18 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. "Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of US$100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. "With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Pb5tnc ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remains in Pillsbury Plant ---------------------------------------------------- Tim Povtak of Asbestos.com reported that, despite spending nine months and $1.8 million in an asbestos cleanup project, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to end the long- running contamination dispute between a business owner and local authorities in Springfield, Illinois. Despite the recent EPA cleanup of the former Pillsbury Mills plant, a circuit court judge in Sangamon County refused to lift an injunction blocking owners from the site. The judge cited earlier asbestos violations and continued unsafe conditions. The EPA removed 2,200 tons of asbestos-contaminated debris, 1,160 cubic yards of bulk asbestos and considerable waste oil and chemicals. Left behind was harder-to-reach asbestos within the buildings on the 18-acre site. This prompted local authorities to fence off the abandoned property to prevent trespassers from the danger spots. "What has really been accomplished here? We've spent $1.8 million of taxpayers' money," part owner Joseph Chernis IV told the State Journal-Register. "Clearly, this is about money. It's not about cleaning the place up." Asbestos is the naturally occurring mineral once used freely in construction and manufacturing throughout the 20th century. It was valued for its affordability, heat resistance and tensile strength. It was used extensively until the early 1980s when its toxicity became so well known, leading to stricter regulations. An exposure to asbestos fibers that easily become airborne can lead to serious health issues, including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Dispute Continues in Springfield Chernis believes his company, P. Mills LLC, should be allowed to resume work at the salvage site, promising 45 percent of the proceeds toward additional cleanup costs. His plan was to sell off parcels of the land in a surplus property auction earlier this year. That auction was blocked by contamination concerns. The original flour milling plant, which was built in 1929, has been closed since 2001. It was once a booming Pillsbury processing and distribution factory that produced a wide range of products, including cereals, breads, flours, cornmeal and grits. The emergency EPA cleanup began early in 2017, following the failure of P. Mills LLC to meet a series of court-ordered cleanup deadlines. Chernis already has pleaded guilty to federal charges of improper asbestos cleanup. He is scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 11 in U.S. District Court. Asbestos Abatement Would be Costly EPA project coordinator Kevin Turner told the State Journal- Register the remaining asbestos is not a threat to nearby residents, but it remains a hazard for anyone entering one of the remaining structures on the property. It's an unknown amount [of asbestos], as I did bulk asbestos removal, not an asbestos abatement, he said. Turner said a complete abatement of asbestos, which is what P. Mills LLC would be required to do, would be a costly and more extensive operation than what the EPA recently finished. Neighbors of the factory complex have complained for years about the abandoned property, which has been vandalized repeatedly and become an eyesore to the area. It is a classic example of a problem facing many cities today. Laws requiring costly asbestos abatement often halt the demolition of out-of-date commercial structures that have become a nuisance to many neighbour hoods. Owners of the structures often are unwilling to pay or unable to afford the abatement. It leads to penalties and fines that add to their dilemma. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brazil Asbestos Ban Impacts US Imports ------------------------------------------------------- Britt E. Erickson of Chemical & Engineering News reported that the U.S. chlor-alkali industry is feeling the hit from a Nov. 29 ruling of the Brazil Supreme Federal Court that bans the mining, use, and commercialization of asbestos in Brazil. About 95% of the asbestos used in the U.S. in 2016 was imported from Brazil, with the rest coming from Russia. The chlor-alkali industry used nearly all of the material, or about 340 metric tons, according to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey. Much of the U.S. chlor-alkali industry still uses asbestos diaphragms to produce chlorine. The industry is phasing out such diaphragms and replacing them with more expensive ion-exchange membranes, but not all companies have made the switch. Some members of Congress are raising concerns about having Russia as the sole supplier of asbestos to the U.S. By continuing to allow industrial use of asbestos, a known carcinogen, the Environmental Protection Agency is protecting Russian mining at the expense of American workers, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said during a Dec. 7 subcommittee hearing of the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee. Pallone and other Democrats are urging EPA to use its new authorities under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act to ban the use of asbestos in the U.S. EPA announced in June that it would evaluate asbestos manufacturing, processing, and distribution as part of an upcoming risk assessment. Pallone asked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt why the agency is not also considering the use and disposal of the mineral. "The use and disposal of asbestos is the main source of risk from asbestos," Pallone said. "If you ignore those things, you will produce a risk assessment that fails to capture the risks to workers and ordinary Americans and, in my opinion, will not be scientifically valid and will not be protective of public health." Pruitt agreed, saying disposal of asbestos is a very important factor that we need to consider. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), an advocacy group, welcomes the Brazil court ruling. "This decision sounds a clarion call reaffirming there is no safe or controlled use of asbestos," says ADAO co-founder Linda Reinstein. "It will undoubtedly impact asbestos imports and use" in the U.S., she adds. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Council Probe After Asbestos Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- Dominica Sanda of the Australian Associated Press reported that SafeWork NSW has launched a full investigation into a council's management of asbestos after the material was found in several council-owned buildings. Asbestos has been discovered in several council-owned workplaces in the NSW Blue Mountains including a pre-school, prompting a full investigation backed by the state government. SafeWork NSW launched the investigation after being made aware of alleged asbestos mismanagement at several Blue Mountains City Council-managed workplaces, including the preschool, library, citizens' hall and council depot. "This is a very significant step, but it's absolutely warranted as the number of asbestos discoveries in the mountains and council's poor asbestos management are alarming," Better Regulation Minister Matt Kean said in a statement. Asbestos was found in Wentworth Falls Pre-School, waste piles and a building at council depots, leaf litter in the yard of another pre-school, Lawson Library ceiling, the walls and ceilings at Warrimoo Citizens' Hall and the Heatherbrae Cottage fireplace. Wentworth Falls Pre-School was forced to close in late November following the discovery and is expected to re-open in January while repairs are made over the Christmas break. Another 20 or so locations flagged as potential asbestos hotspots in the region will be inspected. SafeWork will get to the bottom of the way in which Blue Mountains City Council has handled this very important issue we won't cop workers or the community being exposed to danger," Mr Kean said. Blue Mountains City Council Mayor Mark Greenhill has welcomed the investigation saying he wants to get the job done properly. "I am confident that we are taking the necessary steps that will allow us to get to the truth of the matters, help us resolve any issues and maintain community confidence in council's performance," he said in a statement. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA May Review "Legacy Uses" in Risk Evaluation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie A. Miller, North American Desk Editor of Chemical Watch, Global Risk & Regulation News, reported that US EPA may be reconsidering its decision to exclude legacy installed building materials from its risk evaluation of asbestos, the agency's administrator Scott Pruitt told a congressional committee. The EPA's interpretation of the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments is that risk assessment should focus on current and prospective uses. The framework rules and scoping documents for the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under TSCA generally exclude legacy uses of chemicals from consideration. Instead they focus on current and prospective applications. In questioning Mr Pruitt on December 7, Representative Frank Pallone Jr (D-New Jersey) said that ignoring the danger of asbestos disposal will produce a risk assessment that fails to capture the risk to workers and ordinary Americans. "You raise a meaningful concern," Mr Pruitt answered, adding that this issue is under active discussion at the EPA and will be addressed. In comments on the scoping documents, asbestos abatement professionals argued that the most prevalent source of asbestos exposure to the general public in the US is from existing, deteriorating building materials containing the substance. Mr Pallone also reiterated the complaint of Democrats and environmental advocates that deputy assistant administrator Nancy Beck should not have been allowed to rewrite key TSCA regulations to benefit her former employer, the American Chemistry Council. This he said was in flagrant violation of ethics rules. Mr Pruitt responded that all EPA employees abide by the decisions of the agency's ethics officials. Hearings on an agency agenda typically involve many rounds of questioning. But Mr Pruitt, who was making his first appearance on Capitol Hill since his confirmation, met for only an hour with the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Environment Subcommittee. The panel's chairman said Mr Pruitt had to cut the session short to attend a meeting at the White House. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered in Homeless People's Shelter ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angus Young of Hull & East Yorkshire News reported that BHS store canopies which shelter homeless people to be removed after asbestos discovery. Entrance canopies set to be removed urgently in safety move, Hull council say. Suspected raw asbestos fibres have been spotted at two derelict buildings in the city centre. The discovery is expected to see the main entrance canopies at the former BHS and Co-op stores being removed once they come under full ownership of the city council. The main BHS entrance canopy overlooking the new-look King Edward Square currently provides shelter for groups of homeless people who have turned the site into a makeshift camp. The council is expected to complete the purchase of the two derelict department stores, having already acquired the empty neighbouring Edwin Davis building in Bond Street. In a new report, the council's director of major projects, Garry Taylor, said: "The majority of entrance canopies are suspected to be constructed of asbestos insulation board, currently being confirmed by survey and sampling work". There was evidence in various locations around the site of these boards clearly showing sign of damage and wear, with suspected raw asbestos fibres visible in a number of places. Why police were clearing away rough sleepers' belongings from under the BHS canopy in Hull city centre. Any building owner has a duty to manage asbestos. In this case, as a minimum requirement, the asbestos insulation board will require encapsulation as a matter of urgency with the preferred option being the removal of the board along with the removal of redundant lighting and external external fixtures. The council's current plan is to start demolition of the empty buildings in June, having set aside ú5.3m to acquire them and clear the site for a proposed mixed retail, leisure and housing development. Around GBP4m of that is expected to come via funding from the Humber Local Enterprise Partnership. The current timetable forecasts demolition should be completed by December next year. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blue Mountain Hospital in Asbestos Scandal ----------------------------------------------------------- Ben Fordham of 4BC1116 News Talk reported that a public hospital is the latest site caught up in the Blue Mountains asbestos scandal. A report reveals serious asbestos fears still exist at the Blue Mountains District ANZAC Memorial Hospital, despite first being identified 20 years ago. Priority one, disintegrating asbestos has been found in the women's and children's ward, the child assessment and development unit and medical imaging among other locations. It comes as Safe Work NSW launches a full investigation into asbestos cover-ups by the Blue Mountains City Council, with 17 improvement notices and four prohibition notices issued so far. Better Regulation Minister Matt Kean tells Ray, "the situation is nothing short of a disgrace". "The whole thing up there seems absolutely shambolic. No-one at council seem to have any idea what their responsibilities are or what actually is going on." "I've ordered that Safe Work commence a full investigation into the asbestos management practices of Blue Mountains City Council. "And let me tell you this Ray, if there is a breach of the law here, I think that's very strong grounds to take further steps." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Water to be Remedied by Filtration --------------------------------------------------------------- Elena Mcphee of The Timaru Herald reported that an inline filtration plant, estimated to cost about $20,000, is being considered as a temporary fix to the asbestos problems in Temuka. The Timaru District Council is still trying to find the source of asbestos in the water after the substance was found blocking the filters on people's taps, washing machines, and sprinklers in the town. According to the South Canterbury Medical Officer of Health, Dr Daniel Williams, the town's water is safe to drink and to use, but a water tanker remains available for people to fill containers as an alternative. Council communications manager Stephen Doran said the filtration plant would be easy to install but would mean a drop in water pressure for the town, as the filter slowed down the supply. "We are investigating it," Doran said. The tanker is stationed outside the Temuka Library and Service Centre. It was first brought in on December 6 but was diverted due to problems with the Downlands water supply scheme, with residents offered bottled water. Doran said 750 bottles of water had been given out. The council was alerted to presence of asbestos in the water after residents complained about low water pressure and something clogging their filters but the substance was initially thought to be cottonwood fluff. On Tuesday, Doran said the council was still waiting for comprehensive results back after sending water samples from eight areas of the network away to be tested, but some basic preliminary results had been obtained. "It gives us some intelligence as to working out where the issues are." Infrastructure group manager Ashley Harper said in a statement samples