/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180112.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 12, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 10 Headlines 1220 COLLINS: Faces "Conner" Suit in Eastern District of NY ABACUS BUSINESS: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code AETNA INC: Court Denies Move for Leave to File Late Jury Demand ALLIANCE GROUND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Haurat Says ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Amaral Chiropractic Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Averts Class Action Over New-Hire Benefit AMERIGAS INC: DHHR Gets $250,000 from Class Action Settlement ANNELLIE'S CAR: "Walker" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA APPLE INC: Brand and Hosking Sue over Old Phones' Performance APPLE INC: Musician Sues Over Third Party Licensing Practices ARROWHEAD PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Centino Says ARSTRAT LLC: Silber Sues over Debt Collections Practices AT&T MOBILITY: Averts Class Action Over "Unlimited" Service Plans AUSTRALIA: Forest Hill Residents Mull PFAS Contamination Suit AUSTRALIA: Maddens Lawyers to Pursue PFAS Contamination Suit AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal Workers' Class Action Seek Back Pay AUSTRALIA: Education Dept. Sued Over Toxic Waratah Gasworks Site BANK OF AMERICA: "Farrell" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval BAZAARVOICE INC: "Rosenblatt" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Marlin Merger BH MANAGEMENT: "Pagan" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA BIG PHARMA: City of Palmetto Joins Suit Over Opioid Crisis BIG PHARMA: Decatur, Limestone County to Launch Opioid Suit BIG PHARMA: Phenix City Mulls Class Action Over Opioid Crisis CALIFORNIA CONNECTION: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Bulosan Says CANADA: Class Actions Means of Justice for Sexual Abuse Survivors CAPITALA FINANCE: Paskowitz Sues over Share Price Drop CHARLESTON PLACE: "Knecht" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Ash" as Moot CHEVRON CORP: Litigation Funding No Role in Class Action Demise CHICAGO, IL: Dismissal of 2 Counts of Stone Street Suit Upheld COMENITY LLC: Court Stays "Stephens" Pending ACA Int'l Ruling COMERICA BANK: Katz et al. Sue over Woodbridge Bankruptcy COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Morrow" Suit COMMUNITY RESTUARANTS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Eguizubal Says COMPUTER RECYCLING: Kennedy Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA CONSERV FLAG: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in S.D. New York CONTINENTIAL SERVICE: Faces "Casarez" Suit in S.D. of Texas CORNER TABLE: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern District New York CSX CORP: Zamansky Investigates Potential Fiduciary Breach CTI BIOPHARMA: Jan. 31 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Court Prefers Stay to Arbitration in "Silva" DEPOMED INC: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in "Huang" Securities Suit DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Attorney Argues in Hip Implant Case Appeal DISNEY STORE: "Wolz" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA DNC TRAVEL: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Abrica Says DOLCE INTERNATIONAL: Toler Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Court Approves Class Settlement in "Harbin" EQUIFAX INC: Two NH Data Breach Suits Transferred to Georgia ERIE INDEMNITY: Breaches Subscriber's Agreement, Ritz Says GENERAL ELECTRIC: Labaton Expands Securities Case Class Period GLOBAL BROKERAGE: Chapter 11 May Stay Securities Class Action GOSCH AUTO: Sued for Wrongfully Classifying Employees GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Won't Reconsider Denial of Remand HANLEES AUTO: Parr Sues over Wage and Hour Violations HEAVY WEIGHT: Court Awards $133K Attorney's Fees in "Maldonaldo" HEFFLER RADETICH: Averts Bank of America Investors' Class Action HF MANAGEMENT: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended "Thind" Suit Denied HTL ENTERPRISES: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Says JACKSON HEWITT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Junk Fax Suit JAVA JOE'S: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in Southern District New York JIMMY JOHN'S: Workers' Wage-Theft Class Action Can Proceed JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with $15-Mil. Pelvic Mesh Verdict LAWRENCE J. MAZZOLA: Plumbers Fund Asks Court to Quash Subpoena LEANING TREE: Stern & Monahan Sue over Rental Agreement LEIDOS HEALTH: Bid to Stay Conditional Cert. Briefing Partly OK'd LOS ANGELES, CA: Parents & Teachers Sue Over Construction Plans MASON TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Hall" Suit in N.D. Georgia MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Fuentes" Moved to Central District of Calif. MDL 2800: "Fausz" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2800: "Whitfill" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2800: "Wong" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2800: "Benson" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2800: "Hebrlee" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia MDL 2800: "Smith" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2800: "Stiles" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2800: "Campbell" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2804: Suit vs AmerisourceBergen Consolidated in N.D. Ohio MDL 2804: Pension Fund Suit vs. Purdue Pharma Goes to N.D. Ohio MEE 759: "Wang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA MERCHANTS CREDIT: Settlement in "Taylor" Suit Has Prelim Approval MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Alston" Suit in D. of South Carolina MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Feb. 28 Settlement Approval Hearing Set MONEY MUTUAL: Ct. Won't Certify Interlocutory Appeal in "Rilley" MORMUGAO PORT: Vasco Residents Urged to File Class Action NFL: 3rd Cir. Revives Super Bowl Ticket Class Action NFL: Professor Recommends 15% Cap on Contingency Fees NISSAN CORP: Faces Class Action in Alabama Over CVT Problems NORMS RESTAURANTS: Gift Card Settlement Gets Final Court Approval NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Barrett Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA OKLAHOMA: Lawsuits Over Jail Overcrowding Pending OSI SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action PANDORA ECOMM: Lopez Says Web Site Not Accessible to Blind PATRIZIA LUCA INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. of New York PATRIOT NATIONAL: PBMS Sues over Captive Insurance Policies PG&E CORPORATION: Faces GER Suit in California State Court PINNACLE CREDIT: Faces "Koon" Suit in New Jersey PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Gilliam" Suit in S.D. of New York PRO CUSTOM: "Sedhom" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York QUDIAN INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York R.C. TWAY: Fisher Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA RMH FRANCHISE: Amended "Ivery" Unpaid OT Suit Partially Dismissed ROADRUNNER TRANS: Fund Alleges Waste of Corporate Assets RUBY TUESDAY: Executives Balk at Shareholders' Class Action SAMUEL I WHITE: Court Dismisses with Prejudice "Davis" FDCPA Suit SEPHORA USA: Court Conditionally Certifies "Hernandez" FLSA Class SHANGHAI CUISINE: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage under FLSA SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces Shareholder Class Action SIRTEX MEDICAL: Confirms IMF Bentham Class Action SONIC CORP: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Data Breach SRA MANAGEMENT: Jan. 31 Proof of Claim Deadline Set STEINHOFF INT'L: Class Actions Circling Amid Financial Woes SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Second Class Action Over WRK Models T.J. MAXX: "Mills" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA TRANS WORLD: "Spack" Suit Moved to New York TRIS PHARMA: "Ahmed" Suit Alleges Retaliation UGL: Clime Capital Files Class Action Over Ichthys Writedowns UNITED STATES: Sued Over Immigrant Detainees' Sexual Assault UNITED STATES: Undocumented Immigrants Must Be Allowed Abortions UNITED STATES: Cambodian Detainees Can stay to Fight Deportations UNITED STATES: Awaits Verdict in J20 Inauguration Protest Suit UNITED STATES: Bid to Vacate Nov. 20 Orders in Addicks Denied UNIVERSAL BUILDING: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code WEST KENDALL IMPORTS: "Rodas" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Wants Michigan Residents to Join PFAS Suit WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Brockovich Attends PFAS Class Action Meeting YAZAKI CORP: March 12 Settlement Approval Hearing Set YBARRA BROS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA * Australian Gov't Looks Into Legal Fees Amid Class Actions * HMRC Urged to Take Action Over Long Unpaid Internships * Klein Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Dismissal * Law Enforcement Agencies Recover Only Fraction of Lost Wages Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sedgwick Withdraws as Atty for GE in "Johnson" ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims vs. AO ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Stay "Lineberger" Proceedings Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dr. Burgher Can't be Admitted as Expert Witness ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transportation Ins. Summary Ruling Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at Sep.30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $9.7MM Cleanup Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metaldyne Defends Grede's EPA Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had US$13.6-Mil. Loss at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 55 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,500 PI Cases at Sept. 29 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sep. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 89 Cases at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Pulls Out Children Makeup Over Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whistleblower Wins Improper Removal Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tea Ban Lifted After Allowing Russian Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post Office Abandoned After Asbestos Find ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Superfund Team Holds Second Meeting ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landscaper Who Had Cancer Gets Compensation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alfa-Laval Sued for Late Husband's Lung Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Complicates Apartment Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Says DENR Has Authority Over Asbestos Issue ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Dept. Concerned About Asbestos in Hotel ASBESTOS UPDATE: Effingham Firefighter Fighting Cancer Risks ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Doubles Asbestos Removal Spending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boiler Operator Sued Asbestos Maker for Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Historic Crounse House ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dying Man Sues Employer for Asbestos Exposure ********* 1220 COLLINS: Faces "Conner" Suit in Eastern District of NY ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1220 Collins Avenue, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. 1220 Collins Avenue, Inc. doing business as: The Webster, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00032 (E.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018). The Defendant is a luxury multi-brand fashion house operating five physical boutiques in the U.S. and an online store.[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 ABACUS BUSINESS: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ SHANNON SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABACUS BUSINESS CORPORATION GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV321271 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 29, 2017), seeks to recover full restitution for unpaid meal and rest period premium wages and business expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices, as proscribed by California Business and Professions Code, including depriving Plaintiff and other members of the Class the minimum working condition standards and conditions due to them under the California laws. Abacus Business is in the Medical Laboratories business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. Mai Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 4 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 8 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531 4214 Facsimile: (831) 634 0333 - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 - and - Edward W. Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 381 1515 Facsimile: (213) 465 4885 E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.corn AETNA INC: Court Denies Move for Leave to File Late Jury Demand --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Late Jury Demand in the case captioned JAY MINERLEY, individually and as class representative, Plaintiff, v. AETNA, INC., AETNA HEALTH, INC., AETNA HEALTH INSURANCE CO., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., and THE RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, No. 1:13-cv-1377 (NLH/KMW) (D.N.J.). Plaintiff filed his original putative class action complaint in New Jersey state court. The state court complaint undisputedly contained a jury demand. The state court complaint asserted 33 counts, all asserting state law causes of action. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction on the basis of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 complete pre-emption, as well as diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand. Prior to the Court's ruling, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, mooting the asserted basis for the motion to remand. Plaintiff withdrew the motion. The first amended complaint was substantially similar to the original complaint, also asserting thirty-three state law claims and containing a jury demand. Rule 39(b) governs when a proper jury demand under Rule 38 has not been made. It provides: Issues on which a jury trial is not properly demanded are to be tried by the court. But the court may, on motion, order a jury trial on any issue for which a jury might have been demanded. Under this rule, a district court may still grant a jury trial, even where the demand was untimely made. The Court rejects Plaintiff's argument that Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002) is controlling here. In Knudson, petitioners seek, in essence, to impose personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money relief that was not typically available in equity. A claim for money due and owing under a contract is 'quintessentially an action at law.' Almost invariably suits seeking (whether by judgment, injunction, or declaration) to compel the defendant to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff are suits for money damages,' as that phrase has traditionally been applied, since they seek no more than compensation for loss resulting from the defendant's breach of legal duty. And money damages are, of course, the classic form of legal relief. Knudson was not a case about the right to a jury trial; the Supreme Court did not address this issue. The court found Knudson was not analyzing a right to a jury trial or even a claim for benefits under Section 502(a)(1)(B); it was analyzing whether a claim was appropriate under Section 502(a)(3). Further, Third Circuit district courts continue to apply Pane and its predecessors post-Knudson. Accordingly, the Court does not find this case suitable for a jury trial. Further, even where a case may be tried before a jury, this does not necessarily mean the circumstances of the case are 'particularly suited to a jury. Plaintiff's motion and will not order a jury trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b). A full-text copy of the District of Court's December 11, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6u24ghs from Leagle.com. JAY MINERLY, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES THOMAS KANNEBECKER -- info@kannebeckerlaw.com -- JAY MINERLY, Plaintiff, represented by RYAN N. BOLAND -- rboland@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN, P.A. & JOSEPH M. ARMSTRONG -- jarmstrong@offitkurman.com -- Offit Kurman, P.A.. AETNA, INC., Defendant, represented by ANTHONY MICHAEL CHRISTINA -- achristina@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C., PETER D. ST. PHILLIP JR. -- pstphillip@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. & URIEL RABINOVITZ -- rabinovitz@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC. AETNA HEALTH, INC., A NJ CORP., Defendant, represented by ANTHONY MICHAEL CHRISTINA, LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C., PETER D. ST. PHILLIP, JR., LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. & URIEL RABINOVITZ, LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC. AETNA HEALTH INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by ANTHONY MICHAEL CHRISTINA, LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C., PETER D. ST. PHILLIP, JR., LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. & URIEL RABINOVITZ, LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC. THE RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, represented by ANTHONY MICHAEL CHRISTINA, LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C., PETER D. ST. PHILLIP, JR., LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. & URIEL RABINOVITZ, LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by ANTHONY MICHAEL CHRISTINA, LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C., PETER D. ST. PHILLIP, JR., LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. & URIEL RABINOVITZ, LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC. ALLIANCE GROUND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Haurat Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER HAURAT, individuallly and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE GROUND INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC688614 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. The Defendants are in the business of providing airline cargo handling services. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Orders all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages; failed to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failed to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failed to pay all wages due upon separation of employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kasmf Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Simon Kwak, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379 6250 Facsimile: (949) 379 6251 ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Amaral Chiropractic Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Amaral Chiropractic Center, P.A. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated other, Valerie Coombs and Jennifer Smith, the Plaintiffs, v. Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-021218, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Dec. 29, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-62570-FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno. The Allstate Corporation is the second largest personal lines insurer in the United States and the largest that is publicly held. The company also has personal lines insurance operations in Canada.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq. KOPELMAN & BLANKMAN PA Amaral Chiropractic Center, P.A. 200 SW 1st Avenue, 12th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 462 6855 Facsimile: (954) 4626899 E-mail: lmk@kopelblank.com The Defendant is represented by: Gladys Perez, Esq. Rachel Marie La Montagne, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 347 7307 Facsimile: (305) 347 7827 E-mail: gperez@shutts.com rlamontagne@shutts.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Averts Class Action Over New-Hire Benefit ------------------------------------------------------------ Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that American Airlines on Dec. 18 dodged a proposed class action brought by one of its employees over the cancellation of a set of benefits offered to new hires, after an Illinois federal judge said the dispute had to be handled under the employees' collective bargaining agreement. The case is Ballard v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv- 02534, (N. Ill.). The case is assigned to Judge Honorable John Robert Blakey. The case was filed April 3, 2017. [GN] AMERIGAS INC: DHHR Gets $250,000 from Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Holdren, writing for The Register-Herald, reports that the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) has announced a supplemental propane payment is available to assist eligible residents with heating expenses for the 2017-18 winter season. "DHHR is pleased to provide special propane heating assistance to approximately 3,500 eligible families," said DHHR Cabinet Secretary Bill J. Crouch. "The payments resulting from this donation will help many households offset rising heating expenses this winter." Residents who receive propane for heating and who applied for and received a regular Low Income Energy Assistance Program payment this past winter will receive an automatic $71 payment to assist with propane heating expenses. All payments are expected to be issued by the end of December. The payments were made possible by a $250,000 donation resulting from a class action settlement in the Swiger v. AmeriGas case, which was approved by Judge Robert B. Stone of the Monongalia County Circuit Court. The donation was facilitated by attorneys David J. Romano of Romano Law Office, Clarksburg; Meghan M. Cloud of McGuireWoods, LLP, Charlottesville, Va.; and Edgar C. Gentle III, court- appointed claims administrator, Hoover, Ala. [GN] ANNELLIE'S CAR: "Walker" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID A. WALKER JR., and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff (s), v. ANNELLIE'S CAR WASH LLC and RENE L. MORENO, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-62572-WPD (S.D. Fla., Dec. 28, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and all individuals similarly situated were not paid minimum wages at the Federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant failed to keep accurate records and to track hours worked, tips received, in order to make sure that Plaintiff's piece rate, plus tips received were enough to meet at least the mandatory Federal minimum of $7.25. The complaint says Plaintiff worked for Defendant from Friday to Sunday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (10 hours each day). The Plaintiff was unable to take any bona fide lunch, and he worked a total of 30 hours every week. The Plaintiff and all individuals similarly situated, did not punch in and out, but they were forced to maintain the regular schedule. This schedule was strictly enforced by Defendants, and Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were sanctioned with suspensions, and they were threatened with termination, if they did not comply with the established schedule. The Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated were paid a piece-rate of $3.00 per car. Usually, Plaintiff was paid an average of $60.00 weekly. Additionally, Plaintiff received tips for an average of $20.00 weekly, which totaled $80.00 per week. This means that Plaintiff was paid an average of $2.66 and an hour, not even the Federal minimum wage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446 1500 Facsimile: (305) 446 1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com APPLE INC: Brand and Hosking Sue over Old Phones' Performance ------------------------------------------------------------- Blake Brand, and Matt Hosking, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03453-RMG (D. S.C., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover actual, consequential, treble and exemplary damages as a result of Apple's deliberate limitation of the performance of older iPhone models to coincide with the release of newer models in an attempt to get users to purchase newer devices. The Plaintiffs bring this action, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated owners of Apple's iPhone 6, 6S and SE and iPhone 7, and prior models which similar prior undisclosed/concealed conduct by Apple similarly degraded performance. According to the complaint, in December 2017, independent researchers identified computer code in the October 2017, Apple software update that intentionally slowed down the operation of the phone. Apple has admitted to deliberately adding code as a "feature" that limits the performance of older devices that would cause them to turn off suddenly. Apple claims the new software updates for the older phones are designed to "smooth out" peak power demands and prevent surprise shutdowns. Apple's admission applies to prior software updates, not only the 2017 update(s). These software updates that slow down the older phones coincide with the release of newer iPhone models, causing users to believe their phone is failing and that they need to purchase a new device. In reality, the problem could be resolved by replacing just the battery, a far less expensive option than upgrading to the next phone model, a fact which is unknown to many iPhone users. As a result of Apple's unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices, owners of the iPhones -- including Plaintiffs -- have needlessly replaced their older phones for newer, more pricey models. According to the lawsuit, Apple wishes to dictate to its consumers: Upgrade again or face the difficulties involved in changed to a different platform (i.e. android, etc.). Apple sold and distributed iPhones and iOS software nationwide through its stores and through third-party vendors, such as Verizon, AT&T, etc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Mayer, Esq. MAYER LAW PRACTICE, LLC 2000 Sam Rittenberg Blvd. Ste. 2011 Charleston, SC 29407 Telephone: (843) 225 7240 Facsimile: (888) 446 3963 E-mail: aaron@mayerlawpractice.com APPLE INC: Musician Sues Over Third Party Licensing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Wuerthele, writing for Apple Insider, reports that a musician apparently disgruntled at how Beats Music and Apple Music has handled its streaming obligations is looking to fire up a class action suit, and is accusing Apple of intentionally deleting records and under-counting downloads and streams in order to pay artists less or not at all. Musician Bryan Eich owns the publishing rights to two albums, spanning 18 tracks. According to Mr. Eich's court filing, Apple never served a notice of intent to obtain compulsory licenses within one month of making available the two album. Mr. Eich claims that Apple "engaged in a systematic process of infringement" by not sending the notice of intent, deliberately deleting stream information, altering the streaming reports, and failing to properly report to him, and presumably others, to "conceal the infringements." The issue appears to be a disconnect of some sort between third- party aggregators and the musicians. Mr. Eich is seeking class members who own the publishing rights to recordings, and submitted the recordings to Beats and now Apple through the aggregators. In this case, music clearing house CD Baby appears to be where the breakdown somehow occurred. The suit filing claims that when Beats Music went live in 2012, CD Baby submitted most of its catalog, including Mr. Eich's recordings, for review. Mr. Eich claims that he was unaware at the time that his recordings were submitted for review. If there was any error with how Beats Music handled the notice of intent, it is now an error carried forward to Apple Music. According to the filing, Beats did not serve notices of intent on independent artists "as a matter of corporate policy" and Apple was aware of that. Mr. Eich notes an active lawsuit on Aug. 1, 2014 when the purchase was made over the same matter. Mr. Eich claims that Apple's counsel was informed of the possibly ongoing issue on August 11, with an undated second attempt at contact. Apple's non-response is being interpreted by Mr. Eich as "intentional conduct" subjecting Apple to "enhanced statutory damages." The filing also claims that the streaming royalties for recordings owned by Mr. Eich and some of the named plaintiffs for the suit are "$0.000000." As such, Mr. Eich believes that Apple "has failed to include, and/or changed the revenue owed for streams." The lawsuit has certificate of registration for the pairs of albums, but no copies of reports from Apple. It is unclear from the court filing how many times that Mr. Eich's tracks were streamed from Beats Music or Apple Music, or if they were streamed at all. The suit was electronically filed on Dec. 17. A search on Apple Music on Dec. 17 did not reveal the artist's albums. [GN] ARROWHEAD PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Centino Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON CENTINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARROWHEAD PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC, a Delaware company; and DOES 1 through 25, the Defendant, Case No. BC688661 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants adopted and maintained uniform policies, practices and procedures governing the working conditions of, and payment of wages to, Plaintiff and the rest of the Class. The Defendants have uniform policies, practices and procedures violated California's labor laws and constituted unfair, fraudulent or illegal business practices under Business & Professions Code. Arrowhead designs, analyzes, manufactures, and tests composite and metallic ducting systems, and components for aircraft, defense, and space markets. It offers metallic bellows and joints, bleed air ducting, elastomeric components, composites, thermal insulation, and space vehicle propulsion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 542-2100 Facsimile: (213)542-2101 E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com rgundzik@gghslaw.com - and - Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5723 Melrose Avenue, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (310) 921 7056 Facsimile: (310) 820 1258 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com - and - Rodney Mesriani, Esq. MESRIANI LAW GROUP 5723 Melrose Avenue, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (310) 921 7050 Facsimile: (310) 820 1258 E-mail: Rodney@mesriani.com ARSTRAT LLC: Silber Sues over Debt Collections Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Shlomo Silber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARSTRAT, LLC and John Does l-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07569 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2017), seeks to recover damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to name the creditor to whom the debt is owed. Arstrat, LLC is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kohn, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282 6500 Facsimile: (201) 282 6501 AT&T MOBILITY: Averts Class Action Over "Unlimited" Service Plans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that with the onslaught against class actions in 2017, the plaintiffs in a case over AT&T's "unlimited" service plans challenged the arbitration of their consumer fraud allegations by claiming that the Federal Arbitration Act was unconstitutional. Why? Because it violated their First Amendment right to petition the government. AT&T turned to Mayer Brown's Andrew Pincus for the appeal. In the end, the 9th Circuit found the plaintiffs couldn't even prove AT&T was a "state actor" -- a necessary requirement to assert constitutional violations. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Forest Hill Residents Mull PFAS Contamination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Steff Wills, writing for Daily Advertiser, reports that class action could be on the cards for Forest Hill residents against the environmental PFAS contamination. It follows the discovery of the fire-fighting foam, containing per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances -- PFAS -- in areas outside military bases, including RAAF Base Wagga. Forest Hill residents were in 2016 reassured preliminary testing had returned results in very low concentrations, but it prompted further investigation. With January's results only weeks away, according to the Department of Defence, Shine Lawyers special counsel Joshua Aylward said answers could send shock waves through communities. The Australian Defence Force and other agencies used the foam between the 1970s and mid-2000s. The chemicals can remain in the body and environment for years, transferring through the placenta and moving through the soil to contaminate surface and ground water. While the Department of Health maintains the full extent of its effects are unknown, it has been referred to as "the new asbestos", according to an ABC report, and has proven toxic to fish and some animals. Mr Aylward said the region was still in the dark about the issue. He said a number of Wagga residents had contacted him after communication from Defence "seemed to contradict what they found online". He said he welcomed further inquiries. Mr Aylward said the assumption PFAS only passed through ground water was "a myth", with residents adopting a naive "she'll be right" attitude. "It's a bigger deal than people realise," Mr Aylward said. "There are 49 PFAS pathways that are being tested . . . it's being tested in people, soil and food . . . it's a concern everywhere." He said the "plume" would continue to expand by up to 50 per cent in 100 years "even if it could be stopped". "The area of spread will go well beyond Forest Hill, even with Defence's best efforts to stop it," Mr Aylward said. A community information session will be held at Forest Hill in March this year to reveal the findings. Until then, Brunslea Park Estate manager Sam Brunskill said she was waiting for the official results, before jumping to conclusions. "From the discussions we have had with the defence representatives, we believe it is of low impact to the community at this stage," Ms Brunskill said. "We will wait and see." [GN] AUSTRALIA: Maddens Lawyers to Pursue PFAS Contamination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris McLennan, writing for Katherine Times, reports that a Victorian law firm is going ahead with legal action over PFAS contamination in Katherine. Maddens Lawyers on Dec. 18 said it received interest from residents to take action against the Department of Defence "case by case". Shine Lawyers has already signed up hundreds of residents planning to take part in a class action against the department. PFAS chemicals contained in firefighting foams have been shown to have leaked from the Tindal RAAF Base and directly underneath Katherine. Residents claim their property values have plummeted as a result. They also fear the impact on their health from long-term exposure to the chemicals. "Following ongoing investigations and consideration of the circumstances of the PFAS contamination in Katherine, Maddens Lawyers will progress claims for compensation against the Department of Defence on a case by case basis," the firm said on Dec. 18. Maddens commercial litigation principal, Brendan Pendergast -- bfp@maddenslawyers.com.au -- said the impact of the PFAS contamination in Katherine has been varied. "The consequences of PFAS contamination differ between businesses and individuals depending upon the way in which the land is used," Mr Pendergast said. "Residents who have registered with Maddens are reporting a diverse range of concerns. "Progressing claims on an individual basis will ensure that each claim for compensation is comprehensive and constructed to each individual's particular loss and damage." Maddens Lawyers will advance claims against the department on a 'no win, no fee' basis,' and said it would "work with clients to ensure that claims for compensation incorporate all legal entitlements". "Often people are unaware of the full extent of their claim until they discuss their circumstances with us," Mr Pendergast said. Maddens Lawyers says it is "well placed" to progress claims on an individual basis against the Department having undertaken a similar process on behalf of property owners impacted by the 2013 Lithgow bushfire in NSW. "Maddens Lawyers understand the department is prepared to consider individual claims for compensation arising from the activities at the RAAF base." Mr Pendergast believes there are benefits of progressing claims on an individual basis in this instance including the provision of targeted advice and the likelihood of achieving a timely outcome for those persons whose properties have been directly affected. "These individuals will have the opportunity to have their claims dealt with efficiently and without the potential delays associated with a class action, which might include more remote and difficult claims. "In the event that claims are resolved as proposed, any settlement would also require the department to make provision for the individual claimants' legal costs," Mr Pendergast said. Maddens are focusing on compensation claims on behalf of those whose primary water supply is from a private bore or ground water. "We are aware of many smaller landholdings and dwellings located outside the township of Katherine and close to the air force base which have been significantly and directly impacted. "In those instances, we believe an individual case by case approach is likely to be a quicker process and more likely to lead to recovery of all compensable losses for each individual," Mr Pendergast said. To enquire about progressing a claim for compensation phone Maddens Lawyers on 1800 815 228 or email katherine@maddenslawyers.com.au [GN] AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal Workers' Class Action Seek Back Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Jason Walls, writing for NT News, reports that thousands of indigenous Territorians could be in line to share in millions of dollars in back pay if an upcoming class action to secure redress for unpaid wages is successful. Shine Lawyers is preparing to begin proceedings in the Federal Court in February, seeking recompense for Aboriginal workers whose wages were withheld by their employer or garnisheed by the government as recently as the 1970s. National special council for the class action Jan Saddler said individual workers were potentially owed as much as $100,000 each, with more than 2200 indigenous Territorians who may have worked during the relevant period still alive today. "It really is a very difficult matter to identify, but we're talking certainly for individual clients, potentially well into the tens of thousands of dollars and perhaps even in excess of $100,000," she said. Ms Saddler said the affected workers, who would now be aged in their late 60s or older, would sometimes receive food, shelter and "pocket money" for their services but the rest of their wage was held "on trust" by the Government and never paid back to them. "They worked hard and they worked incredibly long hours, they usually worked six days a week, they might have got one day off a week if they were lucky, and they didn't receive their wages," she said. "There are occasions where people have said to us that they recall requesting their wages and they were told that they weren't payable to them. "It's a pretty sad state of affairs frankly for these people who worked hard, wanted to provide for themselves and their families and they simply weren't able to access those moneys when they'd worked so hard." Ms Saddler said while the practice had ceased some decades ago, the impact on the workers and their families was ongoing. "I think about the significant impact that this has had from a historic perspective and the intergenerational effects," she said. "Being able to provide for your family and being able to create a sound financial basis upon which your family can grow and be educated and do all of those things that families do go on holidays all that sort of thing is very challenging when your wages are being retained by someone else." Ms Saddler said her team had already visited communities throughout the Territory and encouraged anyone else who may have been affected to come forward. People seeking more information about joining the class action should call Shine Lawyers on 1800 751 969. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Education Dept. Sued Over Toxic Waratah Gasworks Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Fellner, writing for The Newcastle Herald, reports that a cocktail of dangerous substances has been found in the soil of some properties above the old gasworks at Waratah, including cyanide, lead and known carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene And at least one house has been shifting on its foundations, as an old gas holder underneath it swells and shrinks in periods of wet and dry weather respectively. The Newcastle Herald can reveal that Newcastle council's 11-month environmental investigation into the site is now complete, with a report based on the findings in the final stages of an "independent, comprehensive review". It is expected to be released in coming weeks. It's understood the area bounded by Turton, Georgetown and Ellis Roads -- which takes in about 20 properties -- has been divided into a pink zone and a blue zone depending on the level of risk. While the council is yet to make a financial commitment towards remediation, chief executive Jeremy Bath said it had met with residents to provide sampling results and discuss "the next steps". "A key recommendation of the investigation was to undertake a Remediation Options Assessment for properties with elevated results," Mr Bath said. "In November 2017, Council met with those property owners individually to discuss possible remediation options and management measures that may be appropriate for their specific properties." In the meantime, those residents have been assured they can minimise risk by avoiding direct contact with shallow soil, which they have been told is the main exposure pathway to the toxic substances. But that advice stands in contrast to events 212 kilometres away in Camden, NSW, where a nearly identical situation has unfolded. Camden High School was built in 1956 beside a former gasworks and was later expanded on top of the site. The school was razed in 2017, but more than 320 former students and teachers have launched a class action against the Department of Education, claiming they have illnesses linked to toxins at the site. Joe Bonura, a partner at Marsdens Law Group, is acting on behalf of the group. He said direct contact with soil and breathing in vapours were both considered avenues of exposure. "We are still in the process of attaining expert evidence," he said. "We have had a fairly large number of people that have made complaints about the smells." Professor Megh Mallavarapu leads the remediation program at the University of Newcastle's Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment. He said because the gasworks at Waratah was decommissioned in the 1920s, the airborne risk would have lessened over time. "Most of the highly volatile compounds have already been lost to the atmosphere," he said. But he expressed concern about residents still living on top of or adjacent to the site. "It is not advisable to live next to that," he said. More than 300 soil, vapour and groundwater samples were collected by an independent consultant as part of council's investigation. Cyanide, lead, chromium, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and benzo(a)pyrene were found above the screening criteria in the yard of Kim and Adam Lowe's home on Turton Road. Lead exposure can impair intellectual development in children, while benzo(a)pyrene has been classified as a group one carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The couple raised their children at the property, who used to carve out race tracks for their cars in the dirt. Mr Lowe praised council's handling of the problem so far. "We feel they've been very up front and honest," he said. "Council have acknowledged the problem is there . . . and they're providing potential remediation options. "[But] the proof is going to be in the pudding of whether they deliver those remediation outcomes that have been requested. That is the crunch part for them." The Lowes' situation is complicated by an abandoned gas holder, estimated at around 18 metres in length, that sits underneath their house and backyard. It's been blamed for cracks in their fences, a leaning side wall and brickwork pulling away at the base of the house. Mr Lowe compared it to a large bowl, filled with dirt and clay. "When it fills up with water . . . everything in the tank becomes soft. Then the structure dries out and hardens. That causes the structural damage we have now. "You can repair the structural damage now, but in 20 years you'll have more structural damage because the problem isn't solved." Mr Lowe and his wife have been living at their property for over two decades and do not wish to move away. But any solution, they argued, had to solve the problem "once and for all". "We'd hate to think there'd be more deterioration in the house in years to come," Mr Lowe said. The Lowes unwittingly stumbled across the suburb's toxic secret when they were installing a pool in 2002, and a crowbar vanished down a hole in their yard. But it was only in June 2017 the family came to understand the hole was a gas holder belonging to the former Waratah gasworks, after a member of the public alerted the NSW Environment Protection Authority to its existence. Newcastle Council has claimed it did not know about the gasworks, which closed in 1928, because any records from the now-defunct Waratah Municipal Council were destroyed. But the identity of the person that alerted authorities to its existence has been the subject of great conjecture among residents. "There's still unanswered questions," Mr Lowe said. All clear outside former footprint An investigation has given a clean bill of health to properties outside the footprint of the former gasworks at Waratah. Elevated levels of contaminants were discovered in an area consistent with "where the former gasworks structure is understood to be," council said in a statement. Properties beyond that -- including the Family Support Centre and Callaghan College -- were found to be typical of background conditions within Waratah. "Further investigation or remediation is not required ... as gasworks indicator substances were typically absent," the statement said. According to residents, 13 properties have been included in the 'pink zone', because of the risk from direct contact with elevated levels of contaminants in the shallow soil. They have been asked to consider partial remediation -- where soil is capped with pavers or concrete -- or full remediation, where it is replaced with clean fill. "Council is committed to working closely with affected property owners," chief executive Jeremy Bath said. As part of the investigation, samples were collected up to 500 metres from the gasworks site. This was done in order to "characterise typical background substances that may be present from man-made sources other than the former gasworks", the statement said. "Council is liaising with the NSW EPA and Hunter New England Health, and will continue to seek their advice to ensure any health and environmental concerns are addressed." [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: "Farrell" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order Conditionally Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned JOANNE FARRELL, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00492-L-WVG (S.D. Cal.). This case comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff, Joanne Farrell, and putative plaintiffs, Ronald Dinkins, Larice Addamo, and Tia Little, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class they seek to represent, for an order granting Preliminary Approval of the class action Settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (BANA). The Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: All holders of BANA consumer checking accounts who, during the period between February 25, 2014 and December 30, 2017, were assessed at least one Extended Overdrawn Balance Charge that was not refunded. The Court designates Joanne Farrell, Ronald Dinkins, Larice Addamo, and Tia Little as the Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. The Court designates Epiq Systems as Administrator. The Court appoints Jeffrey Kaliel, Jeff Ostrow, Bryan Gowdy, and Christina M. Pierson as Class Counsel. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8dl3dnm from Leagle.com. Joanne Farrell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Gowdy -- bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- Creed and Gowdy, P.A., pro hac vice. Joanne Farrell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cristina Maria Pierson -- cmp@kulaw.com -- Kelley Uustal PC, pro hac vice, Hassan Ali Zavareei, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, 1828 L St NW #1000, Washington, DC 20036, USA, Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel -- jdkaliel@gmail.com -- Kaliel PLLC, Jeffrey M. Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice, John Russell Hargrove -- jrh@kulaw.com -- Kelley Uustal PC, pro hac vice, John Joseph Uustal -- jju@kulaw.com -- Kelley Uustal PC, pro hac vice, Robert C. Gilbert -- gilbert@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice & Walter W. Noss -- wnoss@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott LLP. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Brian D. Boyle - - bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Danielle N. Oakley -- doakley@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jonathan Hacker -- jhacker@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew William Close -- mclose@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers. BAZAARVOICE INC: "Rosenblatt" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Marlin Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAZAARVOICE, INC., GENE AUSTIN, CRAIG A. BARBAROSH, KRISTA BERRY, STEVE H. BERKOWITZ, JEFFREY HAWN, THOMAS J. MEREDITH, ALLISON WING, BV PARENT, LLC, BV MERGER SUB, INC., and MARLIN EQUITY PARTNERS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01212 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction;, and in the event defendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on November 27, 2017, pursuant to which Bazaarvoice, Inc. will be acquired by Marlin Equity Partners, BV Parent, LLC, and BV Merger Sub, Inc. and together with Parent and Marlin Equity. On November 26, 2017, Bazaarvoice's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Marlin. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Bazaarvoice will receive $5.50 in cash for each share of Bazaarvoice stock they own. On December 15, 2017, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. Bazaarvoice connects brands, retailers and consumers in the world's largest shopper network, delivering ROI through reviews, analytics and targeted media.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 Facsimile: (302) 654 7530 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324 6800 Facsimile: (484) 631 1305 - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744 3000 Facsimile: (214) 744 3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com BH MANAGEMENT: "Pagan" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- TOMAS PAGAN, and other similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company and HARRY BOOKEY, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-023527 (in the Cir. Ct., 17th Judicial District, in and for Broward County, Fla., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys; fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from January 2004 through October 28, 2017, as a non- exempt laborer. The Plaintiff and Defendants were engaged in an implied agreement whereby Plaintiff would be employed by Defendants and that Plaintiff would be properly paid as provided for by, and not in violation of, the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. During Plaintiffs employment, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff the required overtime and/or minimum wages at a rate of one and a half times Plaintiffs regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a single work week. The Defendants had or should have had full knowledge of all hours worked by Plaintiff, including those hours worked by Plaintiff in excess of 40 in a given week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com BIG PHARMA: City of Palmetto Joins Suit Over Opioid Crisis ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Young, writing for Bradenton Herald, reports that Palmetto joined municipalities across the state, and country, in potentially filing a lawsuit against big pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors for their alleged role in the current opioid epidemic that has killed an estimated 200,000 Americans in the past few years. The city took action on Dec. 18 to authorize city attorney Mark Barnebey to retain an outside legal team to review the financial impacts to the city that the crisis has caused. Among some potential costs associated with the epidemic are for the purchase of narcan, the counteractive drug that stops an overdose, as well as personnel, treatment and litigation. "It's come to our attention that a number of jurisdictions are investigating and pursuing possible claims that are pharmaceutical related due to possible deceptive sales and marketing procedures," Mr. Barnebey said. Mr. Barnebey said there are several firms now specializing in taking action against the pharmaceutical companies and it would be a contingency-based hire, meaning it won't cost the city any money for the legal team to review the city's case and potentially file the lawsuit. Legal professionals have compared it to the class action lawsuit filed by the Gulf of Mexico states against British Petroleum after the Deepwater Horizon environmental disaster. Mr. Barnebey said there are some similarities, but it's not a class action suit and all of the municipalities are essentially going at it on their own. "But if you get enough people that are filing a similar case, the courts will typically prefer a class action suit," he said. "We aren't there yet, but I can see it getting to that point." Delray Beach became the first city to file a suit in July, and Manatee County had a similar discussion in early November. The county is considering one of two law firms, and a proposal to move forward is expected by late January. While it has been an unofficial accusation for years, so-called "Big Pharm" is being called out for the aftermath of the "Pill Mill" ordeal when powerful and addictive narcotics were being over prescribed, addicting millions of Americans. When states like Florida cracked down on the pill mills, it left those relying on the medications to find alternative means to feed their addiction. In Delray Beach's case, the city's third-party legal team accuses pharmaceutical distributors and manufacturers of engaging in deceptive marketing and that they violated the Florida Unfair Deceptive Trade Practices Act by overselling opioids to doctors while minimizing the threat of addiction. In 2015, Manatee County had Florida's highest per capita rate of overdose fatalities related to morphine, fentanyl and cocaine. One year later, the county would be labeled the overdose capital of the country, and while 2017 has seen ebbs and flows in overdoses, the crisis remains in full swing. Mayor Shirley Groover Bryant said the legal team must take into consideration those future numbers and not just settle on the past and present figures. "This has the potential to be very costly in the long term at the rate this continues to escalate," Mr. Bryant said. "It's very unfair to our citizens who will be burdened with those costs." Pharmaceutical companies also are being accused of failing to alert the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency for suspicious opioid purchases, such as orders of unusual size and frequency. Allegations typically state that the manufacturers exaggerated the benefits of the medications, knew they were being over prescribed and yet failed to warn doctors of the extremely addictive nature of the narcotics. Other lawsuits also state that pharmaceutical companies lobbied politicians and doctors in an effort to artificially increase the use of these same opioids. [GN] BIG PHARMA: Decatur, Limestone County to Launch Opioid Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Marian Accardi, writing for Decatur Daily, reports that the city of Decatur and Limestone County Commission are joining a growing number of local governments suing drug manufacturers and wholesale distributors over the opioid addiction crisis. A unanimous Decatur City Council voted on Dec. 18 to hire the Pensacola, Florida, law firm of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor PA, to represent it in a lawsuit against opioid distributors. Decatur attorney Greg Reeves requested the council action. "If we don't get in, Decatur would just be out in the cold if there's a settlement or a decision," Council President Paige Bibbee said. The Limestone County Commission voted 4-0 on Dec. 18 to retain Athens attorney John Plunk and Hodges Trial Lawyers P.C. in Huntsville to represent the county in a lawsuit seeking all civil remedies against companies in the chain of distribution of prescription opiates responsible for the opioid epidemic. "We don't know if we'll get anything out of this," County Commission Chairman Mark Yarbrough said, "but maybe it'll work as a deterrent." Mr. Yarbrough said there are no up-front costs to the county. According to a legal services agreement approved by the commission, the litigation will focus on manufacturers and wholesale distributors and their role in diverting "millions of prescription opiates into the illicit market which has resulted in opioid addiction, abuse, morbidity and mortality." The agreement doesn't name the companies that will be sued. "Initially, we'll file a lawsuit on behalf of our clients," said Mr. Plunk, who's a member of the Alabama Ethics Commission. "It'll be filed in U.S. District Court in Huntsville. We plan on filing within a week." Mr. Plunk said class-action status would be determined by the federal judges who end up handling the cases. "The courts, in order to have efficient management of numerous cases with common claims and common damages, will grant class- action status," Mr. Plunk said. The services of other attorneys and firms may be retained to pursue the case, the legal services agreement states. Limestone County and Decatur will pay 30 percent of the total recovery as an attorney fee whether the lawsuit is resolved by compromise, settlement or trial and verdict. The fee will be calculated on the amount obtained before costs and expenses are deducted, according to the agreement. If a court awards attorneys' fees, the attorneys will receive 30 percent or the fees awarded, whichever is greater. There is no fee if there is no recovery, according to the agreement. Litigation expenses will be deducted from any recovery after the contingency fee is calculated, the agreement states, and there is no reimbursement of litigation expenses if there is no recovery. The Morgan County Commission agreed in November, in a unanimous vote, to authorize Commission Chairman Ray Long to enter the county into a contract with the Levin Papantonio law firm and Reeves. County Attorney David Langston will assist in representing the commission in the planned federal lawsuit against Cardinal Health Inc., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. and McKesson Corp. Mr. Reeves said in November the county would be represented by the same consortium of eight law firms, including Mr. Levin, that are representing the city of Birmingham in its suit against the three drug distributors. "If could be years before there's any resolution," Mr. Reeves said on Dec. 18 at the Decatur council meeting. The Lawrence County Commission also agreed to hire Levin Papantonio and Reeves to represent the county in a class-action opioid lawsuit against drugmakers. [GN] BIG PHARMA: Phenix City Mulls Class Action Over Opioid Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------- LaPorsche Thomas and Justin Holbrock, writing for WRBL, report that one Alabama city is attempting to take action against the opioid crisis. The Phenix City City Council approved a resolution to file a class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors of opioids. Two counselors and Mayor Eddie Lowe voted to approve the resolution. One of the counselors was out sick and the district two seat is empty. The special election fill the seat was set to takes place Tuesday, Dec. 19. In 2015, Alabama prescribed more opioids than any other state in the country, according to the CDC. With the vote, Phenix City is joining the fight against opioids, which one local man knows all too well. "Things are great now but it was very challenging coming out of it at the time," recovering opioid addict John Burdeshaw said. For 20 years, Mr. Burdeshaw struggled with addiction including heroin, meth and whatever pills he could get. He's in his third year of recovery, which seemed impossible during the darkest days of his addiction. "Eventually I lost everything and battled homelessness and deep addiction and went to rehab," he said. "It's been a long road but it's been well worth it." Mr. Burdeshaw met his wife Christi in rehab while she was fighting addiction as well. The couple first spoke with News 3 in November for a special report on the opioid crisis. "My family was devastated," Christi Burdeshaw said. "The different times they had to come to court hearings and I was in shackles and a jumpsuit, and I think though that they almost felt better when I was in jail because at least they knew I wasn't going to die." News 3 followed up with John on Dec. 18 after Phenix City passed the resolution. "I would like to encourage other cities to get on board and get ahead of it," John Burdeshaw said. "Be proactive and help slow things down before they get started." Phenix City Mayor Eddie Lowe agrees. "You know the number one thing of any council of any leaders of the city is safety and the well being of others," Mayor Lowe said. "That's part of the reason why we've decided to do that resolution and sign off on it." [GN] CALIFORNIA CONNECTION: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Bulosan Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ISAIAH BULOSAN and APRIL BULOSAN, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA CONNECTION, LLC and DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 17CIV05935 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest, penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, declaratory relief, and civil penalties and attorneys' fees under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees who worked for Defendant and who were not correctly paid their wages while working for Defendant, given inaccurate wage statements and not provided meal and rest periods as allowed by law. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees also seek recovery of penalties as a result of Defendant's failure to fully indemnify them for expenses undertaken while doing business for Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Bradley, Esq. BRADLE/GROMBACHER LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Vilage, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270 7100 Facsimile: (805) 270 7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Santosh Narayan, Esq. NARAYAN LAW, APC 225 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 300 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 432 5435 Facsimile: (626) 657 2921 E-mail: snarayan@narayanlegal.com CANADA: Class Actions Means of Justice for Sexual Abuse Survivors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Ptak, Esq. -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- and Garth Myers, Esq. -- gmyers@kmlaw.ca -- of at Koskie Minsky LLP, in response to the opinion piece published at Toronto Star, entitled "Class action lawsuits not always best in historical sexual abuse cases," the author unfairly criticized the role of class actions in achieving access to justice for vulnerable victims of historical sexual abuse. Class actions arising from historical sexual abuse have the ability to overcome psychological, social and economic barriers presented by individual lawsuits and indeed, are repeatedly endorsed by courts across Canada as providing meaningful access to justice and fair settlements for large groups of people. Many survivors of abuse are elderly or in a frail emotional state. Others may not be able to devote the time and expense required to seek individual relief in the legal system, or may not even be aware that they could file a claim. Filing an individual lawsuit requires the survivor to publicly disclose details of their abuse and may require them to be cross-examined in court. These psychological, social, and economic barriers may make it difficult or impossible for many survivors to come forward and commence lawsuits for historic sexual abuse. Class actions are an important means of access to justice for survivors of abuse. Class actions are commenced by one individual who represents an entire group of survivors. This representative plaintiff becomes the face of the class action, who conducts the litigation on behalf of a whole group of survivors. This representative plaintiff becomes the face of the class action, and other class members may anonymously shelter under the representative plaintiff's umbrella. Only if the class action is successful must class members come forward and submit claims. Finally, a class action settlement are scrutinized by judges to ensure that they are fair, failing which they will not be approved. Individual lawsuit settlements also often contain terms preventing the parties from disclosing the settlement. These secret settlements have the effect of ensuring that other survivors are not aware of the settlements and therefore, they do not come forward. In contrast, settlements in class actions require robust notice to the class to encourage survivors to come forward and submit claims. Finally, while settlements in individual lawsuits are typically limited to providing compensation to the individual, class actions have the capacity to provide broad based healing and reconciliation measures aimed at restorative justice. Take for example the Indian Residential Schools settlement for damages arising from historical abuse. The number of eligible class members who submitted claims was far in excess of what was expected. One of the reasons for this high take up was that the application for the common experience payment component of the settlement was streamlined, paper-based, and private, eliminating many of the barriers faced by individual lawsuits. In addition, the settlement established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to contribute to truth, healing and reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous peoples. The benefits of class actions have enabled thousands of survivors to benefit who otherwise may never have come forward. They are an essential component of our justice system that provide access to justice to vulnerable groups. Jonathan Ptak and Garth Myers are lawyers at Koskie Minsky LLP who represent abuse survivors as well as many other types of groups in class actions against governments and corporations. [GN] CAPITALA FINANCE: Paskowitz Sues over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ LAURENCE PASKOWITZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITALA FINANCE CORP., JOSEPH B. ALALA III, and STEPHEN A. ARNALL, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-09251 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Capitala from January 4, 2016 through August 7, 2017, both dates inclusive (the Class Period). Capitala Finance Corp. is a business development company that invests primarily in first and second liens, subordinated debt and, to a lesser extent, equity securities issued by lower and traditional middle-market companies. According to the complaint, Capitala Investment manages the Company's investment activities. The Company's Board of Directors supervises the Company's investment activities. The Company's executive officers are part of Capitala Investment Advisors' management team. Under the Company's investment advisory agreement with Capitala Investment Advisors, the Company pays Capitala Investment Advisors an annual base management fee based on the Company's gross assets as well as an incentive fee based on the Companys performance. On January 4, 2016, the Company announced that Capitala Investment Advisors agreed to voluntarily waive its quarterly incentive fee. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing professional talent in both underwriting and portfolio management due to the waiving of its incentive fee; (2) such loss of talent negatively impacted the quality of the Company's investment portfolio; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 7, 2017, the Company revealed during aftermarket hours that six of its investments were on non-accrual statu--twice as many as it had the previous quarter. On August 8, 2017, Defendant Alala revealed that Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing professional talent in underwriting and portfolio management since waiving its incentive fee, which gave rise to a rising number of nonaccrual investments. On this news, shares of the Company fell $3.82 per share over the next three trading days or approximately 30% to close at $8.99 per share on August 10, 2017, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785 2610 Facsimile: (213) 226 4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com CHARLESTON PLACE: "Knecht" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Knecht, On Behalf of Himself And Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Charleston Place LLC., and Charleston Place Holdings Inc., DBA Charleston Grill by Belmond, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03460-PMD (D. S.C., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and numerous other employees to work on their behalf in providing labor for their financial benefit. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a server from October of 2012 until the present. The Plaintiff has an employment agreement with Defendants, whereby Plaintiff is paid an hourly rate plus tips for all hours worked. The Defendants paid Mr. Knecht, as well as other similarly situated servers, an hourly wage less than the statutory minimum wage by taking the "Tip Credit" under the FLSA. The Defendants paid Plaintiff $2.75 per hour. The Defendants violated the tip credit notice requirement of 29 U.S.C. section 203(m), because they did not inform Plaintiff, as well as other similarly situated servers, that they intend to treat tips as satisfying part of their minimum wage obligation. The Defendants also did not notify Plaintiff, as well as other similarly situated servers, regarding the provisions of their tip policy and the amount of the tip credit that it was taking. The Defendants failed to inform the Plaintiff, as well as other similarly situated servers, regarding the amount of tip pool contributions they would be required to make either before or after they were hired. The Defendants' have a mandatory policy requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated servers, to redistribute a portion of their tips at the end of each shift into a mandatory tip pool. Defendants own and operate the Charleston Grill by Belmond, (Charleston Grill) an up-scale restaurant serving "award winning Southern Cuisine".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 104 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 588 5587 Facsimile: (800) 385 8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Ash" as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an Order dismissing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot in the case captioned LEAH ASH, Plaintiff, v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, INFILAW, INC., INFILAW HOLDING, LLC, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, No. 3:17CV39 (W.D.N.C.). A discovery conference was held in this matter on December 6, 2017. At the conference, the Court directed that the parties in this action and the related actions to file a consolidated class action complaint by mid-January. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed on December 4 is moot and is dismissed as moot. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3uubvz from Leagle.com. Leah Ash, Plaintiff, represented by Michael John Messinger, Law Offices of Michael Messinger, PLLC, 6135 Park South Dr, Ste 510, Charlotte, NC 28210-0100 Charlotte School of Law, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Edward Mills -- dmills@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden -- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Michael DeWayne Hays -- mhays@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Cahill -- rcahill@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Motley Stone -- sarah.stone@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP & Johnny M. Loper -- johnny.loper@wbd-us.com - - Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. InfiLaw Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Edward Mills, Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Michael DeWayne Hays, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Cahill, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP & Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. CHEVRON CORP: Litigation Funding No Role in Class Action Demise --------------------------------------------------------------- Garrett Ordower and Lake Whillans, writing for Above the Law, report that the closely watched case of Gbarabe v. Chevron -- a class action against the oil giant based on an oil rig explosion off the coast of Nigeria -- has been portrayed as a cautionary tale for the world of litigation finance. The defense attorneys' dogged pursuit of the details of plaintiff's outside funding, the story goes, succeeded, and aided in the attack on the adequacy of plaintiff's counsel. The defense did successfully defeat class certification, but litigation funding ultimately played little or no role in the case's demise. The casual reader learning about Gbarabe might assume that litigation finance arrangements are routinely disclosed or discovered. As discussed recently, there is currently no automatic disclosure regime for litigation finance. The litigation finance arrangements in Gbarabe came to light only because of the narrow circumstances presented there: the court had to determine whether counsel could adequately represent the class, counsel conceded litigation funding had relevance to that inquiry, and counsel did not assert privilege over the funding agreement. Gbarabe is an outlier. In nearly every case where similar discovery has been sought, it has been denied. Those courts faced with the disclosure issue have generally found that a party's communications with actual or prospective funders are shielded from production based on the work product doctrine, which protects "documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer or agent)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(a). As explained in a recent case, Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., the doctrine serves "to protect an attorney's thought processes and mental impressions against disclosure." Communications between a party, its attorneys and actual or prospective litigation funders necessarily contain and reflect "opinions by . . . counsel regarding the strength of . . . claims, the existence and merit of . . . defenses, and other observations and impressions regarding issues that have arisen in this litigation," and fall squarely within this protection. Doe v. Society of Missionaries of Sacred Heart (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2014). The "the terms of the final agreement -- such as the financing premium or acceptable settlement conditions" similarly "reflect an analysis of the merits of the case." Carlyle Investment Management v. Moonmouth Co. (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2015). Parties seeking disclosure of communications between claimants and funders argue that even if they do constitute work product that protection has been waived. This argument has been repeatedly rejected. While disclosure to a third-party can result in waiver, it generally will not when the disclosure is done pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement and steps are otherwise taken to control the confidential information. As explained in Viamedia, "the point of the protection is not to keep information secret from the world at large but to keep it out of the hands of one's adversary in litigation." In that case, the court concluded that the disclosure to litigation funding firms pursuant to an NDA did not result in a waiver because it did not make it "substantially more likely that its work-product protected information would fall in the hands of its adversaries." As several courts have observed, "litigation funders have an inherent interest in maintaining the confidentiality of potential clients' information." See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Fisher v. Ho (E.D. Texas March 15, 2016). Viamedia is the latest of numerous cases that have examined the issue of work product protection for communications or agreements with actual or prospective funders and reached similar conclusions. (A partial list follows; please visit this page for a comprehensive list of relevant cases that will be regularly updated.) In a patent infringement case, the IP holding company that owned the patent at issue reached out to various "investment brokers and potential investors with slide presentations and other documents that contained disclosures of Inpro's licensing and litigation strategies and also estimates of licensing and litigation revenues." The court rejected the argument that these documents were not created for litigation purposes but rather for "business advice" and found the work product protection applicable because the documents were prepared "with the intention of coordinating potential investors to aid in future possible litigation." Because the documents were shared pursuant to an NDA the protection was preserved. Mondis Technology, Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Texas May 4, 2011). In a trade secret misappropriation case, the court, in an expansive opinion discussing many issues relevant to litigation funding, including champerty, maintenance, and issues related to the "real party in interest," held that documents provided subject to an NDA did not lose their work product status when shared with a funder, but also held that certain "damage estimates, summaries or worksheets" shared with prospective funders without an NDA did need to be turned over because work product protection had been waived by failing to protect the material from broader disclosure through an NDA. The court otherwise found the "deal documents" in the case irrelevant having "nothing to do with the claims or defenses in the case." Miller UK v. Caterpillar (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2014). In a complex dispute related to the propriety of funding foreign litigation against plaintiffs by a company in liquidation in the foreign jurisdiction, the court concluded that although in a funded case "the overlap between business and litigation reasons for the creation of the disputed documents is more extensive than usual" the work product protection still applied. This extended not just to communications with the funder but also to "the terms of the final agreement -- such as the financing premium or acceptable settlement conditions -- [because it] could reflect an analysis of the merits of the case." As the court explained, "allowing work product protection for documents and communications relating to third-party funding places those parties that require outside funding on the same footing as those who do not and maintains a level playing field among adversaries in litigation." Carlyle Investment Management v. Moonmouth Co. (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2015). In an involuntary bankruptcy case brought by an individual who had a business dispute with the bankrupt entity, the court found work product protection was not waived by disclosure to a funder reasoning "it does not matter that [the funder's] obvious purpose is to obtain a return on its investment, just as it does not matter that counsel's purpose is typically to earn a fee." The court did order production of the funding agreement because it was "central to one theory presented" in the case, but allowed redaction of the payment terms and other terms that would reveal counsel's "mental impressions and opinion" of the litigation. In re Intern. Oil Trading Co. (Bankr. S.D. Fla. April 28, 2016). If all of these cases have found similarly that a party's communications with its funder, including the final agreement, constitutes protected work product, what is the story with the Gbarabe case? First of all, the case was a class action, and the plaintiff conceded the relevance of counsel's funding agreement to determining the adequacy of representation; an essential element in the class action context. (A funding agreement will not always be relevant to an adequacy determination -- such as where concerns about counsel's ability to fund the action are "purely speculative." See Kaplan et al. v. SAC Capital Advisors LP et al., No. 12-cv-09350 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2015)). Second, the plaintiff had already turned over to the defense a redacted copy of the litigation funding agreement before the discovery dispute made its way to the court. Third, and very significantly, as the court highlighted "plaintiff does not assert that the agreement is privileged." Instead, plaintiff argued that the "contractual obligation to preserve the confidentiality of the funder's identity" prohibited production. The court concluded that the funding agreement did not actually prohibit plaintiffs from producing the agreement, and that, even if it did, "plaintiff does not cite any authority for the proposition that such a provision would override discovery obligations or a court order." In the end, the court found that plaintiff's counsel could not adequately represent the class and, for that and other reasons, denied class certification. In the court's exhaustive opinion denying class certification, litigation funding was pointedly not cited as a reason. Instead the court noted counsel's "complete disregard for scheduling orders"; "lack of familiarity with or understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules"; "fail[ure] to diligently prosecute the case"; submission of "deficient" expert reports; failure to produce data underlying the expert reports; and class member evidence "riddled with falsity and unreliability." So what does Gbarabe tell us about litigation finance? Not much. It was an unusual litigation funding case and one in which counsel did not resist the disclosure of the litigation finance agreement on work product or other privilege grounds. In a more typical case (especially outside the class action context), work product protection should continue to protect the funding agreement (or at least its most sensitive terms) and other communications with prospective or actual funders from potentially prejudicial disclosure to an adversary. [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Dismissal of 2 Counts of Stone Street Suit Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled STONE STREET PARTNERS, LLC, a/k/a PMD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, THE CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, PATRICIA JACKOWIAK, Director, Department of Administrative Hearings; THE CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF STREETS AND SANITATION; THOMAS G. BYRNE, Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation, Defendants-Appellees, case No. 1-13-3159 (Ill. App.), Judge Mathias W. Delort of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, Sixth Division, affirmed the circuit court's order dismissing counts I and II of Stone Street's complaint with prejudice, and circuit court's order denying Stone Street's petition for administrative review. On Jan. 17, 2012, the City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation ("DSS") issued an administrative notice of ordinance violation against an entity named PMD regarding property located at 34 East Oak Street in Chicago. The notice stated that Stone Street violated section 7-28-261 of the Chicago Municipal Code. On Feb. 23, 2012, an attorney for Stone Street appeared before the Department to contest the notice. Stone Street's attorney objected to the entire proceeding on the basis that the City was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law because no attorney appeared for the City. Pamela Harris, the administrative law judge ("ALJ") rejected this argument and found Stone Street liable. The ALJ then assessed a $300 fine, which was $100 more than the minimum, and a $40 fee and entered judgment against Stone Street for $340. Stone Street's complaint does not allege that its attorney specifically objected to the imposition of a fine greater than $200. On March 26, 2012, Stone Street filed a four-count "Class Action & Administrative Review Complaint." In count I, Stone Street sought declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating all fines, penalties, orders and judgments where the city appeared without a licensed attorney on behalf of a class. Stone Street also sought a declaration that the City of Chicago's practice of permitting an ALJ to act as both judge and prosecutor" violated its right to due process under the federal and Illinois constitutions. In count II, it alleged that the ALJ who heard Stone Street's case stated that, while she was authorized to impose the minimum fine on anyone who entered a plea to liability, she would impose what Stone Street characterized as a trial tax by imposing more than the minimum fine on anyone who opted to proceed with a contested hearing. Stone Street requested a declaration that the custom and practice of penalizing litigants for exercising their right to a contested hearing violates due process and injunctive relief requiring that the practice cease and desist. Count III was a claim under the Freedom of Information Act. Count IV was a complaint for administrative review of the Department's decision. On Sept. 11, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss counts I, II, and III pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After a hearing, the court dismissed count II, finding that Stone Street failed to state a "cognizable claim for violation of due process. Count IV, Stone Street's claim for administrative review, remained pending. On Aug. 14, 2013, the circuit court resolved that claim by denying Stone Street's petition for administrative review and affirming the ALJ's finding of liability as to the ordinance violation. The appeal followed. Judge Delort finds that because Stone Street has not alleged that an actual person acting on behalf of the City engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, count I fails to state a valid claim. He also finds that the circuit court properly dismissed count II of Stone Street's complaint for failure to state a claim for a due process violation. He says the sum total of the allegations in Stone Street's complaint, and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from those allegations, is that the ALJ conveyed the City's constitutionally permissible offer of plea bargaining. The ALJ's threat to impose higher fines on persons who requested hearings -- a threat she made good upon by increasing Stone Street's fine by $100 over the minimum -- was heavy-handed. But case law from higher courts compels the Court to find that her practice was constitutional, as against the specific challenges raised in Stone Street's complaint. Finally, Judge Delort finds that the arguments Stone Street raised before the circuit court on administrative review were largely duplicative of the legal issues it raised in counts I and II of its complaint. Accordingly, on the merits, Stone Street's petition for administrative review fails for the same reason counts I and II fail. Moreover, Stone Street did not argue in the court, nor has it argued in this court, that the ALJ's finding of liability was against the manifest weight of the evidence. As a result, this issue is forfeited. The circuit court therefore correctly denied Stone Street's petition for administrative review. Accordingly, Judge Delort affirmed the circuit court's order dismissing counts I and II of Stone Street's complaint with prejudice, and the court's order denying Stone Street's petition for administrative review. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/LLWxN9 from Leagle.com. COMENITY LLC: Court Stays "Stephens" Pending ACA Int'l Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JENNIFER STEPHENS and CHRISTOPHER GULLEY on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMENITY, LLC dba COMENITY BANK, Defendant. COMENITY LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JACKIE WASOWICZ, an individual, Third-Party Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00670-MMD-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and the Defendant's Motion to Stay, and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement and the Defendant's Motion to File Counterclaims. Plaintiffs Stephens and Gulley initiated the class action based on violations of the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act ("TCPA") against the Defendant on March 6, 2017. They filed their first amended complaint on July 27, 2017. The Plaintiffs allege that they do not have any credit cards associated with Comenity and, as a result, neither the Plaintiff has provided their cell phone number to the Defendant. However, both the Plaintiffs purportedly received calls from the Defendant. When they answered a call, there was a prolonged silence and delay prior to being connected to a live representative. The Plaintiffs requested that the Defendant stop calling their cell phones, but the calls continued. The Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of persons within the United States who: (i) received a telephone call from Defendant or its agents; (ii) on his or her cellular telephone number; (iii) through the use of any automatic telephone dialing systems or artificial or prerecorded voice system as set forth in 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(3); and (iv) where the Defendant has no record of prior express consent for such individual to make such call, within four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date of final approval. The Plaintiffs bring two claims: one for negligent violations of the TCPA and the other for knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA. On April 25, 2017, the Defendant filed its Third Party Complaint ("TPC") against Jackie Wasowicz. In the TPC, it alleges that Wasowicz, who is Plaintiff Stephens' daughter, provided Stephens' phone number as her own and indicated that the Defendant could contact Wasowicz at that number to discuss her account. The Defendant brings four claims against Wasowicz for indemnification, breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Pending before the Court are four motions: the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike or Alternatively Sever the Third Party Complaint and Motion to Stay Filing of Responsive Pleading; the Defendant's Motion to Stay; the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Alexis M. Wood; and the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Counterclaims Against Plaintiff Jennifer Stephens. Despite the timeliness of the TPC, Judge Du finds that impleader is improper for three reasons: (i) Wasowicz's liability for the TPC's breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims are in no way dependent upon the Defendant's liability under the TCPA, and Wasowicz's liability for the TPC's indemnification claim is dependent on only those calls made to Plaintiff Stephens and not to Plaintiff Gulley or the purported class members; (ii) the likelihood that jurors would be distracted or confused by a "mini-trial" as to whether Wasowicz gave the Defendant consent to contact the cell phone number of Plaintiff Stephens; and (iii) the lack of prejudice to and ability of Defendant to bring a subsequent action on all four claims if the Defendant is found liable in the original action. Secondly, this is a purported class action. Therefore, in the event class certification occurs, any effort expended by the Defendant at trial presenting evidence or testimony regarding whether Wasowicz breached her obligations to the Defendant and misrepresented that Stephens' number was her own will muddy the issues that are pertinent to the entire class. Finally, in the event the Plaintiffs are successful in the original action, there is no evidence that there will be prejudice to the Defendant if it brings a subsequent, separate action against Wasowicz. Therefore, the Judge will grant the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. Judge Du denied the Motion to Supplement. She resolved the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike without the need to consider the supplemental declaration of Alexis M. Wood in support of their Motion to Strike. Moreover, she says the purpose of filing the supplement is to buttress the Plaintiffs' contention that the TPC is meritless, which is not a consideration the Court needs to make when deciding whether to strike a third-party complaint. The Judge finds that a complete stay of the case is warranted. She agrees with the Defendants argument that the Court should stay the proceedings in the action until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issues a decision in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission regarding FCC's 2015 declaratory ruling and order. A stay would likely be limited in duration. The two issues raised in the ACA appeal that the Defendant points to -- whether an ATDS includes only the present ability to dial random or sequential numbers or whether the definition includes the potential ability to do so and whether "called party" means "intended recipient" or subscriber/customary user" -- are key issues in the case. Judge Du notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases not discussed. She has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the parties' motions. She therefore ordered that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is granted. The Clerk is instructed to strike the Defendant's Third Party Complaint from the record. The Judge further ordered that the Defendant's Motion to Stay is granted. The case is stayed pending the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA. The parties are directed to file a joint status report within seven days of the D.C. Circuit's decision. She denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement and denied without prejudice and with leave to refile after the stay in the case is lifted the Defendant's Motion to File Counterclaims. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/HJS8CR from Leagle.com. Jennifer Stephens, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood -- admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron. Jennifer Stephens, Plaintiff, represented by Kas L. Gallucci, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice, Kevin L. Hernandez, Law Office of Kevin L. Hernandez & Ronald A. Marron, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice. Christopher Gulley, Plaintiff, represented by Kas L. Gallucci, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice, Kevin L. Hernandez, Law Office of Kevin L. Hernandez, Ronald A. Marron, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice & Alexis M. Wood, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron. Comenity, LLC, doing business as Comenity Bank, Defendant, represented by Joel Edward Tasca -- TASCABALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP, Russell Jason Burke -- BURKERBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP & Lindsay C. Demaree -- DEMAREELBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP. Comenity, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joel Edward Tasca, Ballard Spahr LLP, Lindsay C. Demaree, Ballard Spahr LLP & Russell Jason Burke, Ballard Spahr LLP. COMERICA BANK: Katz et al. Sue over Woodbridge Bankruptcy --------------------------------------------------------- MARSHA KATZ, DAVID BREMSON, HARRY BREYER, and JANE BREYER, individually and as attorney in fact for Lorraine Schockett, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COMERICA BANK, the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv- 62551-WPD (S.D. Fla., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover damages, including pre-judgment interest for direct and proximate result of Comerica's aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiffs purchased investments from the Woodbridge group of companies. These companies' owner and operator, Robert H. Shapiro, individually and through his controlled affiliates, marketed promissory notes and other offerings as low-risk, high- yield investments backed by high-interest real-estate loans to third-party commercial borrowers. But, in reality, Woodbridge had few real counterparties. Nearly all of the allegedly supporting loans were to Shapiro's own shell companies. According to the complaint, lacking the revenue to pay returns owed to Plaintiffs and other investors, Shapiro paid the returns using new investor money, raising more than $1.22 billion before the Ponzi scheme collapsed. In December 2017, most of the Woodbridge companies declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The investors now confront enormous losses. The SEC, while not seeking restitution for investors, named Shapiro and his Woodbridge entities as defendants in a complaint filed in this District on December 20, 2017. Comerica had notice of Shapiro's fraud from a series of red flags associated with the accounts from which Shapiro misappropriated over $21 million in investor funds. Each Woodbridge bank account was opened and maintained at Comerica, and Comerica continued to enable Shapiro's fraud even after several state regulatory agencies ordered him to cease and desist operations. Woodbridge lacked internal controls and engaged in many atypical banking activities. Drawing on Woodbridge's Comerica accounts, Shapiro spent millions of dollars on private planes, expensive cars, jewelry, and other luxury goods. Shapiro's wife, and his wife's company, also received substantial investor proceeds from Woodbridge's accounts at Comerica. Although Woodbridge was a billion-dollar enterprise, Shapiro remained the sole signatory on all of its accounts and insisted on hand-signing every check to investors and sales agents. Woodbridge and Shapiro used $368 million in new investor funds to pay existing investors out of Comerica accounts. Shapiro pooled investment funds from promissory note holders and purchasers of his other fraudulent offerings in fund entity accounts, further commingling those funds into a single Woodbridge operating account under his control. The commingling involved transfers of around $1.66 billion and nearly 11,000 Comerica account transactions. Raising yet another red flag, instead of hiring external auditors, Woodbridge relied on a controller who was not a certified public accountant. Shapiro's banking activities at Comerica were integral to his scheme to defraud investors. Comerica substantially assisted, and had knowledge of, the Woodbridge investor fraud. Comerica therefore is liable to Plaintiffs and the other defrauded investors for their losses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq. SONN LAW GROUP P.A. One Turnberry Place 19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 912 3000 E-mail: jsonn@sonnlaw.com - and - Scott L. Silver, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 755 4799 E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981 4800 E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com je@girardgibbs.com aep@girardgibbs.