/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171221.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 21, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 252 Headlines ALPI INTERNATIONAL: Alvarado Sues Over Missed Breaks, Paystubs AMAZON.COM: "Weber" Sues Over Illegal Credit Card Charges ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces "Strutynsky" Suit in E.D. of New York BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Jackson" RESPA/GBL Suit BED BATH: "Harvey" Action Seeks Suitable Seats in Workplace BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: CMC in Securities Suit to Continue Jan. 9 CARY NELSON: "Sacchi" Sues Over Expired Probiotic Supplements CEMEX INC: Faces "Nowakoski" Suit in Central District Calif. COLFOR MANUFACTURING: Faces "Weidow" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT COMCAST CABLE: Court Stays "Wuest" Wire Tapping Suit CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Faces "Flynn" Suit in W.D. Penn. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Martin" Suit in E.D. New York COUNTY OF INYO, CA: Court Certifies Class in "Wagner" FLSA Suit COVERALL NA: Silva Sues Over Illegal Wage Deductions CRUNCH LLC: "Saleh" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads CVS HEALTH: Ct. Won't Strike Affirmative Defenses in "Lindenbaum" DAWKINS HOME: "Vida" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Hessam" Suit in Eastern District New York EQUIFAX INC: Faces State Employees Union Suit in N.D. Georgia ESCALLATE LLC: Faces "Guzman" Suit in Eastern District of Penn. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Chinitz" Suit Remanded to State Court EXPRESS COURIER: Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in "Harris" Granted FIELDTURF USA: Faces New Castle School Suit in District of NJ FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in E.D. New York FRIENDLY HOME: Faces "Konstantynovska" Class Suit in New York FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Suynov" Suit in E. Dist. New York FUELCO ENERGY: Segovia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay GAF MATERIALS: Sauceda Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Penalties GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces "Hansen" Suit in District of Oregon GREENBERG TRAURIG: Faces "Troice" Suit in 5th Cir. Ct. HARTFORD FIRE: "Andreas-Moses" Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida INNERVISION LLC: Faces "Aresu" Suit in S.D. New York INVENTURE FOODS: Faces "Vana" Class Suit Over Proposed Utz Merger IQ DATA: Faces "Ojukwu" Suit in S. Dist. Cal. JPMORGAN CHASE: Summary Judgment in "Topchian" Suit Affirmed KREATION JUICERY: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Product Labels LADY M CONFECTIONS: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. New York LOWELL, MA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Minority Voters Suit MACY'S WEST: Plaintiff Must Pay $7,511 Attys Fees for No-Show MDL 1566: Court to Review Rulings in Natural Gas Antitrust Suit MICHAEL & SON: "Aguilar" Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia MONSANTO COMPANY: "McNew" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. NAMOW INC: Faces T. Mina Supply Class Suit in New York NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Jordan" Partly OK'd OSI SYSTEMS: Accused of Corruption, "Doyel" Hits Share Price Drop OVASCIENCE INC: Sued in Mass. Over Misleading Financial Reports PA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: "Seneca" Claims Overtime, Minimum Pay PERCHERON FIELD: New Evidence in "Boyington" Re-Opens Discovery PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Polak" Suit in Eastern District of NY POLLO OPERATIONS: Court Narrows "Longhini" ADA Violation Suit RESONANT INC: Securities Class Suit Settlement Has Final Court OK RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Palermo" Suit in E. Dist. New York RITUALS COSMETICS: Matzura Says Website Not Blind Accessible SATELLITE AFFORDABLE: "Benton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages SOLOMON & SOLOMON: Faces "Kantor" Suit in E. Dist. New York SQUARE TRADE: Faces "Berger" Suit Over Breach of Contract STATE FARM: MAO-MSO Class Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois STRAIGHT PATH: Delaware Court Stays Shareholder Litigation TF FINAL: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Ouadani," 1st Cir. Says TINTRI INC: "Golosiy" Securities Suit Remanded to State Court TITAN LOGISTICS: Faces "Johnston" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Security Breach UNIQLO USA: Faces "Jorge" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNITED STATES: Burns and Charest to Lead Hurricane Harvey Suit UNITED STATES: Consovoy McCarty to Lead Hurricane Harvey Suit UNITED STATES: Fleming Nolen to Lead in Hurricane Harvey Suit UNITED STATES: Jenner & Block to Lead in Hurricane Harvey Suit UNO RESTAURANT: Alvarez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages UPS INC: Vawter Sues Over Denied Breaks, Paystubs, Final Pay UTILITY SERVICE: Court Awards $83K Atty Fees in "Verhulst" VICTORIA'S SECRET: Settlement in "Casas" Suit Has Final Approval VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Powders Suit Transferred to N.D. California VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Schmidt" Suit Transferred to N.D. California WAL-MART STORES: Court Enters Protective Order in "Prado" Suit WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces "Coleman" Suit in Colorado YELP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Curry" Securities Suit ********* ALPI INTERNATIONAL: Alvarado Sues Over Missed Breaks, Paystubs -------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Alvarado, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. ALPI International Ltd. and Does 1-100, Case No. RG17885131 (Cal. Super., December 7, 2017), seeks redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage statements resulting from unfair business practices; waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination and in violation of the California Labor Laws of the Business and Professions Code including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law and applicable rules and regulations of the Industrial Welfare Commission. ALPI is a promotional products supplier and importer where Alvarado worked within the last four years as a non-exempt, hourly warehouse worker in their Alameda facility. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. Matthew Crawfors, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 Email: bturley@turleylawfirm.com dmara@turleylawfirm.com AMAZON.COM: "Weber" Sues Over Illegal Credit Card Charges --------------------------------------------------------- Eric Weber and Bryan Rees, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon Services LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08868, (C.D. Cal., December 8, 2017), seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Plaintiffs alleged that Audible, an Amazon.com audiobook company. failed to disclose to consumers of the required "automatic renewal" payment and cancellation terms at the point of sale. As a result, Audible charged any credit card linked to a member's separate Amazon account if the credit card given directly to Audible is declined for any reason. In Weber's case, it was his corporate credit card while in Rees' case, his girlfriend's purchase from Audible was charged to his account. In both cases, the transactions were unauthorized by the card holder. [BN]. Plaintiff is represented by: Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq. SODERSTROM LAW PC 3 Park Plaza, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 667-4700 Fax: (949) 424-8091 Email: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces "Strutynsky" Suit in E.D. of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit Services, Inc. The case is styled Volodymyr Strutynsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Associated Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 07262 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2017). Associated Credit Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Jackson" RESPA/GBL Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case styled BOBBI JACKSON and MATTHEW JACKSON, Plaintiffs, Case # v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-787-FPG (W.D. N.Y.). Plaintiffs Bobbi and Matthew Jackson filed a putative class action complaint on Sept. 30, 2016 alleging that their mortgage loan servicer, the Defendant, improperly and untimely processed their mortgage assistance applications so that it could charge them excessive loan delinquency fees. Specifically, they allege the Defendant violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), its implementing regulations, and Section 349 of New York's General Business Law ("GBL"). The Plaintiffs purchased their home in 2007. Their initial monthly mortgage payment was $609.44, and the Defendant subsequently became their servicer. In 2009, they fell behind on their mortgage payments after Plaintiff Matthew Jackson's employer laid him off. In 2010, after Mr. Jackson found a new job, the Plaintiffs attempted to make partial payments on the overdue amount they owed Defendant. The Defendant rejected the partial payments, demanding instead that they pay the overdue amount in a single lump sum or face foreclosure. The Plaintiffs could not afford to pay a lump sum, and repeatedly requested mortgage assistance from the Defendant. Because the Defendant would not grant the Plaintiffs mortgage assistance and rejected their partial payments, the outstanding amount they owed on their mortgage continued to grow, and the Defendant assessed late fees, property inspection fees, fees for mortgage insurance and other charges to the balance of what the Jacksons owed. At the beginning of 2014, regulations requiring servicers to comply with certain procedures when processing borrowers' mortgage assistance applications went into effect. The Plaintiffs subsequently applied for mortgage assistance on Jan. 28, 2014. On Jan. 30, 2014, the Defendant acknowledged receipt of their application. The Defendant sent the Plaintiffs a letter on Feb. 1, 2014 claiming that it could not complete its review because it needed copies of IRS Form 4506-T, which would allow Defendant to request a transcript of Plaintiffs' tax return. It sent them a letter on June 28, 2014 stating that it had not received the documentation requested in its May 20, 2014 letter, and informed the Plaintiffs that it was no longer reviewing their application. Fearing foreclosure, Plaintiffs had no choice but to submit another application for mortgage assistance in August 2014. While the Plaintiffs experienced the same communication issues with Defendant that they experienced months earlier, this time they were successful in receiving a loan modification. On Sept. 9, 2014, the Defendant approved the Plaintiffs for a trial period payment plan under the Federal Housing Administration's Home Affordable Modification Program (FHA-HAMP), but denied them for other mortgage assistance programs. Finally, on Dec. 20, 2014, the Defendant notified them that they had completed their trial period payment plan, and had therefore qualified for a permanent loan modification. However, under the terms of their loan modification agreement, their monthly principal and interest payment increased from $609.44 to $712.44. In addition, the Defendant increased their total unpaid principal balance from $90,347.53 to $142,691.86. It claimed there was a total delinquency amount of $52,676.87, which was composed primarily of delinquent interest that the Jacksons were unable to pay because the Defendant had been rejecting their payments, as well as an additional $3,559.00 in unspecified fees. The Plaintiffs followed their new loan modification agreement for a few months, but fell behind when Mr. Jackson's employer changed his salary payment schedule. On Oct. 18, 2015, they again applied for mortgage assistance. Finally, the Defendant approved them for an FHA Formal Forbearance plan in March of 2016. They next day, the Defendant sent them a bill for $9,906.70 in unspecified fees and charges. The Plaintiffs' experience with the Defendant is not unique -- the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") has received hundreds of complaints from consumers with regard to the Defendant's mishandling of loan modification applications. The Plaintiffs' pleadings highlighted five of these complaints, which detailed frustrations similar to theirs about Bank of America's confusing and conflicting correspondence with borrowers. Presently before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Geraci granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Motion is denied with respect to the Plaintiffs' 1024.41(b) claims for actual and statutory damages resulting from the Defendant's processing of their January 2014 application. The Judge finds that for the first half of 2014, the Defendant kept the Plaintiffs in default by simultaneously rejecting their mortgage payments and refusing to accept their application for mortgage assistance. And because they remained in default, the Defendant continued to assess various delinquency fees to the balance of their loan. The Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that, had the Defendant complied with RESPA, they would have been approved for a modification earlier, and would owe the Defendant less in fees. The Plaintiffs also allege a sufficient number of Section 1024.41(b) violations to establish that the Defendant had a pattern or practice of not complying with the statute. They allege that hundreds of consumers like Plaintiffs complained to the CFPB about the Defendant's mishandling of their mortgage assistance applications, and share five of these grievances in detail in their complaint. At the pleadings stage, these allegations are sufficient to establish that the Defendant violated RESPA in servicing a class of similarly situated individuals. Judge Geraci granted the Motion to Dismiss with respect to all of the Plaintiffs' remaining RESPA claims, as well as their New York GBL claim. He finds that the Plaintiffs' accusations concerning the GBL are conclusory. They allege the Defendant violated the GBL by offering loss mitigation options to consumers without intending to provide them as offered, refusing to process consumers' loss mitigation applications in a manner that will ensure fair review, and by improperly assessing various fees on borrowers while their loss mitigation application is under review. Missing from these accusations is any well-pled allegation that the Defendant deceived or mislead them and the public at large. The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' request that in the event the Court deems their claims to be inadequately pleaded, they be given leave to file an amended complaint to cure any pleading deficiencies. He says the Court should freely give leave when justice so requires. By separate order, the case will be referred to a U.S. Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings. The Defendant must serve its answer to the Plaintiffs' complaint by Dec. 5, 2017. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). If the Plaintiffs file an amended complaint, the Defendant must respond within 14 days after it is served. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/BXNuMd from Leagle.com. Bobbi Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton -- ccreighton@cpjglaborlaw.com -- Creighton Johnsen & Giroux. Bobbi Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey G. Bestor -- gbesq@bestorlaw.com -- The Bestor Law Firm & Jonathan K. Tycko -- jtycko@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP. Matthew Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton, Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Geoffrey G. Bestor, The Bestor Law Firm & Jonathan K. Tycko, Tycko & Zavareei LLP. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Keith E. Levenberg -- klevenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Courtney L. Hayden -- chayden@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP & James W. McGarry -- jmcgarry@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP. BED BATH: "Harvey" Action Seeks Suitable Seats in Workplace ----------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Harvey, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, and Does 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG17885153 (C.D. Cal., December 7, 2017), seeks damages resulting from failure to provide suitable seating in the workplace pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission work orders. Plaintiff worked as a cashier in a Bed, Bath and Beyond store in Alameda County. Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq Ari J. Stiller, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 990-8300 Fax: (818) 990-2903 Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com liane@kingsleykingsley.com ari@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 Telephone: (818) 992-2935 Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: CMC in Securities Suit to Continue Jan. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order continuing Case Management Conference in the case captioned In re BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 3:16-cv-07081-EMC, (N.D. Cal.) to January 9, 2018. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9xe55as from Leagle.com. Chaile Steinberg, Plaintiff, represented by Evan Jason Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky & Smith LLC. Giulio D. Cessario, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Suzanne Myers denim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Giulio D. Cessario, Plaintiff, represented by David Todd Wissbroecker -- dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Melvin Gross, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower -- dbower@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde & Associates PC. Anjani Kumar Jha, Plaintiff, represented by Joel E. Elkins -- jelkins@weisslurie.com -- WeissLaw LLP. Elizabeth Chuakay, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Donald E. Enright -- denright@zlk.com -- Levin & Korinsky LLP, Elizabeth K. Tripodi -- etripodi@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Quentin Alexandre Roberts -- qroberts@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Douglas Bragan, Plaintiff, represented by Evan Jason Smith, Brodsky & Smith LLC. Bobby M. Mathew, Plaintiff, represented by David Todd Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & William Scott Holleman, Johnson Fistel, LLP. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin -- abenjamin@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman -- boris.feldman@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon A. Schor -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. Judy Bruner, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. Lloyd A. Carney, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. Renato A. DiPentima, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. Alan L. Earhart, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. John W. Gerdelman, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. Kim C. Goodman, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. David L. House, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. L. William Krause, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. David E. Roberson, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. Sanjay Vaswani, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. CARY NELSON: "Sacchi" Sues Over Expired Probiotic Supplements ------------------------------------------------------------- John Sacchi, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cary Nelson, M.D., Probiotic America, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-12868 (D. N.J., December 10, 2017), seeks damages, restitution, statutory damages, punitive damages, sanctions, interest, court costs, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act for breach of contract. Dr. Cary Nelson owns and operates Probiotic America, LLC, a supplier of probiotic supplements. Sacchi claims to have received shipments of their products that had already passed their twelve- month expiration period that had been ordered on Defendants' website and on E-Bay.com. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Simoni, Esq. SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES c/o Jardim, Meisner & Susser, P.C. 30B Vreeland Road, Ste. 201 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (917) 621-5795 Email: StephenSimoniLAW@Gmail.com CEMEX INC: Faces "Nowakoski" Suit in Central District Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cemex Inc. The case is styled Eric Nowakowski as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cemex Inc, a Louisiana corporation, Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02475 (C.D. Cal., December 12, 2017). CEMEX, Inc. is a global building materials company that provides products and services to customers and communities throughout the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. COLFOR MANUFACTURING: Faces "Weidow" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steffanee Weidow, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Colfor Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-02445 (N.D. Ohio, November 22, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Colfor Manufacturing, Inc. owns and operates a manufacturing facility located at 4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125 Columbus, Ohio 43219. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com COMCAST CABLE: Court Stays "Wuest" Wire Tapping Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal the case captioned RICHARD WUEST, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04063-JSW (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff filed the action in California state court alleging that Defendants violated California Penal Code Section 632.7, which prohibits the recording of telephone conversations without all parties' consent. After removal, Defendants moved to stay the action and to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision contained in Defendants' Residential Subscriber Agreement. The Court denied Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal of this order, and now seek to have this case stayed pending the outcome of that appeal. The Court finds that Defendants have raised serious legal questions regarding whether its Residential Subscriber Agreement unambiguously delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The Court also finds that Defendants would be irreparably injured if the Court did not stay this action pending appeal. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has brought this case as a class action, thus increasing the expense Defendants will incur. The Court next finds that granting Defendants' motion to stay will not substantially injure Plaintiff or the putative class he seeks to represent. Plaintiff has not pointed to any specific witness or documentary evidence in this case that is at risk of being lost. The Court finds that the public interest is in equipoise. The Court therefore finds that there is an equally strong countervailing public interest in seeing California's privacy laws enforced. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion for a stay pending the appeal of the Court's order denying arbitration. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxx2lpb from Leagle.com. Richard Wuest, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Grover -- eagrover@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Jacob Adler -- matthew.adler@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Michael James Stortz -- michael.stortz dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Jacob Adler, Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Michael James Stortz, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Faces "Flynn" Suit in W.D. Penn. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company. The case is styled Gertrude Mae Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01618-LPL (W.D. Penn., December 14, 2017). Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company operates as a hotel development, ownership, and management company in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Martin" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Jacqueli Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07281 (E.D. N.Y., December 14, 2017). Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is an IT service management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com COUNTY OF INYO, CA: Court Certifies Class in "Wagner" FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- THE United States District Court for THE Eastern District of California issued an Order granting conditional certification of collective action and ordering notice facilitation in the case captioned AMANDA WAGNER and HEATHER LIND, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF INYO, Defendant, No. 1:17-cv-00969-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.). The parties filed a stipulation in the action seeking conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and facilitated notice to be sent to prospective members of the FLSA class. The complaint alleges that this suit is brought on behalf of all of defendant's employees who were deprived of their full overtime compensation over the prior three years because defendant did not include compensation in lieu of health care coverage in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime. Therefore, it appears notice is appropriate, and any claims of the putative class members concerning this issue are the result of a single policy. The court finds this facilitated notice to be appropriate. The court grants conditional certification of this collective action under the FLSA. Plaintiffs Wagner and Lind will represent the class members and Mastagni Holstedt APC will serve as counsel for the collective class. The parties will coordinate notice to be sent to the class pursuant to their stipulation. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yawqocbk from Leagle.com. Amanda Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by David Emilio Mastagni -- davidm@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC. Amanda Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Isaac Sean Stevens -- istevens@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC, Ace Thomas Tate - - atate@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC & Ian Barclay Sangster -- isangster@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC. Heather Lind, Plaintiff, represented by David Emilio Mastagni, Mastagni Holstedt, APC, Isaac Sean Stevens, Mastagni Holstedt, APC, Ace Thomas Tate, Mastagni Holstedt, APC & Ian Barclay Sangster, Mastagni Holstedt, APC. County of Inyo, Defendant, represented by Barbara Van Ligten -- banligten@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud and Romo & Nate J. Kowalski, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo. COVERALL NA: Silva Sues Over Illegal Wage Deductions ---------------------------------------------------- Ericka Richardson and Luis A. Silva, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Coverall North America, Inc., Sujol, LLC and ABC Corps. 1-10 and Jane & John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. MID-L-007250-17, (N.J. Sup., December 8, 2017), seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Coverall is a staffing and janitorial company with franchisee operating in their behalf all over the country. Plaintiffs performed cleaning work for Sujol, a coverall franchisee. Richardson and Silva claim to be misclassified as independent contractors, hence denied various benefits given to employees under New Jersey Law. Their pay was subjected to numerous deductions Defendant deemed as fees and losses in the conduct of their business. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. Anthony S. Almeida, Esq. THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C. 116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200 Princeton, NJ 08540 Tel: (609) 799-1266 Fax: (609) 228-5649 Email: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com - and - Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq. MARCHETTI LAW, P.C. 900 N. Kings Hwy., Suite 306 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Tel: (856) 824-1001 Fax: (267) 219-4838 Email: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Fax: (617) 994-5801 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com CRUNCH LLC: "Saleh" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads ------------------------------------------------- Bilal Saleh, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Crunch, LLC, Crunch Franchising, LLC and Deliu, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-62416 (S.D. Fla., December 8, 2017), seeks statutory damages and an injunction prohibiting Defendants from making illegal telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On or about November 29, 2017, Bilal Saleh began receiving unsolicited autodialed text messages on his cellular telephone, which were placed by or on behalf of Crunch, LLC, Crunch Franchising, LLC, and DeLiu, LLC as part of their marketing campaign. Defendants Crunch and Crunch Fitness run a chain of fitness clubs located in and around numerous major cities where DeLiu is a franchisee located at 3500 North Andrews Avenue, Oakland Park, FL 33309. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com CVS HEALTH: Ct. Won't Strike Affirmative Defenses in "Lindenbaum" ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in the case captioned SHARI LINDENBAUM, Plaintiff, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-CV- 1863 (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiff moves to strike 15 of 22 affirmative defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Plaintiff Shari Lindenbaum sues Defendant CVS Health Corporation (CVS) for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). She sues on behalf of herself and a class to be certified.1 Plaintiff alleges that CVS made at least six pre- recorded calls to Plaintiff's cellphone without her consent. In its answer to the complaint, Defendant CVS raises twenty-two affirmative defenses. The Court finds no basis to strike Defendant's affirmative defenses. First, affirmative defenses (2-a); (5)-(7); (10)-(12); and (18)- (20) all involve factual determinations that the Court can more appropriately consider on summary judgment. Defendant was not required to specifically plead any of the facts supporting these defenses. For affirmative defenses (9), (13), (15), and (21), Plaintiff fails to show that they have no possible relation to the controversy. Plaintiff fails to cite binding Circuit or Supreme Court precedent that would clearly preclude Defendant from raising these defenses. For affirmative defense (2-b) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice if the Court does not strike it. Even if Defendant had not included the defense, the Court can sua sponte review its subject matter jurisdiction at any point.18 Lastly, the Court reads affirmative defense (22) as a reservation of rights.19 Plaintiff therefore lacks any ground to strike this defense. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yarnqbcq from Leagle.com. Shari Lindenbaum, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Savett -- adam@zagrans.com CVS Health Corporation, Defendant, represented by Esteban Morales Fabila -- emorales@mintz.com -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, Los Angeles, Joshua Briones -JBriones@mintz.com - - Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, Los Angeles & Julie L. Juergens -- jjuergens@gallaghersharp.com -- Gallagher Sharp, Cleveland DAWKINS HOME: "Vida" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Vida, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Dawkins Home, Inc. and Michael Dawkins, Case No. 1:17-cv-24250-FAM (S.D. Fla., November 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Dawkins Home, Inc. owns and operates an interior design business selling home furnishings, accessories, and art in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Hessam" Suit in Eastern District New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. The case is styled Sayed Hessam, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07255 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2017). Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. operates retail stores throughout the United States, including approximately 360 stores in California where Plaintiffs worked as store staff.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. EQUIFAX INC: Faces State Employees Union Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The case is styled as State Employees Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated credit unions and Wisconsin Credit Union League as an association on behalf of its members, Plaintiffs v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05109-TWT (N.D. Ga., December 12, 2017). Equifax Inc. operates a global credit reporting agency that collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on millions of consumers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Alan Reed, Esq. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP - ATL 1100 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4528 Tel: (404) 815-6500 Fax: (404) 815-6555 Email: dreed@kilpatricktownsend.com - and - James A. Kitces, Esq. Robins Kaplan Miller &Ciresi, LLP-MA 25th Floor 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199 Tel: (617) 267-2300 Fax: (617) 267-8288 Email: jakitces@rkmc.com - and - Mary C. Turke, Esq. Turke & Strauss, LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Tel: (608) 237-1776 Email: mary@turkestrauss.com - and - Michael Ram, Esq. Robins Kaplan LLP -MV CA 2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Tel: 650-7084-4007 - and - Sam E. Khoroosi, Esq. Robins Kaplan, LLP MN 800 LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Tel: (612) 349-8500 Fax: (612) 339-4181 - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Turke & Strauss, LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Tel: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 - and - Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq. Robins Kaplan, LLP MN 800 LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Tel: (612) 349-8500 Fax: (612) 339-4181 - and - Susan Brown, Esq. Robins Kaplan LLP -MV CA 2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Tel: (650) 784-4007 - and - William Henry Stanhope, Esq. Robins Kaplan, LLP MN 800 LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Tel: (612) 349-8500 Fax: (404) 233-1267 Email: WStanhope@RobinsKaplan.com ESCALLATE LLC: Faces "Guzman" Suit in Eastern District of Penn. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Escallate, LLC. The case is styled Javier Guzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Escallate, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05588-MAK (E.D. Penn., December 13, 2017). Escallate LLC is a collection agency located in North Canton, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CARY L. FLITTER, Esq. FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 450 N. NARBERTH AVE, SUITE 101 NARBERTH, PA 19072 Tel: (610) 822-0782 Fax: (610) 667-0552 Email: cflitter@consumerslaw.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Chinitz" Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued an Order remanding the case captioned RONALD CHINITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similar situated, Plaintiff, v. SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-06515-EJD (N.D. Cal.), to the Santa Cruz County Superior Court. After reviewing the Complaint, the court was left with serious doubt that Plaintiff's causes of action would, in fact, implicate a substantial federal question and ordered Defendant show cause why the action should not be summarily remanded. The instant putative class action was removed to the District Court by the Defendant on the grounds of federal question in that Plaintiff's claims substantially implicate the laws of the United States, and the Plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of substantial questions of federal law. Defendant responded to the order by filing an amended Notice of Removal. The Court finds that there is no basis to invoke the artful pleading doctrine under these circumstances when Plaintiff has validly brought claims under a state statute that is not supplanted by federal law. Removal is improper when federal law simply displaces state law without replacing the state cause of action with a federal one. When federal law displaces state law without supplanting it, a plaintiff cannot be deemed to be attempting to avoid a federal cause of action. Here, the CCRAA and its federal counterpart, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, co-exist as separate statutory schemes. Because Plaintiff's causes of action are not created by federal law, and because Defendant has not convincingly shown they arise under or raise a substantial issue of federal law, the court still seriously doubts this action was properly removed. Given the need for careful judgments about the exercise of federal judicial power in an area of uncertain jurisdiction, the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7zwn6qn from Leagle.com. Ronald Chinitz, Plaintiff, represented by George Volney Granade, Reese LLP. Ronald Chinitz, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Robert Reese, Reese LLP. Experian Information Solutions, Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel John McLoon, Jones Day, Kerry Cordill Fowler, Jones Day, Kerry Cordill Fowler, Jones Day & Christopher Kevin Spiers, Hanson Bridgett LLP. EXPRESS COURIER: Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in "Harris" Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled JAMES HARRIS; RICK KETCHAM; and ADAM MANSKE, Each Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC. n/k/a LSO FINAL MILE, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-CV-05033 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Decertify FLSA Collective Action and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. The Plaintiffs are former couriers of Defendant LSO, which is a company that facilitates the delivery of products for the medical, financial, and retail industries, through the work of couriers who actually perform these deliveries. LSO offers same-day, on- demand, and scheduled delivery services in ten different states. According to them, LSO has misclassified its couriers as independent contractors, when they really should be classified and paid as employees, and LSO has failed to pay their couriers a minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week. The Plaintiffs argue that they share with their fellow LSO couriers the following characteristics: (i) they were uniformly classified by LSO as independent contractors and were not paid minimum-wage and/or overtime compensation; (ii) they were required to sign the same "Owner-Operator Agreement" before they were permitted to make deliveries for the company; (iii) they were subject to the same corporate-level policies, procedures, and training programs; (iv) they were subject to a common policy of local control; and (v) they were subject to common policies regarding pay. For its part, LSO denies the allegations. On Sept. 19, 2016, the Court conditionally certified this case as an opt-in, Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action, and approved the Plaintiffs' proposed notice for mailing to the putative class. The conditionally-certified collective action includes each individual who (i) worked for Express as a driver, courier, or owner-operator any time after Feb. 11, 2013; (ii) never subcontracted any of his or her work for Express; and (iii) contracted directly with Express under Express's standard Owner- Operator Agreement. On April 14, 2017, after the parties engaged in at least six months of discovery related to class-certification issues, LSO filed a Motion to Decertify the FLSA Collective Action. At approximately the same time, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify a Rule 23 Class Action under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"). The proposed Rule 23 class includes each individual who (i) worked for Express, as a driver, courier, or owner-operator in Arkansas any time after Feb. 11, 2013; (ii) never subcontracted with anyone, or otherwise never hired anyone, to perform any of his or her work for Express; and (iii) contracted directly with Express under Express's standard Owner-Operator Agreement. Judge Brooks finds that maintaining the collective action will not provide an efficient and cost-effective mechanism to resolve the liability questions in the case, as compared to proceeding with individual actions. In particular, he finds that the liability issues cannot be resolved on a classwide basis without significant individual inquiry. Therefore, LSO's Motion to Decertify FLSA Collective Action is granted. The opt-in Plaintiffs will be dismissed by operation of the Order, but the matter will be stayed and the opt-in class members' claims tolled for a period of 60 days to allow them to file their individual claims in the appropriate courts. During this 60-day stay, the Plaintiffs' counsel will be required to send a copy of the Order and an instructional letter to all opt-in class members, advising them of their legal rights going forward. Turning to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification, the Judge finds that although the exempt/non-exempt question is common to all the class members and is, in fact, the threshold question that must be answered with respect to liability, a classwide determination on this very issue will be extremely onerous, if not impossible. Accordingly, he finds that the class action mechanism is not superior to holding individual trials on the issue of liability. The lack of uniformity in how the couriers were paid, in and of itself, is fatal to achieving effective and efficient classwide consideration of LSO's alleged liability. He denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. The Plaintiffs' individual claims will proceed, and a case management order will issue forthwith, granting a limited time- period for the parties to conduct merits discovery, setting a deadline to file dispositive motions, and fixing a date for trial. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/82Coqf from Leagle.com. James Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford -- josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm PLLC. James Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Lee West -- west@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm. Rick Ketcham, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law Firm PLLC & Joshua Lee West, Sanford Law Firm. Adam Manske, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law Firm PLLC & Joshua Lee West, Sanford Law Firm. Janice Suggs, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law Firm PLLC. Chris Averette, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law Firm PLLC. Joshua Burrus, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law Firm PLLC. Traci Calbert, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law Firm PLLC. Kenneth Champion, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law Firm PLLC. Nicholas Cornwell, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law Firm PLLC. Express Courier International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Butcher -- abutcher@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson Feary, Kerri E. Kobbeman -- KKobbeman@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, LLP, Adam Carl Smedstad -- asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson Feary P.C., Elizabeth M. Beck -- EBECK@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson Feary & Emily A. Quillen -- equillen@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson Feary PC. EMP LSO Holding Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew Butcher, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson Feary & Emily A. Quillen, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson Feary PC. FIELDTURF USA: Faces New Castle School Suit in District of NJ ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fieldturf USA Inc. The case is styled New Castle School District, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fieldturf USA Inc, Fieldturf Inc. and Fieldturf Tarkett SAS, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-13065 (D. N.J., December 14, 2017). Fieldturf engages in the manufacturing and installation of infield artificial turf systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Levin Sedran & Berman 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 592-1500 - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Levin, Fishbein et al. 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Tel: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery Services, Inc. The case is styled Sandra Sanchez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07286 (E.D. N.Y., December 14, 2017). Financial Recovery offers collection services to mid-size companies across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com FRIENDLY HOME: Faces "Konstantynovska" Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Friendly Home Care Inc. The case is captioned Lyudmyla Konstantynovska, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Friendly Home Care Inc., Case No. 153500/2017 (N.Y., Sup. Ct., November 29, 2017). Friendly Home Care Inc. is in business of providing home and adult care services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad St, 7th FL New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 The Defendant is represented by: TRIVELLA FORTE, LLP 1311 Mamaroneck AV, Ste 170 White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 949-9075 FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Suynov" Suit in E. Dist. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Sofia Suynov, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07260 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2017). Frontline Asset is a collection firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com FUELCO ENERGY: Segovia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Juan Segovia and Victor Flores, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fuelco Energy LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-1246, (W.D. Tex., December 8, 2017), seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as operators, pumping and fracking oil wells. They regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant without receiving overtime premium. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com GAF MATERIALS: Sauceda Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Penalties ------------------------------------------------------------- Rodolfo Sauceda, on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GAF Materials Corporation, Defendant, Case No. BC686304 (Cal. Super., December 7, 2017), seeks unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest period compensation, final pay, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law and applicable rules and regulations of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Plaintiff's job duties included preparing and administering coatings and/or paint for Defendants' roofing manufacturing business in Los Angeles. Sauceda worked for Defendant for over 30 years and was terminated during his medical leave August 2017. He routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation. He also claims to have worked though rest/meal breaks. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Burrows, Esq. BURROWS LAW FIRM 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 526-9998 Fax: (424) 644-2446 Email: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces "Hansen" Suit in District of Oregon --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Government Employees Insurance Company, a Maryland corporation. The case is styled Leif Hansen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Government Employees Insurance Company, a Maryland corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01986-MO (D. Or., December 13, 2017). Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto insurance company headquartered in Chevy Chase, Maryland. It is the second largest auto insurer in the United States, after State Farm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul W. Conable, Esq. Tonkon Torp LLP 1600 Pioneer Tower 888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204-2099 Tel: (503) 802-2188 Fax: (503) 972-3888 Email: paul.conable@tonkon.com - and - Steven D. Olson, Esq. Tonkon Torp LLP 1600 Pioneer Tower 888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204-2099 Tel: (503) 802-2159 Fax: (503) 972-3859 Email: steven.olson@tonkon.com GREENBERG TRAURIG: Faces "Troice" Suit in 5th Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P. The case is styled as Samuel Troice, Michoacan Trust, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, PAM REED, Putative Class Representative, Plaintiffs v. Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P, Defendant, Case No. 17-11464 (5th Cir. Ct., December 13, 2017). Greenberg Traurig is an international law firm founded in Miami, Florida, in 1967 by Larry J. Hoffman, Mel Greenberg and Robert Traurig.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Judith R. Blakeway, Esq. Strasburger & Price, L.L.P. 2301 Broadway Street San Antonio, TX 78215-1157 Tel: 210-250-6000 - and - Douglas J. Buncher, Esq. Neligan Foley, L.L.P. 325 N. Saint Paul Street Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: 214-840-5300 - and - Michael Jung, Esq. Strasburger & Price, L.L.P. 901 Main Street Bank of America Plaza Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: 214-651-4300 - and - Peter Daniel Morgenstern, Esq. Butzel Long, P.C. 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 Tel: 212-374-5379 - and - Edward C. Snyder, Esq. Castillo Snyder, P.C. 700 N. Saint Mary's San Antonio, TX 78205 Tel: 210-630-4200 The Defendant is represented by: Roy Michael Northrup, Esq. Cowles & Thompson, P.C. 901 Main Street Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: 214-672-2150 HARTFORD FIRE: "Andreas-Moses" Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2017 captioned Karen Andreas-Moses, Lisa Morgan, Elizabeth Wagner, and Jacqueline Wright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 5:16-cv-01387 was transferred on November 22, 2017, from the U.S. District Court Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:17-cv-02019-RBD-KRS to the proceeding. The case seeks redress for systematic and class-wide failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of New York Labor Law. Hartford Fire Insurance Company operates an insurance company in Hartford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. LaClair, Esq. BLITMAN & KING LLP Franklin Center, Suite 300 443 North Franklin Street Syracuse, NY 13204 Telephone: (315) 422-7111 Facsimile: (315) 471-2623 E-mail: bjlaclair@bklawyers.com - and - David Victor Barszcz, Esq. Mary E. Lytle, Esq. LYTLE & BARSZCZ 543 N Wymore Rd Ste 103 Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 622-6544 Facsimile: (407) 622-6545 E-mail: dbarszcz@orlandoemploymentlawyer.net mlytle@lblaw.attorney The Defendant is represented by: Hillary J. Massey, Esq. Molly C. Mooney, Esq. Patrick J. Bannon, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP Two Seaport Ln, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 946-4879 Facsimile: (617) 790-6716 - and - Robert T. Szyba, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 218-3351 Facsimile: (917) 344-1174 INNERVISION LLC: Faces "Aresu" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innervision, LLC. The case is styled Paul Aresu Photography, Inc., a New York corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Innervision, LLC doing business as: Shermco Vending, Jonathan Sherman and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09733 (S.D. N.Y., December 12, 2017). Innervision, LLC provides support services to individuals with disabilities, head trauma, and/or mental health needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com INVENTURE FOODS: Faces "Vana" Class Suit Over Proposed Utz Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Vana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Inventure Foods, Inc., Terry Mcdaniel, Steve Weinberger, Timothy Cole, Ashton D. Asensio, Macon Bryce Edmonson, Harold Edwards, Paul J. Lapadat, Joel D. Stewart, Utz Quality Foods, LLC, and Heron Sub, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-04296-BSB (November 22, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on October 26, 2017, pursuant to which, Inventure Foods, Inc. will be acquired by Utz Quality Foods, LLC for $4.00 in cash for each share of Inventure common stock. According to the complaint, Inventure filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. However, the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Specifically, (i) the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections and the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Rothschild Inc; (ii) the Solicitation Statement fails to disclose whether any nondisclosure agreements executed by Inventure and the prospective bidders contained "don't ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were preventing those counterparties from submitting superior offers to acquire the Company, (iii) the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the Company's officers and directors; and (iv) the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the engagement of CDG Group, LLC (now FTI Consulting, Inc.), a second advisor Inventure retained in connection with the Company's strategic review process. Inventure Foods, Inc. is a marketer and manufacturer of specialty food brands in "better-for-you" and "indulgent" categories under a variety of company-owned and licensed brand names, including Boulder Canyon Foods(TM), Jamba(R), Seattle's Best Coffee(R), Rader Farms(R), TGI Fridays(TM), Nathan's Famous(R), Vidalia Brands(R), Poore Brothers(R), Tato Skins(R), Willamette Valley Fruit Company(TM), Fresh Frozen(TM), Bob's Texas Style(R), and Sin In A Tin(TM). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Barrett, Esq. WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C. 3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720 Phoenix, AR 85012 Telephone: (602) 279-1717 Facsimile: (602) 279-8908 E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com IQ DATA: Faces "Ojukwu" Suit in S. Dist. Cal. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IQ Data International, Inc. The case is styled as Gabriel Ojukwu and Shawnequa Ojukwu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IQ Data International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02506-LAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., December 13, 2017). IQ Data International, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew M. Loker, Esq. Kazerouni Law Group, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ml@kazlg.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Summary Judgment in "Topchian" Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned SAMVEL TOPCHIAN, Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., MARTIN, LEIGH, LAWS & FRITZLEN, P.C., and SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Respondents, Case No. WD80472 (Mo. App.), Judge Karen King Mitchell of the U.S. Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Western District affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, granting summary judgment to the Defendants. On Sept. 1, 2005, Topchian borrowed $221,000, as evidenced by a 30-year deed of trust bearing his signature and referencing a promissory note he signed to document the loan. Beginning in 2009, Topchian participated in a Stated-Income Trial Period Plan ("TPP") under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). The TPP required Topchian to submit "trial plan" payments to Chase as a prerequisite to a possible permanent loan modification. He made trial payments under the TPP from May to December 2009. In December 2009, he received a "Home Affordable Modification Agreement" from Chase. Meanwhile, in October 2011, cases in which various plaintiffs had sued Chase in separate lawsuits in 2010 and 2011 were consolidated into a multi-district class action lawsuit styled JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Modification Litigation in the U.S. for the District of Massachusetts. The consolidated actions pertained to Chase's handling of mortgage borrowers' requests for modifications of their loans. Following consolidation, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on Jan. 20, 2012. On June 15, 2012, Topchian filed a pro se petition in the Small Claims Court of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, seeking $3 million in damages from Chase for breach of contract. Chase removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Chase then filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement. The district court denied the motion to dismiss but granted the motion for a more definite statement, directing Topchian to amend his petition. His amended petition included some additional facts, but no legal theories, and Chase moved to dismiss the amended petition. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and later denied Topchian's motion for reconsideration. He appealed the dismissal of his amended petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit reversed, in part, and remanded the district court's grant of Chase's motion to dismiss, finding that Topchian had stated a claim for breach of contract. In November 2013, the class representatives and Chase reached a Settlement Agreement in the federal class action, for which they jointly sought the court's approval. The court held a preliminary approval hearing on Dec. 5, 2013, which included evidence and argument by the class counsel and Chase. The next day, the court issued a Preliminary Approval Order directing implementation of the Settlement Agreement and certifying a class for that purpose. The Preliminary Approval Order directed that notice be sent to Chase borrowers who were identified as potentially being in the class. Topchian was on the list of potential class members, and notice of the settlement was mailed to him. He admitted receiving the notice in January 2014. The class action court held a Final Fairness Hearing on May 7, 2014, following which the court entered a Final Approval Order, Final Judgment, and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. On Oct. 22, 2014, he dismissed his breach of contract suit then pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri following remand by the Eighth Circuit, and, on Dec. 10, 2014, he filed the present lawsuit against Chase and added MLLF and SPS as Defendants. Topchian asserted four claims against Chase: (i) breach of contract, (ii) violation of the MMPA in connection with the original sale of the loan, (iii) violation of the MMPA in connection with the loan modification, and (iv) common law fraud. He asserted one MMPA claim against MLLF, alleging that MLLF (i) attempted to collect on a debt it knew or should have known was invalid because Chase mishandled the TPP, (ii) sought payment on a debt it knew or should have known was invalid because of the TPP, (iii) failed to investigate the legitimacy of the debt before attempting to collect it, and (iv) ignored Topchian's repeated statements that he was not in default. With respect to SPS, Topchian claimed that SPS, as the sub-servicer of Topchian's loan, sent him letters that incorrectly stated he was in default, requested payment amounts that were not due, and demanded payment different from the terms of his modification agreement. Chase, MLLF, and SPS filed motions for summary judgment on the affirmative defenses of res judicata and release, claiming that, because Topchian received the Class Notice, he was a member of the Settlement Class, and he did not opt out, he is bound by the class action judgment. Topchian opposed the motions for summary judgment, arguing that (i) the federal district court in Massachusetts lacked personal jurisdiction over him; (ii) he had received a permanent loan modifiiation, and the Class Notice did not include borrowers like him who had permanent modifications; and (iii) the class action judgment was improper on several grounds. On Jan. 10, 2017, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Chase, MLLF, and SPS. Topchian filed the appeal. He argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment because: (i) the class action judgment was entered without personal jurisdiction over Topchian or adequate notice to him, (ii) he was denied adequate representation by counsel for the class, (iii) he was denied adequate representation by class representatives, (iv) the class action settlement was the product of fraud, and (v) the claims released by the class action judgment are different from the claims Topchian asserts in the case. Judge Mitchell finds that Topchian's claims against Chase, MLLF, and SPS are barred by res judicata and that a collateral attack on the class action judgment is not appropriate in the case. She explains that Topchian's claims were precluded by a judgment implementing the settlement of a federal class action and that a collateral attack on that judgment was inappropriate. With respect to MLLF, and SPS, they were released from Topchian's MMPA claims by the prior judgment. The Judge concludes that summary judgment is appropriate because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and Chase, MLLF, and SPS are entitled to judgment as matter of law on the affirmative defense of res judicata. Accordingly, she affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment as to Chase, MLLF, and SPS. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/Nymp3Z from Leagle.com. John Campbell, Erich Vieth, and Alicia Campbell, St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Appellant. Robert J. Hoffman -- rjhoffman@bryancave.com -- and Jennifer A. Donnelli -- jadonnelli@bryancave.com -- Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Richard C. Wuestling -- wuestling@wuestlingandjames.com -- and Susan M. Dimond -- dimond@wuestlingandjames.com -- St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Respondent Martin, Leigh, Laws & Fritzlen, P.C. Andrew R. Kasnetz -- akasnetz@sandbergphoenix.com -- Timothy C. Sansone -- tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com -- and Joseph F. Devereux, III -- jdevereux@sandbergphoenix.com -- St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Respondent Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. KREATION JUICERY: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------- Davis Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kreation Juicery, Inc., Case No. BC684218 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 22, 2017), alleges that the Defendant engages in an unlawful scheme whereby Defendant intentionally misleads consumers into making purchases of its Products, including, but not limited to those labeled as, "CBD OIL," "Shades of Green", "Green 1", "Green 2", "Green 4", "Strength", "Synchonize," "Clarity", "Healer", "Unity 12", "Charcoalade", "Enlighten", "Matcha Green Tea", and "RX" potions by falsely promising that these Products were proven to "reduce malignant tumors", cure Autism and aide in the treatment of Cancer. Located in Beverly Hills, CA, Kreation Juicery, Inc. maintains at least 10 retail locations in Los Angeles County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitch Kalcheim, Esq. LEGAL GP 9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 889 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 980-7749 E-mail: MHK@XegalGP.com LADY M CONFECTIONS: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lady M Confections Co., Ltd. doing business as: Lady M. The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Lady M Confections Co., Ltd doing business as: Lady M., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07229 (E.D. N.Y., December 12, 2017). Lady M Confections Co., Ltd. doing business as: Lady M. makes cakes and pastries that are sold online to customers, and through shops in New York City, LA, Singapore and South Korea.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com LOWELL, MA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Minority Voters Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, CHANMONY HUOT, VLADIMIR SALDANA, CHAMPA PANG, THOEUN KONG, LIANNA KUSHI, DENISSE COLLAZO, SUE J. KIM, SOADY OUCH, TOOCH VAN, CARMEN BERMUDEZ, KEI KAWASHIMA-GINSBERG, DANIEL K. UK, AND FAHMINA ZAMAN, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS; KEVIN J. MURPHY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOWELL CITY MANAGER; LOWELL CITY COUNCIL; RITA MERCIER, RODNEY M. ELLIOTT, EDWARD J. KENNEDY, JR., JOHN J. LEAHY, WILLIAM SAMARAS, JAMES L. MILINAZZO, DANIEL P. ROURKE, COREY A. BELANGER, JAMES D. LEARY, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE LOWELL CITY COUNCIL; LOWELL SCHOOL COMMITTEE; STEPHEN J. GENDRON, JACQUELINE DOHERTY, CONNIE A. MARTIN, ROBERT J. HOEY, JR., ROBERT JAMES GIGNAC, ANDRE DESCOTEAUX, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE LOWELL SCHOOL COMMITTEE; LOWELL ELECTION AND CENSUS COMMISSION; AND BEVERLY ANTHES, JOSEPH MULLEN, THEL SAR, THOMAS FR. O'BRIEN, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE LOWELL ELECTION AND CENSUS COMMISSION, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-10895-WGY (D. Mass.). The Plaintiffs are members of the City of Lowell's minority community and are also registered voters. Minorities constitute over 49% of the City's total population, and Hispanics/Latinos and Asian-Americans combined comprise approximately 40% of the total population. The growth in the City's minority populations has been steady and significant over the last three decades. Such diversity is not reflected on the Lowell City Council or the Lowell School Committee. The Plaintiffs have brought the action against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants' at-large election system violated the Plaintiffs' rights under (i) Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ("Section 2"), (ii) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (iii) the Fifteenth Amendment. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted because (i) the Plaintiffs do not plead sufficient facts to allege the existence of a large and geographically compact district that would create a majority-minority district, and (ii) the minority groups may not aggregate their claims and form a minority coalition in order to sustain a claim under Section 2. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that they pled sufficient facts to show a majority-minority district can exist and that minority coalition claims are in fact cognizable under Section 2. After a hearing on Oct. 17, 2017, Judge Young denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss because (i) the Plaintiffs demonstrated in their complaint that a majority-minority district could exist if certain neighborhoods were combined, and (ii) the majority of circuits and district courts that address the issue have persuasively concluded that minority coalitions may maintain claims under Section 2. He explains that he denied the motion to dismiss in order to properly to serve Section 2's legislative intent of curing past discrimination and remain faithful to the reasoning of the majority of the circuit and district courts which have considered the issue because minority coalition claims are cognizable under Section 2. The Judge says the Plaintiffs adequately pled a majority-minority district of their complaint in accordance with the first factor in Gingles. The Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that minorities constitute over 49% of Lowell's total population, and Hispanics/Latinos and Asian-Americans combined comprise approximately 40% of the total population. They also alleged that it is possible to draw redistricting maps for the City of Lowell in which Asian-Americans and Hispanics/Latinos would form a majority of the population in at least one reasonable and properly-apportioned single-member district for both the Lowell City Council and the Lowell School Committee and a district comprising portions of the Acre, Lower Highlands, and/or Highlands neighborhoods of Lowell can be drawn that satisfies this precondition. Judge Young says these allegations satisfy the first Gingles factor because they do more than just recite the first factor, they actually offer an idea of what the proposed district would look like by describing the possible neighborhoods that could create the district. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Memorandum of Decision is available at https://is.gd/NsgXZU from Leagle.com. Chanmony Huot, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones -- Robert.Jones@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP. Chanmony Huot, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Fine -- aniel.Fine@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta -- atthew.Mazzotta@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor -- scott.taylor@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP. Vladimir Saldana, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes & Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP. Champa Pang, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes & Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP. Thoeun Kong, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes & Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP. Lianna Kushi, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes & Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP. Denisse Collazo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes & Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP. Sue J Kim, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes & Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP. Soady Ouch, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes & Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP. Tooch Van, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes & Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP. City of Lowell, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law Department & Lee M. Holland. Kevin J. Murphy, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law Department & Lee M. Holland. Lowell City Council, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law Department & Lee M. Holland. Rita Mercier, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law Department & Lee M. Holland. Rodney M Elliott, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law Department & Lee M. Holland. Edward J Kennedy, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law Department & Lee M. Holland. John J Leahy, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law Department & Lee M. Holland. William Samaras, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law Department & Lee M. Holland. James L Milinazzo, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, City of Lowell Law Department & Lee M. Holland. Daniel P Rourke, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, City of Lowell Law Department & Lee M. Holland. MACY'S WEST: Plaintiff Must Pay $7,511 Attys Fees for No-Show ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Cost in the case captioned RAMON GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-04440-WHO (N.D. Cal.). Defendants Macy's West Stores, Inc., and XPO Last Mile, Inc., move to recover their attorney fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 due to named plaintiff Victor Ramirez's failure to appear for his scheduled deposition. Six plaintiffs filed a punitive class action against defendants Macy's and XPO LM in Alameda Superior Court, asserting causes of action for violations of California Labor Code. The action was removed to the District Court on August 5, 2016. By agreement of the parties, the depositions of two of the plaintiffs, Mynor Cabrera and Victor Ramirez, were noticed for October 4 and October 5, 2017. Tibor did not respond until 9:17 am the following morning, confirming that the deposition would not occur. The court reporter and court interpreter had already arrived for the Ramirez deposition and Lounsbury entered a non-appearance on the record. Lounsbury then changed his flight to leave a day earlier than planned and flew back to Virginia on October 5. As a result of the cancellation, the parties met and conferred about what plaintiffs would agree to reimburse defendants for the expenses and time incurred related to the cancelled Ramirez deposition but were unable to agree. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A)(i) allows a court to impose sanctions upon a party failing to appear for a noticed deposition. Rule 37(d)(3) provides that in addition to or instead of those sanctions, a court must require the party failing to act, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Plaintiffs' counsel agree that they should pay $860 for the court interpreter's reservation and late cancelation fee. They object, however, to paying the full $421.75 charged by the court reporter. They contend that they should pay $310 to cover reserving the court reporters' services but should not have to pay the remainder incurred by defense counsel, marking the non-appearance of Ramirez on the record, because defendants knew Ramirez was not coming. It is reasonable to award defendants the full expenses incurred by both the court interpreter and court reporter. Plaintiffs' counsel shall pay a total of $1,281.75 for both. As an initial matter, plaintiffs' object to paying for Lounsbury's travel expenses, arguing that because defendants have a local office and local counsel involved in the case, flying an attorney from Virginia to take the depositions in San Francisco was unnecessary. The Court agreed with defendants that staffing the depositions was their decision to make and the selection of Lounsbury to take the depositions was not unreasonable. Defense counsel has failed to adequately show that all the expenses for ground transportation, air travel, and the hotel would not have been incurred but for the canceled deposition given that Cabrera's deposition was also scheduled and partially took place. Plaintiffs' counsel will pay $580.41 for one-night of the hotel; $13.99 for the ground transportation from the hotel to the location where Ramirez was scheduled to be deposed; and the $734 cost difference and service fee for air fare. Defendants request a total of $8,715 to account for the 24.9 hours of Lounsbury's time charged at an hourly rate of $350. Lounsbury breaks down his time as follows: (i) 0.6 hours to prepare the deposition notices and in conferring with plaintiffs' counsel regarding the same; (ii) 15.3 hours to prepare for Ramirez's deposition; (iii) 1.3 hours to appear for Ramirez's deposition; and (iv) 7.7 hours to prepare the pleadings in support of the motion for attorney fees. Plaintiffs also object to the 1.3 hours claimed for making the record of the non-appearance, but the Court found this amount of time reasonable. Plaintiffs do not object to the request for 7.7 hours spent in preparing this motion. The Court concluded that 7.7 hours for preparation of the motion and the reply is reasonable and should be compensated. Plaintiffs' counsel must pay $4,900 for defense counsel's attorneys' fees to account for 14 hours broken up as: (i) 5 hours to prepare for Ramirez's deposition; (ii) 1.3 hours for appearing for the deposition; and (iii) 7.7 hours for preparation of the motion and reply. Plaintiffs' counsel must pay $4,900 for attorney fees and $2,611.15 for expenses incurred as a result of the canceled deposition of Victor Ramirez for a total amount of $7,511.15. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7l3xx35 from Leagle.com. Ramon Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian -- mike.falveylaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey. Ramon Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Armand Raffi Kizirian - armand.falveylaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, David Francis Tibor -- david@jmllaw.com -- The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich, Jospeh M. Lovretovich -- jml@jmllaw.com -- The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich & Thomas Walker Falvey -- thomaswfalvey@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey. Victor Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, Armand Raffi Kizirian, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, David Francis Tibor, The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich, Jospeh M. Lovretovich, The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich & Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey. Adrian Valente, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, Armand Raffi Kizirian, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, David Francis Tibor, The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich, Jospeh M. Lovretovich, The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich & Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey. Mario Pinon, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, Armand Raffi Kizirian, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, David Francis Tibor, The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich, Jospeh M. Lovretovich, The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich & Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey. Mynor Cabrera, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, Armand Raffi Kizirian, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, David Francis Tibor, The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich, Jospeh M. Lovretovich, The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich & Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey. Macy's West Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Hamilton Newhouse -- jeffrey.newhouse@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Fraser Angus McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Michael C. Christman, Macy's Law Department. Joseph Eletto Transfer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Carl Smedstad -- ASMEDSTAD@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, P.C. & Andrew J. Butcher -- ABUTCHER@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis, Gavin, Light, Hanson & Feary, pro hac vice. XPO Logistics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Hamilton Newhouse, Jackson Lewis P.C.,Adam Lewis Lounsbury, Jackson Lewis, PC, pro hac vice & Fraser Angus McAlpine, Jackson Lewis P.C. MDL 1566: Court to Review Rulings in Natural Gas Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for District of Nevada issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in the case captioned In re WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION REORGANIZED FLI, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAMS COMPANIES. et al., Defendants. LEARJET, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. ONEOK, INC. et al., Defendants. SINCLAIR OIL CORP., Plaintiff, v. E PRIME INC. et al., Defendants. SINCLAIR OIL CORP., Plaintiff, v. ONEOK ENERGY SERVICES CO., L.P., Defendant. BRECKENRIDGE BREWERY OF COLORADO, LLC et al., Plaintiffs, v. ONEOK INC. et al., Defendants. HEARTLAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER et al., Plaintiffs, v. ONEOK, INC. et al., Defendants. ARANDELL CORP. et al., Plaintiffs, v. XCEL ENERGY INC. et al., Defendants. NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM INC., Plaintiff, v. CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CO. et al., Defendants, No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL, MDL No. 1566, No. 2:05-cv- 01331-RCJ-PAL., 2:06-cv-00233-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-00267-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-00282-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-01351-RCJ-PAL, 2:07-cv-00987-RCJ- PAL, 2:07-cv-01019-RCJ-PAL, 2:09-cv-00915-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.) The Motions to Certify and the Motion for Suggestion of Remand are denied. The consolidated cases are stayed. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred seven class action cases from various districts in California to the District Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 as Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Case No. 1566, assigning Judge Pro to preside. One or more of the cases have been to the Court of Appeals twice and to the Supreme Court once. In 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed several dismissals under the filed rate doctrine and remanded for further proceedings. In 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed several summary judgment orders, ruling that the Natural Gas Act did not pre-empt state law anti-trust claims and that certain Wisconsin-and Missouri-based Defendants should not have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari as to pre-emption under the Natural Gas Act and affirmed. The case was soon thereafter reassigned to the District Court when Judge Pro retired. The Court has issued several dispositive orders and has denied class certification in applicable cases. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER Motion No. 2959 Defendants Xcel Energy Inc. (Xcel), Northern States Power Co. (N. States), Dynegy Illinois, Inc. (DII), DMT GP, LLC (DMT), Dynegy GP, Inc. ("DGI"), El Paso Corp. (El Paso), and Williams Merchant Services Co. (Williams) ask the Court to reconsider denial of their motion for summary judgment in the '1019 and '915 Cases based on release and/or res judicata via the settlements in a consolidated class action brought in the Southern District of New York, No. 03-cv-6186 ("the NYMEX Case"). The Court granted the motion as to several Defendants but denied the motion as to movants because the Court was not satisfied that movants were parties to the NYMEX Case or parents, subsidiaries, successors, etc. of parties to the NYMEX Case covered by the release. The Court invited the present motions to reconsider if movants could provide such evidence or point out to the Court such evidence already in the record. First, according to Jolley's testimony, DGI was a partner of Dynegy Marketing & Trade. It was therefore released as a member of a Settling Defendant. Second, DII was the parent of the parent of DGI. Under the release, parents of parents of Settling Defendants, as well as parents of members of Settling Defendants, were released. Third, DMT is a subsidiary of DMT Holdings, which is in turn a subsidiary of Dynegy Holdings, Inc., which in turn is a parent of DGI, which in turn is a member of a Settling Defendant (Dynegy Marketing & Trade). Under the release, subsidiaries of parents of Settling Defendants are released. Motion No. 2962 The remaining Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its March 2017 denial of summary judgment in the '1019 Case based on its finding that that there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs Carthage College and Briggs & Stratton received sufficient notice of the NYMEX settlement. But movants correctly note in reply that the reason the Court recently granted summary judgment on this issue despite any potential fact issues concerning notice was because any such fact issues were precluded; under the case law, the NYMEX court's findings that notice to class members had been sufficient was simply not collaterally attackable here. The factual distinction Plaintiffs ask the Court to recognize may be valid, but the Court would have to ignore Hesse in order to address it. The Court is not free to do so and finds that it must reconsider. MOTIONS TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL The Court will not certify these issues for interlocutory appeal based on the speculation that the Court of Appeals may choose to hear those issues together with the pending appeals. At a minimum, even if the Court of Appeals chose to do that, it would almost certainly extend the time to determine the pending appeals. MOTION FOR SUGGESTION OF REMAND Plaintiffs in the class action cases (the '233, '1019, '987, '1351, and '915 Cases) have asked the Court to issue a suggestion of remand to the JPML. The Court will not enter the proposed order. If Plaintiffs themselves do not believe the class action cases should be immediately remanded, the Court will not issue a suggestion of remand. Plaintiffs implicitly admit that the Court should not suggest remand until the pending appeals are decided. That being the case, the Court will not enter a superfluous order indicating what it may do in the future. The Court agrees with Defendants that upon issuing the present order, it should simply stay the cases and await the Court of Appeals' rulings in the two pending appeals. The Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief and the Motion to Reconsider are granted. The Motion to Reconsider is granted in part and denied in part. Xcel Energy Inc.; Northern States Power Co.; Dynegy Illinois, Inc.; Dynegy GP, Inc.; El Paso Corp.; and Williams Merchant Services Co. are entitled to summary judgment based on release, but DMT GP, LLC is not. The Motions to Certify and the Motion for Suggestion of Remand are denied. The consolidated cases are stayed, and the parties shall notify the Court upon the issuance of the Court of Appeals' rulings in Appeals Nos. 16-17099 and 17-16227. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybjrnrn5 Leagle.com. NewPage Wisconsin System Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Robert L. Gegios -- rgegios@kmksc.com -- Kohner, Mann & Kailas. NewPage Wisconsin System Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory M. Bentz -- gbentz@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli Shughart. MICHAEL & SON: "Aguilar" Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on April 19, 2017 captioned Marco Aguilar, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated v. Michael & Son Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00728, was transferred on November 29, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00613-RGD-RJK to the proceeding. The case asserts labor-related claims. Headquartered in the State of Maryland, Michael & Son Services, Inc. is a contractor with specialties in commercial improvement, commercial building, electrical, gas fitting, HVAC, home improvement, plumbing and residential building. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 333 Vine St Ste 1200 Lexington, KN 40507 Telephone: (859) 219-4529 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Sarah Elizabeth Moffett, Esq. LECLAIR RYAN PC 2318 Mill Road, Suite 1100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 687-5930 E-mail: sarah.moffett@leclairryan.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "McNew" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on November 17, 2017, styled Kevin McNew, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-02728, was transferred on November 29, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06858-VC to the proceeding. The case asserts product-liability claims. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jacob A. Flint, Esq. FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 222 Park Street, Suite 500 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 205-2017 Facsimile: (618) 307-5790 E-mail: jflint@toverdict.com NAMOW INC: Faces T. Mina Supply Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Namow, Inc., City of New York, by its department of design and construction, City Of New York, by its department of environmental protection, Westchester Fire Insurance Company, Maria G. Nubile, Bruna J. Laurino and "John Doe One" through "John Doe Ten". The case is captioned T. Mina Supply, Inc., on behalf of itself and all other persons similarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts of which Namow, Inc., is a Trustee v. Namow, Inc., City of New York, By Its Department Of Design And Construction, City Of New York, By Its Department Of Environmental Protection, Westchester Fire Insurance Company, Maria G. Nubile, Bruna J. Laurino and "John Doe One" through "John Doe Ten", Case No. 701720/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 27, 2017). Namow, Inc. operates a construction company located at 84-22 Grand Avenue, Elmhurst, NY 11373. Westchester Fire Insurance Company is a foreign corporation authorized by the Superintendent of insurance to conduct the business of insurance and surety ship in the State of New York and has a place of business located at 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036. City of New York, By Its Department Of Design and Construction and City Of New York, By Its Department Of Environmental Protection operate public benefit corporations in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marshall M. Stern, Esq. MARSHALL M. STERN, P.C. 17 Cardiff Court Huntington station, NY 117-16 Telephone: (631)427-0101 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Jordan" Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAURA ZAMORA JORDAN, as her separate estate, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, and FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, Intervenor, Case No. 2:14-CV- 0175-TOR (E.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On April 3, 2012, Ms. Jordan filed her Complaint against Nationstar in Chelan County Superior Court. She subsequently filed a First and Second Amended Complaint seeking class action relief. In her Second Amended Complaint, Ms. Jordan asserted the following causes of action: trespass; intentional trespass; violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA"); and breach of contract. She also asserted a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") but the Court dismissed Ms. Jordan's individual FDCPA claim on Aug. 10, 2015. On May 9, 2014, the Chelan County Superior Court certified the Class, pursuant to Washington Court Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(3). Thereafter, the Defendant removed the action to the Court. Nationstar then filed a partial summary judgment motion asking the Court to find that entry provisions are enforceable under Washington law. Ms. Jordan moved for partial summary judgment requesting the Court to find that before a lender can lawfully act upon the entry provisions, the lender is first required to obtain the borrower's post-default consent or permission from a court. The Court certified both questions to the Washington Supreme Court and stayed the case. On July 7, 2016, the Washington Supreme Court entered its decision finding the entry provisions in direct conflict with Washington law and, therefore, unenforceable. Further, the Washington Supreme Court determined that receivership is not the exclusive remedy for a lender to gain access to a borrower's property. As a result, on July 21, 2016, the Court denied the parties' cross- motions for partial summary judgment, and lifted the stay. Nationstar then moved to reconsider the denial of its partial summary judgment motion, which the Washington Supreme Court denied and filed its Certificate of Finality on Sept. 2, 2016. On Sept. 6, 2017, the Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class and certified a slightly redefined Class. Ms. Jordan then filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Judge Rice granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. It is granted as to liability for common law trespass and CPA violations for all Class members who had their properties rekeyed prior to foreclosure. He concludes that all the Class members whose homes were rekeyed are entitled to summary judgment on their intentional trespass claim, as there is no genuine issue of material fact. He agrees that Nationstar acted intentionally in excluding Class members from exclusive possession of their homes by installing lockboxes. He finds that intentional trespass claim is met because changing locks on the debtors' homes is a reasonably foreseeable interference of their possessory interest. He says the Class members are entitled to the cost of restoration regarding the rekeying of the debtors' locks, equivalent to Nationstar's lock change fees in the amount of $535,376. They are also entitled to the reasonable rental value from the date Nationstar locked a house to the cure of any default or when the property was properly liquidated, the exact calculation to be determined at trial. Judge Rice also concludes that Ms. Jordan and the Class members have established their CPA claim for all members who had their homes rekeyed by Nationstar prior to foreclosure. Nationstar's practice of rekeying homes before foreclosure was unfair and deceptive, thus satisfying the first element of the CPA claim. There was a business relationship between the borrowers and Nationstar, but the violation also caused injury to the borrowers' property by changing the locks. Nationstar's practice of rekeying homes was committed in the course of its business and was part of its uniform practice of rekeying allegedly abandoned homes. The Class members' property was diminished and thus they suffered injury. The Judge reserves application of the disgorgement remedy for trial as genuine disputes of material fact remain and more evidence is required to make a determination. He directed the District Court Executive to enter the Order and furnish copies to the counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/AoFMis from Leagle.com. Laura Zamora Jordan, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC. Laura Zamora Jordan, Plaintiff, represented by Clay M. Gatens -- clayg@jdsalaw.com -- Jeffers Danielson Sonn & Aylward PS, Michael D. Daudt, Daudt Law PLLC, Michelle A. Green -- michelleg@jdsalaw.com -- Jeffers Danielson Sonn and Aylward PS & Blythe H. Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by John Alan Knox -- jknox@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs, Andrew Weiss Noble -- awn@severson.com -- Severson & Werson APC, Jan T. Chilton -- jtc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson PC, pro hac vice, Mark Douglas Lonergan -- mdl@severson.com -- Severson & Werson APC, pro hac vice & Mary Kate Sullivan -- mks@severson.com -- Severson & Werson PC, pro hac vice. State of Washington, Washington State Attorney General, Interested Party, represented by Amy Chia-Chi Teng, Attorney Generals Office. Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor, represented by Asim Varma -- asim.varma@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Gibbons -- DJG@witherspoonkelley.com -- Witherspoon Kelley, David B. Bergman -- david.bergman@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice & Howard N. Cayne -- howard.cayne@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice. OSI SYSTEMS: Accused of Corruption, "Doyel" Hits Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Doyel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OSI Systems, Inc., Deepak Chopra, Alan I. Edrick and Ajay Mehra, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08855 (C.D. Cal., December 8, 2017), seeks damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. OSI Systems, Inc. produces medical monitoring and anesthesia systems, optoelectronic devices, and security and inspection systems. Its subsidiary Rapiscan Systems provides metal detectors and X-ray machines for screening luggage and cargo. On January 18, 2012, OSI announced that Rapiscan had been awarded a six-year, $400 million contract to provide turnkey screening services to Mexico's tax collection authority. On August 21, 2013, OSI announced that Rapiscan had been awarded a fifteen-year contract to provide turnkey screening services throughout Albania. Rapiscan's equipment was allegedly misrepresented in the Mexican contract and was accordingly overpriced relative to the value of the services provided. Said contract was unlikely to be renewed or was likely to be renewed at terms less favorable to OSI. In addition, the Albania contract was allegedly secured by corrupt means and the company's revenues was likewise unsustainable. On this news, OSI's share price fell $24.55, or 29.2%, to close at $59.52 on December 6, 2017. Plaintiff owns OSI shares and lost substantially. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com OVASCIENCE INC: Sued in Mass. Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Westmoreland County Employee Retirement System, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ovascience, Inc., Michelle Dipp M.D., PH. D., Jeffrey E. Young, Richard H. Aldrich, Jeffrey D. Capello, Mary Fisher, Marc Kozin, Stephen Krauss, Thomas Malley, Harald F. Stock, PH. D., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, and Leerink Partners LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-12312-IT (D. Mass., November 22, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Materials contained misleading statements about and failed to disclose that: (1) the very science behind AUGMENT was untested and in doubt; (2) the patients that had received OvaScience's AUGMENT procedure in 2014 did not achieve a pregnancy success rate that was significantly higher than the rate achieved without the Company's AUGMENT procedure; (3) the Company had not chosen to undertake its studies outside of the United States, but was forced to as it did not want to meet stringent and expensive federal regulations; and (4) the Company was far from being profitable, or even approaching profitability. Accordingly, the price of the Company's shares was artificially and materially inflated in the Offering. Ovascience, Inc. is a life science company that engages in the discovery, development, and commercialization of new treatments for infertility. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP 110 Cedar Street, Suite 250 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 Telephone: (781) 431-2231 Facsimile: (781) 431-8726 E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com - and - David R. Scott, Esq. Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com alawrence@scott-scott.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin IV, Esq. Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Andrea Farah, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com dbroggi@scott-scott.com afarah@scott-scott.com PA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: "Seneca" Claims Overtime, Minimum Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Ruslavage and Mario Seneca individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01598 (W.D. Pa., December 8, 2017), seeks to recover damages resulting from unpaid working time stemming from minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Ruslavage and Seneca worked for Defendant as sports officials from approximately September 2004 until the present. The Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association allegedly misclassified Plaintiffs and all other sports officials as independent contractors, and required them to work off the clock without any pay and overtime. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Tel: 412-766-1455 Fax: 412-766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PERCHERON FIELD: New Evidence in "Boyington" Re-Opens Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kim R. Gibson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part Eric Boyington's Motion to Re-Open Discovery Regarding Newly-Acquired Evidence and Compel Discovery Responses in the case styled ERIC BOYINGTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-90 (W.D. Pa.). The case is a hybrid collective/class action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). The Plaintiffs are current and former Right of Way Agents ("ROW Agents") for Percheron. The Plaintiffs allege that Percheron improperly classified them as overtime-exempt employees and, thus, seek backpay for non-payment of overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA. Under the Court's Case Management Order of Nov. 