were being sent away on a daily basis. One particular pipe which was 7km long and dated back to 1964 was suspected to be causing the issue, and Doran said the test results obtained so far supported that theory. In the meantime, pipe specialists who knew "everything there is to know about pipe composition and materials" were coming to look at the pipes. About half of the town's 54km pipe network was made of asbestos, Doran said. The council had been to the camping ground and cleaned out the system. Residents who have removed the substance themselves are being asked to wet the substance and double bag it -- while wearing gloves -- and take it to the Temuka Transfer Station for disposal. Doran said there were 10 calls about the problem from people wanting their filters unblocked, and there were also a few calls on Monday. The council was using a number of contractors to remedy the issue. "We are busy but it's manageable. The distribution of calls is slightly random." The council was no longer flushing out the main system and had moved onto smaller areas, Doran said. Pipes were not currently replaced as a matter of course. "If a pipe is failing it will be replaced." Speeding up the replacement process was one of the long-term options available to the council. Temuka Primary School principal Grant Willocks said it was "business as usual for the school, with water available for children who wanted it". However, he hoped the issue would be cleared up sooner rather than later. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Facility Needs $45,000 to Remove Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------- Fatimah Waseem of The Future of Chemistry reported that Environmental testing of Reston Association's Central Services Facility found the building, which is slated for major renovations, contained asbestos, prompting RA to use $45,000 in unspent, approved dollars to remove the substance prior to demolition. RA's Board of Directors will consider the request at a meeting on Thursday. According to the board's agenda packet, lab results taken throughout the building were positive for asbestos in floor tiles, pipe insulation, sink undercoating, skylights and exterior pipe tar. The cost of the project will cover abatement, air cleaning and follow-up air testing. "Before full demolition can begin and to ensure the safety of work crews as well as RA staff, an asbestos abatement procedure must be completed," according to the packet. The renovation of the Central Services Facility is one of five capital projects put on hold for most of the year. Plans to renovate the 35-year-old building on 12250 Sunset Hills Road have been suggested for nearly three years. The facility is responsible for maintenance and care of Reston's facilities, including pavilions, community buildings, garden plots and pathways. The project will include the following upgrades: * bathroom in warehouse building for environmental staff * additional exit and ADA accessibility for warehouse office area * replace all windows in main building * add to bathroom capacity in main building to meet volume needs * address leaking roof * improve reception area for staff and RA members * provide HVAC system for shop area * install security system * upgrade LAN connectivity * provide adequate workspaces * provide modular training space ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Co. Must Pay Fired Worker ----------------------------------------------------- Stefanie Valentic of EHS Today reported that OSHA orders Champagne Demolition LLC to pay restitution after worker is fired for reporting unsafe work conditions. On June 10, 2010, a worker at Champagne Demolition LLC informed supervisor about how asbestos removal at a New York school worksite was being performed incorrectly. The Albany-based demolition and construction disposal contractor fired the worker and verbally threatened the employee. In response, the worker filed a complaint with OSHA, which opened an investigation through the agency's regional Office of Whistleblower Protection Programs in New York and found the allegations to have merit. "We are pleased with the jury verdict and the judge's ruling to hold this employer accountable for violating the employee's rights," said OSHA Regional Administrator Robert Kulick in a statement. "Every worker has the right to report potential safety and health hazards without fear of harassment, termination, or retaliation." The agency charged that Champagne Demolition and its owner, Joseph A. Champagne, discriminated against the worker by conducting retaliatory acts in violation of Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In a civil ruling, the United States District Court, Northern District of New York ordered the company and Champagne to pay $103,000 in back wages, $20,000 in compensatory and $50,000 in punitive damages to the worker. Attorneys Allison Bowles, Amy Tai, and Darren Cohen of the regional Office of the Solicitor in New York litigated the case. "This jury verdict and the judge's ruling on this case underscores the Labor Department's commitment to ensuring that the law is followed and employees' right to a healthy and safe workplace is maintained," said Jeffrey S. Rogoff, New York regional solicitor of labor. ********* 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 * * *