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Morrow" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint in the case captioned DONALD MORROW, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 3-16-cv-1953 (M.D. Tenn.). This court previously granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS). The court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy against CHS and held that Plaintiff had no standing to allege breach of contract or intentional interference with contractual relations because he was not a party to the contract at issue. Plaintiff alleges that, because of the wrongful business practices of Defendants, (CHS and its direct and indirect subsidiaries), Defendants charged patients, including Plaintiff, a non-discounted amount that is, the full amount of the medical bill resulting in Defendants' receiving money from patients, including Plaintiff, to which they were not entitled. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that all Defendants participated in this business model and all Defendants benefitted from it and, thus, were unjustly enriched. The remaining Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants for breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy will be dismissed. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yadczned from Leagle.com. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7l2hk9r from Leagle.com Donald Morrow, Individually, and on behalf of all others situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Barrett -- cbarrett@nealharwell.com -- Neal & Harwell, PLC. Donald Morrow, Individually, and on behalf of all others situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Zager -- jzager@nealharwell.com -- Neal & Harwell, PLC, Kenneth A. Metzger -- Kenny@taylormartino.com -- Taylor-Martino, P.C., Philip N. Elbert -- pelbert@nealharwell.com -- Neal & Harwell, PLC, Richard H. Taylor -- richardtaylor@taylormartino.com -- Taylor-Martino, P.C., Steven A. Martino SteveMartino@TaylorMartino.com -- Taylor- Martino, P.C. & W. Lloyd Copeland -- Lloyd@taylormartino.com -- Taylor-Martino, P.C.. Community Health Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by John R. Jacobson -- jjacobson@rwjplc.com -- Riley, Warnock & Jacobson & William M. Outhier -- wouthier@rwjplc.com -- Riley, Warnock & Jacobson. CHSPSC, LLC, Defendant, represented by John R. Jacobson, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson & William M. Outhier, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson. Professional Account Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by John R. Jacobson, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson & William M. Outhier, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson. CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by John R. Jacobson, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson & William M. Outhier, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson. COMMUNITY RESTUARANTS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Eguizubal Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAIRO EGUIZUBAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY RESTUARANTS, Inc., a corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC687947 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 29, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wage under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this class action and representative action to remedy wage-and-hour violations by Defendants. For at least four years prior to the filing of this Complaint and through the present, the Defendants have allegedly engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees of Defendants in violation of applicable California laws, including, without limitation, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to furnish Plaintiff and other employees with accurate, itemized wage statements, and failing to pay all earned wages upon separation of employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. Casparjtvalagian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Telephone: (818) 507 8525 E-mail: vache@kjtiawgroup.com caspar@kjtiawgroup.com - and - CHRISTOPHER A ADAMS, Esq. ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL 4740 Calle Carga Camarillo, CA 93012 Telephone: (818) 425 1437 E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymcntCounsel.com COMPUTER RECYCLING: Kennedy Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN KENNEDY and other similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. COMPVTER RECYCLING SERVICES OF SOUTH FLORIDA LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company and MICHAEL J, LANANNA; SR., Individually, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-023283 (Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Fla., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages, additional equal amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from May 2015 through May 2017, as a non-exempt laborer. The Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a verbal agreement in which Plaintiff was promised to become a part owner of the company after he completed a 30-day probation period. However, Defendants refused to make Plaintiff a partial owner of the Company. In addition, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff the required overtime and/or minimum wages at a rate of one and a half times Plaintiffs regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a single work week. The Plaintiff was paid approximately $500 dollars a week. The Defendants had or should have had full knowledge of all hours worked by Plaintiff, including those hours worked by Plaintiff in excess of 40 in a given week. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com CONSERV FLAG: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conserv Flag Company, LLC. The case is styled Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Emil Assad and Conserv Flag Company, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00061 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018). Conserv Flag Company, LLC was founded in 2003. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of specialized lines of merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CONTINENTIAL SERVICE: Faces "Casarez" Suit in S.D. of Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continential Service Group, Inc. d/b/a ConServe. The case is styled as Rosa Casarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Continential Service Group, Inc. d/b/a ConServe and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00002 (S.D. Tex., January 3, 2018). Continental Service Group, Inc. doing business as ConServe provides debt collection services to creditors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq. The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein 6906 Rocky Top Circle Dallas, TX 75252 Tel: (646) 753-0149 Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com CORNER TABLE: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern District New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corner Table Restaurants, LLC. The case is styled as Lucia Marett, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Corner Table Restaurants, LLC doing business as: The Smith Restaurant & Bar, Defendant, Case No1:18-cv-00047 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018). Corner Table Restaurants, LLC is in the Restaurant Management business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CSX CORP: Zamansky Investigates Potential Fiduciary Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Zamansky LLC on Dec. 18 disclosed that it is investigating CSX Corp. (NASDAQ: CSX), the railway conglomerate based in Jacksonville, Florida, for potential breaches of fiduciary duties to shareholders. On December 15, 2017, CSX's controversial CEO, Hunter Harrison, died after only several months on the job. Mr. Harrison's hiring by CSX's Board was controversial because he was 73 years old and in ill health, and because his hiring resulted from a campaign by activist shareholder Paul Hilal. On December 17, 2017, days after Mr. Harrison's death, the Wall Street Journal reported in an article that CSX faces tough questions on the death of its CEO. According to its article, CSX Board members allegedly knew of Mr. Harrison's ill health before his hiring, yet proceeded with his large compensation deal anyway. The article raised questions about the alleged lack of background diligence performed by Board members about Harrison's hiring. CSX's stock price fell substantially on the recent news of Mr. Harrison's medical leave, and then again on his death. According to Jake Zamansky, investment fraud attorney, CSX's Board members owe the company and its shareholders fiduciary duties, which include duties of care and loyalty. We are investigating whether there was any potential breach of fiduciary duty to the company in the hiring of Harrison or in the compensation awarded him, Mr. Zamansky says. What CSX Shareholders Can Do If you are a shareholder of CSX who purchased before Harrison's hiring and who still holds the stock, please contact us to review or discuss your legal rights. You may, without obligation or cost to you, email jake@zamansky.com or call the law firm at (212) 742-1414. About Zamansky LLC Zamansky LLC is an investment fraud law firm with a focus on securities, hedge fund, ERISA and shareholder derivative and class action litigation. [GN] CTI BIOPHARMA: Jan. 31 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY KEVIN HAMMOND, Derivatively And On Behalf of CTI BIOPHARMA CORP., Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. BIANCO, LOUIS A. BIANCO, JACK W. SINGER, BRUCE J. SEELEY, JOHN H. BAUER, PHILLIP M. NUDELMAN, REED V. TUCKSON, KAREN IGNAGNI, RICHARD L. LOVE, MARY O. MUNDINGER, and FREDERICK W. TELLING, Defendants, and CTI BIOPHARMA CORP., Nominal Defendant. NO. 16-2-05818-3 SEA MAURIO ELEY, Derivatively And On Behalf of CTI BIOPHARMA CORP., Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. BIANCO, LOUIS A. BIANCO, JACK W. SINGER, BRUCE J. SEELEY, JOHN H. BAUER, PHILLIP M. NUDELMAN, REED V. TUCKSON, KAREN IGNAGNI, RICHARD L. LOVE, MARY O. MUNDINGER, and FREDERICK W. TELLING, Defendants, and CTI BIOPHARMA Corp. Nominal Defendant. NO. 16-2-14422-5 SEA NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENTOF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AND OF HEARING TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HOLD OR BENEFICIALLY OWN, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, COMMON STOCK OR OTHER EQUITY SECURITIES OF CTI BIOPHARMA CORP. AS OF OCTOBER 24, 2017 THIS NOTICE CONCERNS A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS CONCERNING THE LAWSUIT. THIS NOTICE IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY CLAIMS OR DEFENSES IN THE LAWSUIT. THE STATEMENTS IN THIS NOTICE ARE NOT FINDINGS OF THE COURT. All holders of CTI Biopharma Corp. ("CTI") common stock or other equities are hereby notified that a settlement (the "Settlement") has been reached as to claims asserted in the above-captioned shareholder derivative action pending in a state court in Washington (the "State Derivative Lawsuit") on behalf of CTI against certain current and former directors of CTI. The terms of the proposed Settlement are set out in a Stipulation of Settlement dated October 24, 2017 ("Stipulation of Settlement," and together with its exhibits, the "Settlement Agreement") that has been filed with the Court. If approved (and the approval becomes final and no longer subject to appeal), the Settlement will release all of the claims in this State Derivative Lawsuit, as well as the claims in a related derivative lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "Federal Derivative Lawsuit"). A hearing on the Settlement will be held on January 31, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. (the "Fairness Hearing") before King County Superior Court Judge Barbara A. Mack, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, 516 3rd Ave., Room W-728, Seattle, Washington 98104. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will determine: (i) whether to approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interest of CTI and its shareholders, (ii) whether to dismiss the State Derivative Lawsuit on the merits and with prejudice, enjoin the prosecution of all related claims, and release the defendants and their related individuals and entities (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) from all claims of the type asserted in the State Derivative Lawsuit, and (iii) whether to approve the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid to counsel for the plaintiffs in the State Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit. If the Court approves the Settlement (and if that approval becomes final and no longer subject to appeal), the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Lawsuit will ask the federal court to dismiss the Federal Derivative Lawsuit with prejudice. The Court may, in its discretion, change the date and/or time of the Fairness Hearing without further notice to you. If you intend to attend the Fairness Hearing, you should confirm the date and time of the hearing with the Court. SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION The above-captioned State Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit (which is captioned In re CTI Biopharma Shareholder Derivative Action, 2:16-cv-00756 (W.D. Wash.) are derivative actions1 that arise from statements made by CTI regarding the clinical development of one of its pipeline drugs, pacritinib. The complaints filed in the State Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit allege violations of law arising out of, among other things, CTI's statements about pacritinib's clinical development, and bring claims derivatively on behalf of CTI against James A. Bianco, Louis A. Bianco, Jack W. Singer, Bruce J. Seeley, John H. Bauer, Phillip M. Nudelman, Reed V. Tuckson, Karen Ignagni, Richard L. Love, Mary O. Mundinger, and Frederick W. Telling (collectively, the CTI Derivative Defendants"). This notice is intended to provide only a summary of the plaintiffs' claims. If you hold or beneficially own, directly or indirectly, common stock or other equity securities of CTI, you should review the complaints for their full content. The complaints filed in the State and Federal Derivative Lawsuits can be viewed at www.ctibiopharma.com. REASONS FOR SETTLEMENT State Derivative Plaintiffs and their counsel, as well as the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Lawsuit and their counsel, believe that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of CTI and its shareholders. They reached this conclusion after considering: (i) the claims asserted against the CTI Derivative Defendants and the potential defenses, (ii) the substantial benefits that CTI would receive from the Settlement, and (iii) their own evaluation of the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the claims. The CTI Derivative Defendants expressly deny that plaintiffs' claims have any merit or that pursuit of such claims would be in the best interests of CTI or its shareholders. The CTI Derivative Defendants expressly deny all assertions of wrongdoing or liability arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts, or omissions that were, could have been, or could be asserted against them in the State Derivative Lawsuit or the Federal Derivative Lawsuit. CTI, in a good and fair exercise of its business judgment, determined that the terms of the proposed Settlement would be in the best interests of CTI and its shareholders. As discussed below, the proposed Settlement confers substantial non-monetary benefits on CTI. PRINCIPAL SETTLEMENT TERMS Settlement Relief Subject to the terms and conditions discussed in the Settlement Agreement, CTI will adopt certain enhancements to its Board of Directors and to its governing policies, practices, and procedures (the "Governance Enhancements"). The Governance Enhancements, subject to the terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement, include (among other things), (i) adoption of a Board resolution relating to the content of all CTI-retained independent data monitoring committee charters; (ii) engagement of an independent expert or entity to conduct yearly audits of CTI's compliance with Good Clinical Practices; (iii) the creation of a Risk Compliance Officer position; (iv) the implementation of certain employee training in risk assessment and compliance; (v) certain improvements to CTI's Audit Committee, including the requirement that the Audit Committee review CTI's periodic public reports to facilitate proper disclosure of risks and risk factors; (vi) establish an internal audit function that will monitor the Company's adherence to its policies and procedures, including those related to identification and disclosure of drug candidate safety issues; (vii) continuing-education requirements for members of the Board; and (viii) improvements to CTI's nominating committee, compensation committee, and clawback policy. The Governance Enhancements are attached as Exhibit E to the Stipulation of Settlement and are available at www.ctibiopharma.com. Release The Settlement Agreement, if finally approved and no longer subject to appeal, will result in a release of all claims that have been, could have been or could be asserted in the State Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit through the Final Settlement Date by or on behalf of CTI against all of the CTI Derivative Defendants (and related persons and entities defined in the Settlement Agreement as "Releasees") and an injunction and order barring the prosecution of any such claims against any of the Releasees. The full release (including all of its relevant definitions) is set out in the Settlement Agreement, which is available at www.ctibiopharma.com. STATUS OF SETTLEMENT The Court issued an order (the "Preliminary Approval Order") regarding the Settlement on November 21, 2017, in which it found that the proposed Settlement is within the range of possible approval and that notifying CTI's common stock or other equity securities holders was warranted. The Preliminary Approval Order thus scheduled the Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the proposed Settlement. The Court's preliminary approval order is available at www.ctibiopharma.com. The Court has not made (and will not make in connection with its consideration of the proposed Settlement) any determination as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses in the State Derivative Lawsuit or the Federal Derivative Lawsuit. This notice does not imply that any CTI Derivative Defendant (or any other Releasee) would be found liable or that relief would be awarded if the State Derivative Lawsuit and Federal Derivative Lawsuit were not being settled. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES Consistent with the substantial benefits conferred upon, and expected to be conferred upon, CTI and its shareholders by the Governance Enhancements, and, subject to the Court's approval, CTI has agreed to pay, or cause to be paid by its insurer, $800,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to counsel for the Derivative Plaintiffs. Counsel for the Derivative Plaintiffs have been retained by their clients on a contingent fee basis and, thus, to date Derivative Plaintiffs' counsel have not been paid for their legal services or reimbursed for the expenses they have incurred in connection with the litigation of the State Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit. Derivative Plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses were the subject of arm's length negotiations among the Settling Parties, and these negotiations were conducted only after the principal terms of the proposed Settlement, including the Governance Enhancements, were agreed upon. Following extensive negotiations, all of which were made through JAMS mediator Jed Melnick, a nationally renowned mediator, the Settling Parties ultimately reached an agreement on the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid to counsel for Derivative Plaintiffs' counsel, subject to Court approval. Further, Derivative Plaintiffs will seek Court approval of $2,500 Service Awards to each of them for their participation and efforts in the prosecution of the State Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit. The Service Awards shall be paid from the attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court to counsel for Derivative Plaintiffs. YOUR RIGHT TO OBJECT AND TO APPEAR AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING If you agree that the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of CTI and its shareholders, you do not need to do anything. If, however, you are a current holder of CTI common stock or other equity securities as of October 24, 2017, the date of the execution of the Stipulation of Settlement, and through the date of the Fairness Hearing ("Securities Holder"), and wish to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed Settlement, to any term(s) of Settlement Agreement or to any other issue relating to the Settlement Agreement, you may submit a written objection on your own (or through an attorney you hire at your own expense), and you (or your attorney, if you have hired one) may appear at the Fairness Hearing. YOUR OBJECTION MUST BE POSTMARKED BY NO LATER THAN JANUARY 17, 2018. The written objection should set out the specific reasons, if any, for each objection, including any legal support you wish to bring to the Court's attention and any evidence you wish to introduce in support of such objections. The statement of objection must include the caption of the State Derivative Lawsuit (as set out above) and the following information: (i) your name, address, telephone number, email address (if available), and proof of being a Securities Holder, including the number of securities of CTI held and date(s) of purchase, (ii) if the objection is made by your counsel, the counsel's name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address, together with a notice of appearance, (iii) a statement of the reasons for the objection and copies of all evidence you or your counsel wish to have the Court consider in connection with the objection, (iv) the identities of any cases, by name, court, and docket number, in which you or your counsel has objected to a settlement in the last three years, and (v) if you, or your counsel, intends to make an appearance at the Fairness Hearing, a statement of such intention to appear. Your written objection must be mailed to: (1) the Derivative Plaintiffs' counsel, (2) CTI's and CTI Derivative Defendants' counsel, and (3) the Court (as set out below) and (4) must be postmarked by no later than January 17, 2018. The Court: Clerk of Court Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County 516 3rd Ave. Seattle, Washington 98104 Counsel for the CTI Derivative Defendants: Jeffrey Kilduff Ross B. Galin O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 (212) 326-2000 State Plaintiffs' Counsel: Phillip Kim The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 212-686-1060 Federal Plaintiffs' Counsel: Stuart J. Guber Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Jenkintown, PA 19046 215-277-5770, ext. 413 The Court will consider your written objection whether or not you choose to attend the Fairness Hearing. If you do not meet the January 17, 2018 deadline, your objection(s) will not be considered by the Court, and neither you nor your attorney (if you hire one) will be allowed to appear at the Fairness Hearing. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Pending final determination of whether to approve the Settlement Agreement, the Court has preliminarily barred and enjoined holders of CTI's common stock and equity securities and individuals and entities related to them (including anyone purporting to act on behalf of or derivatively for any of them) from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, participating in or receiving any benefits or other relief from, any other lawsuit, arbitration or administrative, regulatory or other proceeding (as well as filing a complaint in intervention in any such proceeding in which the person or entity filing the complaint in intervention purports to be acting on behalf of or derivatively for any of the above) against any Releasees in any jurisdiction based on or relating to claims that will be released or barred by the Settlement Agreement if the Court approves it (including all claims that may be brought in a derivative capacity on behalf of CTI). The terms of the preliminary injunction are set out in the Preliminary Approval Order, which is available at www.ctibiopharma.com. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT Please do not write or telephone the Court about the proposed Settlement Agreement. If you have any questions, you should contact the CTI Plaintiffs' Derivative Counsel: Phillip Kim The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 212-686-1060 Stuart J. Guber Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600 Jenkintown, PA 19046 215-277-5770 THIS NOTICE IS NOT ABOUT A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT This notice relates solely to the settlement of the State Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit, which were brought derivatively on behalf of and for the benefit of CTI. The State Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit are not class action lawsuits, and no individual stockholder has an individual claim or right to individual compensation. The settlement described in this notice is separate from, and does not relate to, IN RE CTI BIOPHARMA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL, a federal securities action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Court Prefers Stay to Arbitration in "Silva" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay in the case captioned JENER DA SILVA, Plaintiff, v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC.; GMRI, INC.; YARD HOUSE USA, INC.; YARD HOUSE NORTHRIDGE LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-05663-ODW (E) (C.D. Cal.). Defendants Darden Restaurants, Inc., GMRI, Inc., Yard House USA, Inc., and Yard House Northridge, LLC, move to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims, or alternatively, to stay all proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), certiorari granted, Ernst & Young, LLP v. Morris, 137 S.Ct. 809 (2017). Plaintiff alleges that during the time of his employment, Defendants failed to pay him, and other employees similarly situated, all wages due, including minimum wages, overtime compensation, and necessary expenditures incurred in discharging duties. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants did not allow meal and rest period and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements or maintain required records. District Courts have the discretionary power to stay proceedings. This power is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. The Supreme Court could either affirm the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that class action waivers violate the NLRA, or it could reverse and hold that mandatory class action waivers are enforceable and do not violate the NLRA. The outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling in Morris, will most likely directly impact Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments in Morris and taken the matter under submission. Due to the limited duration of the proposed delay, the Court finds that this factor does not weigh against a stay. Continued litigation on class certification issues might cause unnecessary hardship on Defendants and require all parties to incur more legal fees and expenses as a result of discovery that ultimately may be unnecessary. Therefore, the second factor leans in favor of granting a stay of the litigation. The third factor considers whether a stay will simplify or complicate the judicial process. The Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of a stay. There is little value in litigating potential class claims or undertaking in class discovery now, when the Supreme Court's impending ruling might ultimately moot those claims. The action is stayed until the Supreme Court issues a decision in Morris. All dates and deadlines are vacated. Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration is terminated without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yajcru6v from Leagle.com. Jener Da Silva, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John Matern -- MMatern@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC. Jener Da Silva, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Joseph Bass -- dbass@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC & Tagore Subramaniam -- tagore@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC. Darden Restaurants, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jesse M. Caryl -- jcaryl@bcklegal.com -- Bent Caryl and Kroll LLP & Steven M. Kroll -- skroll@bcklegal.com -- Bent Caryl and Kroll LLP. GMRI, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jesse M. Caryl, Bent Caryl and Kroll LLP. Yard House USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jesse M. Caryl, Bent Caryl and Kroll LLP. Yard House Northridge LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Jesse M. Caryl, Bent Caryl and Kroll LLP. DEPOMED INC: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in "Huang" Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, INCHEN HUANG, Plaintiff, v. DEPOMED, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04830-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, granted Plaintiff Depomed Investor Group ("DIG")'s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel, and denied Pontiac's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel. Before the Court are two motions for appointment as the lead plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel for a securities class action, one filed by DIG and the other filed by Plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Defendant Depomed between Feb. 26, 2015 and Aug.t 7, 2017. The Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court must now select a lead plaintiff. Originally, five parties filed motions seeking appointment as the lead plaintiff and approval of their selection of counsel. Three of the parties subsequently withdrew their motions or chose not to oppose the motions of other potential lead plaintiffs. DIG and Pontiac remain as the two parties contesting appointment as the lead plaintiff. Judge Tigar finds that DIG has the greatest financial stake in the outcome of the case and is the presumptive lead plaintiff. It claims losses of $403,930.09. Its losses are uncontested and on their face are greater than Pontiac's claimed $143,025.57 in losses. DIG also meets Rule 23's typicality and adequacy requirements. Once a movant has demonstrated that it has the largest financial interest, it need only make a prima facie showing of its typicality and adequacy. Pontiac offers no case law supporting the proposition that a court should disregard an investor movant with the largest financial interest because that investor made arguments about the weakness of another investor's claim in its lead plaintiff briefing. From the Plaintiffs' perspective, it may seem unfair that the tactics the PSLRA urges upon them sometimes provide a collateral benefit to the Defendants. But the Judge cannot penalize a plaintiff for doing precisely what the statute commands. Judge therefore appointed DIG as the Lead Plaintiff. DIG has selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as the lead counsel and this designation will be approved. Levi & Korsinsky LLP has experience as lead counsel in securities class action lawsuits, including lawsuits in this district. The Judge approved the Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel. Accordingly, Judge Tigar granted DIG's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel, and denied Pontiac's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/soWxdv from Leagle.com. Inchen Huang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Inchen Huang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Depomed Investor Group, "Lead Plantiff", Plaintiff, represented by Adam Christopher McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Adam Marc Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Nicholas Ian Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice & Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Depomed, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael A. Mugmon -- michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Rebecca A. Girolamo -- becky.girolamo@wilmerhale.com - - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP. Arthur Joseph Higgins, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Mugmon, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Rebecca A. Girolamo, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP. James A. Schoeneck, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Mugmon, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Rebecca A. Girolamo, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP. August J. Moretti, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Mugmon, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Rebecca A. Girolamo, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP. City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Movant, represented by Michael A. Mugmon, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Rebecca A. Girolamo, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP. Brian Shrader, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. John Lucas, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lesley F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Joe Bojues, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Thomas J. Bruch, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP. Steven Robert Farrar, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP. Dennis J. Seltzer, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP. David Weinstein, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP. Gerald Ross, Interested Party, represented by Benjamin Heikali -- bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Attorney Argues in Hip Implant Case Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement -- paul.clement@kirkland.com -- had just begun listing a host of evidentiary errors that led to a $502 million hip implant verdict against his client, DePuy Orthopaedics, when he got this unexpected question from 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith: "You're not making a request this would be retried to a different district judge. I assume you're not suggesting that the errors are serious enough that we'd consider that alternative, which is rarely granted?" That opened a window, at least a crack, in favor of Johnson & Johnson, DePuy's parent corporation. The New Jersey-based company has long criticized U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade for establishing jurisdiction over consolidated trials in 9,300 cases in multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Texas. Those trials have lead to other verdicts of $1.04 billion and $247 million in November. Mr. Smith, if you recall, wrote a 5th Circuit opinion in October in a separate case finding Kinkeade had committed "grave error" in establishing jurisdiction in those trials. But in oral arguments in December, Mr. Smith said he wasn't sure he could reassign the case if nobody asked him to. In a supplemental brief, Mr. Clement wrote that he could. "In short, the court has the power to reassign a case sua sponte and has done so in practice." Check out the oral arguments between Mr. Clement and plaintiffs attorneys Ken Starr and Mark Lanier. The name of Saddam Hussein comes up a lot, and at one point a panelist remarked: "I feel like I'm going to have to get some popcorn." [GN] DISNEY STORE: "Wolz" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA WOLZ, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. DISNEY STORE USA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24697-RNS (S.D. Fla., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Disney operated as an organization which sells and/or markets its services and/or goods to customers from throughout the United States and from outside of the United States, and also provides its services for goods sold and transported from across state lines of other states, and Disney obtains and solicits funds from non-Florida sources. While employed by Disney, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being compensated at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed. Plaintiff was employed as an assistant manager, performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated assistant managers whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. The Plaintiff was paid approximately $29.10 per hour, but was required to work through her breaks without pay. This means that when Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week, she was not paid $43.65 per hour ($29.10 x 1.5), and when Plaintiff did not work more than 40 hours per week, she was not paid $29.10 per hour, or at least the corresponding minimum wage in Florida. Disney did not properly compensate Plaintiff for working through her breaks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503 5131 Facsimile: (888) 270 5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com DNC TRAVEL: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Abrica Says -------------------------------------------------------- ISABEL ABRICA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DNC TRAVEL HOSPITALITY SVCS, a business entity of unknown form; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES TRAVEL HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC. aka DNC TRAVEL HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC688385 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges failed to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failed to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to maintain required records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of Defendants, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered, and continue to suffer, from loss of earnings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Dalia R. Khalil, Esq. Irina Kirnosova, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531 1900 Facsimile: (310) 531 1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com ikirnosova@maternlawgroup.com DOLCE INTERNATIONAL: Toler Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLIANDREA TOLER, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOLCE INTERNATIONAL - SAN JOSE, INC., a Delaware corporation; WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE OPERATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV321136 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in receiving minimum wages for all hours worked, minimum wages for missed meal and rest period premium pay, and accurate itemized wage statements. Dolce International/San Jose is a hotels and motel located in San Jose, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. Mai Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531 4214 Facsimile: (831) 634 0333 - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Court Approves Class Settlement in "Harbin" --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville, issued an Order granting approval of recommended Class Action Settlement in the case captioned DUSTIN HARBIN and JIMMY PRUITT, on behalf of themselves and the class defined herein, Plaintiffs, v. EMERGENCY COVERAGE CORPORATION and ACCOUNT RESOLUTION TEAM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-125 (E.D. Tenn.). Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that the parties' joint motion for an order conditionally certifying class and granting preliminary approval of class settlement agreement be granted. The matter is certified as a class action for settlement purposes only on behalf of the following class: (a) All persons sued by Defendants; (b) in the General Session Court of Hamblen County, Tennessee; (c) that had garnishments issued against their wages that included amounts of post-judgment interest or fees that exceeded the amount allowed under Tennessee state law; (d) that made payments to Defendants as a result of the wrongful garnishments issued to their employers by garnishments of wages or direct payment to the clerk between March 16, 2013, and ending on April 5, 2016. The Court appoints Alan C. Lee, Peter A. Holland, and Scott C. Borison as Class Counsel. The Court designates Dustin Harbin and Jimmy Pruitt as the representatives of the Class. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycupp82y from Leagle.com. Dustin Harbin, Plaintiff, represented by Alan C. Lee, Alan C. Lee, Attorney, 400 W 1st North St, Ste A Morristown, TN 37814 Dustin Harbin, Plaintiff, represented by Peter A. Holland -- peter@hollandlawfirm.com -- The Holland Law Firm, P.C. & Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm, LLC, 5500 Buckeystown Pike. Frederick, Maryland 21703. Jimmy Pruitt, Plaintiff, represented by Peter A. Holland, The Holland Law Firm, P.C., Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm, LLC. & Alan C. Lee, Alan C. Lee, Attorney. Emergency Coverage Corporation, Defendant, represented by John M. Lawhorn -- jlawhorn@fmsllp.com -- Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, LLP. Account Resolution Team, Inc., Defendant, represented by John M. Lawhorn, Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, LLP. EQUIFAX INC: Two NH Data Breach Suits Transferred to Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that two federal lawsuits filed in New Hampshire against credit monitoring company Equifax over a massive data breach have been transferred to the court in Georgia. Numerous lawsuits seeking class-action status have been filed against Atlanta-based Equifax. The lawsuits filed in New Hampshire request a trial and seek a lifetime of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services from a different company. They were among 76 civil actions transferred to the Northern District of Georgia for consolidation. The plaintiffs and others suffered as a result of the breach and had to pay for credit reports, credit freezes, monitoring services and other protective measures following the release of their personal information. The breach exposed the information of 145 million Americans. [GN] ERIE INDEMNITY: Breaches Subscriber's Agreement, Ritz Says ---------------------------------------------------------- LYNDA RITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, the Plaintiff, v. ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY, J. RALPH BORNEMAN, JR., TERRENCE W. CAVANAUGH, EUGENE C. CONNELL, LUANN DATESH, JONATHAN HIRT HAGEN, THOMAS B. HAGEN, C. SCOTT HARTZ, BRIAN A. HUDSON, SR., CLAUDE C. LILLY, III, GEORGE R. LUCORE, THOMAS W. PALMER, MARTIN P. SHEFFIELD, RICHARD L. STOVER, ELIZABETH A. HIRT VORSHECK and ROBERT C. WILBURN, the Defendants, and ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, the Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00340 (W.D. Pa., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover damages for herself and the Class for harm suffered as a result of the Defendants' utter disregard of their fiduciary duties while serving as the attorney-in-fact for the Class as well as for the breaching the Subscriber's Agreement by charging unwarranted and excessive Management Fees in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Erie Indemnity Company provides management services to the member companies of the Erie Insurance Group, which includes Erie Insurance Exchange, Flagship City Insurance Company, Erie Insurance Company, Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company, Erie Insurance Company of New York and Erie Family Life[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Peter A. Muhic, Esq. Robin Winchester, Esq. KESSLER, TOPAZ, MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19807 Telephone: (610) 667 7706 Facsimile: (610) 667 7056 - and - William M. Radcliffe, Esq. RADCLIFFE & DEHAAS, LLP 2 West Main Street, Suite 700 Uniontown, PA 15401 Telephone: (724) 439 3900 Facsimile: (724) 439 3335 GENERAL ELECTRIC: Labaton Expands Securities Case Class Period -------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") disclosed that on December 18, 2017, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Tampa Maritime Association-International Longshoremen's Association Pension Plan ("TMA-ILA") against General Electric Company ("General Electric" or the "Company") (NYSE:GE), and certain of its senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Tampa Maritime Association-International Longshoremen's Association Pension Plan v. General Electric Company, No. 1:17-cv-09888 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of General Electric between December 15, 2016 and November 10, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint expands the class period asserted in the related consolidated action against General Electric, captioned Hachem v. General Electric Company, No. 1:17-cv-08457-JMF (S.D.N.Y.) ("Hachem"), which is presently pending before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman. Pursuant to the notice published on November 1, 2017 in connection with the filing of the first-filed Hachem action, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities actions pending against General Electric are required to file a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff by no later than January 2, 2018. General Electric is a multi-national conglomerate with operations that are organized across various business segments, including GE Power, GE Capital, and Oil & Gas. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, General Electric failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's various operating segments, including the Power and Oil & Gas segments, were underperforming Company projections, with order drops, excess inventories and increased costs; (2) GE Capital's long-term care reserves were understated by billions of dollars in violation of applicable accounting and insurance regulations; (3) by materially under-reserving for liabilities related to long-term care policies, General Electric was able to maintain cash flow for its quarterly dividend payments; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, General Electric materially overstated its earnings and cash flows during the Class Period. On October 20, 2017, the Company disclosed disappointing results in the Power segment and revealed elevated claims within GE Capital's legacy insurance business, forcing the Company to suspend the payment of approximately $ 3 billion of additional GE Capital dividends to General Electric. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $ 1.51 per share, or nearly 7 percent, to close at $ 22.32 per share on October 23, 2017. Thereafter, on November 13, 2017, General Electric shocked the market by slashing its annual dividend in half, from $ 0.96 to $ 0.48 per share, as the Company confirmed that GE Capital would not be paying a dividend to General Electric in 2018. On this news, General Electric's stock price fell $ 1.47 per share, or over 7 percent, to close at $ 19.02 per share on November 13, 2017. If you purchased or acquired General Electric securities during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than January 2, 2018. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P. McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the complaint online at https://is.gd/2pxwqt TMA-ILA is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets under management of more than $ 2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half-century of securities litigation experience, more than 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, IL. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com [GN] GLOBAL BROKERAGE: Chapter 11 May Stay Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Nikolova, writing for Finance Feeds, reports that the former and current executives of Global Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR), known in the past as FXCM Inc, may see one of the big lawsuits against them stayed as a result of the company's filing for Chapter 11. The case in question is the so-called "mega lawsuit" brought by investors, such as 683 Capital Partners, LP and Shipco Transport Inc. The case, captioned "In re Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM Inc. Securities Litigation" (1:17-cv-00916), is a class action on behalf of investors in the public securities of FXCM Inc. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded FXCM securities from March 15, 2012 to February 6, 2017. The plaintiffs accuse the broker and a number of its senior executives and employees of violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that FXCM misled its clients, investors and the regulators by claiming that the company's "No Dealing Desk" ("NDD") platform would provide its customers with a Forex trading platform that was free of conflicts of interest. As a result of the investigations by the CFTC and NFA, the allegations and penalties, the price of FXCM's stock dropped sharply, losing more than half of its value and damaging investors. Whereas the case had been gradually progressing at the New York Southern District Court, the Chapter 11 move by Global Brokerage changed the development. The bankruptcy filing has already triggered an automatic stay, at least insofar as this lawsuit was brought against Defendant Global Brokerage. But the stay may also apply to individual defendants, as the latest court filings show. On Friday, December 15, 2017, Judge Ronnie Abrams signed an order concerning the individual defendants in this case: Dror Niv, William Ahdout, David Sakhai, Eduard Yusupov, Janelle G. Lester, Robert Lande, Omit Niv, Nicola Santoro, Jr., Margaret Deverell, David S. Sassoon, Kenneth Grossman, James Brown, Ryan Silverman, Arthur Gruen, Robin E. Davis, Eric LeGoff, and Bryan Reyhani. The plaintiffs and individual defendants in this case are directed to submit a joint letter, no later than December 29, 2017, indicating whether this case should proceed against the individual defendants, or whether the entire case should be stayed. Putting it bluntly, less than a year after the findings made by US authorities concerning FXCM and its NDD model became public, triggering the bans on the company and Mr Niv from the US market, Global Brokerage files for bankruptcy and this actually helps the company and its top executives alleviate the litigation burden on them. There are a number of other cases against Global Brokerage in the United States -- the proceedings against the broker have been stayed and we are curious to see whether the individual defendants there will also be given a chance to make use of a stay. [GN] GOSCH AUTO: Sued for Wrongfully Classifying Employees ----------------------------------------------------- Eric Freedman and Jackie Charniga, writing for Fixed Ops Journal, report that a Southern California dealership group wrongfully classified its service advisers under state labor law to avoid paying them for overtime, meal breaks that they missed and rest periods, a proposed class action lawsuit alleges. Jim Wolleson, a Gosch Auto Group service adviser from August 2015 to August 2017, filed the case in Riverside County Superior Court on behalf of all service advisers who worked for the company during the past four years. The group sells Ford, Chevrolet, Hyundai and Toyota vehicles at five dealerships in Hemet and Temecula, Calif. The suit claims all the group's service advisers were misclassified as exempt from overtime wages and other requirements. It asserts that the company had a "uniform policy and practice which failed to lawfully compensate these employees for all their unpaid overtime and their missed meal breaks and unpaid rest periods." Tim Gosch, the general manager of Gosch Toyota in Hemet, said he couldn't comment. The trigger for the suit was a recent state appeals court decision that employees paid on commission "must be separately compensated for rest periods," said Mr. Wolleson's lawyer, Nicholas De Blouw of La Jolla, Calif. Mr. De Blouw predicted similar class action lawsuits against other dealerships on behalf of service advisers and F&I managers. "This is just the beginning," he said. [GN] GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Won't Reconsider Denial of Remand ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration in the case captioned MEGAN STONE and CHRISTINE CAROSI, Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C16-5383 BHS (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiffs Megan Stone and Christine Carosi's filed a motion to remand. The Court denied the motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Court's conclusion is manifest error. The Ninth Circuit instructs district courts to evaluate CAFA jurisdiction based on the reality of what is at stake in the litigation. While Plaintiffs are correct that the Court could easily dispose of any coverage issue or, at the conclusion of the matter, limit such fees, the potential for an award of fees at the time of removal are all the fees associated with this highly contested class action. As such, an award of $1.34 million for an attorney with an hourly rate of $900 and with potential multipliers is arguably reasonable. The Court stands by its conclusion that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yba59eyl from Leagle.com. Megan Stone, individually and as the representatives of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen M. Hansen, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN, 1821 Dock St Ste 103, Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Megan Stone, individually and as the representatives of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott P. Nealey -- snealey@nealeylaw.com -- NEALEY LAW, pro hac vice. Christine Carosi, individually and as the representatives of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen M. Hansen, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN & Scott P. Nealey, NEALEY LAW, pro hac vice. GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Andrea H. McNeely -- amcneely@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP, Joshua Grabel -- jgrabel@lrrc.com -- LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE, pro hac vice, Leland Clay Selby, Jr. -- Clay@LedgerSquareLaw.com -- LEDGER SQUARE LAW P.S. & Stephanie L. Bloomfield -- sbloomfield@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP. HANLEES AUTO: Parr Sues over Wage and Hour Violations ----------------------------------------------------- The case, RICHARD PARR individually, as a representative aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HANLEES AUTO GROUP; HANLEES DAVIS, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES ACTION DA VIS TOYOTA; HANLEES FREEMONT, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES FREEMONT HYUNDAI; HANLEES HILLTOP, INC., California Corporation, dba HANLEES HILLTOP TOYOTA; HANLEES NAPA, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES NAPA SUBARU AND VOLKSWAGEN; HANLEES SEVEN, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES HILLTOP HYUNDAI; DKD OF NAPA, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM OF NAPA; DKD OF HILLTOP, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES HILLTOP BUICK GMC; DOHAN, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES CHEVROLET; 24 11 LEEHAN, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES HILLTOP NISSAN; LHH, INC., a 25 California Corporation, dba HANLEES HILLTOP 26 11 VOLKSWAGEN; DONG K. LEE; KYONG S. HAN; DONG I. LEE; and DOES 1 through 20, the Defendants, Case No. RG17887089 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2017), alleges that the Defendants did not want to pay premium wages (for missed meal and rest breaks) to their auto dealership employees. But instead of simply permitting their employees to take meal and rest breaks, Defendants achieved their goal by falsifying time records to make it appear that employees were getting breaks, even though Defendants knew they were not. In addition to denying their employees proper meal and rest breaks, Defendants engaged in numerous other California Labor Code violations, including failing to compensate employees for all hours worked, failing to properly pay overtime compensation, and engaging in false and fraudulent recordkeeping practices. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged -- and continue to engage -- in a pattern of violations of IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and 7-20012 and of numerous Labor Code sections. In addition to damages, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties under PAGA against Defendants for these violations as a representative of all current and former aggrieved employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq. Brian S. Conlon, Esq. PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP 39 Mesa Street, Suite 201 The Presidio San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 398 0900 Facsimile: (415) 398 0911 E-mail: nac@phillaw.com bsc@phillaw.com HEAVY WEIGHT: Court Awards $133K Attorney's Fees in "Maldonaldo" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned Martin Maldonado and Julio Lainez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Heavy Weight Transport, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08838-CAS(RAOx) (C.D. Cal.). The Court finally certifies the following Class: All California residents who are or have been employed as truck drivers by Heavy Weight Transport, Inc. in California during the Class Period from November 29, 2012 through August 15, 2017. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Martin Maldonado and Julio Lainez as Class Representatives. The Court appoints Craig J. Ackermann and Sam Vahedi of Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C., and Julian Hammond of HammonLaw, P.C. as counsel for the Class. The Court grants a Class Representative Enhancement award of $7,500 to each Plaintiff, for a total allocation of $15,000. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Attorneys' request for an award of Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $113,333.33 and costs in the amount of $7,500.00. The $8,000 designated for payment to CPT Group, Inc., the Settlement Administrator, is fair and reasonable. The Court grants final approval of, and orders the Parties to make the payment to the Settlement Administrator in accordance with the Settlement. The Court approves the allocation of $5,000 of the Settlement as payment for penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA), and further approves of payment of $3,750 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for its portion of the PAGA penalties pursuant to Cal. Labor Code sections 2698-2699. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya6nrurc from Leagle.com. Martin Maldonado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sam Vahedi - sv@svalawyers.com -- Ackermann and Tilajef PC. Martin Maldonado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Cherniak -- ari.cherniak@gmail.com -- HammondLaw PC, Julian Ari Hammond -- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw PC, Polina Pecherskaya -- ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLawPC & Craig J. Ackermann -- cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann and Tilajef PC. Julio Lainez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sam Vahedi, Ackermann and Tilajef PC, Ari Cherniak, HammondLaw PC, Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw PC, Polina Pecherskaya, HammondLawPC & Craig J. Ackermann, Ackermann and Tilajef PC. Heavy Weight Transport, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory A. Garbacz -- ggarbacz@klinedinst.law.com -- Klinedinst PC & Andrea F. Oxman -- AOxman@klinedinstlaw.com -- Klinedinst PC. HEFFLER RADETICH: Averts Bank of America Investors' Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Cueto, writing for Law360, reports that Heffler Radetich & Saitta, an accounting firm that was sued after it distributed $6 million in settlement funds meant for Bank of America Corp. investors to a fraudster, was able to get out of a class action brought by the investors on Dec. 15 after U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois changed his mind about the class being entitled to an extension on the statute of limitations. [GN] HF MANAGEMENT: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended "Thind" Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KANWARPREET THIND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a HEALTHFIRST, Defendant, Case No. 14 Civ. 9539 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Named Plaintiff initiated the putative collective and class action on Dec. 3, 2014. He filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on Feb. 20, 2015. The FAC alleged that the Named Plaintiff worked for Healthfirst as a Facilitated Enroller ("FE") from Aug. 24, 2009 to Jan. 24, 2012, and as a Manager for Sales ("Manager") from Jan. 25, 2012, to Aug. 21, 2014. The FAC alleged six causes of action based on alleged violations of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). In an Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the FAC's causes of action based on Healthfirst's alleged failure to pay the minimum wage and to pay wages in accordance with the agreed terms of employment under NYLL. On July 31, 2015, the Court granted the Named Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of two FLSA collectives -- Collective A and Collective B -- as to the FAC's FLSA overtime claim only. Collective A included all current and former Healthfirst employees who worked as Managers in the Facilitated Enrollment Department in the three years before the filing of the initial complaint and who did not receive overtime pay. Collective B included all current and former Healthfirst employees who worked as FEs in the three years before the filing of the initial complaint and who did not receive overtime pay. On May 12, 2016, the Defendant moved to decertify Collective B, arguing that Named Plaintiff and the Opt-In Plaintiffs were not similarly situated. In an Opinion and Order dated Dec. 9, 2016, the Court decertified Collective B, holding that Thind cannot demonstrate that Healthfirst employed a single, uniform policy of explicitly directing Facilitated Enrollers to work off the clock in violation of its clear written policy. On June 19, 2017, the Named Plaintiff filed the Complaint, the operative pleading on the motion. On July 7, 2017, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint, alleging that the Complaint exceeds the scope of the December 9 Opinion because it includes allegations that are inconsistent with or contrary to what has come out in discovery. The Defendant argues that the Complaint should be dismissed because it includes allegations that the Named Plaintiff disavowed in his June 19, 2015, deposition testimony, and therefore, it exceeds the scope of the Court's leave to file an amended complaint. Specifically, it argues that the Named Plaintiff admitted the falsity of three allegations in the Complaint: (i) that the Named Plaintiff worked between seventy and eight hours per week, seven days a week; (ii) that the Named Plaintiff worked on specific days and times from Aug. 11, 2014 to Aug. 17, 2014; and (iii) that the Named Plaintiff did not exercise any independent authority or direct the work of any other employees. Judge Schofield denied the Defendant's Motion as none of the Complaint's alleged falsities is so egregious or material as to justify dismissing it. First, the Judge finds that although the Complaint exaggerates the number of overtime hours that the Named Plaintiff actually worked, nothing in his deposition contradicts or materially changes the Complaint's central allegation that he regularly worked overtime hours and did not receive overtime pay. The Named Plaintiff consistently testified that he averaged 50 to 60 hours per week. To the extent that the Defendant implies that these statements constitute an admission that the Named Plaintiff did not work any overtime hours, he says the Defendant mischaracterizes the Named Plaintiff's testimony. Next, the Defendant's argument that the Complaint's allegations regarding the Named Plaintiff's Aug. 11, 2014 through Aug. 17, 2014, work schedule are false (or that they lack a "good faith" basis) also fails. The Named Plaintiff testified that, although he could not remember his schedule for Aug. 11, 2014, he remembered it at the time that he filed the initial complaint (almost a year earlier). The Defendant's motion omits entirely this portion of the Named Plaintiff's testimony, which undercuts, if not directly controverts, its claim that the Named Plaintiff "lacked a good faith basis" for this allegation. Lastly, Judge Schofield finds that the Named Plaintiff's testimony regarding the nature and scope of his role as a Healthfirst Manager is compatible with the Complaint's allegation that the Named Plaintiff did not "exercise independent authority." That the Named Plaintiff confirmed that the job description on his resume is accurate (and perhaps overstated) does not negate the allegations in the Complaint regarding his role as a Healthfirst Manager. To the extent that the Complaint exceeds the scope of the Court's leave to amend by including the challenged allegations, the transgression is minor and the Court will not dismiss on this ground. Therefore, Judge Schofield denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint, and denied as moot the Defendant's motion for oral argument. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket No. 320. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/T03HBJ from Leagle.com. Kanwarpreet Thind, on behalf of himself and all others similarly- situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Gershbaum, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC. Kanwarpreet Thind, on behalf of himself and all others similarly- situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Alan Roth, Roth & Roth, LLP, Justin Robert Marino -- jmarino@stevensonmarino.com -- Stevenson Marino LLP, Rebecca Solomon Predovan , Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth PLLC & John Russell Stevenson -- jrs@jrstevensonlaw.com -- Stevenson Marino LLP. Ada Wan Ying Cheung, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Carol J. Dammann, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Andrea Damour, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Yary Perez, Plaintiff, Pro Se. William Stanford, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Victoria Rubio, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Torye Perez, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Satinder Kalir, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Healthfirst, Inc., doing business as Healthfirst, Defendant, represented by Andrew Paul Marks -- amarks@dorflaw.com -- Dorf & Nelson LLP, Seth L. Levine -- slevine@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP, Aaron Isaac Karp -- akarp@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP & Scott B. Klugman -- sklugman@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP. HF Management Services, LLC, doing business as Healthfirst, Defendant, represented by Andrew Paul Marks, Dorf & Nelson LLP, Seth L. Levine, Levine Lee LLP, Aaron Isaac Karp, Levine Lee LLP & Scott B. Klugman, Levine Lee LLP. Healthfirst PHSP, Inc., doing business as Healthfirst, Defendant, represented by Andrew Paul Marks, Dorf & Nelson LLP, Seth L. Levine, Levine Lee LLP, Aaron Isaac Karp, Levine Lee LLP & Scott B. Klugman, Levine Lee LLP. HTL ENTERPRISES: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ, and OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. HTL ENTERPRISES, INC., dba WINGSTOP INC., and HUNG VAN, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03908 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). According to the complaint, Wingstop paid Rodriguez, and other workers like him the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including many hours in excess of 40 in a workweek. Wingstop also failed to pay Rodriguez, and other workers like him for hours worked, including overtime hours, in a work week. Wingstop, incorporated on March 18, 2015, is franchisor and operator of restaurants that specializes in cooked-to-order, hand-sauced and tossed chicken wings. The Company operates through two segments: Franchise and Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeralynn Manor, Esq. THE MANOR LAW FIRM P.C. S.D. Tex. No. 378163 4504 Caroline Street Houston, TX 77004 Telephone: (713) 225 2667 Facsimile: (832) 778 8112 E-mail: jmanor@manorlaw.net JACKSON HEWITT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Junk Fax Suit -------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT INC., ASTRO TAX SERVICES LLC, and NAVEEN MATHUR, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-24-FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.). This is a junk fax case. Defendants transmitted by fax machine an unsolicited advertisement to Scoma. The fax consists of a one- page document describing a product of Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. Scoma alleges that it had not given Defendants permission or express invitation to send the fax, and that Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited facsimiles to it and others without the opt-out language and notice required by 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200. To avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and raise a right to relief above the speculative level. To state a claim for violation of the TCPA, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the fax is an advertisement; (2) the fax was unsolicited; and (3) the defendant(s) sent the fax to a telephone facsimile machine using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device. The Court finds persuasive a recent case from another division of this court, Senior Care Group, Inc. v. Red Parrot Distribution, Inc., No. 8:17-cv-760-T-27TGW, 2017 WL 3288288 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017), a TCPA case featuring the same plaintiffs' attorneys as this case and a complaint with similar allegations. In Red Parrot, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss upon concluding that the complaint sufficiently alleged defendants were senders of the fax at issue. There, the court noted that the 2008 Junk Fax Order also explains that the sender does not need to be the individual who actually sent the fax, only that the sender is the benefitting party. Within that framework, the court determined that the plaintiff's allegations that the fax was unsolicited and an advertisement prominently displaying Defendant's name, the goods and services that it purveys, and its contact information, in addition to allegations that the fax was sent by or on behalf of the Defendants advertising products, goods and services of the Defendants during the Class Period, satisfied the statutory definition of sender and its complaint survived dismissal. Given the similarities between the allegations in Red Parrotand here, the Court agrees with the reasoning of its colleague and finds that, at this juncture, where it must accept all factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Scoma, the SAC is sufficient to survive the motions to dismiss. Jackson Hewitt again argues that the class allegations do not comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because they merely recite portions of the TCPA and allege wrongdoing upon information and belief providing no factual support. To satisfy Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must give defendants fair notice of a plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. While detailed factual allegations are unnecessary, vague allegations of unlawful harm, without more, are insufficient. The Complaint's allegations satisfy this standard. Here, although the SAC again pleads on information and belief, recites portions of the statute, and contains allegations of years of unauthorized faxes sent to the putative class members, it also includes additional allegations beyond the "bare bones" allegations of the prior complaint. In addressing that prior complaint, the Court noted: "To be clear, the Court is not deciding the propriety of class certification at this stage. Rather, because Scoma will be permitted to file a second amended complaint to address the deficiencies the Court will also direct Scoma to include additional factual information to support the basis for the proposed class, if available." A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated Dec. 11, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/5uPrys from Leagle.com. Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good -rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice. Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale A. Evans, Jr. -- dale.evans@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De Simone --michael.simone@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas Justin Cunningham -- tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP. Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Dale A. Evans, Jr., Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De Simone, Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas Justin Cunningham, Locke Lord, LLP. Astro Tax Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Jarred D. Duke -- jarred.duke@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC & Fowler White Boggs. Naveen Mathur, Defendant, represented by Jarred D. Duke, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC & Fowler White Boggs. JAVA JOE'S: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in Southern District New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Java Joe's Fundraising, LLC. The case is styled as Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Java Joe's Fundraising, LLC. and Michael DeLuca, Defendants, Case No1: 7:18-cv-00049 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018). Java Joe's Fundraising, LLC is a Gourmet coffee and coffee fundraising.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. JIMMY JOHN'S: Workers' Wage-Theft Class Action Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashok Selvam, writing for Chicago Eater, reports that the group of workers challenging Jimmy John's over wage-theft allegations in a class-action lawsuit can proceed with their legal battle. The workers scored a court victory when a Chicago judge ruled they could continue their case against the Champaign-based chain. James John Liautaud's chain is accused of misrepresenting how much time its hourly employees work to dodge overtime costs and minimum wage violations. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with $15-Mil. Pelvic Mesh Verdict -------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a jury came back on Dec. 14 with a $15 million pelvic mesh verdict against Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon division in the second bellwether case in New Jersey state court, where 2,000 pelvic mesh cases are pending against Ethicon. It's a big win for Adam Slater -- aslater@mazieslater.com -- of Mazie Slater, who got an $11 million verdict back in 2014 in the first pelvic mesh trial in New Jersey against Ethicon. Mr. Slater noted that the award included $10 million in punitive damages. With the second case over, he said, "every single important legal ruling has been made, so trying these cases going forward is going to be very streamlined." [GN] LAWRENCE J. MAZZOLA: Plumbers Fund Asks Court to Quash Subpoena --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO; RECIPROCITY COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO; TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND; RECIPROCITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Movants; ROBERT BRADLEY NORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LAWRENCE J. MAZZOLA, JR., ROBERT E. BUCKLEY, JR., ARMAND KILIJIAN; SCOTT STRAWBRIDGE; FRED NURISSO; DANIEL ORSOT; MILT GOODMAN; STEVE JENNINGS; WILLIAM BLACKWELL; FRANK REARDON; JOHN CHIARENZA; TONY GUTZZETTA; R.J. FERRARI, in their current or former capacities as trustees or fiduciaries of the United Association Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan; PETER MACHI, in his capacity as administrator of the United Association Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-mc-80168-JSC (D.C., Dec. 22, 2017), the Movants ask the Court for an order quashing subpoena to produce documents, information or objects or to permit inspection of Premises in a Civil Action, served on each party on April 20, 2017, that was issued by the Defendants in the case of Norris v. Mazzola Jr., Case No. 15-cv-4962 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct 28, 2015) (Norris Action), returnable in the District of Columbia on May 1, 2017.[BN] Attorneys for Movants: Louis P. Malone III, Esq. O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE LLP 4748 Wisconsin Ave., NW Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 362 0041 Facsimile: (202) 237 1200 E-mail: Imalone@odonoghuelaw.com LEANING TREE: Stern & Monahan Sue over Rental Agreement ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID STERN & ANN MONAHAN, Individually And As Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs, v. LEANING TREE CHUTE LLC & RESIDE LIVING LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-17101 (in the Circuit Court Of Cook County, Ill., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover damages causes by Defendant's defective rental agreement. This class action complaint is brought pursuant to the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Section 5-12-170. Pursuant to Chicago RLTO Section 5-12-010, the RLTO is to be "liberally construed and applied to promote its policies and purposes." The Plaintiffs were tenants at 3170 N. Sheridan Rd., Unit 1208, Chicago, Illinois 60657 (Sheridan Building or 3170 Sheridan). The Sheridan building is a large residential apartment building in Chicago containing over 300 residential rental dwelling units. The Defendant was an owner, lessor, and landlord of 3170 Sheridan. The Reside Living LLC, served as lessor, authorized management of the building, and agent for the building's owner at 3170 Sheridan. The Defendant Reside Living LLC prepared and offered rental agreements and renewals to prospective tenants and tenants, on behalf of owners, and under the control and at the direction of the owners. Additionally Reside Living, collected rent and fees directly from tenants and deposited rent received into their business account(s). Collecting and depositing monthly rent and deposits, and preparing, offering, and executing rental agreements and renewals to Chicago tenants, including required disclosures, is within the scope of Reside Living's duties and responsibilities as building management, lessor, and/or agent at the Sheridan Building. On June 5, 2016, Defendant Reside Living LLC offered Plaintiffs a 13 page rental agreement for their unit at the Sheridan Building. As management and business practice, Defendants do not provide Chicago tenants at the Sheridan Building with the most current RLTO Summary and Separate Summary that is made for inspection and copying by the City of Chicago Commissioner of Department of Buildings, when rental agreements are initially offered and renewed, as mandated by Section 5-12-170. As management and business practice, Defendant Reside Living LLC does not provide Chicago tenants at its managed buildings with the RLTO Summary and Separate Summary that is made for inspection and copying by the City of Chicago Commissioner of Department of Buildings, when rental agreements are initially offered and renewed, as mandated by Section 5-12-170. Defendants have offered the same rental agreement with the same defective summaries to all of its Chicago tenants, within the last two years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.C. 225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 924 0278 Facsimile: (312) 650 824l - and - MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775 1015 Facsimile: (312) 256 2055 LEIDOS HEALTH: Bid to Stay Conditional Cert. Briefing Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned AYODEJI OSHIKOYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LEIDOS HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03237-RLM-DML (S.D. Ind.), Judge Debra McVicker Lynch of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted in part and denied in part Leidos' motion to stay conditional certification briefing. The case was recently transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Leidos violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by misclassifying as independent contractors, and on that basis failing to pay overtime wages to, persons it hires to provide training services to Leidos' healthcare clients in the use of electronic recordkeeping systems. The Plaintiff seeks to represent himself and "similarly situated" persons in a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Plaintiff also alleges that Leidos violated a Pennsylvania wage statute by misclassifying employees and failing to pay required overtime and seeks to represent a Rule 23 class for the state law claim. After the transfer, the Plaintiff filed his motion for conditional certification of a Section 216(b) class. Leidos asks the Court to stay briefing and ruling on that motion until the parties conduct discovery pertinent to the Section 216(b) certification issue (and discovery pertinent to a decision whether a Rule 23 class should be certified for the state law claim(s)). It posits that allowing a period of discovery will result in a more efficiently-managed case. The Plaintiff opposes the motion principally on the ground that Leidos' proposal is inconsistent with standards courts have adopted for deciding whether an FLSA opt-in class conditionally should be certified. Judge Lynch granted in part and denied in part Leidos' motion to stay conditional certification briefing. He finds that a period of discovery is appropriate and a stay of briefing should be imposed to accommodate that discovery. He says Leidos is not suggesting that full merits discovery should be conducted before certification is addressed, but because full discovery will not have occurred, the Court may be unable to make a final decision about the propriety of allowing a Section 216(b) "class." Some discovery may appropriately be delayed, but only if the Plaintiff has some lighter burden on the certification/notice issue. The Judge cannot make these determinations in a vacuum, which is why the level of scrutiny ultimately applied will depend on the depth and scope of the discovery that was conducted or was reasonably available to conduct. The Judge does not prevent the Plaintiff from arguing in response to the Defendant's opposition to the certification of a Section 216(b) collective that sub-classes could be created or the class could be redefined to obviate the Defendant's objections. He tolled the limitations period for potential opt-in Plaintiffs until it is determined whether a collective action is certified and, if so, the period for the Plaintiffs to opt in has expired. Judge Lynch stayed Leidos' deadline for responding to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and notice until April 30, 2018. The Plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion to certify Rule 23 class(es) is April 30, 2018. A period for discovery focused on Section 216(b) "certification" and to certification of Rule 23 classes is now open and it closes on April 9, 2018. He directed that the parties must cooperate with one another to efficiently conduct this discovery. They must propound initial rounds of written discovery, if any, within 30 days of the entry of the Order on the docket; must promptly address and attempt to resolve any discovery disputes; and must cooperate in scheduling any depositions so that they are completed by April 9, 2018. The Plaintiff's reply brief on the Section 216(b) issue is due 28 days after service of Leidos' response. Leidos' brief in response to a Rule 23 certification motion is due 28 days after service of the Plaintiff's opening brief, and the Plaintiff's reply brief is due 14 days after service of the response brief. If the Plaintiff revises, or offers to revise, the class definitions in the reply brief(s), Leidos may seek to file a sur- reply to address that issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/9H81Xf from Leagle.com. AYODEJI OSHIKOYA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC. AYODEJI OSHIKOYA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra K. Piazza -- apiazza@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, David Michael Blanchard -- blanchard@bwlawonline.com -- BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC, Jeffrey A. Macey -- jmacey@maceylaw.com -- MACEY SWANSON & ALLMAN, Kristi Cahoon Kelly -- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC, Olena Savytska -- osavytska@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., pro hac vice, Sarah R. Schalman- Bergen -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. & Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- BERGER & MONGAGUE, P.C. LEIDOS HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher E. Humber -- chumber@hunton.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK, & STEWART, P.C., Christopher C. Murray -- christopher.murray@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Michael J. Murphy -- michael.murphy@ogletree.com - - OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART & Zachary Stevens Stinson -- zachary.stinson@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC. LOS ANGELES, CA: Parents & Teachers Sue Over Construction Plans --------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that parents and teachers want a developer and the city of Los Angeles to halt construction on a project adjacent to a school's kindergarten playground, claiming toxic dust and other poisonous contaminants will be in the air during demolition, excavation and construction. The 24-page class action says "toxic dust" and other poisonous contaminants will be in the air during demolition, excavation and construction of the project on the fence-line of a kindergarten playground at Palms Elementary School in west Los Angeles north of Culver City. Filed on behalf of the students and teachers by parent and attorney Olu K. Orange, the 24-page class action says "through backroom deals, and meetings with politicians where parents were specifically excluded, the city and developer have pushed the project through the approval process -- with no environmental impact review, no health risk analysis, and none of the standard protective measures" for the more than 350 children or their teachers at the Palms Elementary School near Culver City in West Los Angeles. LA planning director Vincent Bertoni, developer Hiro Kobayashi, and several other city staff are named as defendants in the federal class action, filed Dec. 15. City Councilman Paul Koretz, whose district includes the elementary school and development project, did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. According to the complaint, Mr. Koretz approved the project, ignoring parents' comments and even barring one parent from attending a community planning meeting. Mr. Koretz is not a party to the class action and his office said it would not comment on pending litigation. "The city, Bertoni, Koretz's office and developer have made a concerted effort to deny plaintiffs and parents the right and opportunity to know anything about the project, be heard about it, or have the benefit of an environmental study of it," the parents and teachers say in the complaint. A representative for Los Angeles Unified School District -- also not a party to the class action -- said it is working with "Councilman Koretz's office -- as well as parents, teachers, staff, the school community and the developer -- to ensure that the developer will implement mitigation measures that will limit the impacts to students and staff." Parents, students and teachers say they will be exposed to "increased risks of cancer and other health concerns from the toxins emitted" by the development project. The complaint says noise from the development will impact learning at the elementary school, including students in its Deaf and Hard of Hearing program. One plaintiff, a minor named S.G., wears a hearing aid. Sound is controlled in the classroom with carpet, fabric on the walls and a drop ceiling in order to reduce reverberation. Loud sounds are painful for students in the program, because they do not have a chance to adjust the volume on their devices and that could cause health concerns, according to the complaint. The developer's attorney, Elisa Paster with Glaser Weil, said in a statement: "Throughout the successful entitlement process, which was conducted according to all the city's rules and regulations, the developer has met with school leaders and city officials. As part of those briefings, two environmental reports were shared which reveal the soil on the project site is not contaminated. As with many older buildings in the LA area, the project will require asbestos abatement and lead paint removal by a certified vendor. "While the project is in its early stages, 3568 Motor LLC is committed to working with the neighboring community, as the project unfolds," Ms. Paster added. But Orange says city officials, including Mr. Koretz's staff, have made efforts to keep parents from community meetings and voicing their opinion on the development project. "How are you going to bar parents from attending those meetings when children are in harm's way?" Orange said in an interview. The claim that the community has been involved to give their input is 100 percent false, he said. The city did not provide the community enough time to voice any opposition to the project, and if they had the group would have sued sooner, he added. Orange found out about the project along with the rest of the community approximately a month ago. The city's response lacks empathy for the children at Palms Elementary School, Orange said. "I have two children who attend Palms Elementary," Orange said, adding, "And now I have 350 plus students." The putative class seeks damages for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the 14th Amendment, and want a judge to shut the project down completely until the proper reviews are conducted. They also seek punitive damages from Messrs. Bertoni and Kobayashi. [GN] MASON TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Hall" Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mason Transportation Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Sabrina Hall, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mason Transportation Services, Inc., K&J Auto Logistics, Inc., and Kembert Mason, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05237-TCB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 18, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. Mason Transportation is a freight and transport company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Alexander Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BRANDON A. THOMAS 1800 Peachtree Street, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 343 2441 Facsimile: (404) 352 5636 E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Fuentes" Moved to Central District of Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELIZABETH FUENTES, individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-2178-CAB-(NLS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the parties' Joint Motion to Transfer Case to the Central District of California Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule. On Oct. 24, 2017, Fuentes filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant in the Southern District of California alleging various wage and hour claims against the Defendant, including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages and related claims, along with a claim for violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On Jan. 15, 2016, Duran filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging a single cause of action for violation of PAGA. The Defendant removed the action to the Central District of California on Feb. 9, 2017. Subsequently, on Aug. 23, 2017, a Third Amended Complaint was filed in the Duran Action. The third amended complaint alleges putative class claims against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, violation of Labor Code sections 201-203, unfair competition, and a PAGA claim. On Oct. 27, 2017, Duran filed a notice of pendency of other actions with the Central District, informing the Court of the related Fuentes Action. After becoming aware of the similarities between their suits, Plaintiffs Fuentes and Duran agreed to consolidate their cases and request transfer of the case to the Central District under Case Number. 2:17-cv-01072 because the actions are related within the meaning of Local Civil Rule 40.le and g. Further, the parties in the Fuentes Action stipulated, agreed and jointly moved that it should be transferred in its entirety to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to the first-to-file rule so that it can be consolidated with the Duran Action. Upon consideration of the factors to be contemplated in deciding whether to apply the first to file rule, Judge Bencivengo finds they weigh in favor of transfer of the Fuentes Action to the Central District. Here, Duran filed her lawsuit over a year before Fuentes, with the governing complaint in the Central District being filed only a couple of months before the complaint filed in the Fuentes Action. Furthermore, Fuentes stipulation to join the Central District suit will result in all parties being present in the Duran Action. Additionally, the action in the Central District will resolve the myriad of related, if not identical, labor and employment issues raised in both actions. In light of this, and the parties in the Fuentes action joining in the current motion, the Judge chooses to apply the first-to- file rule. Accordingly, she granted the joint motion and transferred the action to the Central District. Upon transfer, the parties may request permission from the Hon. Andre Birotte Jr., to consolidate the matter with the Duran action. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/ymRGRi from Leagle.com. Elizabeth Fuentes, individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas D. Rutledge -- thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com -- Law Office of Thomas D Rutledge. MDL 2800: "Fausz" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ella J. Fausz, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00576, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05503-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nina B. Couch, Esq. Zachary L. Taylor, Esq. COUCH LAW, PLLC 2815 Taylorsville Rd., Suite 101 Louisville, KY 40205 Telephone: (502) 550 4933 Attorneys for Equifax Information Services LLC: John M. Williams, Esq. RAJKOVICH, WILLIAMS, KILPATRICK & TRUE, PLLC 3151 Beaumont Center Circle, Suite 375 Lexington, KY 40513 Telephone: (859) 245 1059 Facsimile: (859) 245 1231 MDL 2800: "Whitfill" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jennifer Whitfill, James Carroll Hood, Jennifer Goodman, Neva Joyce Hood, Larry Bentley Hood, and Thristian Michel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00771, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas, the, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17- cv-05490-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv- 05004-TWT. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shane Fredrick Langston, Esq. LANGSTON & LANGSTON PLLC 1161 La Mirada Court Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: (601) 214 0025 Facsimile: (601) 969 1356 - and - Daniel P Sullivan, Esq. STEPHEN C MAXWELL PC 1300 Summitt Avenue, Suite 650 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 546 5619 Facsimile: (817) 719 9484 - and - Stephen C Maxwell, Esq. BAILEY & GALYEN 1300 Summitt Avenue, Suite 650 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 417 9660 Facsimile: (817) 719 9484 The Defendants are represented by: Daniel D. McGuire, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 2950 N. Harwood Street, Suite 2100 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 661 5580 Facsimile: (214) 661 5580 MDL 2800: "Wong" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Stephanie L. Wong, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00489, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for District of Rhode Island, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05501-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 611 Commerce St., Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 97203 Telephone: (615) 434 7001 Facsimile: (615) 434 7020 - and - Melody A. Alger, Esq. ALGER LAW LLC 400 Westminster Street, Suite 401 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 277 1090 Facsimile: (401) 277 1094 MDL 2800: "Benson" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Robert Todd Benson, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00564, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, the, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05502-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett H. Oppenheimer, Esq. BRETT H. OPPENHEIMER, PLLC 401 Waterfront Park Place 222 East Witherspoon Street Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 749 5700 Facsimile: (502) 895 4336 - and - Jason T. Ams, Esq. V. Brandon McGrath, Esq. BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP - LEXINGTON 300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1100 Lexington, KY 40507-1665 Telephone: (859) 231 8500 Facsimile: (859) 255 2742 MDL 2800: "Hebrlee" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Craig Hebrlee, Dwight Thompson, Robert R Duncan, Susan Morin, Charles Morin, and James Hogan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc, and Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07120, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05493-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Hunter Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434 7001 Facsimile: (615) 434 7020 - and - James Henry Podolny, Esq. Robert R Duncan, Esq. DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 202 3281 The Defendants are represented by: Jade R. Lambert, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP-IL Suite 1650 444 W. Lake Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 764 6902 MDL 2800: "Smith" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Joshua Smith, John Fralick, Michael Herrmann, and Elexis Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02183, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17- cv-05499-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv- 05004-TWT. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin H. Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434 7001 Facsimile: (615) 434 7020 E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com MDL 2800: "Stiles" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Brijit Stiles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00144, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05504-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Melzer, Esq. Jeremy Heisler, Esq. Kevin H. Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP-NY 1350 Avenue of Americans, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402 5650 Facsimile: (646) 402 5651 E-mail: amelzer@sanfordheisler.com jheisler@sanfordheisler.com ksharp@sanfordheisler.com - and - D. Wes Sullenger, Esq. BOEHL STOPHER & GRAVES, LLP - PADUCAH 410 Broadway Street Paducah, KY 42002-9551 Telephone: (270) 442 4369 Facsimile: (270) 442 4689 The Defendants are represented by: John M. Williams, Esq. RAJKOVICH, WILLIAMS, KILPATRICK & TRUE, PLLC 3151 Beaumont Center Circle, Suite 375 Lexington, KY 40513 Telephone: (859) 245 1059 Facsimile: (859) 245 1231 MDL 2800: "Campbell" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Gary Campbell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01657, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05491-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17- cv-05004-TWT. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L Thayer, Esq. McKean J Evans, Esq. PIVOTAL LAW GROUP IBM Building 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1217 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 340 2008 MDL 2804: Suit vs AmerisourceBergen Consolidated in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center; Infirmary Health Hospitals, Inc. a corporation; and Monroe County Healthcare Authority doing business as: Monroe County Hospital, a corporation on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Federick Company, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Noramco Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis PLS; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Actavis Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00145, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Dec. 29, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17- op-45175-DAP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dan Aaron Polster. The Southwest Mississippi case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 5, 2017. In its December 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centraization in the Northern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The Plaintiffs in the actions before us are cities, counties and states that allege that: (1) manufacturers of prescription opioid medications overstated the benefits and downplayed the risks of the use of their opioids and aggressively marketed (directly and through key opinion leaders) these drugs to physicians, and/or (2) distributors failed to monitor, detect, investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders of prescription opiates. All actions involve common factual questions about, inter alia, the manufacturing and distributor defendants' knowledge of and conduct regarding the alleged diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers' alleged improper marketing of such drugs. Both manufacturers and distributors are under an obligation under the Controlled Substances Act and similar state laws to prevent diversion of opiates and other controlled substances into illicit channels. Plaintiffs assert that defendants have failed to adhere to those standards, which caused the diversion of opiates into their communities. Plaintiffs variously bring claims for violation of RICO statutes, consumer protection laws, state analogues to the Controlled Substances Act, as well as common law claims such as public nuisance, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John W. Barrett, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN BARRETT P. O. Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834 2488 Facsimile: (662) 834 2628 MDL 2804: Pension Fund Suit vs. Purdue Pharma Goes to N.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled United Food and Commercial Workers Health and Welfare Fund of Northeastern Pennsylvania, ON BEHAL FOF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; Abbott Laboratories; Abbott Laboratories, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon Inc. Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil- Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.; N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC; Actavis plc; Actavis Inc; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Watson Pharma, Inc.; McKesson Corporation; and Cardinal Health Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05078, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Dec. 28, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-op-45177- DAP to the proceeding. The United case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 5, 2017. In its December 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centraization in the Northern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The Plaintiffs in the actions before us are cities, counties and states that allege that: (1) manufacturers of prescription opioid medications overstated the benefits and downplayed the risks of the use of their opioids and aggressively marketed (directly and through key opinion leaders) these drugs to physicians, and/or (2) distributors failed to monitor, detect, investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders of prescription opiates. All actions involve common factual questions about, inter alia, the manufacturing and distributor defendants' knowledge of and conduct regarding the alleged diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers' alleged improper marketing of such drugs. Both manufacturers and distributors are under an obligation under the Controlled Substances Act and similar state laws to prevent diversion of opiates and other controlled substances into illicit channels. Plaintiffs assert that defendants have failed to adhere to those standards, which caused the diversion of opiates into their communities. Plaintiffs variously bring claims for violation of RICO statutes, consumer protection laws, state analogues to the Controlled Substances Act, as well as common law claims such as public nuisance, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Dan Aaron Polster. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Adam Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK One South Broad Street, Ste. 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567 6565 Facsimile: (215) 568 5872 Attorneys for Cardinal Health Inc.: Marc S. Raspanti, Esq. DOUGLAS KEITH ROSENBLUM, ESQ. PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP 1818 Market Street, Ste. 3402 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320 6200 Facsimile: (215) 981 00 MEE 759: "Wang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- Zhengjian Wang, individually and on behalf of All Other Employees Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mee 759 Inc. d/b/a Mee Noodle Shop, Yoke Mei Chau, and "John" (first name unknown) Dong, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10192 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wages, "spread of hours" premium for each day they worked 10 or more hours, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 Facsimile: (718) 353 6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com MERCHANTS CREDIT: Settlement in "Taylor" Suit Has Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANNETTE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS CREDIT ADJUSTORS, INC., and PANSING, HOGAN, ERNST & BACHMAN, L.L.P., Defendants, Case No. 8:16CV452 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notice to Class. The matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis on the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion. Magistrate Judge Bazis recommends that the Court certifies the proposed class, finds the proposed settlement fair, reasonable and adequate, and preliminarily approves the proposed settlement pending a final fairness hearing. Judge Bataillon has reviewed the parties' submissions and the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation and finds that the Findings and Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notice to Class. He preliminarily certified for settlement purposes the following Settlement Class: a. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") Class No. 1: The action is brought as a class action on behalf of a class defined as: (i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) against whom the Defendants filed a county court collection complaint in the form of Exhibit A attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv) which was for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during the period one year prior to the date of filing the action. b. FDCPA Class No. 2: The action is brought as a class action on behalf of a class defined as: (i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) to whom the Defendants sent, or caused to be sent Requests for Admissions in the form of Exhibit C attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv) which was for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during the period one year prior to the date of filing the action. c. Nebraska Consumer Protection Act Class ("NCPA") Class No. 1: The action is brought as a class action on behalf of a class defined as: (i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) against whom the Defendants filed a county court collection complaint in the form of Exhibit A attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv) which was for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during the period four years prior to the date of filing the action. d. NCPA Class No. 2: The action is brought as a class action on behalf of a class defined as: (i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) to whom the Defendants sent, or caused to be sent Requests for Admissions in the form of Exhibit C attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv) which was for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during the period four years prior to the date of filing the action. Judge Bataillon preliminarily approved the proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement pending a final fairness hearing and approved the Proposed Class Notice. Defendant Pansing, Hogan, Ernst and Bachman, L.L.P., is directed to cause the Notice, through a claims administrator, to be delivered to Class Members by Mail, based on address information gathered from business records of the Defendants, and subsequent search of each name and address in the National Change of Address database. The Judge appointed Plaintiff Taylor as the class representative; and Pam Car and William Reinbrecht of the law firm Car & Reinbrecht, P.C. LLO, and Tregg Lunn of the Law Office of Tregg Lunn, as the class counsel. A final fairness hearing is set for May 17, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/Ydvm7Y from Leagle.com. Jannette Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela A. Car -- pacar@cox.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM. Jannette Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Tregg R. Lunn -- tregg@tregglunnlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF TREGG LUNN & William L. Reinbrecht -- billr205@gmail.com -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM. Merchants Credit Adjustors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua C. Dickinson -- jdickinson@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM & Shilee T. Mullin -- smullin@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM. Pansing, Hogan, Ernst & Bachman, L.L.P., Defendant, represented by Lauren R. Goodman -- lgoodman@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM & William F. Hargens -- whargens@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM. MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Alston" Suit in D. of South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Alston and Darius Reid, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Midland Credit Management Inc, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00014-DCC (D. S.C., January 3, 2018). Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations. MCM provides flexible payment plans and financial education tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chauntel Demetrius Bland, Esq. Chauntel Bland 463 Regency Park Drive Columbia, SC 29210 Tel: (803) 319-6262 Email: chauntel.bland@yahoo.com MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Feb. 28 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, as Notice Administrator, on behalf of Duane Morris LLP Legal Notice UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-md-02311 If You Are a Truck and/or Equipment Dealership That Purchased Vehicles or Bought Certain Parts for a Vehicle in the U.S. Since 2000 You Could Receive Money from Settlements of Class Actions Lawsuits involving the prices of certain vehicle component parts have been settled with a Defendant in various class actions in this litigation ("Settling Defendant"). The Settling Defendant is identified below. The cases are separate class actions within the lead case known as In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, 12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.), which is currently before United States District Judge Marianne O. Battani. You may be part of a class action settlement if you are a Truck and/or Equipment dealership that indirectly purchased certain component parts and/or vehicles for resale or lease containing these parts ("Dealer") in the District of Columbia or one or more of the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. This Settlement may affect your rights. Read on for more information. What Are The Lawsuits About? The lawsuits claim that the Defendants in each lawsuit agreed to unlawfully raise the price of certain motor vehicle component parts. As a result, dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment who purchased for resale or lease Trucks and/or Equipment containing those parts or who indirectly purchased those parts as replacement parts, which were manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant may have paid more than they should have. Although the Settling Defendant has agreed to settle, the Settling Defendant does not agree that it engaged in any wrongdoing or is liable or owes any money or benefits to Plaintiffs. The Court has not yet decided who is right. The Court has appointed Duane Morris LLP as interim class counsel ("Class Counsel") in these lawsuits to represent your dealership and all other members of the class actions. Your dealership will not be charged directly by these lawyers, and any fees that they are paid will come from any settlements or recovery in these lawsuits. If your dealership wants to be represented by its own lawyer, it may hire one at its own expense. Who's Included In The Settlement? Your dealership is part of the Settlement if it is a Truck and Equipment Dealer and falls within the definition of the settlement class ("Settlement Class") approved by Judge Battani. The class definition is set forth in the full length Notice, which is available at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. The term "Truck and Equipment Dealer" or "Truck and Equipment Dealership" means an entity or person authorized to engage in the business of selling or dealing in Trucks and/or Equipment at retail in the United States. A list of the parts included in this Settlement and the manufacturer can be found at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. If approved by the Court, the Settlement would release claims any class members may have as to all Vehicle Parts, including Starters and Alternators, as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Who Is The Settling Defendant? The Settling Defendant is Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc. (collectively, "Settling Defendant" or "Mitsubishi Electric"). A list of the Defendants, their affiliates, and the alleged co-conspirators for each case involving the parts described in the Settlement Class definitions and settlement agreements is available at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. What Does The Settlement Provide? Generally, you are included if, at any time between January 1, 2000 and September 12, 2017, you were a dealer of heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks, medium-duty (Class 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7) trucks, buses, commercial vehicles, construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment (including ATVs designed and/or marketed for agricultural use), railway vehicles, materials handling vehicles, and other similar vehicles ("Trucks and/or Equipment") that: (a) purchased Trucks and/or Equipment containing a Starter or Alternator which was manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co- conspirator of a Defendant;; and/or (b) indirectly purchased a Starter or Alternator which was manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant as a replacement part. Indirectly means you bought the vehicle replacement part from someone other than the manufacturer of the part. The specific definition of who is included in the Settlement Class is set forth in the Settlement Agreement between the Settlement Class and the Settling Defendant. That Settlement Agreement, and the related Complaint are accessible on the website www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. The Settlement Funds amount to $1.3 million. Detailed information about the Settlement and the parts involved can be found in the full-length Notice, which is available at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. The amount of money your dealership may receive, if any, will depend upon where the dealership purchased the affected vehicles or component parts, the type and quantity of vehicles and parts your dealership purchased in the states listed above and the District of Columbia, and the total number of claims made by eligible Truck and Equipment Dealers. What Are My Rights And Options? 1. Opt Your Dealership Out of the Settlement If your dealership purchased any of the parts, or vehicles containing those parts, discussed above and listed in the Settlement Class definitions in the states listed in this Notice or the District of Columbia and does not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, your dealership must exclude itself ("opt out") in a writing postmarked by February 14, 2018, or it will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, the Settling Defendant (including all related entities covered by the release in the Settlement Agreement) about the legal claims settled in the Settlement Agreement. If your dealership submits a valid and timely request for exclusion / opt out, it will not share in the proceeds of that Settlement, and it will not be bound by the judgment. To be valid, the request for exclusion / opt out must follow the instructions set forth in the full-length Notice and be postmarked by February 14, 2018. The full instructions and requirements for opting out may be viewed at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. 2. Object to the Settlement If your dealership wishes to object to the Settlement or the request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards, it may write to the Court and counsel about why it objects. To be considered, your dealership's objection must be filed according to the procedures set forth in the full-length Notice and postmarked no later than February 14, 2018. The full instructions and requirements for objecting to the Settlement may be viewed at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. 3. Attend the Final Approval Hearing The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on February 28, 2018 at a time to be determined, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Courtroom 272, Detroit, MI 48226 to decide whether to approve the Settlement and the request for attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards. You or your own lawyer may attend and ask the Court's permission to speak, but you don't have to participate in the hearing in order to attend. To request to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must follow the procedures set forth in the full-length Notice no later than February 14, 2018. This notice is a summary only. The complete terms, including the definitions of what parties and claims are being released are set forth in the full-length Notice, settlement agreements, and the Court filings which may be obtained at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. For More Information, Contact the Settlement Administrator toll free at 1-866-742-4955 or visit www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. MONEY MUTUAL: Ct. Won't Certify Interlocutory Appeal in "Rilley" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Selling Source's Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal in the case captioned Scott Rilley, Michelle Kunza, Linda Gonzales and Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of the putative class, Plaintiffs, v. MoneyMutual, LLC, Selling Source, LLC, and PartnerWeekly, LLC, Defendants, Civil No. 16-4001 (DWF/LIB) (D. Minn.). The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Court denied that motion. Plaintiffs are consumer-borrowers and have filed a purported class action against Defendants related to the payday loans. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add Defendants PartnerWeekly and Selling Source and to add a claim for violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Defendants then removed the case to federal court. The Court concluded that it had personal jurisdiction over Defendants based on the nationwide service of process allowed for under the RICO Act. The Court noted that without the RICO Act, the Court would have dismissed Selling Source, but would have stayed the dismissal pending jurisdictional discovery. The Court then dismissed the RICO claim for failure to state a claim. In dismissing the claim, the Court acknowledged the incongruity between using the RICO claim to exercise jurisdiction and then dismissing the claim as insufficiently pleaded. Ultimately, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs satisfied the lower standard (a colorable claim) needed for jurisdiction. Selling Source now moves the Court to certify for interlocutory appeal the following question: Can a federal court assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant pursuant to the RICO Act, despite simultaneously dismissing the RICO Act claim against the defendant with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6)? Certification Will Not Materially Advance the Litigation Selling Source argues that granting interlocutory appeal will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation because a reversal by the Eighth Circuit would remove Selling Source from the litigation. Selling Source, however, overstates the effect of a successful appeal because Selling Source would still have to go through jurisdictional discovery. Regardless, the Court concludes that appeal will not advance the termination of the litigation because the same claims will still proceed against Selling Source's subsidiaries, which are represented by the same attorneys. The Court therefore concludes that Selling Source has failed to show that interlocutory appeal will materially advance the termination of the litigation. Because the Court concludes that certifying the issue would not materially advance the litigation, and that conclusion is dispositive, the Court declines to discuss the other issues. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc9bfhfo from Leagle.com. Scott Rilley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, Plaintiff, represented by E. Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C.. Scott Rilley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise -- josterwise@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P. C., pro hac vice, John G. Albanese -- jalbanese@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, PC & Mark L. Heaney -- mark@heaneylaw.com -- Heaney Law Firm, LLC. Michelle Kunza, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, Plaintiff, represented by E. Michelle Drake, Berger & Montague, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Berger & Montague, P. C., pro hac vice, John G. Albanese, Berger & Montague, PC & Mark L. Heaney, Heaney Law Firm, LLC. Linda Gonzales, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, Plaintiff, represented by E. Michelle Drake, Berger & Montague, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Berger & Montague, P. C., pro hac vice, John G. Albanese, Berger & Montague, PC & Mark L. Heaney, Heaney Law Firm, LLC. Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, Plaintiff, represented by E. Michelle Drake, Berger & Montague, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Berger & Montague, P. C., pro hac vice, John G. Albanese, Berger & Montague, PC & Mark L. Heaney, Heaney Law Firm, LLC. MoneyMutual, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christina Rieck Loukas -- cloukas@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Donald J. Putterman -- dputterman@plglawyers.com -- Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph M. Windler -- jwindler@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Michelle L. Landry -- mlandry@plylaw.com -- Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice & Tobias G. Snyder -- tsnyder@plylaw.com -- Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice. Selling Source, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christina Rieck Loukas, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Donald J. Putterman, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph M. Windler, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Michelle L. Landry, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice &Tobias G. Snyder, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice. PartnerWeekly, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christina Rieck Loukas, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Donald J. Putterman, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph M. Windler, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Michelle L. Landry, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice & Tobias G. Snyder, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice. MORMUGAO PORT: Vasco Residents Urged to File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Herald Goa reports that the members of Goa Against Coal (GAC) along with those of NGO --'Our Rivers Our Rights' (OROR) on Dec. 17 rejected the coal handling and transportation resolution adopted by the legislators on the floor of the Goa Assembly saying that they are not satisfied as it (resolution) only speaks that no proposals for expansion of existing berths or new berths will be allowed. GAC members specifically said that they demand a full stop on coal handling and transportation in Goa. "The resolution does not meet our demand as we want total stop in coal handling and transportation in Goa. However, the Goa Assembly resolution speaks that no proposals for expansion of existing berths or new berths will be allowed and this does not meet our requirements. We are not waiting to see what happens during the debate on river nationalisation on the floor of the House," Cyril Fernandes, a member of Goa Against Coal (GAC) said during a meeting of activists held in Cortalim on Dec. 17. The meeting was held to decide on future course of action and it was unanimously decided that GAC along with OROR volunteers will take the message and protest to the villages across Goa. Taluka- wise teams were also constituted during the meeting and around 22 people have offered to become volunteers and they have been assigned the task to give presentation in all the villages on how the import of coal is going to cause harm to the lives of people and how coal transportation through roads, rivers and railways will lead to Goa's destruction. During the meeting, the activists alleged that the Mormugao Port Trust (MPT) has been pushing its plans in name of Sagarmala project which is being pushed by the Shipping Ministry. They vowed to expose as to how the state government and especially Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar misled the people of Goa by saying that river nationalisation was decided by the Central government whereas in reality central government had sought the opinion of Goa state. However, the Goa government failed to protect state's interest. Activist Claude Alvares of the Goa Foundation gave detailed opinion on legal issues and even alleged that MPT is not a recent culprit but since 1987, MPT has been violating the laws of the land. He said that the Vasco residents should file a 'Class Action' suit worth over Rs 200 crore against MPT for violating the environmental norms and putting the lives of the citizens at risk. "The response from the citizens and activists for the Cortalim meet was very good. Representatives from all talukas were present and everyone has committed to work further and to push the cause and to see that coal transportation is completely stopped in Goa and rights of rivers should be retained with locals," Cyril Fernandes added. [GN] NFL: 3rd Cir. Revives Super Bowl Ticket Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News, reports that the Third Circuit revived claims on Dec. 15 that Super Bowl ticket hoarding by the NFL caused fans to pay inflated prices on the secondary market. Lead plaintiff Josh Finkelman has seen his class action dismissed twice in the last four years, but the Dec. 15 decision out of Philadelphia says Mr. Finkelman's recent changes to his allegations of price gouging established his standing to bring the suit. The NFL was holding Super Bowl XLVIII at the MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., when the Mr. Finkelman first brought his suit. Though the stadium has a seating capacity of 77,500, he noted that the NFL made just 1 percent of those seats available to the public via lottery, reserving the lion's share for football teams, TV stations and other "league insiders. Mr. Finkelman ultimately paid $4,000 on the secondary market for two tickets that had a face value of $800 each. The complaint alleged violations of the New Jersey Ticket Law, which prohibits withholding more than 5 percent of available seating to the public, but Mr. Finkelman stumbled initially to show standing. In affirming dismissal in 2016, the Third Circuit noted that Mr. Finkelman's pleading failed to how the NFL's practice of withholding most of the tickets affected pricing. "We can only speculate -- and speculation is not enough to sustain Article III standing," the court ruled. Mr. Finkelman tried to beef up his claims in an amended complaint, including testimony from economist Daniel Rascher who specializes in secondary ticket markets. Mr. Rascher submitted evidence that, without the NFL's withholding, more fans would sell their tickets to other fans, and that the market is instead dominated by brokers with inroads to league insiders who jack up ticket prices. A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit held oral argument on Mr. Finkelman's second appeal in July. On Dec.15, the court was unanimous that Rascher's analysis regarding insider sales establishes standing. "Finkelman did not just allege that prices would be lower on the secondary market were it not for the NFL's withholding," U.S. Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes wrote for the court. "Instead, Finkelman alleged a causal chain justifying why the NFL's withholding set into motion a series of events that ultimately raised prices on the secondary market." The NFL "may be correct that Mr. Finkelman will not be able to prove that the 2014 Superbowl [sic] secondary ticket market worked as he claims," the 18-page opinion says. "But Finkelman is not required to prove his economic theory in his complaint, and at this stage in the litigation, Finkelman has alleged sufficient factual allegations to show that [the NFL's] withholding raised the price that he paid for the tickets on the secondary market," Judge Fuentes added. Mr. Finkelman's attorney, Bruce Nagel of Roseland, New Jersey, said he was "extremely thrilled" by the reversal, which now exposes the NFL to damage claim of more than $300 million. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement that the NFL's ticket distribution policy complies with New Jersey's law. The Third Circuit invited the New Jersey Supreme Court to rule on whether the amended complaint has standing under state law. Of the total tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl, the NFL gave 17.5 percent each to the two teams in the contest, the Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks. Remaining NFL teams were given 35 percent, and 25 percent went to companies, broadcast networks, host committee and other league insiders. [GN] NFL: Professor Recommends 15% Cap on Contingency Fees ----------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Harvard Law School professor William Rubenstein has recommended a 15% cap on contingency fees for plaintiffs lawyers representing individual players in the $1 billion NFL concussion settlement. Mr. Rubenstein also rejected the idea that an additional 5% to go to the common benefit fund for class counsel, who have already asked for $112.5 million in fees. Why it matters: Mr. Rubenstein isn't just an expert on class actions. He's the author of the frequently cited 11-volume treatise called "Newberg on Class Actions." Back in September, Ms. Bronstad reached out to Mr. Rubenstein for a story on how judges frequently used academic studies to decide attorney fees, particularly in large class action settlements. "Judges do take the role seriously," Mr. Rubenstein told Ms. Bronstad. "And they understand they're a bulwark against excessive fees from the class members' money." What the report said: Mr. Rubenstein called the 5% set-aside "troubling in that it implies that class counsel sought to significantly enhance their own fees without significantly enhancing their own work, or most importantly, their clients' recoveries." Mass torts expert Elizabeth Burch, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, agreed with that conclusion. "There is a disconnect between class counsel receiving all of their attorneys' fees up front and (at least some) class members waiting for decades for their payment. So, not permitting the 5% set aside on top of the $112.5 million strikes me as reasonable." [GN] NISSAN CORP: Faces Class Action in Alabama Over CVT Problems ------------------------------------------------------------ David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Nissan transmission (CVT) class-action lawsuit filed in Alabama alleges cars and SUVs are equipped with continuously variable transmissions that allegedly slip, jerk, jump, bind, lag and stop suddenly without warning. Plaintiff U Can Rent LLC says it purchased nine 2013 Sentras, one 2013 Nissan Juke and four 2014 Nissan Jukes. Plaintiff Pamela Pritchett says she purchased a 2013 Nissan Sentra that experienced the same transmission problems as U Can Rent. Ms. Pritchett says the problem got so bad, she couldn't drive the car and eventually had to pay about $4,500 to replace the CVT. However, the plaintiff says the replacement transmission is no better than the original CVT. Nissan allegedly refused to help pay for the repairs and said there weren't any problems with the transmission. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs started having CVT problems when the vehicles had less than 20,000 miles on them, including incidents of engines revving, shuddering and delays in shifting. At other times, the vehicles felt like they dropped down a gear while driving. No amount of maintenance will help with the transmission problems, according to the plaintiffs, and depending on Nissan's warranties is allegedly a mistake. The lawsuit says Nissan dealers routinely say there is nothing wrong with the CVTs after diagnostic tests are performed. The plaintiffs claim dealerships often say the transmissions just need "broken in," so no repairs to the CVT's are required. Other Nissan CVT lawsuits claim the automaker knew about the transmissions for years, and this lawsuit is no different. The plaintiffs say Nissan has known about the problems for at least 10 years and concealed that knowledge to continue marketing and selling the vehicles. Proof can allegedly be seen in the multiple technical service bulletins (TSBs) Nissan sent to its dealerships about the continuously variable transmissions. Additionally, the automaker issued an extended warranty program called the "CVT Customer Satisfaction Program" in response to similar issues identified in 2007-2010 Sentras and other models. But the plaintiffs say they were shocked when Nissan didn't include many affected vehicles in the CVT program, including theirs. According to the lawsuit, Nissan should have skipped the bulletins and customer service programs and ordered a recall, but instead, the automaker continues to market the transmissions as more durable than typical transmissions. The proposed class-action lawsuit includes all consumers who own or lease or formally owned or leased 2013 Nissan Sentras or 2013- 2014 Nissan Jukes. In addition, the lawsuit says other currently unnamed Nissan vehicles with CVTs are included in the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama -- U Can Rent, LLC et al., v. Nissan North America, Inc. The plaintiffs are represented by Heninger Garrison Davis LLC, and the Law Offices of Troy King. [GN] NORMS RESTAURANTS: Gift Card Settlement Gets Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- William L. Carr, Esq. -- william.carr@dbr.com -- and John S. Yi, Esq. -- john.yi@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that a California state court issued a final approval of a class action settlement on behalf of a class of California consumers in a gift card case that serves as a reminder that California's gift card statute mandates that cards with balances of less than $10 are redeemable for their cash equivalents. One of the more appealing aspects of California's gift card statute for the plaintiffs' class action bar may be the redemption of remaining balances on gift cards for cash. Section 1749.5(b)(2) states that "any gift certificate with a cash value of less than ten dollars ($10) is redeemable in cash for its cash value." Since California's gift card statute was amended to include this provision in 2007, plaintiffs' lawyers have filed dozens, if not more, of lawsuits related to gift card redemptions in California state and federal courts. These lawsuits often stem from compliance programs that fail to address the amendment or employees who are unaware of the amendment and who refuse to redeem applicable gift cards. Factual Background In Martinez v. Norms Restaurants, LLC, No. RIC1512432 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Oct. 16, 2015), the plaintiff alleged that he visited a California Norms Restaurant location and used a gift card to purchase items at the restaurant. With a remaining balance of less than $10 on the gift card, the plaintiff alleged that he "did not want any other items offered by [Norms Restaurants]," he "wanted the cash value of the gift card," but upon requesting the cash balance on the card, he was informed that he "could not get the balance in cash and the balance had to remain on the card for future use at Norms Restaurants." Plaintiff's complaint further alleges that pre-filing investigations were conducted to determine whether the plaintiff's experience was an isolated incident or a pervasive issue. Plaintiff alleged that the results of the investigation "revealed that Norms Restaurants employees consistently refused to honor valid requests for cash back on gift cards with a balance of less than $10." Against this backdrop, the plaintiff filed a putative class action in California Superior Court alleging violations of California's Gift Card Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, as well as a common law claim of unjust enrichment. Rather than engage in extensive motions practice, the parties entered into mediation that culminated in a class-wide settlement. The settlement, which received final approval, established a class consisting of: All consumers in California who (1) possess a Norms Restaurants gift card which has a balance of less than $10.00 that was originally issued and/or activated between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2015, or (2) possessed such a gift card that was originally issued and/or activated between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2015 but disposed of it upon being informed by a Norms Restaurant employee in California that it could not be redeemed for cash. The Settlement The settlement reached by the parties provides class members, who claim to have disposed of a gift card with a balance of less than $10 as a result of being informed by a Norms Restaurants employee that redemption for cash was not permissible, with a $9.99 gift card that can be used at any Norms Restaurants in California or redeemed for cash. In addition, the settlement requires Norms Restaurants to implement the following compliance practices: -- Thoroughly review its policies and practices regarding gift card redemption and update its employee manuals to state that "California law requires that a gift card must be redeemed for cash, upon a customer's request, when the gift card balance falls below $10" or similar language. -- Hold at least one training session for its existing guest- facing employees in its California locations for purposes of reviewing gift card redemption policies. -- Instruct new employees that California law requires that a gift card must be redeemed for cash, upon a customer's request, when the gift card balance falls below $10. -- Post a reasonably sized notice in an employee-only area for 24 months stating the following or similar language: "California law requires that a gift card must be redeemed for cash, upon a customer's request, when the gift card balance falls below $10." -- Post a notice to its customers in each of its California locations for 24 months, stating that "Norms Gift Cards with balances of under $10 ($.01 - $9.99) will be redeemed for cash, upon request." -- Publish the following or similar language for 24 months on its "Gift Card" web page: "Norms Gift Cards with balances of under $10 ($.01 - $9.99) will be redeemed for cash, upon request." Takeaways Norms Restaurants serves as a reminder that the plaintiffs' class action bar continues to pursue claims related to California's gift card redemption provision in earnest, even investigating whether businesses are complying with the provision by attempting to redeem gift cards with balances below $10. In addition, the settlement terms provide businesses with compliance practices that, if not already implemented, are worth considering in order to prevent similar lawsuits in the future. [GN] NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Barrett Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAKEENA BARRETT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM, Defendant, The Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09088 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages, penalties, fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. According to the complaint, Defendant maintained and continues to maintain, a common policy of failing to pay Representatives for the time they spend before the start of their scheduled shifts performing the foregoing pre-shift activities, all of which direct benefit Defendant and are essential to their responsibilities as Representatives. Specifically, Defendant prohibits its Representatives from clocking in more than seven minutes prior to the start of their scheduled shifts. Because it takes Representatives 8-24 minutes to boot up their computers and start-up and log-in to various computer programs, software programs, and applications, Defendant's seven-minute rule compels them to perform these activities before clocking into Defendant's timekeeping system. Further, Representatives are not even compensated for the time they spend after clocking in, because Defendant rounds their time to the nearest quarter-hour interval. Representatives who clock in at 8:53 a.m., for example, are not paid until 9:00 a.m. Thus, the work Representatives typically perform in the seven minutes leading up the start of their scheduled shifts, (i.e. starting up and logging in to various computer programs, software programs, and applications and reading work-related e-mails), is not compensated. Defendant's policy does not qualify as a permissible rounding under the FLSA, because Defendant's seven-minute rule compels Representatives to clock in closer to the following quarter-hour internal (i.e. the start of their scheduled shift time), than to the preceding quarter-hour interval. Thus, this arrangement does not -- average out so that the employees are fully compensated for all the time they actually work, and instead -- results, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked. As a result of Defendant's unlawful common policies, the Representatives are deprived of approximately 11 to 29 minutes per day, including time in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the IMWL, the IWPCA, and Defendant's contractual obligation to pay Representatives for all hours worked. The Defendant is an integrated healthcare delivery system serving patients throughout the Chicago metropolitan area. The Defendant operates four Hospitals -- Evanston, Glenbrook, Highland Park and Skokie -- as well as NorthShore Medical Group with more than 70 offices and more than 800 primary and specialty care physicians, the Research Institute and Foundation. In total, the health system employs more than 8,000 people.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Zijian Guan, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (877) 561 0000 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com cocozguan@jtblawgroup.