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs were ordered to complete all depositions pertinent to any further dispositive motions as well as their Motion for Class Certification by March 1, 2017. This discovery deadline of March 1, 2017 was never amended. Pursuant to the Case Management Order, the Plaintiffs took the depositions of the Gwins on Feb. 1, 2017. Shannon Gwin was the Percheron project manager on the eastern part of a Sunoco pipeline project known as Mariner East 2, Segment 3 on which many of the opt-in Plaintiffs worked; Scott Gwin was an ROW Agent under Shannon Gwin. However, at some time shortly after the Plaintiffs took these depositions, the Gwins' employment with Percheron ended, and, according to Facebook and Linkedln posts located by the Plaintiffs, the Gwins moved to Louisiana and began operating "Friendly Farms Pet Retreat, LLC" in Baskin, Louisiana. The exact date of the Gwins' departure from Percheron and move to Louisiana is unknown to the Plaintiffs, but, again, based on content posted on Facebook and Linkedln, they infer that the date is presumably in the range of March 2017 to July 2017. The Plaintiffs allege that they have heard "reports" that the cause of the Gwins' departure from Percheron was the Gwins' involvement with improper and/or illegal arrangements with landowners on the Mariner East 2, Segment 3 project. They asked Defendant to consent to further depositions and discovery regarding the Gwins' departure; the Defendant refused and has provided no other explanation regarding the Gwins' apparently voluntary resignation from Percheron. Having failed to amicably resolve this dispute, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Re-Open Discovery on Aug. 16, 2017. In response, the Defendant filed its Opposition to their Motion to Re-Open Discovery and accompanying exhibits on Aug. 24, 2017. Lastly, the Plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Re-Open Discovery on Aug. 30, 2017. In their Motion to Re-Open Discovery, the Plaintiffs request that the Court re-open discovery and compel responses to discovery requests regarding the departure of the Gwins from employment with Percheron. More specifically, they ask that the Court orders that Percheron respond, within 30 days of service, to a set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the limited subject of the departure of the Gwins from employment with Percheron. Judge Gibson holds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden under Rule 16(b)(4) to demonstrate "good cause" to modify the Case Management Order and allows discovery to be reopened on the narrow topic of the Gwins' departure through a set of interrogatories and document requests. He finds that their request for additional interrogatories regarding the Gwins' departure from Percheron satisfies the requirements of Rule 33(a), Rule 34, and Rule 26(b). He also finds that the Plaintiffs did not waive the ability to argue that outside credibility evidence is relevant to the substantive issues in the litigation. The single objection made by the Plaintiffs' counsel at Shannon Gwin's deposition does not constitute a waiver of any right or the ability to make any argument in the future. While he will allow the Plaintiffs to propound its interrogatories and request documents regarding the Gwins' departure after the close of fact discovery, the Judge will not preemptively issue an order compelling Percheron to respond to these interrogatories or to produce documents. He says he will not assume that Percheron will refuse to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by refusing to respond or object, as appropriate, to the set of interrogatories and document requests issued by the Plaintiffs regarding the Gwins' departure. He fully expects that Percheron will comply with its discovery obligations under federal law and, specifically, with Rule 33 and Rule 34. The Plaintiffs can, of course, raise the issue again if Percheron fails to timely comply with its discovery obligations. For these reasons, Judge Gibson granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Re-Open Discovery. Specifically, he re- opens discovery on a limited basis to allow the Plaintiffs to submit a set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the subject of the Gwins' departure from employment with Percheron. However, he will not preemptively issue an order compelling Percheron to appropriately respond to these new discovery requests. Pursuant to Rule 33(b)(2) and Rule 34(b)(2)(A), Percheron must serve its answers and/or any objections within 30 days after being served with the relevant set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/VFfqZm from Leagle.com. ERIC BOYINGTON, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky -- Linklaw@comcast.net. ERIC BOYINGTON, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz -- andrew.horowitz@obermayer.com -- Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP, Bruce C. Fox -- bruce.fox@obermayer.com -- Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP & Jeffrey B. Cadle. MARY BETH GARNER, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP. JOHN HUBBS, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP. JAYME ROWE, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP. TONJA TUCKER, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP. LESLIE WELDEN, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP. BRADLEY WRIGHT, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP. PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brittany A. Fink -- bfink@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Robert W. Pritchard -- rpritchard@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Brian M. Hentosz -- bhentosz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Christopher Michalski -- cmichalski@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Jill M. Weimer -- jweimer@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Sarah J. Miley -- smiley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian M. Hentosz, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Brittany A. Fink, Littler Mendelson, P.C.. ERIC BOYINGTON, Counter Defendant, represented by John R. Linkosky & Joseph H. Chivers . PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian M. Hentosz, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Brittany A. Fink, Littler Mendelson, P.C.. PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian M. Hentosz, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Brittany A. Fink, Littler Mendelson, P.C.. PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Polak" Suit in Eastern District of NY -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. The case is styled Israel Polak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07220 (E.D. N.Y., December 12, 2017). Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. provides debt recovery services in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com POLLO OPERATIONS: Court Narrows "Longhini" ADA Violation Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned Doug Longhini, Plaintiff, v. Pollo Operations, Inc. d/b/a Pollo Tropical 26 and Arka Investments Corporation, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-23410-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.). The Supreme Court has held that while a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds' of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The Defendants first move to dismiss any violations of the ADA of which the Plaintiff did not have notice at the time he filed the Complaint. Although the Complaint specifically identifies numerous architectural barriers that the Plaintiff encountered at the Defendants' restaurant, the Complaint states that the list of barriers is not an exclusive list, and requests to inspect the restaurant to discover barriers to access that were concealed. Courts within this district have held that a plaintiff must have actual knowledge of alleged violations of the ADA at the time a complaint is filed. Plaintiffs do not have standing to complain about alleged barriers which they were unaware of at the filing of their complaint. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss those portions of the Complaint that seek redress for violations of which the Plaintiff was unaware at the time he filed the Complaint. The Defendants next move to dismiss alleged violations that do not relate to the Plaintiff's disability and/or did not actually injure him. It is well-settled that a plaintiff does not have standing to assert a claim for an alleged ADA violation not related to the plaintiff's disability. It is also well-settled that a plaintiff must have suffered an injury-in-fact in order to have standing. However, the Defendants specifically identify two allegations that they argue do not relate to the Plaintiff's disability and/or did not injure the Plaintiff. This first is an allegation that signage at some of the designated accessible parking spaces are not compliant. The Defendants appear to misunderstand the nature of the alleged violation. The regulations cited in the Complaint require that accessible parking spaces be designated as reserved, and set forth specific requirements for such signage. ADA Accessibility Guidelines 4.6.4. This is presumably not intended to be an accommodation for individuals who are visually impaired, but rather an accommodation for all disabled individuals so that they are able to clearly identify which parking spaces are accessible. Therefore, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss this allegation Although the Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and "all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, the Plaintiff has failed to plead a basis for bringing a class action. The Plaintiff's response to the Motion to Dismiss asserts that he never intended this case to be a class action. Therefore, the issue is moot. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismisses without prejudice those portions of the Complaint that seek redress for violations of the ADA that were unknown or undiscovered at the time the Complaint was filed, and the Plaintiff's allegation that "[t]he facility fails to make reasonable accommodations in policies, practices and procedures." However, the Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's allegation that "signage at some of the designated accessible parking spaces are not compliant." A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb68ez3b from Leagle.com. Doug Longhini, Plaintiff, represented by Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L., 730 NW 107th Ave., Suite 214Miami, FL 33172 Doug Longhini, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Joseph Perez, Garcia-Menocal & Perez, P.L., 730 NW 107th Ave., Suite 214Miami, FL 33172 Pollo Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence Dean Silverman -- lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & Sandra Jessica Millor -- sandra.millor@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP. RESONANT INC: Securities Class Suit Settlement Has Final Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, issued a Final Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice in the case captioned In re RESONANT INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, This Document Relates To: All Actions, Case No. 2:15-cv-01970 SJO (MRW), No. 2:15-cv-02054 SJO (VBK), 2:15-cv- 02369 SJO (VBK)(C.D. Cal.). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court approves the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class. The Court also reaffirms its findings and conclusion, set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order, that, for purposes of the Stipulation and the Settlement, this Settlement Class meets the prerequisites for bringing a class action set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and the requirements for maintenance of a class action under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court makes final its previously conditional certification of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Court authorizes and directs implementation and performance of all the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, as well as the terms and provisions hereof. Except as to any individual claim of those Persons who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the Settlement Class, the Litigation and all claims contained therein, as well as all of the Released Claims are dismissed with prejudice by the Lead Plaintiffs and the other members of the Settlement Class, and as against the Released Persons. The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation. The Court finds that the Stipulation and Settlement, and the Plan of Allocation are fair, reasonable and adequate as to each of the Settling Parties, and that the Stipulation and Settlement and the Plan of Allocation are finally approved in all respects, and the Settling Parties are hereby directed to perform its terms. Lead Counsel are awarded 33% of the Settlement Fund for their attorneys' fees, which sum the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. Lead Counsel are awarded $51,133.20 in reimbursement of litigation expenses, which expenses the Court finds to have been reasonably incurred. The Court has also considered the request for incentive awards for the Lead Plaintiffs in recognition of their contributions and awards $5,000 to each Lead Plaintiff. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Judgment and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb2h7wbn from Leagle.com. John Devouassoux, Plaintiff, represented by Casey Edwards Sadler - - csadler@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP. John Devouassoux, Plaintiff, represented by Howard G. Smith, Law Offices of Howard G Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, pro hac vice, Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP. Resonant Inc., Defendant, represented by James N. Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & Kevin M. Askew -- kaskew@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP. Terry Lingren, Defendant, represented by James N. Kramer, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & Kevin M. Askew, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP. John Philpott, Defendant, represented by James N. Kramer, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & Kevin M. Askew, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Palermo" Suit in E. Dist. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. The case is styled Jennifer L. Palermo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. doing business as: American Medical Collection Agency, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv- 07241 (E.D. N.Y., December 12, 2017). Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. RITUALS COSMETICS: Matzura Says Website Not Blind Accessible ------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rituals Cosmetics USA Inc. and Rituals Spa LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09695 (S.D. N.Y, December 18, 2017), seeks compensatory and statutory damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Defendants sell fragrances in eight locations in New York City including through their website www.rituals.com. Matzura is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen- reading software to read website content. He claims that the Rituals website is not accessible to the blind. Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 227 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 Email: bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com SATELLITE AFFORDABLE: "Benton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Daryl Benton, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Satellite Affordable Housing Associates and Does 1-100, Case No. RG17885127 (Cal. Super., December 7, 2017), seeks unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest period compensation, final pay, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law and applicable rules and regulations of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Satellite engages in the ownership and operation of providing innovative and affordable housing and services to more than 4,000 residents in seven counties in northern California. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. Matthew Crawfors, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 Email: bturley@turleylawfirm.com dmara@turleylawfirm.com SOLOMON & SOLOMON: Faces "Kantor" Suit in E. Dist. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solomon & Solomon PC. The case is styled Jonathan Kantor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Solomon & Solomon PC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07280 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2017). Solomon & Solomon PC is a collection law firm which provides both collection and litigation services on delinquent receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C Cohen, Esq. Daniel Cohen, PLLC 407 Rockaway Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11212 Tel: (646) 645-8482 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com SQUARE TRADE: Faces "Berger" Suit Over Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Berger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Square Trade, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. BC684219 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 22, 2017), arises out the Defendants' alleged breach of breach of contract, by failing to pay consumers who purchased a Square Trade Service Agreement which provided that Square Trade would reimburse consumers for the entire purchase price in the event of a covered claim. Square Trade, Inc. is one of the United States' largest extended warranty service agreement providers for consumer electronics and appliances. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitch Kalcheim, Esq. LEGAL GP 9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 889 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 980-7749 E-mail: MHK@XegalGP.com STATE FARM: MAO-MSO Class Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on March 28, 2017 titled MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC, and MSPA Claims 1, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-00321, was transferred on November 29, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01541-JBM-JEH to the proceeding. The case alleges that the Defendant failed to fulfill its statutorily-mandated duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs") for medical treatments or expenses paid by the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members on behalf of the Defendant's insureds. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a mutual non- stock company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business at One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois 61710. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP 24110 Eden St., PO Drawer 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Telephone: (225) 687-6396 Facsimile: (225) 687-6398 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com - and - Adam M. Foster, Esq. Pedram Esfandiary, Esq. R. Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, PC 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 E-mail: afoster@baumhedlundlaw.com pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com - and - Courtney L. Stidham, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P. 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 Facsimile: (504) 523-0699 E-mail: cstidham@pbclawfirm.com - and - David M. Hundley II, Esq. HUNDLEY LAW GROUP, P.C. 1620 West Chicago Ave., Suite 307 Chicago, IL 60622 Telephone: (312) 212-3343 Facsimile: (312) 724-7766 E-mail: dmh@hundleylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamine Reid, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDAN BURT 100 S.E. 2nd St. Miami Tower, Ste. 4200 Miami, FL 33131-2113 Telephone: (305) 539-7222 Facsimile: (305) 530-0055 E-mail: breid@carltonfields.com - and - James P. Gaughan, Esq. Joseph A. Cancila Jr., Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP Three First National Plaza Suite 2900, 70 W Madison St Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 471-8655 E-mail: jgaughan@rshc-law.com jcancila@rshc-law.com - and - Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN Suite 100, 105 W Vandalia Street PO Box 467 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-4646 E-mail: pcloud@heylroyster.com - and - D. Matthew Allen, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDAN BURT 4221 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 229-4304 Facsimile: (813) 229-4133 E-mail: mallen@carltonfields.com STRAIGHT PATH: Delaware Court Stays Shareholder Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery of Delaware issued an Opinion staying the case captioned In re Straight Path Commc's Inc. Consol. S'holder Litig., Civil Action No. 2017-0486-SG. (Del. Ch.), subject to any parties' motion by any party to show that the facts are fully developed and the matter is ripe for a decision. Before the Court were motions to dismiss both a claim for damages and a request to establish a constructive trust, arising from purported breaches of fiduciary duties by a corporate controller and an inside director with respect to a cash-out merger. The Plaintiffs are current stockholders of the to-be-acquired corporation. The merger has yet to close, and the Plaintiffs do not seek an injunction; to the contrary, they are in favor of the merger itself. Their claims arise from assets transferred to another entity controlled by the controller, which was a condition of his support for the merger. The Defendants argue strenuously that such a scenario does not raise a direct claim. Before the Court are motions to dismiss from Howard, Davidi, and IDT. The Court did not reach those motions. Because the Complaint seeks redress for direct claims of stockholders arising from the merger, and does not seek to enjoin the merger, the matter is not ripe. The Defendants point out that the independent directors were originally party defendants in this matter. The Plaintiffs then dismissed them without prejudice; they are subject to be sued again. According to the Defendants, this sword of Damocles hanging from the thread of the Plaintiffs' discretion means that the independent directors are conflicted here, and their failure to authorize Straight Path to file a motion to dismiss, under these circumstances, cannot serve to excuse demand. Accordingly, say the Defendants, to the extent the Plaintiffs' claims are derivative, they must be dismissed. The Court declined to address this issue at this juncture. Again, the Court noted that no party seeks to enjoin the merger. If, as the parties agree is likely, that merger goes through in short order, the stay will be lifted, the direct claims, if viable, will be ripe, and any derivative claims will fall away. If the merger fails, all that will remain is the cause of action belonging to the Company arising from the Term Sheet transaction, and it will then be necessary to assess whether the Plaintiffs may proceed derivatively based on their pleadings. This matter in one guise or another will receive judicial review. But to the Court, addressing the issue of demand excusal at this point adds nothing by way of efficiency, and runs the same risk of an advisory opinion as does addressing the viability of the direct claims. Accordingly, the matter is stayed subject to motion by any party to show that the facts are fully developed and the matter is ripe for a decision. A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's November 20, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydbq3j4r from Leagle.com. TF FINAL: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Ouadani," 1st Cir. Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sandra L. Lynch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court denial of Dynamex's motion to compel arbitration in the case, DJAMEL OUADANI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. TF FINAL MILE LLC, f/k/a Dynamex Operations East, LLC, Defendant, Appellant, Case No. 17-1583 (1st Cir.). Ouadani worked as a delivery driver from March to August 2016, delivering products for Dynamex, now known as TF Final. As a condition of his employment, Ouadani was required to associate with a vendor affiliated with Dynamex, named Selwyn and Birtha Shipping, LLC ("SBS"). He received his compensation from SBS, which had a written contract with Dynamex. Ouadani did not have a written contract either with Dynamex or with SBS. In August 2016, Ouadani complained to Dynamex that he lacked the independence of a contractor, and that he should be paid as an employee if Dynamex continued to exert the same degree of control over his work. He was terminated shortly after he complained. After his termination, Ouadani brought various wage-and-hour claims against Dynamex in federal district court, styling his action as a putative class action on his behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated. Dynamex responded by filing a motion to compel arbitration, pointing to an agreement between Dynamex and SBS that contained a mandatory arbitration clause. The district court denied Dynamex's motion, reasoning that Ouadani had never signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause and had no idea that the agreement even existed. On appeal, Dynamex argues that Ouadani should nonetheless be compelled to arbitrate under federal common law principles of contract and agency. Judge Lynch concludes that Dynamex's arguments are without merit. The Judge disagrees with the Defendant's argument that Ouadani should be bound to arbitrate because he is an "agent" of SBS. He says Ouadani is not, in this context, bringing his wage-and-hour claims as an "agent acting on behalf" of SBS. To the contrary, Ouadani is bringing his claims against Dynamex on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of other similarly situated drivers. The alleged agency relationship between Ouadani and SBS is irrelevant to the legal obligation in dispute. Next, she finds Dynamex's claims that that Ouadani knowingly sought and obtained benefits from the Agreement because he performed the "Contracted Services" pursuant to the Agreement for compensation and that the Agreement would be "useless" without drivers like Ouadani to perform the contemplated services unpersuasive. The Judge says the benefits of the arbitration clause of the Agreement accrue to the contracting signatories -- Dynamex and SBS -- not to Ouadani. Ouadani can hardly be said to have "embraced" the Agreement when he was unaware of its existence. Finally, Judge Lynch concludes that Dynamex's failure to show that the parties to the Agreement intended to provide any legal rights to Ouadani is fatal to its third-party beneficiary claim. Dynamex fails to identify any language in the Agreement that can be read to provide Ouadani with specific legal rights. Dynamex's and SBS's failure to obtain a written agreement from Ouadani cuts against Dynamex's argument that Ouadani should be bound by the Agreement. Ouadani's mandated association with SBS for payment purposes does not alter the fact that Dynamex ultimately controlled the terms and conditions of Ouadani's work as a delivery driver. His claims do not depend on the existence of a right guaranteed in the Agreement between Dynamex and SBS; they are grounded in Ouadani's relationship with Dynamex. For these reasons, Judge Lynch affirmed the decision of the district court. Dynamex is ordered to show cause by written response within 15 days as to why the Court should not assess double costs for needlessly consuming the time of the Court and opposing counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/IkZBMD from Leagle.com. Diane M. Saunders -- diane.saunders@ogletree.com -- with whom Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. was on brief, for appellant. Stephen Churchill -- steve@fairworklaw.com -- with whom Hillary Schwab -- hillary@fairworklaw.com -- Brant Casavant -- brant@fairworklaw.com -- and Fair Work, P.C. were on brief, for appellee. TINTRI INC: "Golosiy" Securities Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case captioned VLADIMIR GOLOSIY, Plaintiff, v. TINTRI, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05876-YGR (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. Defendants Tintri, Inc., et al., removed the securities class action alleging violations of the Securities Act. The District Court related the case sua sponte to Clayton v. Tintri, Inc., 17- cv-05683-YGR (Clayton) and Nurlybayev v. Tintri, Inc., et al, 4:17-cv-05684-YGR (Nurlybayev). Clayton and Nurlybayev were remanded to the State Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 77(v)(a). A plaintiff may seek to have a case remanded to the state court from which it was removed if the district court lacks jurisdiction or if there is a defect in the removal procedure. The Securities Act of 1933, which imposes liability for omissions and misstatements in various securities-related communications, provides concurrent jurisdiction in state and federal courts over alleged violations of the Act. However, Section 77v(a) of the Securities Act strictly forbids the removal of cases brought in state court and asserting claims under the Act. In light of the Ninth Circuit's holding in Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 2008), and copious case law in this district, the District Court finds that removal is barred under Section 77v(a). More than twenty district courts in the Ninth Circuit have addressed this issue and remanded to state court every time. The Court sees no good reason to reconsider the question or depart from these consistent and considered decision. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8bplmpn from Leagle.com. Vladimir Golosiy, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP. Vladimir Golosiy, Plaintiff, represented by Eric M. Carrino -- ecarrino@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP & Stephen J. Oddo -- soddo@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP. Tintri, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi chashemi@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Benjamin Matthew Crosson -- bcrosson@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril dgavril@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. Ken Klein, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. Kieran Harty, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. Ian Halifax, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. Peter Sonsini, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. Adam Grosser, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. Christopher Schaepe, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. Harvey Jones, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. John Bolger, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. Charles Giancarlo, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. TITAN LOGISTICS: Faces "Johnston" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Titan Logistics & Resources, LLC. The case is styled Glenwood Johnston, Ladel Richards, Tracy Guinard, Edward Richard Reynolds, Normand Maillet, Kavid Harris, Shannon Houchin, Chevy Burse, Jackie Christiansen, Todd Brooks, Joe Sandoval, Michael Bazan, Jerry Lynn Tryon, Delvin Washington, Greg Monkress, Sean Williams, Richard Hake, Matthew Schwarz, Brian Gould, William Shultz, Ronnie Phillips, George Woelich, Jamie Garland and Symeon Dorsey, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. Titan Logistics & Resources, LLC, Tony Digiamberdine and Beemac Trucking, Defendants, Case No. 12:17-cv-01617-NBF (W.D. Penn., December 14, 2017). Titan Logistics & Resources LLC, is a full service, oil field logistics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. 100 First Avenue, Suite 1010 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 227-0763 Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Security Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Susan Webber and Livia Soibelman, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. UBER Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-06758 (N.D. Cal., November 22, 2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' failure to provide adequate protection of its Drivers' and Riders personal and confidential information and failure to provide sufficient and timely notice or warning of potential and actual cyber security breaches to its users. The Defendants operate ride-share services mobile application software. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Robert K. Friedl, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com UNIQLO USA: Faces "Jorge" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Jorge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Uniqlo USA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-09187 (S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2017), is a civil rights action against Uniqlo USA, LLC for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Uniqlo USA, LLC operates Uniqlo clothing stores as well as the Uniqlo website and advertises, markets, distributes, and sells clothing in the State of New York and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Cohen, Esq. DANIEL COHEN, PLLC 300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (646) 645-482 Facsimile: (347) 665-1545 E-mail: dan@dccohen.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com UNITED STATES: Burns and Charest to Lead Hurricane Harvey Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order Regarding Judicial Assignment, Appointment of Counsel for the Purpose of Discovery, Dispositive and Cross Motions in the case captioned IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS, THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES, No. 17-3000L (Fed. Cl.). During the October 6, 2017 and November 1, 2017 hearings convened in Houston, the court was advised that putative class action complaints and individual complaints with upstream claims affecting approximately 4,000 private property interests are or will be filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Honorable Eric G. Bruggink of the United States Court of Federal Claims is assigned to manage pre-trial discovery and adjudicate all pre-trial dispositive motions. Daniel Charest, Esq. -- dcharest@burnscharest.com -- Founding Partner of the Dallas-based firm, Burns and Charest, LLP; Charles Irvine, Esq. -- charles@irvineconner.com -- Founding Partner in the Houston law firm of Irvine & Conner, PLLC; Larry Vincent, Esq. -- lvincent@burnscharest.com -- counsel to Burns and Charest, LLP; and E. Armistead Easterby, Esq., a Partner in the Houston law firm of Williams Kherkher LLP, are appointed Co-Counsel for Pre-Trial Discovery and Dispositive Motions On or before January 30, 2018, all initial disclosures and electronically stored information and hard copy documents filed in the pre-trial phase of this case, will be provided to opposing counsel. On or before February 28, 2018, the Government will file an Answer, pursuant to RCFC 7(a)(2), in response to any Amended Complaint filed on or before January 15, 2018. Thereafter, the parties may conduct discovery, subject to court Order, including any expert discovery, to conclude no later than May 31, 2018. On or before June 15, 2018, the parties will file any dispositive motion(s), pursuant to RCFC 56. On or before July 16, 2018, the parties may file any Responses and/or Cross-Motions to May 14, 2018 dispositive motion(s). On or before July 31, 2018, the parties simultaneously may file any Replies. On or before October 29, 2018, the court will convene an oral argument in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. A full-text copy of the Courts' November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydaoaspp from Leagle.com. In re ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS, Plaintiff, represented by Allen Craig Eiland, The Law Offices of A. Craig Eiland, P.C., Old Galveston Square, 2211 The Strand, Suite 201, Galveston, TX, 77550 In re ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Glenn Buzbee, The Buzbee Law Firm, J.P. Morgan Chase Tower 600 Travis, Ste 7300 Houston, TX 77002, Bryant Steven Banes, 1700 West Loop South Suite 1400 Houston, TX, 77027, Neel, Hooper & Banes, PC, Charles W. Irvine -- charles@irvineconner.com -- Irvine & Conner, LLC, Christopher Stephen Johns -- cjohns@jmehlaw.com -- Johns, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP, Clayton A. Clark, Clark, Love & Hutson, G.P., 440 Louisiana Street Suite 1600Houston, TX 77002, David Charles Frederick -- dfrederick@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, et al, Derek Heath Potts, Potts Law Firm, LLP, 3737 Buffalo Speedway Ste 1900, Houston, TX 77098-3739, Edward Blizzard, Blizzard & Nabers, LLP, Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Suite 1710Houston, TX 77002-1689, Edwin Armistead Easterby, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, 8441 Gulf Freeway Suite 600Houston, TX 77017, Eric Reed Nowak, Harrell & Nowak, 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2107, New Orleans, LA, 70130, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, 3131 Briarpark Drive #208, Houston, TX, 77042, Ian P. Cloud -- icloud@robinscloud.com -- Robins Cloud LLP, Jack Edward McGehee -- jmcgehee@lawtx.com -- McGehee, Chang, Barnes, Landgraf, Jason A. Itkin, Arnold & Itkin, LLP, 6009 Memorial Drive, Houston, TX 77007, Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Jeffrey L. Raizner, Raizner Slania LLP, 2402 Dunlavy Street, Houston, TX, 77006, John Scott Black, Daly & Black, P.C., 2211 Norfolk St Ste 800, Houston, TX, 77098-4030, Kurt B. Arnold, Arnold & Itkin, LLP, 6009 Memorial Drive, Houston, TX, 77007, Luke Joseph Ellis -- lellis@jmehlaw.com -- Johns, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP, Michael C. Falick -- mfalick@rothfelderfalick.com -- Rothfelder & Falick, L.L.P., Minh- Tam Tammy Tran, Tammy Tran Law Firm, 2915 Fannin, Houston, TX, 77002, Noah Michael Wexler, Arnold & Itkin, LLP, 6009 Memorial Drive Houston, TX, 77007, Phillip Bruce Dye, Jr. -- pdye@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins LLP & Jez, L.L.P., Rene Michelle Sigman -- rsigman@MerlinLawGroup.com -- Merlin Law Group, Riley L. Burnett, Jr., Burnett Law Firm, 3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1850, Houston, Texas 77098, Steven John Mitby -- smitby@azalaw.com -- Ahmad Zavitsanos, et al., Timothy Micah Dortch -- Micah.Dortch@cooperscully.com -- Cooper & Scully, PC, Vuk Vujasinovic, VB Attorneys, 6363 Woodway DriveSuite 400Houston, TX 77057 & William Fred Hagans -- whagans@hagans.law -- Hagans Montgomery & Rustay, P.C. USA, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Camille Brown, U.S. Department of Justice. UNITED STATES: Consovoy McCarty to Lead Hurricane Harvey Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order Regarding Judicial Assignment, Appointment of Counsel for the Purpose Pre-Trial Jurisdictional and Government Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD- CONTROL RESERVOIRS, THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES, No. 17- 3000L (Fed. Cl.). During the October 6, 2017 and November 1, 2017 hearings convened in Houston, the court was advised that putative class action complaints and individual complaints with downstream claims affecting approximately 4,000 private property interests are or will be filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Honorable Susan G. Braden of the United States Court of Federal Claims is assigned to manage jurisdictional discovery and adjudicate issues presented by any motion filed, pursuant to Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 12(b)(1)-(7). William S. Consovoy, Esq., Founding Partner of Consovoy, McCarthy, Park, PLLC; David C. Frederick, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas Law School, where he teaches a Supreme Court clinic; Jack E. McGehee, Esq., Founding Partner of the Houston firm McGehee, Change, Barnes, Landraf, are appointed Co- Counsel for Jurisdictional Discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y98qq9af from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Fleming Nolen to Lead in Hurricane Harvey Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order Regarding Judicial Assignment, Appointment of Counsel for the Purpose Pre-Trial Jurisdictional and Government Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD- CONTROL RESERVOIRS. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES, No. 17- 3000L (Fed. Cl.). The Honorable Marian Blank Horn of the United States Court of Federal Claims is assigned to manage pre-trial discovery and adjudicate all pre-trial dispositive motions. Rand P. Nolen, Esq., a Founding Partner of the Houston law firm of Fleming, Nolen, Jez, LLP; Derek Potts, Esq., Founder and Managing Partner of the Potts Law Firm; Richard W. Mithoff, Esq., a Founding Partner of the Houston law firm of Mithoff Law, are appointed Co-Counsel for Pre-Trial Discovery and Dispositive Motions. A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qxodup from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Jenner & Block to Lead in Hurricane Harvey Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order Regarding Judicial Assignment, Appointment of Counsel for the Purpose Pre-Trial Jurisdictional and Government Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD- CONTROL RESERVOIRS. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES, No. 17- 3000L (Fed. Cl.). During the October 6, 2017 and November 1, 2017 hearings convened in Houston, the court was advised that putative class action complaints and individual complaints with upstream claims affecting approximately 10,000 to 16,000 private property interests are or will be filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Honorable Charles F. Lettow of the United States Court of Federal Claims is assigned to manage jurisdictional discovery and adjudicate issues presented by any motion filed, pursuant to Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 12(b)(1)-(7). Ian H. Gershengorn, Esq. -- igershengorn@jenner.com -- Chair of Jenner & Block LLP's Appellate and Supreme Court Practice; Larry Vincent, Esq., counsel to Burns and Charest, LLP; and Vuk Vujasinovic, Esq., a Founding Partner of Vujansinovic & Beckcom LLP, are appointed Co-Counsel for Jurisdictional Discovery. A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yczxfmlf from Leagle.com. UNO RESTAURANT: Alvarez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Jose Santos Alvarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Uno Restaurant Associates, Inc. and Myles Chefetz, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-24452 (S.D. Fla., December 8, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated damages, redress for retaliatory discharge and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution. Uno Restaurant Associates operates Prime Italian Restaurant located in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida. It is owned and managed by Chefetz. Alvarez worked as a tipped busser for Uno. He claims that his tips were illegally allocated to non-tipped employees, thus rendering his wages below mandatory minimum rates, and was denied overtime pay. Alvarez formally complained and as a direct result, he was fired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-6800 Fax: (305) 358-6808 Email: robert@kuvinlaw.com legal@kuvinlaw.com UPS INC: Vawter Sues Over Denied Breaks, Paystubs, Final Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Brandon Vawter as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC686104 (Cal. Super., December 7, 2017), seeks redress for failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage statements resulting from unfair business practices; waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination and for violation of the California Labor Laws of the Business and Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. UPS is a courier service based in Georgia with operations in Los Angeles where Vawter worked as a non-exempt hourly worker. Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Treana L. Allen, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd.,Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net tallen@mahoney-law.net UTILITY SERVICE: Court Awards $83K Atty Fees in "Verhulst" ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, issued and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees in the case captioned JAMES KOMOROSKI and GALEN VERHULST, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UTILITY SERVICE PARTNERS PRIVATE LABEL, INC. d/b/a SERVICE LINE WARRANTIES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-CV-00294-DGK (W.D. Mo.). Plaintiffs James Komoroski and Galen Verhulst purchased utility warranties from Defendant Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., doing business as Service Line Warranties of America (SLWA), which would defray the cost to repair and replace the water service line running into their home. Plaintiffs allege SLWA denied warranty coverage for legitimate repair claims. Counsel seek $83,000 in fees and no reimbursement for expenses. Counsel have provided detailed records which confirm that the total amount of attorney time spent on this matter was approximately 306 hours, the total amount of paralegal time spent on this matter was approximate 66 hours, and that all of the time spent on this matter was reasonable. As for the rate, the proposed fee of $83,000 for 306 hours of attorney time1 works out to an hourly rate of approximately $270 an hour. The motion is granted, and the Court commends counsel for their work. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc858jf4 from Leagle.com. James Komoroski, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph A. Kronawitter - - jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC. James Komoroski, Plaintiff, represented by Phyllis Norman, The Norman Law Firm LLC, 4310 Madison Avenue, Suite 120, Kansas City, MO, 64111 & Robert A. Horn -rhorn@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC. Galen Verhulst, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph A. Kronawitter, Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC,Phyllis Norman, The Norman Law Firm LLC & Robert A. Horn, Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC. Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Sitter -- bsitter@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice, Jarrod D. Shaw, pro hac vice, Michael S. Foster -- mfoster@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC & Mark A. Olthoff -- molthoff@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC. VICTORIA'S SECRET: Settlement in "Casas" Suit Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge George H. Wu of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval of the settlement of the case styled MAYRA CASAS, JULIO FERNANDEZ, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, a business entity of unknown form, LIMITED BRANDS, a business entity of unknown form, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV 14-6412- GW(VBKx)(C.D. Cal.) on the terms set forth in the Joint Stipulation. Plaintiffs Casas and Fernandez have alleged claims against the Defendant on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, comprising all current and former employees of the Defendant, who worked in California during the period from July 9, 2010 to Aug. 11, 2017, and who were classified as non- exempt from overtime pay. They assert claims against the Defendant for (i) failure to pay reporting time pay for regular shifts; (ii) failure to pay reporting time pay for "call-in" shifts; (iii) failure to pay overtime compensation; (iv) failure to pay minimum wages; (v) failure to maintain required business records; (vi) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (vii) failure to pay all wages earned at termination; (viii) unlawful business practices; (ix) unfair business practices; (x) failure to pay split shift premiums; (xi) unreimbursed business expenses; and (xii) civil penalties based on these alleged violations. The Defendant expressly denies the allegations of wrongdoing and violations of law alleged in the Action, and further denies any liability whatsoever to the Plaintiffs or to the Class Members. The Parties agreed to resolve the Action and entered into the Stipulation in and about February and March 2017, and the First Addendum on July 28, 2017, which together provide for a complete dismissal, with prejudice, of the claims asserted in the Action against the Defendant on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation and the First Addendum, subject to the approval of the Court. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Parties' Settlement in this Action on Aug. 11, 2017. The Total Class Action Settlement Amount will be exactly $12,000,000. The Defendant will pay the Total Class Action Settlement Amount, within 20 calendar days of the Effective Date by wiring that amount to the Claims Administrator. With the limited exception of the Defendant's obligation to pay the employer's share of payroll taxes, under no circumstances will the Defendant be obligated to pay more than the amount of $12,000,000 as a result of the Settlement. The notice to the Class Members was sent in accordance with the Stipulation and the Preliminary Approval Order. A fairness hearing on the proposed Settlement having been duly held and a decision reached. Judge Wu granted final approval of the Settlement and Stipulation and granted final certification of the Class. He approved the plan of distribution as set forth in the Stipulation and the First Addendum thereto, providing for the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount to Class Members. The Class consists of 43,669 Class Members, and is defined as all current and former employees of the Defendant, who worked in California during the Class Period and who were classified as non- exempt from overtime pay. Additionally, a Subclass is formed to represent all members of the foregoing Class whose employment with Defendant terminated during the Class Period. The term Class Period means the time frame commencing four years prior to the date the original Complaint in the action was filed, i.e., July 9, 2010, and continuing until the date of preliminary approval. As previously ordered in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order dated Aug. 11, 2017, the Judge appointed as the Class Counsel the following attorneys: Stanley D. Saltzman and Stephen P. O'Dell of Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210, Agoura Hills, California 91301. Judge Wu approve these payments, which will be paid from, and not in addition to, the Total Class Action Settlement Amount: a. the payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,540,000 (equal to 29.5%) to the Class Counsel; b. the payment of attorneys' costs in the amount of $10,797 to the Class Counsel; c. a payment in the amount of $37,500 to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, representing the State of California's portion of civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act; d. the payment of reasonable claims administration costs to the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., in the amount of $200,000; and e. the enhancement awards to Plaintiff and class representative Casas in the amount of $10,000, and to Plaintiff and class representative Fernandez in the amount of $9,000. The Judge dismissed the Action with prejudice. He finds that there is no just reason for delay of entry of the Final Order and Judgment and directs its entry. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/FHqK06 from Leagle.com. Mayra Casas, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley D. Saltzman, Marlin and Saltzman LLP. Mayra Casas, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen P. O'Dell -- sodell@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin and Saltzman LLP. Mayra Casas, represented by William Anthony Baird -- tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin and Saltzman LLP. Julio Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley D. Saltzman, Marlin and Saltzman LLP, Stephen P. O'Dell, Marlin and Saltzman LLP & William Anthony Baird, Marlin and Saltzman LLP. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Lindsay Katz -- jennifer.katz@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, Lori A. Bowman -- lori.bowman@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC & Patricia M. Jeng -- pjeng@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP. L Brands, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Gunn -- beth.gunn@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC, Jennifer Lindsay Katz, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, Lori A. Bowman, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC & Patricia M. Jeng, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Powders Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on November 14, 2017 captioned Powders Automobiles, Inc., f/k/a Powders Volkswagen, Inc., and Powders Volkswagen Audi, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01293 was transferred on November 29, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv- 06856-CRB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged illegal "technical standards" conspiracy, in which the five car manufacturers agreed to use "only certain technical solutions" in new vehicles. The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle Adrien Parfitt, Esq. ASHCRAFT & GEREL LLP 4900 Seminary Rd., Suite 650 Alexandria, VA 22311 Telephone: (703) 931-5500 Facsimile: (703) 820-1656 E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Schmidt" Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on November 14, 2017, styled Tom Schmidt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01294, was transferred on November 29, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06856-CRB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged illegal "technical standards" conspiracy, in which the five car manufacturers agreed to use "only certain technical solutions" in new vehicles. The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle Adrien Parfitt, Esq. ASHCRAFT & GEREL LLP 4900 Seminary Rd., Suite 650 Alexandria, VA 22311 Telephone: (703) 931-5500 Facsimile: (703) 820-1656 E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com WAL-MART STORES: Court Enters Protective Order in "Prado" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the parties' Stipulated Protective Order to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment the case captioned MARK PRADO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05630-AB-KKx (C.D. Cal.). Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the Stipulated Protective Order. The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (i) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (ii) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (ii) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the later of (i) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the Action, with or without prejudice; and (ii) final judgment after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's Scheduling Order. The Challenging Party will initiate the dispute resolution process under Local Rule 37.1 et seq. 6. Unless the Designating Party has waived or withdrawn the confidentiality designation, all parties will continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party's designation until the Court rules on the challenge. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with the Action only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the Action. Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the conditions described in the Order. After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Protective Order is available at https://is.gd/C9O9fc from Leagle.com. Mark Prado, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Westrick -- swestrick@westricklawfirm.com -- Westrick Law Firm. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, Defendant, represented by Ian A. Wright -- ian.wright@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, James Robert Evans, Jr. -- james.evans@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP & Jesse M. Jauregui -- jesse.jauregui@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP. WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces "Coleman" Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weyerhaeuser Company. The case is styled Jamal Coleman and Sheena Coleman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Weyerhaeuser Company and Infinity Home Collection, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-mc-00200-WYD (D. Colo., December 14, 2017). Weyerhaeuser Company is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington. Weyerhaeuser is one of the world's largest forest products companies, controlling 13.1 million acres of timberlands, primarily in the United States, and managing additional timberlands under long-term licenses in Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert David Lantz, Esq. Coan Payton & Payne, LLC-Denver 999 18th Street South Tower, Suite S-1500 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (303) 861-8888 Email: rlantz@cp2law.com YELP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Curry" Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled JOSEPH CURRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MARY ADAMS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YELP INC.; JEREMY STOPPELMAN; ROBERT J. KROLIK; GEOFFREY DONAKER, Defendants-Appellees, v. DRU L. PIO, Movant, Case No. 16-15104 (9th Cir.), Judge Ronald Gould of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the Plaintiffs' securities fraud complaint. During the period from Oct. 29, 2013 to April 3, 2014, the Defendants consistently stated that the reviews generated on Yelp's website were "firsthand" and "authentic" information from contributors about local businesses. On April 2, 2014, pursuant to a Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") Freedom of Information Act request, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") disclosed more than 2,000 complaints from businesses claiming that Yelp had manipulated reviews of their services. That afternoon, after the market had closed, the WSJ released an article citing the FTC's disclosure and noting that Yelp's stock had declined 6% after the FTC made its disclosure of the complaint. The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants alleging that Yelp's statements regarding the independence and authenticity of posted reviews were materially false; that the Defendants knew the statements were false; and that the revelation of their falsity through FTC disclosures and news articles caused a drop in the Plaintiffs' stock value. The district court consolidated two cases and appointed City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust as the Lead Plaintiff. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' initial class-action complaint, which the district court granted, concluding that the Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege falsity, materiality, causation, or scienter. The Plaintiffs then filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The Defendants again moved to dismiss, and the district court once more granted the motion to dismiss. The district court held that the Plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead material falsity. It reasoned that Plaintiffs' new allegations did not implicate the veracity of the Defendants' previous statements that Yelp reviews, by and large, are "authentic" and "firsthand" because the Defendants had previously acknowledged that Yelp's screening technology was imperfect. The Plaintiffs next filed a motion for reconsideration, which included a proposed second amended complaint. The district court denied their motion for reconsideration. Curry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust appeal the district court's dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiffs' securities fraud complaint for failure to state a claim. They argue that the district court erred by holding that they did not adequately plead falsity, materiality, loss causation, and scienter. They further argue that the district court erred by dismissing their control person claim and by denying them leave to amend. Judge Gould held that the disclosure of consumer complaints, without more, in the circumstances of the case did not form a sufficient basis for a viable loss causation theory. He further held that allegations of suspicious insider sales of stock without allegations of historical trading data did not, in the circumstances, create a strong inference of scienter. He affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on the elements of loss causation and scienter that were not sufficiently pled. The Judge says he needs not reach and does not reach the Plaintiffs' arguments regarding materiality and falsity. He also affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint with prejudice because amendment of the complaint as to loss causation would be futile under current precedent. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ZvMhxo from Leagle.com. Andrew S. Love -- alove@rgrdlaw.com -- (argued), Kenneth J. Black -- kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - - and Susan K. Alexander -- salexander@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, California; Stephen H. Cypen -- scypen@cypen.com -- Cypen & Cypen, Miami Beach, Florida; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Gilbert R. Serota -- Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- (argued) and Daniel M. Pastor -- dpastor@coblentzlaw.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, San Francisco, California, for Defendants-Appellees. ********* 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 * * *