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Telephone: (248) 355 0300 E-mail: JThompson@sommerspc.com CRAsh@sommerspc.com OKLAHOMA: Lawsuits Over Jail Overcrowding Pending ------------------------------------------------- Ben Botkin, writing for Oklahoma Watch, reports that padlocks are welded onto cell doors at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary for when the electronic locks fail. The state's three prisons for women are at 129 percent of capacity, meaning inmates must sleep in temporary bunk beds in day rooms. Shelves with thousands of inmate files jam what once was a basketball court at the Kate Barnard Correctional Center. It's the backup for a three-decade-old software program used for recordkeeping. With overcrowded and deteriorating prisons and shortages of corrections officers, Oklahoma's prison system might appear to be primed for a federal takeover. As if to make the point, the state Department of Corrections in November proposed a budget increase of $1 billion in appropriations for fiscal 2019, similar to 2016's ask. "We are not a listing ship," Corrections Director Joe Allbaugh said recently, seated in his Oklahoma City office. "We are a sinking ship." But after years of warnings that the federal government could take the helm of corrections and right the ship, it has yet to happen. Year after year, the inmate population continues to rise, facilities decline, the department turns to private prisons, costs go up, and efforts to lower incarceration rates advance in fits and starts. Mr. Allbaugh and other leaders also warned that a riot could erupt, evoking the notorious three-day riot in 1973 that burned much of the penitentiary in McAlester and left three inmates dead. There are some signs that legal action could eventually lead to dramatic changes. But instances of federal courts or agencies taking control of states' entire prison systems are unusual and scattered. Still, across the country a number of state prisons or county jails answer to federal overseers. And in Oklahoma, it would be a case of repeating history. How the Feds Intervene The federal government doesn't decide on its own to assume control of a state corrections system or send in its own hand- picked people to operate a system or prison. Federal intervention often begins with a lawsuit filed by one or more inmates who allege a pattern of problems or injustices in a facility or a system. The potential for impact widens if the lawsuit is granted class-action status by a U.S. District Court judge, meaning the alleged harm to a handful of inmates is considered representative of a larger inmate population. The lawsuit may result in a consent decree, with the state agreeing to cede authority over all or part of its prisons and submit to oversight and supervision by the U.S. Justice Department or a judge. The Justice Department also has the authority to investigate jails and prisons and file lawsuits on its own, or join existing lawsuits, in order to force changes. Corrections agencies sometimes reach agreements with the Justice Department on improving conditions without a drawn-out lawsuit. A number of prison or jail systems have faced federal action: -- Alabama's corrections system entered into a consent decree in 2015 to improve conditions for inmates at a women's prison. -- In 2009, Oklahoma County entered into an agreement with the feds to improve its jail in areas such as mental health services and housing. -- The Justice Department in 2015 reached a schedule with the Territory of Guam for implementing prison reforms. That came after decades of working under a 1991 settlement agreement. -- Ohio entered into a consent decree in 2008 to reform conditions at juvenile facilities that included unlawful seclusion of offenders with mental health needs. The agreement ended in 2015 after a monitoring team reported to the court on improvements. In Oklahoma, the question is whether life and treatment of inmates in prisons have reached a point where constitutional rights are being violated, which could lead to federal oversight. President Donald Trump's administration, however, might be less inclined than former President Barack Obama's administration to intervene. Mr. Allbaugh says that absent any changes in the agency's overall direction, the state could find itself under a federal consent decree. "That is where the Justice Department comes in and tells you how you're going to run your prison system, and it's very costly," he said. Lawsuits Simmer It's common for inmates to sue corrections departments in state or federal court, representing themselves or relying on an attorney. Recently, a federal appeals court revived inmate Joseph Womble's lawsuit against the Corrections Department alleging that conditions in the state's prisons violated his constitutional rights. He said temperatures in his cell at the Mack Alford Correctional Center in Stringtown climbed above 90 degrees for half of June 2016 and he became dehydrated. Another lawsuit brought in August by inmates and an advocacy group allege that state officials and private-prison companies are perpetuating high rates of incarceration through the state's guarantee that it will keep private prisons at least 98 percent full. The inmates have asked the Justice Department to intervene. One inmate, Stephen Craig Burnett, has sued the Corrections Department several times, most recently in 2014 when he was in the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena. Serving a life sentence for murdering his wife, Burnett alleges that prisons are overcrowded and understaffed and pose a danger to inmates and officers. The case was dismissed but remains on appeal. Asked about its efforts in corrections, American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma said it is considering filing a lawsuit related to prisons as early as next spring, although nothing is firm. Brady Henderson, legal director, said the lawsuit potentially could focus on medical care for inmates and physical conditions on death row at the penitentiary. Mr. Henderson noted there are different approaches, such as filing several smaller, narrowly framed lawsuits or pursuing a larger case that covers the entire system. "I think the question is, at some point are we going to get to the big, kitchen sink case?" he said, adding winning that case would require showing systemic problems. Typically, corrections officials, county sheriffs and others involved with jails and prisons fear loss of control and ballooning costs for improvements once the federal courts step in. Historic Case Tulsa attorney Louis Bullock spent much of his career on a landmark Oklahoma case, Battle v. Anderson, involving federal intervention in the state's prisons. Mr. Bullock became the lead counsel for plaintiffs in 1976, working on the case until 2000. The Battle case started with about six inmates in the penitentiary and centered on medical care, due process and use of force in 1972 and before. In 1977, when lawyers had a better understanding of the evidence, the case had grown to include confinement conditions and overcrowding, Mr. Bullock said. The litigation also expanded to cover all the state's prisons and inmates. The lawsuit was filed one year before the 1973 riot, which put the system under further scrutiny. Even so, the "minimally adequate system" that resulted from the lawsuit was "unfortunately a high-water mark" for Oklahoma before conditions worsened, Mr. Bullock said. Mr. Bullock said there is "little question" that the state is following a path that will lead to a lawsuit and federal oversight of the prison system. "They do not have the capacity to hold the number of people they're locking up," he said, adding, "Even from my distance, I can see the deterioration that is taking place, and they have a very real risk that the federal courts will have to take over the prison system again." Mr. Bullock added that money won't fix everything -- changes to the criminal justice system also are needed. He's concerned that the Corrections Department is seeking money to build new prisons rather than focusing on reducing incarceration. "The one lesson that Oklahoma should know by now is that they have never been successful -- in fact, no one's ever been successful -- in building out of this crisis," Mr. Bullock said. He invoked a line from the movie "Field of Dreams": "Prisons are like the proverbial ballfields in Iowa. If you build it, they will come." As to whether federal oversight will happen, corrections director Mr. Allbaugh said, "We'll see. I hate the thought of that because I believe the Department of Corrections is one of the major core functions of government. . . There's always going to be bad people." But "if the state doesn't demonstrate that they can handle their prison population in a safe and humane way, what are inmates supposed to do? They're going to sue." [GN] OSI SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of OSI Systems, Inc. ("OSI Systems") (NASDAQ:OSIS) between August 21, 2013 and December 6, 2017. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. To get more information go to: http://www.zlk.com/plsra-c/osi-systems or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) OSI Systems acquired the Albania concession through bribery or other illicit means; (2) OSI Systems transferred 49% of its project company associated with the Albania concession, S2 Albania SHPK, an entity allegedly worth millions, for consideration of less than $5.00; (3) OSI Systems engaged in other illegal acts, including improper sales and cash payments to government officials; (4) these practices caused OSI Systems to be vulnerable to potential civil and criminal liability; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about OSI Systems' business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you suffered a loss in OSI Systems you have until February 5, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. [GN] PANDORA ECOMM: Lopez Says Web Site Not Accessible to Blind ---------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. PANDORA ECOMM, LLC AND PANDORA JEWELRY LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10142 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually- impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website, WWW.PANDORA.NET, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick St., 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 770 3775 Facsimile: (646) 867 2639 E-mail: Brad@markslawpc.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 PATRIZIA LUCA INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patrizia Luca, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Patrizia Luca, Inc., Defendant, Case No1: 1:18-cv- 00027 (E.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018). Patrizia Luca, Inc. (trade name Fashion Concepts) is in the Women's and Children's Clothing business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. PATRIOT NATIONAL: PBMS Sues over Captive Insurance Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- PBMS, INC., a California Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PATRIOT NATIONAL, INC., a Florida Corporation; CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Corporation; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York Corporation; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska Corporation; SPECIALITY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TOWER GROUP, INC., a Florida Corporation; CASTLEPOINT FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation; TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts Corporation; MASSACHUSETTS HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts Corporation; YORK INSURANCE COMPANY OF MAINE, a Maine Corporation; TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a New York Corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No. BC688370 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks redress against Defendants for their reckless, fraudulent, and negligent actions in concealing true nature of the captive insurance policies sold to the employers, including Plaintiffs. According to the complaint, the Defendants utilized insurance broker(s) to market and underwrite captive policies to potential employers, including Plaintiffs, throughout the United States. The use of the captive insurance policies was used by Defendants to undercut the traditional worker's compensation policies as a competitive advantage. The Defendants operated, administrated and/or otherwise executed captive insurance policies to the financial detriment of the aforementioned employers, including Plaintiffs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. Christopher T. Aumais, Esq. Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq. Daniel C. Ghyczy, Esq. GIRARDI | KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977 0211 Facsimile: (213) 481 1554 PG&E CORPORATION: Faces GER Suit in California State Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PG&E Corporation. The case is captioned as GER Hospitality, LLC, for itself and obo all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the Civil Defendants, Case No. SCV-261723 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2017). The Pacific Gas and Electric Company is an investor-owned electric utility with publicly traded stock that is headquartered in the Pacific Gas & Electric Building in San Francisco.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA 456 Montgomery St Fl 17 San Francisco, CA 94104-1250 Telephone: (415) 788 7210 Facsimile: (415) 788 0706 E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com - and - Shapiro Tad, Esq. SHAPIRO, GALVIN, SHAPIRO & MORAN 640 3rd St. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Telephone: (707) 544 5858 PINNACLE CREDIT: Faces "Koon" Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC. The case is captioned as BROWN KOON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-13577-JHR-KMW (D.N.J., Dec. 23, 2017). The case is assigned to the hon. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez. Pinnacle purchases portfolios of both domestic (U.S.) and international consumer debt owned by credit grantors including banks and finance companies, and by other debt buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Gilliam" Suit in S.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. The case is styled as Dominique Gilliam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00053 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018). PRA is a publicly traded debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN] The Plantiff is represented by: Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq. Revaz Chachanashvili Law Group, P.C. 285 Passaic Street, Suite 7 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: dkohn@rclawgroup.com PRO CUSTOM: "Sedhom" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Stephanie Sedhom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pro Custom Solar LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 716341/2017, was removed from the New York State Supreme Court County of Queens, to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17- cv-07559 to the proceeding.[BN] Pro Custom, doing business as Momentum Solar, installs residential and commercial solar power systems. The company provides installation, maintenance, customized system design, roofing, and complimentary tree removal services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Marotte, Esq. SCHENCK PRICE SMITH & KING LLP 220 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 539 1000 Facsimile: (973) 540 7300 E-mail: mjm@spsk.com QUDIAN INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Dec. 18 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Qudian Inc. ("Qudian") (NYSE:QD) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in or traceable to the Company's October 18, 2017 initial public offering ("IPO"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Foat v. Qudian Inc., et al, No. 17-cv-09875. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from December 12, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231- 1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/qudian/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Qudian, certain of its officers and/or directors and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Qudian is a financial lending company focused on providing small cash credit products to underserved borrowers, such as those with less credit history, lower monthly incomes or limited access to traditional financial institutions. On September 18, 2017, the Company filed with the SEC a registration statement on Form F-1 for the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on October 17, 2017 (the "Registration Statement"). The Registration Statement was used to sell to the investing public approximately 37.5 million Qudian ADSs, representing 37.5 million Qudian Class A ordinary shares, at $24 per share. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement contained inaccurate statements of material fact because it failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company was engaged in improper lending and collection practices; that the Company had various undisclosed risks in its loan portfolio; that because of the Company's improper lending, underwriting and collection practices it was subject to a heightened risk of adverse actions by Chinese regulators and its most important strategic partner, Ant Financial; and that the Company had failed to implement necessary safeguards to protect customer data. On December 12, 2017, Qudian ADSs closed at $13.19 per ADS, a 45% decline from the price at which Qudian ADSs had been sold to the investing public less than two months earlier in the IPO. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Qudian ADSs in or traceable to the Company's October 18, 2017 IPO (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm advising and representing U.S. and international investors in securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. [GN] R.C. TWAY: Fisher Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- ELLIOTT FISHER, JR., individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. R.C. TWAY COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a KENTUCKY TRAILER, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09256 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, punitive damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Kentucky Trailer has willfully violated the FLSA and IMWL by intentionally failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff Fisher and all other employees similarly situated, compensation due them under the FLSA, IMWL, and their implementing regulations, the lawsuit claims. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Kentucky Trailer as a non-exempt employee at one of Kentucky Trailer's Illinois facilities, whose primary job duty was working as a service technician on Defendant's trailers. Fisher was scheduled to work 40 hours per week by his employer, Kentucky Trailer. Kentucky Trailer did not pay Fisher one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as required under the FLSA and IMWL. The Plaintiff and the putative classes are and were compensated on an hourly basis. Defendant knew that the Plaintiff and the putative classes performed work that required payment of wages and overtime compensation. Defendant has operated under a scheme to deprive these employees of the requisite compensation by failing to properly compensate Fisher and the putative classes for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a given work week at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul D. Geiger, Esq. Ronald C. Dahms, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. GEIGER 540 W. Frontage Road, Suite 3020 Northfield, IL 60093 Telephone: (312) 609 0060 RMH FRANCHISE: Amended "Ivery" Unpaid OT Suit Partially Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHAMORA IVERY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RMH FRANCHISE CORP., RMH ILLINOIS, LLC, and RMH FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 17 C 1619 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss, and granted in part and denied in part Ivery's motion for conditional certification. The Defendants operate an Applebee's franchise with over 175 restaurants throughout the United States. Ivery worked as an assistant manager ("AMs") at an Applebee's location in Chicago, Illinois between early 2013 and June 2014. According to the amended complaint, Ivery was employed by "RMH" -- which the complaint defines as all three Defendants -- during that period. She worked an average of 50 to 60 hours per week as an AM. However, the Defendants did not pay her overtime for any time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, even though she frequently performed the functions of an hourly employee. Ivery asserts several related causes of action. She claims that the Defendants' policy of classifying AMs as exempt from overtime violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). She seeks to certify a collective action under the FLSA and a class action under both the IMWL and IWPCA to recover unpaid overtimes wages. The initial complaint was filed on March 1, 2017. On May 5, 2017, Ivery filed a notice of consent to be party in a FLSA collective action. Ten days later, she moved for conditional certification and for authorization to issue notice to prospective opt-in members. Ivery's proposed collective includes anyone who has been employed as an AM, including a Front of House Manager or Kitchen Manager, at an Applebee's restaurant operated by RMH between March 1, 2014 and the present. While her motion for certification was pending, Ivery filed, with the approval of the Court, an amended complaint on July 6, 2017. Two weeks later, the Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss her amended complaint. They argue that Ivery does not properly allege that RMH Franchise was her employer and thus is not a proper Defendant, and that Ivery fails to plead a necessary element of one her Illinois wage claims. Judge Tharp finds that the amended complaint does not plausibly establish an employment relationship with RMH Franchise. He will therefore grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss RMH Franchise pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The dismissal, however, is without prejudice. Ivery is afforded another opportunity to amend her pleading to address the deficiencies outlined in the Opinion. Moreover, this dismissal has no effect on the scope of notice to the potential members of the collective because even if RMH Franchise is not a Defendant, its employees may nevertheless assert an unpaid overtime claim by virtue of RMH Holdings' potential status as a joint employer of its subsidiaries' AMs. Although the amended complaint does in fact allege an IWPCA claim, Ivery now appears to abandon that claim. As a result, the Judge will grant the defendants' motion to dismiss Ivery's IWPCA claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and dismiss the claim with prejudice. With respect to the Plaintiff's conditional certification motion, Judge Tharp holds that although the Defendants offer to toll the statute of limitations during pre-certification discovery and raise concerns about the cost of collective litigation, those issues are not reason enough in the case to delay notice in the case, particularly when amendments and motion practice have already delayed the issuance of notice somewhat. Thus, he finds that Ivery has made the modest factual showing necessary to conditionally certify a collective. Given its status as a holding company, it does seem unlikely that RMH Holdings was the primary employer for any restaurant level employees, let alone AMs. Nonetheless, as a potential joint employer with RMH Franchise and RMH Illinois, the Judge notes that it must be considered an employer of both of those entities' AMs at this stage. Therefore, he is satisfied that there is a sufficient basis to conditionally certify as a collective all AMs who worked at an Applebee's restaurant operated by RMH Holdings, or its subsidiaries RMH Illinois and RMH Franchise, between March 1, 2014 and the present. Finally, Judge Tharp directed Ivery to remove the case caption from the notice and replace it with her attorneys' letterhead. However, Ivery may still include the case number and the title in her notice. He holds that Defendants RMH Holdings and RMH Illinois must produce all of the information, except for the social security numbers, for AMs who have worked for either of those Defendants or for RMH Franchise. He also sees no issue with Ivery's request to issue a reminder mailing and email to all potential collective members half-way through the notice period. Ivery must ensure, though, her reminder notice does not include a case caption. For the reasons he stated, Judge Tharp granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. RMH Franchise is dismissed without prejudice, while Ivery's IWPCA claim is dismissed with prejudice. Ivery has until Jan. 8, 2018 to file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies outlined in the Opinion regarding RMH Franchise. Moreover, the Judge granted in part and denied in part Ivery's motion for conditional certification. He conditionally certified a collective of AMs who worked at Applebee's restaurants operated by RMH Holdings, or its subsidiaries RMH Illinois and RMH Franchise, between March 1, 2014 and the present. He also approved Ivery's proposed notice and reminder with the modifications set forth. Finally, the Judge ordered that RMH Holdings and RMH Illinois produce to Ivery, in digital form, the employee contact information outlined, excluding social security numbers, no later than Dec. 22, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/7dBWPa from Leagle.com. Chamora Ivery, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg I. Shavitz -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.A.. Chamora Ivery, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Lardo Stewart -- mstewart@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP, Alan L. Quiles -- aquiles@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.A., Cristina Schrum-Herrera -- Cschrumherrera@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, Paul William Mollica -- pwmollica@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, Relic Sun -- rsun@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP & Justin Mitchell Swartz -- jms@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP. Noah Siebenaller, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg I. Shavitz, Shavitz Law Group, P.A., Alan L. Quiles, Shavitz Law Group, P.A., Melissa Lardo Stewart, Outten and Golden LLP, Paul William Mollica, Outten & Golden & Justin Mitchell Swartz, Outten & Golden LLP. RMH Franchise Corp., Defendant, represented by Jennifer L. Schilling -- jschilling@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Angelo Spinola -- aspinola@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Oyindamola Hanna Badmus, Littler Mendelson, P.C.. RMH Illinois, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer L. Schilling, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Angelo Spinola, Littler Mendelson, PC & Oyindamola Hanna Badmus, Littler Mendelson, P.C.. RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer L. Schilling, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Angelo Spinola, Littler Mendelson, PC & Oyindamola Hanna Badmus, Littler Mendelson, P.C.. ROADRUNNER TRANS: Fund Alleges Waste of Corporate Assets -------------------------------------------------------- The complaint, CHESTER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., the Plaintiff, v. CURTIS W. STOELTING, JUDITH A. VIJUMS, SCOTT D. RUED, MARK A. DiBLASI, JAMES D. STALEY, CHRISTOPHER L. DOERR, JOHN G. KENNEDY, III, BRIAN C. MURRAY, WILLIAM S. URKIEL, MICHAEL P. WARD, IVOR J. EVANS, CHAD M. UTRUP, SCOTT L. DOBAK, RALPH W. KITTLE, III, PETER R. ARMBRUSTER and BRIAN J. VAN HELDEN, the Defendants, and ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2:17- cv-01788 (E.D. Wisc., Dec. 22, 2017), contends that Defendants' misfeasance has severely damaged this once-valuable franchise and has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to Roadrunner's reputation, goodwill, and standing in the business community. Worse yet, Defendants' actions have caused the Company to face complex and expensive-to-defend securities class action and exposed it to millions more in potential liability for violations of state and federal law. HCI Equity Partners (HCI) provides oversight of Roadrunner's various acquisition and the corresponding debt financing for those acquisition in exchange for fees and other remuneration. In total, Roadrunner has paid HCI over $3.5 million in advisory fees and remuneration from 2010 to 2015. Notably, HCI is private equity firm that has owned an interest in Roadrunner since the Company's formation. And as of March 1, 2016, HCI and its affiliates held approximately 25% of Roadrunner's outstanding common stock. Roadrunner's growth by acquisition strategy required the Company to purchase several companies between 2013 and 2016. However, the Company had to greatly increase its debt load and reduce cash flows to consummate these acquisitions. Ultimately, Roadrunner's revenues increases from $632 million in 2010 to almost $2 billion by 2015. But the foundation for this success was soon exposed as a hoax. Roadrunner provides logistics services designed to get its customer's products to market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Wagner, Esq. KERKAMN WAGBER & DUNN 839 N. Jefferson Street, Suite 400A Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 277 8200 - and - Travis E. Downs, Esq. Benny C. Goodman III, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWNS III 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 8498 Telephone: (619) 231 1058 Facsimile: (619) 231 7423 - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Felipe J. Arroyo, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525 3990 Facsimile: (619) 525 3991 RUBY TUESDAY: Executives Balk at Shareholders' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jim Gaines, writing for Knox News, reports that Ruby Tuesday executives fired back on Dec. 18 against lawsuits alleging they didn't get the best price for the company -- not with a court filing, but in a news release criticizing one alternative offer. The Maryville-based restaurant chain announced plans in mid- October to sell out to NRD Capital, an Atlanta private equity firm. But, in November, at least eight shareholders filed class action suits to stop the sale, arguing the company failed to pursue better offers from other buyers. On Dec. 18, Ruby Tuesday announced it had received Dec. 12 another "highly-conditional and not fully-financed proposal" from one of those putative buyers: the Boaz Group LLC, headed by La- Van Hawkins. NRD offered to buy all Ruby Tuesday common stock for $2.40 per share in cash, 21 percent above Ruby Tuesday's closing share price on Oct. 13. The $335 million deal included assumption of Ruby Tuesday's debt, making it worth $146.3 million to shareholders. Boaz offered $2.88 per share, the same it offered several months ago, according to the SEC filings and lawsuits in which Boaz is identified as "Bidder 11." That would increase the sale's value -- and thus shareholder's profits -- by $40 million, according to a suit filed by Jonathan Raul on Nov. 13. But in its latest announcement, Ruby Tuesday's board says Boaz "repeatedly disappointed by submitting proposals that in each case lacked a credible financing plan" over the past nine months. "During the process, Boaz submitted six highly-conditional acquisition proposals, none of which contained committed financing despite repeated requests that Boaz needed to provide a fully-financed proposal in order for the proposal to be actionable and repeated assurances from Boaz that financing commitments were forthcoming," the news release says. That's still the case with the latest offer, so Ruby Tuesday's board rejected it as well. "The Board of Directors of Ruby Tuesday continues to unanimously recommend that Ruby Tuesday stockholders vote 'FOR' the proposal to approve and adopt the merger agreement with affiliates of NRD Capital," the announcement says. The deal was expected to close Dec. 21, according to the news release. The lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee allege the sale violates the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A central issue is the proxy statement Ruby Tuesday issued to its shareholders, which is -- in the words of the earliest suit, filed Nov. 8 by Marcell Maseman -- "materially incomplete and misleading." Six of the suits name as defendants Ruby Tuesday, its president and CEO James Hyatt II, non-executive chairman Stephen Sadove, and the company's other six directors. Two more suits add NRD to that list. The plaintiffs allege several other buyers, including Boaz, were still interested -- and several offered more than NRD, but Ruby Tuesday failed to pursue them. Plaintiffs seek to stop the deal at least until shareholders get all relevant information; alternatively, they seek compensation for damages resulting from the rule violations. The restaurant chain announced in August its revenue declined nearly 13 percent during the previous fiscal year. That included the effects of closing 103 restaurants. In March, the company agreed to consider sale or merger. As of Sept. 5 there were 599 Ruby Tuesdays: 541 company-owned and 58 franchises. Locally, the chain has two restaurants in Alcoa, and one each in Athens, Harriman, Jefferson City, Knoxville, Lenoir City, Morristown, Newport, Powell and Sevierville. [GN] SAMUEL I WHITE: Court Dismisses with Prejudice "Davis" FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RONNIE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-18 (E.D. Va.), Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, granted the Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. The matter concerns real property formerly owned by the Plaintiff, located at 5614 Fairfield Lane, in Hayes, Gloucester County, Virginia. On Nov. 25, 1998, the Plaintiff as honorably discharged from the United States Army. His military service allowed him to obtain refinancing for his residential mortgage on the Property through the Veterans Administration. As a result of this refinancing, he executed a Promissory Note in favor of Bank of America (the original creditor), on Dec. 10, 2012 in the amount of $244,105. The same day, he executed an accompanying Deed of Trust, which identified Bank of America as the Lender and the Defendant as the Trustee. The Plaintiff concedes that he defaulted on the loan in October 2013, when he failed to make payments as they came due on Oct. 1, 2013 and Nov. 1, 2013. He made no further payments after his September 2013 payment. He was advised of the default status by letter dated Nov. 15, 2013, wherein Bank of America advised him that if he failed to cure the default amount (plus additional regular monthly payment(s) and late fees) by Dec. 25, 2013, then Bank of America would accelerate the loan payments, causing the full amount to become due and payable in full. By letter dated Dec. 12, 2013, PennyMac Loan Services, LLC notified the Plaintiff that effective Dec. 3, 2013, servicing of his mortgage loan transferred from Bank of America to PennyMac. On April 21, 2014, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff, wherein the Defendant asserted that it had been instructed to initiate foreclosure of the mortgage securing the Property. Its letter further stated that as of April 11, 2014 the amount of the debt is $248,133.45 and that the creditor to whom the debt is owed is PennyMac. The letter is the complained of correspondence upon which the Plaintiff's suit arises. Non-judicial foreclosure of the property was effectuated in the Circuit Court for Gloucester County, Virginia on Aug. 25, 2014. On Aug. 19, 2014, the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, filed suit against PennyMac in the Atlanta Division of the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia in Case No. 1:14-cv- 02679-CAP. Therein, the Plaintiff asserted a personal suit and a class action suit against PennyMac for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act ("FDCPA"). Eventually, the Georgia Action was dismissed on Feb. 27, 2015 pursuant to a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice wherein the Plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims that were made or that could have been made by both the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the putative class members. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement in connection with the stipulated dismissal On April 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on May 12, 2015. In response, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 5, 2015. The Amended Complaint consists of two counts. Count I alleges that the Defendant committed various violations of the FDCPA against the Plaintiff individually, by sending him a written communication which misstated the amount of a debt owed, misidentified the creditor, and impermissibly threatened to initiate non-judicial foreclosure when no such right to possession existed; by actually foreclosing on the Property; and by recording a "void foreclosure deed" on the Property. Count II alleges what the Plaintiff describes as "Class Allegations" asserted on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to him pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(2)(B) for alleged violations of FDCPA by sending communications that misstated the amount of debt owed and misidentified the creditor. The Defendant filed a Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or to Strike First Amended Complaint on June 18, 2015. Ultimately, the Maryland Action was disposed of by the Hon. Richard D. Bennett's March 24, 2016 Memorandum Order and Opinion. On March 24, 2016, the case was officially transferred to the Newport News division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, pursuant to Judge Bennett's Memorandum Order and Opinion. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. On Aug. 11, 2017, the Defendant filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. Therein, it renewed and incorporated the arguments made in its previously filed Motion to Dismiss and contends that the Plaintiff's suit should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6), or alternatively, as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 56. In support of this argument, the Defendant contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for several reasons, including: the absence of a justiciable case or controversy; the bar imposed by collateral estoppel and issue preclusion; and the Plaintiff's failure to establish a claim under the FCDPA. Additionally, it argues that Count IPs request for class action and class certification status is without basis and unwarranted. Magistrate Judge Leonard finds that the Plaintiff's allegations of violations of FDCPA on the basis that the Defendant misidentified the loan creditor in its April 21, 2014 Letter do not survive the deferential Motion to Dismiss standard. Based on his review of the Record and other permissible sources of information, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff's claimed violations of FDCPA regarding the identification of the creditor are only plausible if the Plaintiff can establish that between Dec. 12, 2013 and May 29, 2014, a different entity besides PennyMac Loan Services became the creditor and holder of the Promissory Note. As detailed, the Magistrate Judge finds this to be implausible and requires the assumption of unwarranted inferences in the Plaintiff's favor. Thus, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count I will be granted with prejudice as to these specific grounds. In addition, Magistrate Judge Leonard finds that even if the Plaintiff had sufficiently pled a cause of action, dismissal of his purported Class Action claims in Count II is required due to his total failure to properly assert a class action, both procedurally and substantively. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge will grant with prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to Count II. For the reasons he stated, Magistrate Judge holds concludes that the Complaint is insufficient to survive a Motion to Dismiss. To the extent that the Plaintiff's allegations move beyond unsupported legal conclusions, the alleged facts do not support his claimed FDCPA violations. Accordingly, he granted the Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, and the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Further, the Magistrate Judge dismissed as moot the Defendant's outstanding Motion to Compel Discovery. He directed the Clerk to forward a copy of the Order to all counsel of record. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/1DLoEs from Leagle.com. Ronnie Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Barkai Pershing. Ronnie Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Harlan S. Miller, III, Miller Legal P. C., pro hac vice. Samuel I White, P.C., Defendant, represented by Lisa Hudson Kim, Samuel I White PC. SEPHORA USA: Court Conditionally Certifies "Hernandez" FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned LACEY HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEPHORA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-05392-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for FLSA certification and denied their request for equitable tolling. Hernandez and Morales are California residents and former Sephora employees. They bring a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claim against Sephora, asserting that Sephora required employees to spend significant time applying required levels of makeup during off hours and on breaks. Given this "off the clock" work, they contend that their total hours worked, and therefore their total overtime compensation, was not properly calculated and paid. Their FLSA claim is based on alleged company-wide Sephora policies, and they seek to represent a nationwide collective class. The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action and a FLSA collective action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated non-exempt employees and former employees of Sephora on Sept. 20, 2016, alleging nine causes of action. They stipulated to dismiss their state-counterclaims on Feb. 2, 2017. Sephora subsequently moved to stay the action, which Judge Orrick denied on March 13, 2017, declining the application of the Colorado River abstention doctrine. The Plaintiffs now move for conditional certification of their collective action under Section 216(b) of FLSA. Sephora opposes the motion for conditional certification, asserting that (i) the Plaintiffs do not present allegations or competent evidence that demonstrates that Sephora's guidelines are illegal or give rise to overtime liability under FLSA; and (ii) the Plaintiffs fail to show that they are "similarly situated" to the more than 5000 Cast Members across more than 350 stores nationwide from the beginning of the putative class period through the present. Judge Orrick finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged common policy or plan. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Sephora required them to perform compensable work "off the clock" by mandating that they spend significant time applying required makeup during off hours and on breaks. To support these allegations, they provide declarations from former employees that describe how the makeup requirements were implemented at Sephora. The Judge finds this sufficient as an allegation of a common policy or plan. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs are similarly situated. He says that given the low bar at this stage, the declarations filed by both Sephora and the Plaintiffs suggest that, though the explicit guidelines changed, there is still sufficient evidence to indicate that the makeup requirement remained. And the new guidelines clearly state that makeup must be applied "off the clock." This allows conditional collective certification. With respect to the scope of the conditional certification, Judge Orrick concludes that the sex limitation is valid but the time period limitation is not. The Plaintiffs correctly point out that Sephora's records may show that class members may have worked less than 40 hours per week, but actually may have worked more than 40 hours if the time applying makeup is counted and their legal claims prevail. But merely describing the class as females who worked on an hourly basis would not sufficiently limit the class. As to the location limitation that Sephora suggests, there is no requirement that a plaintiff provide evidence of similarly situated employees at every location in the proposed class. Finally, the Judge finds that Sephora's motion to stay does not warrant tolling. The motion was filed promptly, had a good faith basis, and was decided prior to the noticed hearing date. It is not a reason to toll. The Plaintiffs also ask that the Judge tolls the time between the hearing on the motion for conditional certification and the end of the opt-in period, noting that courts have frequently tolled the time during which they have a motion for conditional certification under consideration. Given that he has ruled on the motion promptly after the hearing date, the Judge concludes, tolling is not necessary. Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs' request to toll the statute of limitations. Judge Orrick directed the parties to meet and confer concerning the form of and timing for the opt-in notice and attempt to agree on those matters within 14 days of the date of the Order. If the parties cannot agree, they will submit their proposals to me within 14 days of the date of the Order, and he will determine the matters promptly. For these foregoing, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification for females employed by Sephora as "Cashiers," "Cash Wrap Coordinators," "Personal Beauty Advisors," and/or "Product Consultants," who worked 40 or more hours, including any time spent applying makeup "off the clock," in a given week, from June 20, 2014 to present. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/bzupdW from Leagle.com. Lacey Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by David Douglas Deason - - david@yourlaborlawyers.com -- Deason and Archbold. Lacey Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by John Matthew Norton, Matthew Norton & Associates & Matthew Frederick Archbold -- matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com -- Deason and Archbold. Brenda Morales, Plaintiff, represented by David Douglas Deason, Deason and Archbold & Matthew Frederick Archbold, Deason and Archbold. Sephora USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew Ralston Livingston -- alivingston@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexandra Elena Heifetz -- aheifetz@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP & Alexandra H. Stathopoulos -- astathopoulos@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP. SHANGHAI CUISINE: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ZHANG BAO ZHOU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SHANGHAI CUISINE 33, INC., SAMMY KWOK and RAYMOND YIP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07367-AMD- RML (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2017), alleges that, while working for Defendants, Plaintiff did not receive spread of hours compensation of one additional hour at the regular rate of pay, for all days in which Plaintiff worked in excess of 10 hours in any day. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff a meal break or any other break during the work day. The Defendants paid Plaintiff a set wage regardless the hours that he worked. Shanghai Cuisine 33, Inc. is an enterprise and employer that has owned, operated and controlled the restaurant located at 57-33 Main Street, Flushing, New York. The business is owned, operated and controlled by individual Defendants Sammy Kwok and Raymond Yip.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo R. Morel, Esq. 39-15 Main Street - Suite 318 Flushing, New York 11354 Telephone: (454) 362 8960 E-mail: Esquire1998@gmail.com SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, on Dec. 18 notified investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Signet Jewelers Limited ("Signet" or the "Company") (NYSE: SIG) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Signet shares between August 24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/sig This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On November 21, 2017, during Signet's Q3 2017 conference call, CEO Virginia Drosos revealed that Signet "faced headwinds" from "disruptions in our systems and processes during our credit outsourcing transition" which "impacted our comp sales by sixty basis points." The CEO continued to explain that the disruptions were caused by the conversion of IT systems and the magnitude of in-store process changes related to the new program. Following this news, Signet stock dropped $23.05, or 30%, to close at $52.79 per share on November 21, 2017. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/sigor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Signet you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. [GN] SIRTEX MEDICAL: Confirms IMF Bentham Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Tom Richardson, writing for Fool.com, reports that Sirtex Medical Limited acknowledged that legal proceedings against it had been filed in the Federal court by lawyers Maurice Blackburn. The claim for breaches of its continuous disclosure obligations is being funded by litigation funders IMF Bentham Ltd (ASX: IMF) who will meet the legal fees of Maurice Blackburn and wear the risk that the claim is unsuccessful. IMF Bentham claims that it has a 91% success rate in claims funded to June 30, 2017, with 147 out of 162 cases completed won. Those kind of statistics are no surprise as the law is designed to provide certainty and even semi-competent lawyers should be able to assess the outcomes of potential claims based on facts and precedent with a high degree of certainty. For example if IMF's claim is rejected by a judge it faces a substantial cost hit, credibility gap, and red faces all round as it would suggest a failure in their professional interpretation of the law. When talking of credibility it's notable that Sirtex Medical's current board and management is reporting that it will "vigorously defend the new action" -- despite having sacked its old CEO after an internal investigation (by independent legal experts) into his conduct and share trading at the end of 2016. If IMF's claim is successful the compensation will be calculated after the court (or legal teams) agree what the share price would have been trading at but for the breaches of the company's continuous disclosure obligations over the period in a question. In other words it's alleged that if the company and sacked CEO had kept the market properly updated as to its sales trajectory the share price would likely have been substantially lower and the difference between the actual traded price and the theoretical price will be used to calculate potential compensation quantum to claimants. The total compensation potentially due is hard to estimate as it would depend, inter alia, on the number of claimants, which could be a big variable. Outlook Any final bill is unlikely to prove a massive hit to Sirtex given its strong balance sheet and its main challenges remain flattening dose sales growth and rising competition. [GN] SONIC CORP: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that Iconic American drive-in restaurant chain Sonic was hit with a class action in Illinois federal court on Dec. 15, alleging the restaurant did not safeguard its customer credit card data, and as a result the data is being sold on the black market. Chicago resident Clara Hughes-Hillman alleged Sonic Corp. should have known to bolster protections on consumer data, especially after the well-publicized data breaches at other large chain restaurants and companies. The case is Hughes-Hillman v. SONIC CORPORATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-09062 (N.D. Ill.). The case was filed December 17, 2017. [GN] SRA MANAGEMENT: Jan. 31 Proof of Claim Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bivona, et al., Case No. 3:16-CV-1386-EMC SUMMARY NOTICE OF DEADLINE FOR INVESTORS AND CREDITORS TO FILE PROOFS OF CLAIM IN THE SRA FUNDS RECEIVERSHIP ACTION To: All persons who are currently invested in one or more of the following investment funds (collectively, the "Receivership Funds"): 1) SRA I LLC; 2) SRA II LLC; 3) SRA III LLC; 4) NYPA Fund I LLC; 5) NYPA Fund II LLC; 6) Felix Multi-Opportunity Fund I LLC; and 7) Felix Multi-Opportunity Fund II LLC. To: All persons who are creditors of one or more of the following entities (collectively, the "Receivership Entities"): 1) SRA Management Associates, LLC; 2) FMOF Management Associates, LLC; 3) NYPA Management Associates, LLC; 4) Clear Sailing Group IV, LLC; 5) Clear Sailing Group V, LLC; and 6) One or more of the Receivership Funds. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has set a deadline for all persons who are investors in one or more of the Receivership Funds or creditors or one or more of the Receivership Entities to file proofs of claim in the SEC v. Bivona receivership action. If you have any interest in one or more of the Receivership Funds or Receivership Entities, either as an investor or creditor, you must submit a proof of claim to the Receiver on or before January 31, 2018. If you do not submit completed proof of claim form by January 31, 2018, you will be forever barred from asserting any claim against the Receivership Funds and Receivership Entities and you will not be eligible to receive any distributions from the Receivership. If you have not already received a Proof of Claim from the Receiver, go to shrwood.com/saddleriver or e-mail the agent of the Receiver at: SRAClaimsProcessing@JNDLA.com. If you have already submitted a claim, there is no need to submit another in response to this advertisement. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about this Notice, please contact the Receiver at the e-mail address listed above or by telephone at (650) 329-9996. By Order of the Court, United States District Court, Northern District of California STEINHOFF INT'L: Class Actions Circling Amid Financial Woes ----------------------------------------------------------- Franz Wild, Janice Kew and Ruth David, writing for Bloomberg News, report that it looked like Steinhoff International Holdings NV had reached escape velocity from South Africa's deepening economic gloom: A furniture retailer emulating Ikea's model and global ambitions, built by men with their own compelling rags-to- riches stories. Then the debt-fueled rocket stalled and came crashing down. From her office overlooking Cape Town's waterfront, Sygnia Investment Management Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Magda Wierzycka watched on her computer screen on Dec. 6 as Steinhoff's shares began a two-day plunge that cut the price by 80 percent and lopped some 10 billion euros ($11.8 billion) from its market value. Steinhoff said it couldn't release its financial results; it was trying to figure out if there was a 6 billion-euro hole in the balance sheet; and CEO Markus Jooste had quit. All of a sudden, investors who'd bet on Mr. Jooste and his billionaire Chairman Christo Wiese were rushing to the exits. Mr. Wiese had quit too. "People were expecting an explanation from Steinhoff," said Ms. Wierzycka, whose company oversees about $14 billion, mostly in pension funds. "Instead we got nothing. In the absence of any real information, you tend to assume the worst." On Dec. 19, its banks were set to meet with the company to consider whether to keep the retailer afloat or dismantle it and sell it off to get their money back. Mr. Wiese's stellar reputation is in tatters, his $5 billion fortune down to $2 billion. Surrounded by lawyers and advisers, he sounded exhausted when he answered a call on Dec. 11. "Well, I'm alive," is all he would say. Mr. Jooste didn't respond to calls or text messages. A Steinhoff spokeswoman didn't take calls or reply to messages. Mr. Wiese stepped down after Steinhoff said its accounting errors stretch back into 2016. His hold over the company eroded further on Dec. 15 when creditors forced the sale of part of his stake. To create breathing space, the embattled retailer will look to raise cash by selling assets and try to persuade banks to refinance its debt. Still, with regulators from South Africa to Germany probing the company and class-action lawyers circling, its struggles are only beginning. Banks are already unlikely to retrieve some of the 1.5 billion euros they lent Mr. Wiese's own investment firm against Steinhoff shares in 2016. Bruno Steinhoff started the company in 1964 in Germany, buying cheap East German furniture and selling it in the West. In 1997, he bought a similar South African company and listed in Johannesburg the following year. Mr. Jooste, 56, the gruff son of a postal worker who'd qualified as an accountant and then worked his way up in the world of business, became CEO. Mr. Jooste expanded by buying other companies, the largest deal coming in 2014, when his friend Wiese exchanged his budget clothing brand, Pepkor Ltd., for stock worth $5.7 billion in Steinhoff. He became the largest shareholder and chairman. Mr. Wiese, 76, was from a humble background in Upington, a desert outpost eight hours drive from both Johannesburg and Cape Town. Stellenbosch Mafia Messrs. Wiese and Jooste are the face of what South Africans call the Stellenbosch Mafia, the close-knit group of wealthy businessmen who have owned vineyards in the exclusive hills around Cape Town. In an interview with biznews.com in 2016, Mr. Jooste said 10 of the other executives at Steinhoff were his best friends. He's also said Swedish giant Ikea, founded by Ingvar Kamprad, was his model. "We purely follow what he did," Mr. Jooste said in an interview with South Africa's Financial Mail magazine in October. "Our only problem was we couldn't build a brand. So our strategy was to buy the number one or two around Ikea in every country." Buying Spree Investors embraced the expansion story, and poured money into Steinhoff; the share price tripled between late 2012 and early 2016. Since the decade began, its international buying spree encompassed French furniture retailer Conforama, British discount chain Poundland Group Plc and Mattress Firm Holding Corp. of the U.S. It tried and failed to acquire French electronics chain Darty Plc in 2016. Sygnia's Wierzycka said investors "hero worshiped" the pair. Susan Gawith, a portfolio manager at Melville Douglas in Johannesburg, who's covered Steinhoff off and on for 18 years, said most analysts and investors thought following Wiese, South Africa's richest man at one point, was a safe bet, even if there were "many red flags." Ms. Gawith herself didn't recommend investing in the company. 'Warning Signs' "They believed he was smart and made a lot of money and if you invested in his companies you would do the same," Ms. Gawith said in a phone interview. "Steinhoff reminds many in South Africa of Enron. There were lots of warning signs over the years, but everybody was making too much money to take notice." All the way back in 2007, analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. spelled out some of those warning signs. In a 56-page research report, they asked why Steinhoff's accounts lacked "pivotal information" about where it was generating revenue and why it appeared to focus on tax breaks rather than the actual business. Steinhoff managers complained, but were unable to point out any factual errors, according to Andrew Cuffe, JPMorgan's head of research in South Africa at the time. In an email copying in JPMorgan clients, one senior Steinhoff executive even accused the analysts of "asking for inside information," Mr. Cuffe said in an interview. Within a year the lender had stopped covering the retailer. Into the Mud "That was dragging us into the mud and we didn't want to play in the mud," Mr. Cuffe said. Now the group has at least 200 subsidiaries and affiliates, and had exposure to lenders and other creditors of almost 18 billion euros at the end of March, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In 2015, it registered in the Netherlands and moved its main stock listing to Frankfurt. In the next year alone, it announced deals to buy or go into partnership with six companies in five countries. The crisis began when Deloitte LLP, after a decade as Steinhoff's auditor, didn't sign off on its accounts, forcing Steinhoff to announce that it couldn't produce audited financial statements. German and Austrian prosecutors had already been investigating possible accounting fraud since 2015. Initially, Mr. Wiese stepped in to run Steinhoff, but the Public Investment Corp., Africa's biggest fund manager and the administrator of South African government pensions, objected. Wiese's son Jacob, whom he'd previously put forward as a possible successor, also resigned from the board. On Dec. 6, a short-selling group called Viceroy Research published a critical report online asserting that Steinhoff was doing deals with entities that were linked to the company and controlled by associates of Mr. Jooste to artificially inflate earnings. Viceroy, which describes itself as "a group of individuals that see the world differently," provides only a gmail address as contact information and declined to comment further. Ms. Wierzycka said that to her mind the report fit with what Steinhoff has said so far. "It's very seldom that fraud devours an entire company," said Ms. Wierzycka, whose firm has some exposure to Steinhoff through third parties and index funds. "The ending hasn't been written yet, but I think it's all up to the banks. I don't think that the company survives in its current form." [GN] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Second Class Action Over WRK Models ------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Walsh, writing for Courier Post Online, reports that for the second time in 2017, a proposed class-action lawsuit has targeted high-performance vehicles from Subaru of America. A suit filed on Dec. 14 in federal court, Camden, alleges a crankshaft defect can cause "premature catastrophic engine failure" in Subaru's WRX and WRX STi vehicles made for the 2009- 2014 model years. The suit, which calls the alleged defect "a serious safety issue," seeks more than $5 million in damages for people who owned or leased the cars. "We will investigate this claim," Subaru spokesman Michael McHale said of the new lawsuit. "But in general we stand by the engine in question, which has a long history of proven performance," said McHale. Subaru is fighting a separate suit, filed in October, that seeks to represent drivers who owned or leased WRX and WRX STi vehicles made for model years 2013 and 2104. That suit claims contaminated oil can carry metal particles, also leading to engine failure The new suit was filed on behalf of a Missouri man, Michael Augustine, whose 2010 Impreza WRX experienced engine failure in November 2016. It contends automotive engines typically should last for at least 120,000 miles but those in the Subaru vehicles "often fail at less than 50 percent of their reasonably expected useful life." Motorists then face a repair job -- usually the installation of a new engine block -- that can cost from $6,000 to $8,000, the lawsuit says. It says Augustine's engine failed at 73,000 miles. According to the lawsuit, the defective engines are "high performance versions" of engines used in other Subaru models, like the Forrester and Outback. The lawsuit says Subaru modified the engine to nearly double the horsepower, but allegedly failed to make "necessary" changes "to prevent damage to the connecting rod bearings and main crankshaft bearings." The problem was "further exacerbated by inadequate oil lubrication to the bearings and crankshaft" and by "severe driving conditions," the suit asserts. It contends engine failure in the vehicles "results in sudden power loss and/or stalling that severely compromises the owner's ability to maintain vehicle control." Drivers also can face "sudden and catastrophic engine self- destruction as overheated internal parts seize." The suit estimates the class of eligible motorists could number more than 100,000 people. It contends a sampling of complaints posted online by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates the engine defect "is widespread and constitutes an unreasonable safety hazard." It also argued Subaru knew of the defect, contending the company monitors online comments "on Subaru vehicle enthusiast and owners' websites and other consumer forums." The suit includes several complaints filed with the NTHSA, including one from a driver whose 2009 Impreza WRX failed at 9,000 miles. The driver noted the breakdown occurred close to home, but added, "I feel that an issue like this could present an unsafe situation were it to happen on the many long road trips that I take, often in unpopulated or rural areas." Attorneys for Subaru in December moved to dismiss the lawsuit alleging contaminated oil, also filed in federal court in Camden. The motion argued that "alleged engine problem occurred after the vehicle's warranty expired." It also said the California man who brought the suit had purchased the car second-hand, and so could not argue he'd been defrauded by Subaru. Subaru in 2016 settled a third class-action suit alleging excessive oil consumption by multiple Subaru models made between 2011 and 2015. Subaru denied any wrongdoing under the settlement, which extended warranty protections for Forester, Impreza, Crosstrek, Legacy and Outback models made from 2011 through 2015. More than 665,000 people owned or leased vehicles in those categories, according to the suit. The settlement also provided free oil-consumption testing, reimbursement for eligible expenses and, when necessary, a new engine "and other countermeasures" in some vehicles with oil- burning issues. [GN] T.J. MAXX: "Mills" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ AARON MILLS, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. T.J. MAXX, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05236-ELR (N.D. Ga., Dec. 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for T.J. Maxx, Inc., in multiple locations across Georgia during his employment. The Plaintiff worked for T.J. Maxx, Inc. as a loss prevention detective. The Plaintiff was paid straight-time for the first 40 hours worked, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout his employment. According to the complaint, the exact number of employees who have suffered the same unpaid overtime wage injury as Plaintiff, and have yet to receive redress is unknown at this time, but the number is estimated to be at least 20 other loss prevention employees.[BN] TJ Maxx is an American department store chain, selling at prices generally lower than other major similar stores. It has more than 1,000 stores, making it one of the largest clothing retailers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1800 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 343 2441 Facsimile: (404) 352 5636 E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com TRANS WORLD: "Spack" Suit Moved to New York ------------------------------------------- Judge Brian R. Martonitti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey transferred the case captioned CAROL SPACK, Plaintiff, v. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORP.; RECORD TOWN, INC.; RECORD TOWN USA, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-2687-BRM-LHG (D. N.J.) to the Northern District of New York. The case ("New Jersey Action") arises out of Spack's employment for TWEC and her claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). She files on behalf of herself and all similarly situated current and former TWEC employees. A similar matter, filed after this one but further along in the litigation process, is pending in the Northern District of New York, where the Defendants are located, as Roper v. Trans World Ent. ("New York Action"). On March 7, 2017, the Defendants received an attorney demand letter from the Shavitz Law Group, P.A. indicating they represented multiple store managers ("SMs") employed by the Defendants. While the Shavitz Firm threatened to file a nationwide class action alleging violations of the FLSA and various state wage and hour laws, they were also willing to engage in pre-suit settlement discussions, which they entertained. The Defendants' counsel entered into a tolling agreement with the Shavitz Firm, effective April 1, 2017, in order to proceed without prejudice to the Plaintiff's potential claims. On April 20, 2017, Spack filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. The Defendants' counsel certifies pre-suit settlement discussions were still on-going with the Shavitz Firm. Spack alleges the Defendants violated the FLSA, NJWHL, and the PMWA by failing to pay the correct overtime rate when they used the fluctuating work week method to calculate overtime wages. The proposed class in the New Jersey Action includes SMs and senior assistant managers (SAMs). On May 19, 2017, the Shavitz Firm filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of New York, which, according to the Defendants, essentially brings the claims threatened by the Shavitz Firm's initial demand. The Defendants argue the filing of the New York Action terminated the Tolling Agreement. That issue is not before the Court. Based on representations by Defendants, the New York Action has proceeded to discovery and has been referred to mediation, scheduled to begin in January 2018. On June 14, 2017, Defendants moved to (i) transfer the New Jersey Action to the Northern District of New York; (ii) stay the case pending resolution of the motion; (ii) dismiss Defendant Record Town USA for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (iv) dismiss Count Three for failure to state a claim. Spack opposed the motion, agreed to voluntarily dismiss Record Town USA, and cross- moved to amend the Complaint. On Sept. 12, 2017, while the motions were pending, Spack filed a letter asking the Court to rule on the motions to prevent the filing of a motion for equitable tolling and to prevent further prejudice to potential Plaintiffs. On Sept. 20, 2017, Spack filed the motion for equitable tolling, arguing that good cause exists to toll the statute of limitations because of the Courts' delay and because potential class members may not be aware of their legal rights or claims. Between Oct. 12, 2017, and Nov. 3, 2017, another letter-writing campaign took place. The Defendants asked the Hon. Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J., to stay discovery, while Spack asked Judge Goodman to move ahead with a Rule 16 initial conference and even served interrogatories. Significantly, however, those letters informed the Court that Spack filed a motion to intervene in the New York Action on Sept. 29, 2017, asking that court to dismiss the New York Action or transfer it to New Jersey. On Nov. 16, 2017, the Court scheduled oral argument on the motions for Dec. 4, 2017. All pending motions are opposed except that Spack agreed to voluntarily dismiss Record Town USA without prejudice. Judge Martinotti concludes that the Defendants have met their burden to show a transfer to the Northern District of New York is warranted. Taking all relevant interests into consideration, he is persuaded by the nature of the action, as well as both parties' concession that the actions should be adjudicated in the same district by one judge. This indicates to the Court that, in this case, Spack's individual interests may be outweighed by larger, class-wide and public interests. Notably, the existence of the Tolling Agreement did not impact his decision. Had no Tolling Agreement been executed and the actions been filed in the order they were here, he cannot say whether its decision would be different. Practically speaking, he says the interests of judicial efficiency and economy are best served by the action being joined with the New York Action in the Northern District of New York; that district is less congested, the New York Action is moving forward, and mediation is scheduled for January. In this pre-certification stage, he has no doubt the proposed class in the New York Action can be amended to accommodate SAMs if necessary. Taking into account the private and public interest factors and the interests of justice, the Judge finds the Defendants met their burden in demonstrating the motion should be transferred to the Northern District of New York. For these reasons, Judge Martinotti granted the Defendants' Motion to Transfer. Accordingly, the Judge administratively terminated without prejudice and may be refiled in the Northern District of New York: (i) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count Three of the Complaint; (ii) Spack's Motion to Amend her Complaint; and (iii) Spack's Motion for Equitable Tolling. He denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Stay. Record Town USA is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and, therefore, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Record Town USA, LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied as moot. An appropriate order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/FrhzGU from Leagle.com. CAROL SPACK, Plaintiff, represented by AMY CATHERINE BLANCHFIELD -- ablanchfield@mashellaw.com -- MASHEL LAW L.L.C. CAROL SPACK, Plaintiff, represented by STEPHAN T. MASHEL -- smashel@mashellaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN T. MASHEL & PETER D. VALENZANO -- pvalenzano@mashellaw.com -- MASHEL LAW LLC. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORP., Defendant, represented by JAMES M. MCDONNELL -- McdonneJ@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C. & WILLIAM J. ANTHONY -- William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C.. RECORD TOWN, INC, Defendant, represented by JAMES M. MCDONNELL, JACKSON LEWIS P.C. & WILLIAM J. ANTHONY, JACKSON LEWIS P.C.. TRIS PHARMA: "Ahmed" Suit Alleges Retaliation --------------------------------------------- TARIK AHMED, the Plaintiff, v. TRIS PHARMA, INC; KETAN MEHTA; PETER CIANO; and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. MID-L-007604-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2017), alleges that the Defendants employed plaintiff as their Director of Information Technology/Head of Technology from November 2013 until his unlawful discharge on May 5, 2017. The plaintiff performed up to and beyond the reasonable expectations of his employer. The plaintiff met with defendants' then Director of Quality, Dominick DiPaolo. Mr. DiPaolo advised that he welcomed plaintiff's hire as no one at the company understood or followed Current Good Manufacturing Practices and that plaintiff's knowledge and experience was needed to address ongoing Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") infractions. Current Good Manufacturing Practices are regulations enforced by the FDA to assure proper design, monitoring, and control of manufacturing processes and facilities. Shortly after his start, plaintiff began to identify multiple manufacturing and quality practice violations under federal law and FDA regulations. Plaintiff engaged in further CEPA protected activity. Mr. Neubig then turned to defendant Mehta and defendant Mehta began to pressure plaintiff and his subordinates to grant Mr. Neubig his desired access. Plaintiff stood fast in his refusal and explained to defendant Mehta that the same was illegal. In April 2016, plaintiff began reporting to the then-acting Chief Financial Officer, defendant Ciano. In September 2016, defendant Ciano began to pressure plaintiff to allow the quality department to make all system approval decisions in the new ERP project. Essentially, defendant Ciano was asking plaintiff to override the system so as to allow the shipment of quarantined products to its commercial customers. The Plaintiff refused, believing the same to be in violation of FDA regulations. Following plaintiff's objections and refusals, he learned that defendants were falsifying the documentation release process in order to ship quarantine products to the end customers, which itself was a violation of federal law. The following week, defendant Mehta prohibited plaintiff from attending or supporting any task relating to the commercial sales force. Additionally, defendant Ciano began attacking plaintiff's ERP project work and demanded that plaintiff configure the system to enable functionality that was contradictory to federal guidelines. Defendant Ciano's requests would have enabled defendants to ship quarantined material to commercial customers, use unqualified vendors, and suppress financial data from being generated by the system when certain unlawful actions took place. To the extent that plaintiff was separated from employment and to the extent that the separation is contested, plaintiff requests equitable reinstatement, with equitable back pay and front pay.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Silverman, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727 9700 UGL: Clime Capital Files Class Action Over Ichthys Writedowns ------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Wiggins, writing for Financial Review, reports that investment group Clime Capital has filed a class action against UGL in the Federal Court alleging the contractor delayed informing investors about cost blowouts on a power plant contract for INPEX's Ichthys gas project in late 2014. The class action, which was signalled in November, alleges that UGL breached its continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. It was filed in the Victorian district registry of the Federal Court on Dec. 18. IMF Bentham will fund the claim and Phi Finney McDonald will represent Clime Capital, which acquired several million shares in UGL before it announced it had taken a $US170 million provision on the power plant contract. "Clime's decision to pursue this case as representative reflects our anger at UGL's conduct in relation to the Ichthys project," said Clime chairman John Abernathy. "We believe that institutional investors have an important role to play in enforcing disclosure obligations, and recovering losses for our clients and other investors." Phi Finney McDonald director Odette McDonald said Clime had alleged that UGL had failed to disclose the power station it was building for the Ichthys LNG project was running behind schedule and was subject to increased project costs. "This was in circumstances where UGL's joint venture partner [CH2M Hill] had identified these issues at least three months earlier," Ms McDonald said. "The claim seeks to recover loss and damage suffered by Clime and group members as a result of the alleged contraventions." The action, which has been under consideration for more than a year, will claim tens of millions of dollars for losses suffered by investors after UGL's stock slumped in November 2014 after it revealed problems with the power contract. UGL's stock fell almost 15 per cent on November 6, losing $1.01 to $5.89 after it disclosed the additional costs. The stock fell further in subsequent days. The UGL class action was initially considered by Slater & Gordon in 2016, but was delayed by the departure of lawyers who established their own boutique firm, Phi Finney McDonald. UGL is now owned by construction group CIMIC, which walked away from the power contract in February 2017 after buying the smaller contractor in a hostile takeover in late 2016. Former UGL chairman Kate Spargo is now a non-executive director on CIMIC's board. CH2M Hill has also subsequently been acquired, with US engineering group Jacobs buying the smaller American firm in August. Melbourne-based boutique law firm Elliot Legal has been considering a separate class action against UGL. Separately, activists opposed to the construction of the Carmichael coal mine in Queensland have welcomed Downer EDI's decision to walk away from an agreement with Adani to help build the mine after investors raised concerns. "Downer were guaranteed to continue incurring reputational damage and lost revenue through disruptive protest action and local council tender boycotts," said Ben Pennings, a spokesperson for Galilee Blockade. Galilee Blockade now plans to direct protests at engineering and design group AECOM, which has a contract with Adani to design a proposed rail line from the Carmichael mine to the coast. [GN] UNITED STATES: Sued Over Immigrant Detainees' Sexual Assault ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Ballesteros, writing for Newsweek, reports that more than 70 members of Congress lambasted the Department of Homeland Security on Dec. 18 for failing to investigate thousands of sexual assault complaints filed by immigrants in their custody over the last decade. In a letter addressed to four federal officials, including White House chief of staff and DHS acting inspector general, John Kelly, the 71 signees called on Homeland Security and its secondary agencies to investigate the claims immediately. The letter is predicated off of a class-action civil rights complaint filed April 11 with Homeland Security by Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC), a progressive advocacy group. "We write to express our deep concerns about the prevalence of reports of sexual abuse, assault and harassment in U.S. immigration detention facilities, the lack of adequate government investigation into these reports, and the government's refusal to disclose relevant records," reads the letter. According to CIVIC, Homeland Security received a total of 33,126 complaints of sexual and/or physical abuse from January 2010 to July 2016. Of those, only 225 -- .07 percent -- have been investigated. Three-fourth of these complaints were levied against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CPB) officers and personnel. In a statement to NBC released at the time of CIVIC's mass complaint, Homeland Security dismissed the veracity of the complaints: "During the 6-year time frame covered by this report, ICE, for instance, recorded more than two million admissions to its detention facilities nationwide. While ICE's goal is to prevent all sexual abuse among its custody population, given the volume of individuals who annually pass through its detention system, the agency believes the overall incidence of such activity is very low." The letter sent to Homeland Security on Dec. 15 offers a handful of equally harrowing tales of rape, abuse and neglect. "Maria Ortiz Cortez was transferred to the West County Detention Facility in California after she was sexually assaulted at the Yuba County Jail and filed a complaint, further isolating her from her support system in the surrounding community." "Damion "Latoya" Ricketts, a transgender woman, was sexually harassed by a corrections officer at the Santa Ana City Jail in July 2016 when he performed a degrading strip search on her in the men's changing room and demanded she slowly remove each article of her clothing, hand them to him, and run her fingers through his hair." The letter goes on to criticize ICE's petition to the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA), submitted in 2017, to approve its timetable for retaining or destroying records related to its detention centers, including those related to sexual assault, solitary confinement and deaths of those in custody. Human rights organizations immediately criticized the move, saying it impairs the government's ability to stop and prevent abusive behavior at the hands of ICE. "ICE shouldn't be allowed to purge important records and keep its operations out of the public eye," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement in August. The 71 members of Congress requested that ICE rescind its NARA request to delete its records. They also called on the Justice Department "to launch a comprehensive pattern or practice investigation into sexual assault" in detention centers, and for DHS to release "aggregate data on complaints of sexual abuse" at its facilities. In an emailed statement, ICE says that accusations of sexual assault at its detention centers are always fully investigated: "While ICE cannot comment on pending investigations, the agency has zero tolerance for sexual abuse and assault and takes every allegation seriously. In accordance with federal law, ICE has implemented strong protections against sexual abuse and assault of individuals in our custody, including with respect to screening, staff training, detainee education, medical and mental health care, reporting, investigation, and oversight. ICE facilities are inspected annually and independently audited -- with safeguards against sexual assault as a primary focus -- to ensure compliance with DHS regulations. Accusations of alleged unlawful conduct are investigated thoroughly and appropriate action is taken to ensure the safety and security of those involved and others in ICE custody." [GN] UNITED STATES: Undocumented Immigrants Must Be Allowed Abortions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maggie Astor, writing for The New York Times, reports that two undocumented immigrants in United States custody must be allowed to have abortions, a federal judge ruled on Dec. 18, objecting to a Trump administration policy. The immigrants, both 17, entered the United States illegally and are being held in government-run shelters. Under a policy announced in March by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement, federally funded shelters cannot take "any action that facilitates" an abortion for an unaccompanied minor without the approval of the office's director. Department officials argue that the teenagers, referred to in court documents as Jane Roe and Jane Poe, can obtain abortions by returning to their home countries or finding an American sponsor. But Judge Tanya S. Chutkan noted in her order on Dec. 18 that the approval process for potential sponsors is long and complex. In fact, one of Roe's relatives -- a United States citizen -- has filed an application but has yet to complete the vetting requirements. "If defendants are not immediately restrained from prohibiting shelter staff from transporting J.R. and J.P. to abortion facilities or otherwise interfering with or obstructing their access to an abortion," Judge Chutkan wrote, "J.R. and J.P. will both suffer irreparable injury in the form of, at a minimum, increased risk to their health, and perhaps the permanent inability to obtain a desired abortion to which they are legally entitled." Already, Roe's pregnancy is too far advanced for a medication abortion; instead, she will need surgery. And Poe is in the late second trimester, rapidly approaching the limit for obtaining a legal abortion in the state where she is being held. Brigitte Amiri, one of the American Civil Liberties Union lawyers representing the teenagers, said it was impossible to say exactly how far along Poe's pregnancy was because she had not been able to get an ultrasound. The court has moved quickly since the lawsuit was filed on Dec. 15. But Judge Chutkan, of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, stayed her order for 24 hours to allow for an emergency appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The government filed that appeal almost immediately, and also asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of Judge Chutkan's order. On Dec. 18, the Court of Appeals extended the stay for an additional day to give itself time to examine the case. The Administration for Children and Families, of which the Office of Refugee Resettlement is a part, said in a statement that it was "deeply disappointed in the decision to grant a temporary restraining order that will compel H.H.S. to facilitate abortions for minors when they are not medically necessary." "H.H.S.-funded facilities that provide temporary shelter and care for unaccompanied alien minors should not become way stations for these children to get taxpayer-facilitated abortions," the statement said. The abortions would be paid for with private funds, not taxpayer dollars, Judge Chutkan noted in her order. The government, she wrote, is trying to claim "ultimate authority to unilaterally veto the reproductive choices of the unaccompanied minors in its custody." The case is very similar to that of another undocumented teenager who had an abortion in October after the District of Columbia appeals court ruled in her favor. The A.C.L.U. has also filed a broader class-action lawsuit, Garza v. Hargan, seeking to stop the Trump administration from limiting unaccompanied minors' access to abortion. In addition to refusing to facilitate abortions, that lawsuit says, the government has required minors seeking abortions to visit anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy centers." [GN] UNITED STATES: Cambodian Detainees Can stay to Fight Deportations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daphne Chen and Ben Sokhean, writing for The Phnom Penh Post, report that more than 50 Cambodians who were set to be removed from the US on Dec. 18 can temporarily remain in the country to fight their deportation orders due to a last-minute decision from a US judge that immigration advocates celebrated as a "Hail Mary". Christina So, spokeswoman for San Francisco-based Asian Americans Advancing Justice -- Asian Law Caucus, called the temporary restraining order issued by US District Judge Cormac Carney "exciting news". "The government had ordered a chartered flight with at least 50 Cambodians aboard to leave Texas on Dec. 18 to return these detainees to Cambodia," So said in an email on Dec. 15. "This temporary restraining order literally stopped that airplane." The Asian Law Caucus launched a class action lawsuit against the US government in November arguing that the deportations violated the due process rights of the Cambodian detainees. So said the Dec. 15 restraining order means that roughly 200 Cambodians who were detained in recent US immigration raids can stay to fight their deportations. The US government has been deporting Cambodian permanent residents who commit certain crimes since 2002, but the program became a flashpoint in 2016 after the Kingdom temporarily stopped accepting deportees, citing human rights concerns. The deportations have been criticised for tearing apart families and for repenalising offenders who have already paid their debt to society. Many of the returnees, most of whom went to the US as refugee children, have never set foot in Cambodia and were not aware they were not US citizens at the time they committed the offences that precipitated their deportation. In a speech at the Peace Palace on Dec. 15, Hun Sen said the government would reactivate a program to find the bodies of American soldiers who went missing in action in Cambodia if the US withdrew sanctions imposed on Cambodian foreign affairs officials after the country stopped accepting the deportees. "We are implementing the agreement and interviewing people now," Hun Sen said. Bill Herod, founder of the Phnom Penh-based Returnee Integration Support Centre, praised the judge's order as a "Hail Mary" move. "The order will certainly not stop all deportations from the US to Cambodia, but it may buy time for legal manoeuvres that may help in some particularly troubling cases," Mr. Herod said in an email. "It is certainly encouraging to see this issue get the serious attention it deserves." Mr. Herod said the NGO was scrambling to prepare for the new arrivals -- even knocking down barriers in their office building to make more room to house the arrivals -- when they heard the news. Cambodian officials said they were not aware of the development but confirmed later that the flight was indeed cancelled, according to Mr. Herod. Ministry of Interior spokesman Khieu Sopheak and immigration head Sok Phal could not be reached on Dec. 17. The US judge's order said halting the deportations was necessary "until the Court can give proper consideration to the complex issues presented in this action". The next court hearing on the restraining order will be January 11. [GN] UNITED STATES: Awaits Verdict in J20 Inauguration Protest Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Adler-Bell, writing for The Intercept, reports that it's bleak year for the 194 protesters, medics, and journalists facing multiple felony charges stemming from their arrests surrounding Donald Trump's presidential inauguration on January 20, 2017. Vilified by much of the mainstream press and largely ignored by the liberal resistance movement, the J20 defendants -- as they're collectively known -- have huddled around each other and their tight network of supporters. On Dec. 15, a jury began deliberations in the first J20 trial, of six defendants, on a raft of counts; a verdict could come as soon as Dec. 18. However, there was a rare glimmer of hope: Before closing arguments, Judge Lynn Leibovitz of the D.C. Superior Court threw out the "inciting a riot" charge, a felony with a maximum 10 year sentence. Despite throwing out the incitement charges, Judge Leibovitz declined to acquit the defendants on seven other charges, including five counts of felony property destruction, misdemeanor rioting, and misdemeanor conspiracy to riot. Those charges together carry a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison. "It's been a long month for these six defendants and their supporters," said Sam Menefee-Libey of the Dead City Legal Posse, a group that organizes support and advocates for the J20 defendants. "We're nervous, obviously, but we're resolute. And the feeling of solidarity amongst everyone is powerful." What the acquittal means for the remaining 188 defendants is not yet clear. Prosecutors may have stronger evidence of incitement against other protesters, especially those who planned the action or issued directions during the march. (Some of the organizers will go on trial early this year.) But this first failure is indicative of a larger problem with the government's case: a lack of individualized evidence against the majority of those arrested. Judge Leibovitz's unusual decision to grant the defense's motion for a judgment of acquittal is a testament to the paltriness of the prosecution's case for "incitement." Such motions are practically a formality in criminal proceedings; judges almost always defer to the jury to decide on the sufficiency of the facts. In this case, Judge Leibovitz concluded that "no reasonable juror" could find the prosecution's evidence sufficient to establish the charge of incitement. "None of [the defendants] engaged in conduct that amounted to urging others," Judge Leibovitz said. The prosecution's case is built around hours upon hours of video captured by police body cameras, reporters, undercover cops, confiscated cellphones, and far-right groups, such as the media provocateurs of Project Veritas and the Oath Keepers militia. One of the defendants, independent journalist Alexei Wood, had his livestream of the event used as evidence against him and his co- defendants. In his video, Wood can be heard cheering while others graffiti walls and break windows. On Dec. 13, Judge Leibovitz decided that cheering isn't enough to establish incitement. "Personal enthusiasm for the destruction," Judge Leibovitz said, "is qualitatively different from urging others to destroy." Only a tiny fraction of those arrested on January 20 could have personally engaged in acts of property destruction. The prosecution doesn't dispute this fact. "We don't believe the evidence is going to show that any of these six individuals personally took that crowbar or that hammer and hit the limo or personally bashed those windows of that Starbucks in," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff told the jury in her opening statement on November 20. "You don't personally have to be the one that breaks the window to be guilty of rioting." Though it sometimes gets lost amid breathless reporting on masked anarchists, shattered glass, and burning limos, the real story of J20 is one of the state attempting to imprison almost 200 people for criminal acts committed by a handful. The prosecution's novel theory of group liability -- in which anyone in proximity to criminal behavior during a protest can be held liable for those crimes -- is a grave threat to the First Amendment, the right to assemble, and the right to protest, according to civil rights advocates. "The prosecution's case is utterly bizarre and essentially rests on both guilt by association and criminalization of dissent," said Chip Gibbons, the policy and legislative counsel for Defending Rights and Dissent. Unable to marshal sufficient evidence against each individual arrested on January 20, the government has opted instead to criminalize the group as whole. "It's the group that's the danger," Ms. Kerkhoff, the prosecutor, explained at a hearing in July, "the group that's criminal." In so doing, the government has criminalized the very things that constitute the march as a march: aesthetic unity, chanting anti-capitalist slogans, and moving together through the street -- all of which are protected First Amendment activities. The prosecution, of course, doesn't see it that way. "We've been here for the last several weeks because these six defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to destroy your city," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Rizwan Qureshi at the trial. "And now they're hiding behind the First Amendment." Despite being a positive development for the defendants in question, Judge Leibovitz's decision to dismiss the incitement charge leaves the state's theory of liability largely intact. The prosecution has argued that by wearing black, meeting at a predefined location, moving as a cohesive unit, and remaining in the streets after property destruction began, the entire group aided and abetted the tiny fraction who smashed windows and turned over trash bins. In his closing argument on Dec. 14, Mr. Qureshi likened the black bloc -- the protest tactic used on January 20 -- to a driver who waits outside while the "muscle" commits a robbery. "That's exactly what this sea of black was," he intoned. "It was the getaway car." "The J20 cases are unique in that many of the core issues are not centered around factual disputes," Mr. Gibbons, the counsel for Defending Rights and Dissent, told The Intercept. The prosecution and defense agree on the essential facts: Property damage took place on January 20 and only a few people -- none of whom stood trial -- actually broke anything. "The dispute," Mr. Gibbons said, "comes down to what the First Amendment does or doesn't protect." In a jury trial, it's up to judges to rule on the law and juries to rule on facts. But Judge Leibovitz has so far declined to take up the defense's constitutional challenges. In denying a defense motion to dismiss the charges in September, Judge Leibovitz declared that she is constrained by the Supreme Court's 1968 ruling in United States v. Matthews, which upheld the constitutionality of the D.C. riot statute. So long as a defendant "willfully associates" with an "assemblage" causing or threatening tumult and violence, the court found in the Matthews case, they can be charged with rioting. (That ruling, as I reported elsewhere, was based on a racially inflected distinction between rioting and legitimate protest.) When, on Dec. 13, defense attorney Jamie Heine reminded Judge Leibovitz that wearing black and marching with a group of anarchists are both protected First Amendment activities, Judge Leibovitz replied, with exasperation, "I'm really asking you to focus in on the facts, not just to state constitutional principles." In a heated exchange over jury instructions, Judge Leibovitz told the defense, not incorrectly, that it's not the jury's responsibility to "decide what the First Amendment allows and what it prohibits." She added, "What they must decide is whether the defendants have committed the offenses charged." Meanwhile, many of the facts on which the prosecution bases its case are themselves absurd. "What do you need a medic with gauze for?" Mr. Qureshi asked of Brittne Lawson, an oncology nurse from Pittsburgh who attended the protest as a medic. "I thought this was a protest." While organized medical volunteers have attended protests from the Arab Spring, to Occupy Wall Street, to Standing Rock, to Charlottesville, Mr. Qureshi saw something sinister in Lawson's bag of medical supplies, which were entered into evidence. "She wasn't prepared for a march or a protest. She was prepared for war," said Mr. Qureshi. "She was going to be there to help members who are in black, who get pepper-sprayed, who get hurt because they're provoking the police, to mend them and then get them up on their way so they can continue their destruction." (The nurses' code of ethics binds registered nurses to serve all their patients regardless of the unique circumstances and maintains that treatment is not tantamount to endorsement.) In an effort to impugn photojournalist Alexei Wood's intentions at the march, Mr. Qureshi also questioned why a self-declared journalist would be knowledgeable about protest policing. "How is he an up-and-coming journalist and he's talking about a kettle?" he asked, with folksy incredulity. "I didn't know what a kettle was before this case. Did you?" (The admission was remarkable from a prosecutor representing the District of Columbia, which has settled numerous expensive class-action lawsuits against protesters illegally kettled, or cornered protesters into a small area, by its police department.) The defense, too, is constrained by the Matthews precedent, trapped in the bizarro world of the government's theory of group liability. Defense attorneys have spoken to the core First Amendment principles at stake in the case, but they've also spent time in court introducing doubt about whether their clients willfully associated with the so-called riot. Did they know there were windows breaking? Did they stay with the group the whole time? Did they wear black for tactical or purely aesthetic reasons? It is a sound legal strategy, given the circumstances, and thanks to the meagerness of the state's evidence, Mr. Gibbons told me, it may be enough to exonerate their clients. One can't help feeling that all this quibbling is beside the point. By allowing this prosecution to proceed, Judge Leibovitz has implied that it's acceptable for the police to indiscriminately mass arrest protesters without individualized probable cause, then proceed to prosecute them in connection with criminal activity they themselves did not commit. In a sense, the defendants have already been sentenced, to months if not years of waiting and wondering, shuttling back and forth between their homes and Washington for hearings. They've been sentenced to sleepless nights and anxious days, to threats of violence and doxing from far-right extremists. Some have lost jobs and strained relationships. Brittne Lawson, the nurse, was forced to quit her job at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to deal with her charges. Rosa Roncales, a Henrico County, Virginia firefighter, was reassigned to desk duty. Elizabeth Lagesse, a former graduate student, has put her life on hold and moved to D.C. to mitigate the costs of travel from her former home in Baltimore. At a press conference in November, Ms. Lagesse said that whether or not the prosecution's case stands up in court, a "punishment has already been delivered." It was, she said, "the stress, the disruption in their lives." These consequences are "doing a lot of the job of suppressing speech, of suppressing dissent, of contaminating these people." Even if the jury somehow found the prosecution's evidence sufficient, there may be a remaining source of hope for the defendants. Though jurors will be instructed to rule narrowly on the facts -- not on the consequences the defendants may face or the constitutionality of the law -- they're ultimately empowered to decide on the basis of their values. When a jury encounters a plainly unjust law, it is their right to nullify the verdict, whether or not the facts of the case meet the offense charged. "It's a travesty this case ever made it to a jury," said Menefee-Libey of the Dead City Legal Posse. "For now, all we can do is keep up the fight, no matter what happens. We'll keep fighting until all of us are free." [GN] UNITED STATES: Bid to Vacate Nov. 20 Orders in Addicks Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD- CONTROL RESERVOIRS. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES, Master No. 17-3000L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Susan G. Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the Government's Motion To Vacate four Orders issued on Nov. 20, 2017. The Government asserts, among other things, that the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders (i) do not permit resolution of RCFC 12 motions; (ii) do not permit resolution of RCFC 12 motions until after discovery is complete, which conflicts with the purpose of RCFC 12(b) motions; (iii) are problematic, because there is no provision in the RCFC that contemplates transferring the same case to more than one judge, so that multiple judges may rule on the merits in a single case; and (iv) should be vacated, because they indefinitely delay determination of class certification. Judge Braden finds that the requirements of RCFC 16(b)(1)(B), requiring the Court to issue a scheduling order after consulting with the parties' attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference, were more than satisfied prior to issuance of the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders and raises a serious concern about the care taken by the Government to ensure that assertions in the Dec. 1, 2017 Motion were accurate. She also finds that the Court's resolution of a RCFC 12(b) motion is not necessarily dependent on the completion of all discovery. The type of the RCFC 12 motion that the Government may file, and the arguments that the Government makes in support thereof, will dictate the when and the manner of the Court's resolution. The Judge further finds that by separating the claims and making functional assignments among judges with experience with Takings Clause and similar complex cases, the Court's Nov. 13 and 20, 2017 Orders fully comply both with RCFC 1 and RCFC Appendix A I.2 to allow these cases to be adjudicated in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner, albeit these case management decisions may well offend the Government's sense of what it perceives to be well-established and important litigation norms. As the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders state, the Court has determined that the issue of class certification is premature at this juncture, the Judge will not vacate the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders. She says no part of the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders suggests an indefinite delay determination of class certification. There is nothing in Rule 23 that governs class certification which precludes the Court from examining the merits of the plaintiff's claims on a proper Rule 12 motion to dismiss or Rule 56 motion for summary judgment simply because such a motion precedes resolution of the issue of class certification. Finally, Judge Braden holds that the intent of the Court's Nov. 20, 2017 Orders was to assign jurisdictional discovery and any motion filed under RCFC 12 to one judge and assign a different judge to handle other pre-trial discovery and any RCFC 56 motions, to accommodate the Plaintiffs' request to be allowed to a complete discovery and make a record, while jurisdictional issues were adjudicated to a final judgment. Nevertheless, the Court is willing to consider two alternative approaches. First, whether the jurisdictional issues are so intertwined with the merits of the case that the interests of justice require the Court instead to establish a scheduling order setting a target date for a liability trial in the late fall of 2018. Second, the Court also will consider any other reasonable and instructive recommendations about how to adjudicate jurisdiction and dispositive issues in these cases, within the general temporal parameters set forth in the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders. These submissions should be filed with the Court no later than 5:00 p.m. on Dec. 18, 2017. For these reasons, Judge Braden denied the Government's Dec. 1, 2017 Motion To Vacate. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/gIUEKk 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.. IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Glenn Buzbee, The Buzbee Law Firm, Bryant Steven Banes , 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., David Charles Frederick , Kellogg, Hansen, et al, Derek Heath Potts, Potts Law Firm, LLP, Don C. Griffin -- dgriffin@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins LLP, Edward Blizzard, Blizzard & Nabers, LLP, Edwin Armistead Easterby, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Eric Reed Nowak, Harrell & Nowak, Howard L. Nations -- nations@howardnations.com -- Nations Law Firm, Ian P. Cloud -- icloud@robinscloud.com -- Robins Cloud LLP, Jack Edward McGehee - - jmcgehee@lawtx.com -- McGehee, Chang, Barnes, Landgraf, Jared R. Woodfill, Woodfill Law Firm, P.C., Jason A. Itkin , Arnold & Itkin, LLP, Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Jeffrey L. Raizner, Raizner Slania LLP, John Scott Black, Daly & Black, P.C., Kurt B. Arnold, Arnold & Itkin, LLP, 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 -- ttran@tt-lawfirm.com -- Tammy Tran Law Firm, Noah Michael Wexler, Arnold & Itkin, LLP, Rand P. Nolen, Fleming, Nolen & Jez, L.L.P., Rene Michelle Sigman -- rsigman@MerlinLawGroup.com -- Merlin Law Group, Riley L. Burnett, Jr., Burnett Law Firm, Steven John Mitby -- mitby@azalaw.com -- Ahmad Zavitsanos, et al., Timothy Micah Dortch -- Micah.Dortch@cooperscully.com -- Cooper & Scully, PC, Vuk Vujasinovic, VB Attorneys & William Fred Hagans -- whagans@hagans.law -- Hagans Montgomery & Rustay, P.C.. ZHENG LUO, Plaintiff, Pro Se. USA, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Camille Brown -- jacqueline.c.brown@usdoj.gov -- U.S. Department of Justice. UNIVERSAL BUILDING: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- ALFREDO GARCIA; individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, APOLONIO PICENO PEREZ; individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, ROSALIA ARCE; individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES AND SUPPLY CO., a California corporation, GRACE BRUSSEAU, an individual, LEONARD BRUSSEAU, an individual, and DOES 1 to 20, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG17887036 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs and the other non-exempt hourly employees were employed by Defendants to perform cleaning, driving, janitorial work, waxing, window cleaning, Amtrak train waste clean-up, and, related duties for UBS during the relevant time period, which began four years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this action. Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated the Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order and the Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to give the non-exempt hourly employees 30-minute, off-duty meal periods during each shift worked of five hours or more, to provide all 10-minute rest breaks required during the non-exempt hourly employees' work shifts, and to pay the non-exempt hourly employees any premium compensation to which they are entitled for working through the meal and/or rest periods. In addition, Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the non-exempt hourly employees and/or failed to provide accurate payroll statements to all non-exempt hourly employees documenting the hours worked in each payroll period and/or fabricated payroll statements to avoid paying overtime wages. The Defendants have had and continue to have a policy and practice of denying overtime and double time compensation to non- exempt hourly employees despite their entitlement to such compensation under the Labor Code and Wage Order. As a result of these policies and practices, Defendants have failed to pay the non-exempt hourly employees overtime compensation for the time in excess of 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week that they worked during the relevant liability period. Universal Building Services provides building maintenance services in northern and central California. It offers cleaning and sweeping services for commercial facilities, such as business offices, bank branches, churches, schools, food and beverage processing facilities and biotechnology laboratories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Virginia Villegas, Esq. VILLEGAS CARRERA, LLP 170 Columbus Ave, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 989 8000 Facsimile: (415) 989 8028 - and - Ike M. Kaludi, Esq. CALIFORNIA TRIAL LAW GROUP, PC 828 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 109 Albany, CA 94706 Telephone: (415) 967 4900 Facsimile: (415) 967 4901 WEST KENDALL IMPORTS: "Rodas" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Christopher Gabriel Rodas, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. West Kendall Imports, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17-26725 CA 01, was removed/transferred/reprimanded from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17- cv-24711-CMA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. West Kendall is new and used car dealer located in Miami, Florida.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com Attorneys for West Kendall Imports, LLC: Melissa Segarra Zinkil, Esq. James Scott Bramnick, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 1100 West Tower West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6147 Telephone: (561) 671 3675 E-mail: Melissa.Zinkil@akerman.com james.bramnick@akerman.com WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Wants Michigan Residents to Join PFAS Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bryce Huffman, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that consumer advocate and environmental activist Erin Brockovich wants West Michigan residents to join a class action suit against shoe manufacturer Wolverine Worldwide. Ms. Brockovich held a town hall meeting on Dec. 6 to let residents know what work she has done and plans to do for them. Ms. Brockovich urges residents dealing with the groundwater contamination to join the class action lawsuit against shoe manufacturer Wolverine Worldwide because "there is strength in numbers." "Big corporations can get away with a lot of their bad deeds because they can settle with one family, then maybe that family's neighbor doesn't want to take action. A class action suit helps bring folks together to take on big companies," Ms. Brockovich said. Wolverine Worldwide is believed to have caused the contamination by dumping toxic chemicals known as per-and polyflouralkyl substances -- or PFAS -- at several dump sites in Northern Kent County. Ms. Brockovich, who has been involved in other class action suits regarding PFAS, says residents reached out to her with their concerns months ago. "So I'm here to give them permission to ask questions, to speak up, to be concerned, and to legitimize that," she said. Ms. Brockovich says residents can be deterred from taking action because they aren't experts. "They don't have to be any of that to ask questions, to be concerned about their child, and to know there is a toxic compound lurking around in their water," she said. While most resident at the town hall were glad to join the suit, some were a bit wary of the lawyers coming into town. Amy Williams believes the lawyers are getting involved for more reasons than just helping people. "I think the lawyers are all attracted to this national story and they want to get a piece of the action," Williams said. Ms. Williams and her family came to the town hall in shirts that read "We are PFOS'd off." Ms. Williams, who is battling stage four cancer, lives in Rockford. She says her family had been drinking well water for about 17 years before getting on municipal water. "I just wonder if what I'm going through is from the water. And now my daughters grew up drinking that water, what's their future?" she asked. No representatives from Wolverine Worldwide spoke at the town hall, but the company did publish an article on its blog WeAreWolverine.com addressed to Ms. Brockovich. The company wants her to know it has been working with state and local departments to address the water issue for months. Ms. Brockovich didn't acknowledge the blog post at the meeting. [GN] WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Brockovich Attends PFAS Class Action Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------- April Stevens and Noah Fromson, writing for WZZM-TV, report that the people of Kent County deserve to know the truth about the PFAS water contamination that could be detrimental to their health, said environmental activist Erin Brockovich on Dec. 16. Ms. Brockovich is widely-known for exposing a hexivalent chromium contamination in Hinkley, Calif., more than 20 years ago, dramatized in the self-titled movie, Erin Brockovich. She visited Comstock Park High School for a town hall led by three law firms that recently filed a class action lawsuit against Wolverine Worldwide, 3M and Waste Management. The lawsuit says the three companies "dumped toxic waste and polluted the groundwater in Belmont, Rockford and other areas in Kent County." Wolverine Worldwide dumped sludge from its tannery containing PFAS chemicals at an old landfill on House Street in the 1960s. "I continue to see this lack of transparency," Ms. Brockovich said. "This blatant disregard for any oversight and willy-nilly throwing your hazardous waste wherever you want, and it's finding its way into our water supply . . . it continues to go on." The next step is to work backwards and uncover the whole truth of Wolverine's dumping practices over the years, she said. "This PFOS/PFOA, it didn't show up today," Ms. Brockovich said. "It's been around for a really long time, which we're already learning. It's getting a piece of the puzzle and putting it here and another piece and putting it here. That's where we are in the process." Wolverine Worldwide has tested more than 1,000 private wells in Plainfield and Algoma Townships and found nearly 200 contaminated with PFAS. Thirty wells exceed the Environmental Protection Agency's lifetime safe drinking water advisory level of 70 parts per trillion. Plainfield Township's municipal water also tests regularly around eight parts per trillion. "It's time to move forward in this case and to start the march forward in trying to get relief for these residents," said Sharon Almonrode, an attorney for Miller Law, one of the firms that brought the lawsuit. State Rep. Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, who introduced a House bill to set Michigan's standard for PFOA safe drinking water at five parts per trillion, attended the town hall. "I've heard from folks: local, state and federal disappointment in the responses of all those levels of government," Ms. Brinks said. "So I think this is a real call from our friends and neighbors here to examine our response. Are we doing enough?" Ms. Brockovich said the people of Kent County will be instrumental in her work on the case, "Nobody knows your territory better than you," she told the crowd of a couple hundred. "I will listen to you. I will believe you." [GN] YAZAKI CORP: March 12 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION PRODUCT(S): INSTRUMENT PANEL CLUSTERS THIS RELATES TO: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS Case No. 12-md-02311 Honorable Marianne O. Battani 12-cv-00201-MOB-MKM NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTION WITH YAZAKI DEFENDANTS, AND HEARING ON SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL'S REQUEST TO USE A PORTION OF SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: ALL DIRECT PURCHASERS OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSTRUMENT PANEL CLUSTERS IN THE UNITED STATES FROM ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS (OR THEIR CONTROLLED SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, OR JOINT VENTURES) FROM JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 27, 2016. PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY LITIGATION NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE AND WHY WAS IT SENT TO ME? This Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a proposed settlement with Defendants Yazaki Corporation and Yazaki North America, Inc. (collectively, "Yazaki"). Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Yazaki will pay a total of $7,700,000 (the "Yazaki Settlement Fund") and provide cooperation to assist Plaintiff in the prosecution of the claims against the remaining Defendants. The Notice is also to inform you that Settlement Class Counsel will make a request to use up to twenty percent (20%) of the Yazaki Settlement Fund for litigation expenses. This litigation, and the proposed settlement, relate to Instrument Panel Clusters purchased directly from a Defendant. For purposes of the settlement, Instrument Panel Clusters (also referred to as meters) means the mounted array of instruments and gauges housed in front of the driver of a motor vehicle. If you purchased one or more Instrument Panel Clusters in the United States directly from any of the Defendants identified below during the period from January 1, 1998 through December 27, 2016 (the "Class Period"), you are a member of the Yazaki Settlement Class (as defined below) and have the rights and options summarized here: * You may remain in the Yazaki Settlement Class and be eligible to share in the Yazaki Settlement Fund under a claims procedure that will be instituted in the future; * You may exclude yourself from the Yazaki Settlement Class, in which case you will not be bound by the settlement and will not be eligible to share in the Yazaki Settlement Fund; * If you do not exclude yourself from the Yazaki Settlement Class, you may object in writing to the proposed Yazaki settlement and to the request to use a portion of the Yazaki Settlement Fund to pay for litigation expenses, and appear at the hearing at which the Court will consider whether the Yazaki settlement should be approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable and whether a portion of the Yazaki Settlement Fund may be used to pay for litigation expenses; and * You may enter an appearance in the litigation through your own counsel at your own expense. You do not need to take any action at this time if you wish to remain in the Yazaki Settlement Class. You should retain all your records of Instrument Panel Cluster purchases for use in the claims procedure that will be instituted at a later date. WHO IS IN THE YAZAKI SETTLEMENT CLASS? On March 21, 2017, the Court certified a Direct Purchaser Yazaki Settlement Class (the "Yazaki Settlement Class") for purposes of disseminating notice of the proposed Yazaki settlement. The Yazaki Settlement Class is defined as follows: All direct purchasers of motor vehicle Instrument Panel Clusters in the United States directly from any of the Defendants (or their controlled subsidiaries, affiliates or joint ventures) from January 1, 1998 through December 27, 2016. For purposes of the Yazaki Settlement Class definition set forth above, the following are Defendants: Yazaki Corporation; Yazaki North America, Inc.; Continental Automotive Electronics LLC, Continental Automotive Korea Ltd. and Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Continental"); Denso Corporation and Denso International America, Inc. (collectively, "Denso") (Denso and Continental collectively may be referred to as the "non-settling Defendants"); and Nippon Seiki Co. Ltd., N.S. International Ltd., and New Sabina Industries, Inc. (collectively, "Nippon Seiki"). Plaintiff ACAP, L.L.C., f/k/a Aguirre, Collins & Aikman, LLC has been appointed by the Court to serve as the Class Representative for the Yazaki Settlement Class. The Court has appointed the law firms of Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios LLP; and Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. to serve as Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Yazaki Settlement Class ("Settlement Class Counsel"). WHAT IS THIS LITIGATION ABOUT? On February 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Yazaki on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of Instrument Panel Clusters, alleging that Yazaki engaged in a continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices at supra-competitive levels for Instrument Panel Clusters sold in the United States. Plaintiff further alleged that members of the proposed class paid artificially inflated prices for Instrument Panel Clusters and suffered antitrust injury to their business or property in violation of the federal antitrust laws. On January 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which named Nippon Seiki and Denso as additional defendants. On February 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, naming the Continental Defendants. In 2014, the Court approved a $5.25 million settlement with Nippon Seiki. Yazaki denies Plaintiff's allegations, and has agreed to settle this matter in order to avoid the expense and burden of further litigation. The Court has not issued any findings or rulings with respect to the merits of Plaintiff's claims or Defendants' defenses. This is a settlement with Yazaki only. Plaintiff is continuing to prosecute the case against the remaining non- settling Defendants. WHAT RELIEF DOES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Plaintiff, on behalf of the Yazaki Settlement Class, has entered into a settlement with Yazaki dated December 27, 2016 under which Yazaki has agreed to pay $7,700,000. The Settlement Agreement gives Yazaki the right to reduce the amount of the settlement, but under no circumstances to less than $2,500,000, based on timely and valid requests for exclusion by members of the Yazaki Settlement Class. Yazaki has also agreed to cooperate with Plaintiff in the prosecution of the lawsuit against the non-settling Defendants. The cooperation provided for under the terms of the Settlement Agreement includes: (a) providing an attorney proffer of facts regarding documents, witnesses, meetings, communications, agreements with competitors, events, background information and any other relevant, non-privileged topics; and (b) producing through affidavit(s) or declaration(s) and/or at trial a representative qualified to authenticate, establish as business records, or otherwise establish any other necessary foundation for admission into evidence any of Yazaki's Documents and transactional data produced or to be produced. Settlement Class Counsel agreed to the proposed settlement to ensure a fair and reasonable resolution to this matter, and to provide benefits to the members of the Yazaki Settlement Class while recognizing the existence of complex, contested issues of law and fact; the risks inherent in such complex litigation; the likelihood that in the absence of settlement, future proceedings would take several years and be extremely costly; and the magnitude of the benefits resulting from the settlement in light of the possible range of recovery that could be obtained through further litigation, including the risk of no recovery. Settlement Class Counsel believe that it is in the best interests of the Yazaki Settlement Class to enter into the proposed settlement and resolve this litigation as to the Yazaki Defendants only. This Notice is only a summary of the terms of the proposed settlement. The Settlement Agreement contains other important provisions, including the release of certain claims against Yazaki, and you are referred to the Settlement Agreement, which is on file with the Clerk of Court and available online at www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com, for the complete terms of the settlement. The proposed settlement must receive final approval by the Court to become effective. If you are a member of the Yazaki Settlement Class and the proposed settlement is approved and becomes effective, you will be bound by its terms, including the release provisions. If you wish to object to the settlement, you may do so, but only in accordance with the procedures set forth below. If you do not object to the settlement, you do not need to take any action to indicate your support for, or lack of objection to, the settlement. HOW DO I REMAIN IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO? If you are a member of the Yazaki Settlement Class as defined above, you will automatically remain in the Yazaki Settlement Class unless you elect to be excluded. If you wish to remain in the Yazaki Settlement Class, you do not need to take any action and your interests will be represented by the Class Representative and by Settlement Class Counsel. You will have no responsibility to individually pay attorneys' fees or expenses. Any such fees and expenses will be paid solely from amounts obtained from the Defendants, whether by settlement or judgment, and must be approved by the Court after notice to you and a hearing. If you choose, you may also have your own attorney enter an appearance on your behalf and at your expense. If you remain in the Yazaki Settlement Class and the final judgment order dismissing Yazaki from the litigation becomes final and unappealable, you will be bound by that judgment. As a member of the Yazaki Settlement Class, you will be eligible to share in the Yazaki Settlement Fund pursuant to a claims procedure that will begin at a later date. Settlement Class Counsel are not presently asking the Court to distribute the Yazaki Settlement Fund proceeds. If you remain a member of the Yazaki Settlement Class, you will receive additional notice at a later date and you will have an opportunity to object to and be heard regarding the proposed plan of distribution at that time. Do not dispose of any document that reflects your purchases of Instrument Panel Clusters in the United States directly from any Defendant during the period from January 1, 1998 through December 27, 2016. You may need those documents to complete a claim form in the future, which will be subject to verification if the settlement is approved or if damages are otherwise recovered from Yazaki or another Defendant. Settlement Class Counsel are not currently seeking payment of attorneys' fees. In connection with seeking final approval, they will, however, seek permission from the Court to use up to twenty percent (20%) of the Yazaki Settlement Fund to pay litigation expenses, including, but not limited to, costs for experts, depositions, document reproduction and review, and other costs incurred in prosecuting the case. At a later date, Settlement Class Counsel will ask the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of additional litigation expenses, as well as payment of incentive awards to the Class Representative for its service to the class. You will be sent notice and be given an opportunity to object and be heard by the Court when Settlement Class Counsel seek payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and incentive awards from the Yazaki Settlement Fund. WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO REMAIN IN THE YAZAKI SETTLEMENT CLASS? If you wish to exclude yourself from the Yazaki Settlement Class, you must send a request for exclusion, in writing, via certified mail, return receipt requested, postmarked no later than February 5, 2018, to Settlement Class Counsel, and to counsel for Yazaki, at the addresses set forth in the section of this Notice immediately following this one, and to the following address: Instrument Panel Clusters Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation P.O. Box 5110 Portland, OR 97208-5110 Your request for exclusion must include the full name and address of the purchaser (including any predecessor or successor entities and any trade names). You are also requested to identify the Defendant(s) from which you purchased Instrument Panel Clusters during the Class Period, the Instrument Panel Clusters purchased, and the dollar amounts of those purchases. If you validly exclude yourself from the Yazaki Settlement Class you will not be bound by any decision concerning the Yazaki settlement and you may pursue individually any claims you may have against Yazaki, but you will not be eligible to share in the Yazaki Settlement Fund. WHEN WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AND HOW CAN I TELL THE COURT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT? The Court will hold a hearing on March 12, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 272, to determine whether the proposed Yazaki settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider at the hearing whether to approve Settlement Class Counsel's request to use up to twenty percent (20%) of the Yazaki Settlement Fund to pay litigation expenses. The hearing may be rescheduled, adjourned, or continued without further notice to you. If you do not exclude yourself from the Yazaki Settlement Class and you wish to object to the settlement or to Settlement Class Counsel's request to use a portion of the Yazaki Settlement Fund for litigation expenses, you must do so in writing. Your objection must include the caption of this litigation, must be signed, and must be filed no later than February 5, 2018, with the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and mailed to the following counsel, postmarked no later than February 5, 2018: Steven A. Kanner FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Gregory P. Hansel PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 Joseph C. Kohn KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Eugene A. Spector SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Yazaki Settlement C John M. Majoras JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 Counsel for Yazaki If you do not object to the proposed Yazaki settlement, or the request to use a portion of the Yazaki Settlement Fund for litigation expenses, you do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action at this time. WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF MY ADDRESS CHANGES? If this Notice reached you at an address other than the one on the mailing label, or if your address changes, please send your correct address to: Instrument Panel Clusters Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 5110, Portland, OR 97208-5110. The Settlement Agreement, Complaints, and other public documents filed in this litigation are available for review during normal business hours at the offices of the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system after registration and payment of a modest fee. Copies of the Settlement Agreement and certain other documents relevant to this litigation are available at www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com. Questions concerning the proposed Yazaki settlement, this Notice, or the litigation may be directed to any of the Settlement Class Counsel identified above. Please do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge. Dated: December 13, 2017 BY ORDER OF: HONORABLE MARIANNE O. BATTANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division YBARRA BROS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, ALEXANDER AZ and MONICA GUZMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs, v. YBARRA BROS., INC and ALBERT and TROY YBARRA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00001 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 1, 2018), alleges that, as servers, Plaintiffs were tipped employees, and were paid at an hourly rate of $2.13 or $4.00, with Defendants taking a tip credit as allowed under circumstances by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under the dictates of the FLSA and Federal Regulations related thereto, an employer is entitled to take a tip credit and to "pool" tips if the employer follows the proper legal requirements. Defendants failed to keep proper records of the tips received by their employees, improperly applied tips to employees not entitled to receive tips, and, upon information and belief, failed to actually pay all of the "pooled" tips to other employees and instead kept a portion of the withheld tips. The Plaintiffs assert that, due to their illegal actions, the Defendants should lose the benefit of the tip credit and be required to pay the Plaintiffs the difference between the amount paid and the minimum wage for all hours for which Defendants actually paid the employees, minimum wage (and minimum-wage rate overtime pay) for all hours not previously paid, and all tips withheld from Plaintiffs and Members of the Class. The Defendants knew of, approved of, and benefited from Plaintiffs' regular and overtime work.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868 3388 Facsimile: (713) 683 9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com * Australian Gov't Looks Into Legal Fees Amid Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Coade, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that with the growing number of class action proceedings in Australia, the government is looking at how to prevent litigation costs associated with lawyers fees from being unfair and disproportionate. Commonwealth regulation for third-party litigation funders will be considered by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), with a report to government expected to be available late this year. The ALRC will consider specific matters about class action funders, including the proportionality of lawyers' costs and the lack of ethical constraints on their operation such as those binding legal practitioners. Attorney-General George Brandis QC said it was time to address whether the structure, operation and terms on which litigation funders operated should come under federal regulation. "With class actions becoming more common in courts across Australia, the Turnbull government wants to ensure the costs of such proceedings are appropriate and proportionate and that the interests of plaintiffs and class members are protected," Senator Brandis said. In a statement, the AG noted that third-party funding entities were not bound to the same professional ethical obligations as lawyers. He said this was an issue given the "significant role" third-party funding entities played in enabling and maintaining class actions, and where plaintiff groups risked paying big fees. "There is a significant risk, in such proceedings, that members of plaintiff groups may be required to pay lawyers' fees which are exorbitant and unjustifiable," Senator Brandis said. The ALRC will consult widely with relevant litigation class action stakeholders, as well as the legal profession and courts. It will report to government by December 21, 2018. [GN] * HMRC Urged to Take Action Over Long Unpaid Internships -------------------------------------------------------- Nadia Khomami and Pamela Duncan, writing for The Guardian, report that a Conservative peer has called on HMRC to investigate companies who advertise for long-term unpaid interns and called for a ban on any placement that lasts more than four weeks. Chris Holmes, whose private member's bill to limit unpaid internships recently got its second reading in the Lords, said he wanted to bring clarity to an area "muddied" by companies and organisations that take advantage of the current legislation to exploit young people. He said a loophole in the law that allows for students to do up to a year's worth of unpaid work was further incentive for legislative change. Mr. Holmes's bill proposes a ban on placements lasting more than four weeks and the peer has a question tabled to Lord Henley, the parliamentary under secretary of state at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the Lords on Dec. 18. "I'm seeking to push HMRC to do more in terms of investigations, because so much of this is hidden in plain sight," Mr. Holmes told the Guardian. "There are adverts for unpaid internships that HMRC could follow up. They could get into dialogue with that business or employer or organisation." "I'll be asking Lord Henley whether he believes the current legislation is satisfactory, and whether they have considered legislative reform," Mr. Holmes said. "In the light of lower rates of reporting and the lower rates -- if any -- of actual prosecutions, isn't it clear that the law is not working? We need further work from HMRC." HMRC is responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage (NMW) in the UK. Employers have to pay their interns the NMW if the intern is "classed as a worker", which includes taking on tasks that a paid employee would otherwise do, having a contract or having been promised a work contract in future. If there is no contract, an intern is more likely to be classified as a worker if their placement lasts longer than a few weeks, and if the business relies on their specific skills. But there is an exemption when the intern is a student at an accredited college or university and will be receiving academic credit, or if they are only shadowing an employee and not carrying out any work themselves. But there is no legal definition of an intern, he added, and internship agreements can be written in a such a way that a person understands they really have to be present and perform certain functions, "but in no way can it be construed as a contract of service. "Why would they want to give you a contract? The less documentation the better from their point of view, because they can just go 'he or she was just there, just shadowing, watching how stuff happens here'." Mr. Holmes said it was an issue of "diversity and inclusion", and ensuring that everybody has an equal opportunity to do whatever they choose in life. Unpaid internships, he added, were particularly rife in fashion and the media. "Some very prominent fashion houses have been rightly called out in the past for this practice while espousing a particular view of equality," he said. Mr. Holmes is clearly not alone in his thinking. The actors and designers Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen settled a lawsuit by agreeing to pay $140,000 to 185 interns who were part of a class action against their parent company, Dualstar Entertainment. It was part of a string of unpaid internship lawsuits filed against some of the world's biggest fashion houses and designers. In Britain, the fashion house founded by the late designer Alexander McQueen was sued by a former intern who worked unpaid for four months. The action came a year after the fashion house was forced publicly to apologise about an unpaid internship for a "talented knitwear student" to work five days a week for up to 11 months without a wage. But legal action, Mr. Holmes said, is rare. "You've got two things going on, businesses that try and actively get around the legislation, and then lots of predominantly young people drawn into this world, who feel they have no choice. If somebody sees this as the only route to get into that particular career, it's highly unlikely that they would seek to bring a case against an employer." Earlier this year, a 22-year-old student at Kent University who was looking for a new summer internship shared an advert she found on a job site called Fashion Workie, a "free self service portal for posting and finding jobs, internships, work placements, castings" and more. The ad was for a one-year unpaid placement for Urban Outfitters. "This is by far the most cheekiest job post I have seen in my life," the student wrote. Urban Outfitters said in a statement at the time: "Unpaid internships are legal under UK law, as long as the intern is a student at an accredited college or university and will be receiving academic credit for the internship." Though that particular ad was eventually taken down, countless other advertisements for unpaid internships lasting anywhere between a month and a year are currently on the Fashion Workie website, as well as other sites including Fashion United and Fashion Jobs. The Guardian analysed over 260 UK-based internship advertisements on the two websites -- Fashion United and Fashion Jobs -- between December 12 and December 13, 2017. One in eight posts stated that the position was "unpaid" or "voluntary" and did not make mention of expenses. Of these 13 included a line on how long the internship lasted: the minimum was six weeks but the majority were advertising for internships of between three to six months. Further to the unpaid internships, one in five, or 52 positions, offered some form of expense payment for travel or lunch or both (noteworthy was the stipulation in many that only London-based travel expenses were covered, some specifying travel in zones 1 and 2 only). Just 19 posts -- 7% of the total -- mentioned any level of salary (although several did not state how much the salary would be) of which two mentioned "remuneration" and two offered minimum wage positions. The remainder of the positions advertised did not state whether remuneration was offered or not. A significant minority of the internships (107) were aimed at students of which 15 explicitly state that the position was "unpaid" or "voluntary" without listing expenses. A further 20 student-orientated positions offered some level of expenses. Just seven mentioned salary or "remuneration". The majority didn't state whether the position offered salary or expenses. Andrew Loader, who founded Fashion Workie in 2009 whilst studying Fashion Promotion & Imaging at University for the Creative Arts in Epsom, said all the long-term unpaid ads on his site specifically ask for students because, "UK law exempts students undertaking a work placement internship lasting less than one year as part of their UK-based further or higher education course from having worker status." "Fashion Workie supports and welcomes the discussions at government level concerning the various types of internship and work experience-based roles, but it's important that any change has a lasting positive effect." In a statement to the Guardian, HMRC reiterated the present law. A spokesman said: "Employing unpaid interns as workers to avoid paying the National Minimum Wage is against the law and exploitative. If interns are workers, they are eligible for at least the NMW, regardless of how long their placement is. "HMRC always takes action to ensure workers receive what they are entitled to. Consequences for not complying with paying NMW can include fines of 200% of the underpayment, public naming and, for the worst offences, criminal prosecution." Adam Watling, careers manager at London College of Fashion, UAL, said the university had a "a zero tolerance policy on brokering unpaid opportunities". Case study: Louise, 21, fashion intern Louise, 21, was given a three-month internship in the marketing department of a major international fashion house in London last summer. She wasn't paid but was eligible for expenses of up to GBP5 a day. She told the Guardian she left the company after a month because a combination of long days, menial work and an intimidating office environment became unbearable. Louise, a fashion student who is undertaking placements as part of a year working in the industry, applied for the internship via the Fashion Workie website. After receiving the job and being told to start a week later, she arranged to move to London and find suitable accommodation. "I didn't sign any contracts or anything," she said. "I was surprised, because we'd seen the September collection two months before it was shown at New York fashion week -- really confidential stuff. There was no formal procedure." The marketing department hired two interns at any one time. The office, she said, was small, made up of the interns and a PR assistant and a showroom director, who in turn reported to a number of PR directors. "On my first day, they gave me a booklet and said everything you need to know is in here so you don't need to ask questions. If you have any questions ask the other intern. Though the interns completed work for the directors every day, "they didn't know my name . . . You'd say hi in the morning and they'd completely ignore you. They would refer to us as 'intern 1' and 'intern 2'." "We couldn't speak in the office," Louise said. ". They would talk amongst themselves but never include us. I sneezed a couple of times one day and the PR assistant asked me to leave." Louise's work included scanning newspapers for coverage, filling out forms and spreadsheets, and putting clothes in bags and boxes and sending them out. "You got blamed for everything that went wrong. If something was late, they would tell the directors 'it was the interns'. If you tried to stand up for yourself the assistant would shout at you and say things like 'if you don't want this job you can leave, I can get someone else to do it'. "They would also try and pit you against the other intern. If the assistant was in a bad mood, she would come in and throw clothes on the printer or boxes of shoes at your feet and say 'send these out'. They would even accuse us of stealing stuff. "We'd have to go for lunch one at a time, and only when the work was completed. That meant sometimes I wouldn't get my lunch until 4pm." Louise said she didn't understand how anyone was expected to live and work for nothing in London. Months after the end of her internship, she said she still hadn't been paid her expenses. "The other intern hadn't been paid her expenses for two months. When she complained, the showroom director said 'to be honest, you're at the bottom of the pile. At the end of the day you're an unpaid intern, you're not exactly the priority'. "Sometimes I'd have to get a director's lunch, which I wouldn't mind, but when I asked the PR assistant if she was going to pay me, she would say 'she might or she might not, but you can't say anything'." "The worst part is their business wouldn't work without the interns, because we did every single thing. But they never gave us credit -- we would write emails and they would replace our name with theirs. That's really disappointing, because to get the internship you need to have been to university and have experience." Louise said a lot of the interns before her had had a similar experience. "Four interns in a row left after one month. The problem was that there wasn't an HR department in London. We had no contact for anything." "I've never worked in an environment where you're made to feel so irrelevant all the time. I couldn't sleep. I'd go and hide in the toilet for five minutes at a time just so as to not be in the office. It made me think I don't want to work in this industry at all." [GN] * Klein Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------ David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a fax class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri brought under Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") against various marketing entities and their respective individual owners was recently dismissed. In a ruling based on personal jurisdiction, the Court decided that it violated the marketers' due process rights to force them to defend the fax class action in Missouri without having sufficient contacts with the State. What were the alleged violations asserted in the fax class action lawsuit? The fax class action complaint alleged that the subject faxes violated the opt-out notice provisions of the TCPA and its implementing regulations. While the plaintiff asserted claims against eleven defendants, only one actually sent the plaintiff any faxes. Nevertheless, as claimed by the plaintiff, the other defendants were allegedly liable for TCPA violations because the faxes at issue were allegedly sent on their behalf. The Court did not opine on this theory of liability, and instead sought evidence from the plaintiff that the defendants conducted sufficient business in Missouri to justify litigating the TCPA fax class action lawsuit in the State. When the Court determined that the plaintiff had failed to produce such evidence, the case was dismissed. [GN] * Law Enforcement Agencies Recover Only Fraction of Lost Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Depillis, writing for CNNMoney, reports that employers of some of the country's lowest-paid workers are stealing billions from their paychecks -- and federal and state law enforcement agencies have only been able to recover a fraction of those lost wages. According to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, government agencies -- as well as private lawyers -- recovered almost $2 billion in wages that should have been paid to workers in 2015 and 2016. For the last few years, labor advocates have sought to bring more attention to the issue of "wage theft," which can take many forms: Requiring workers to stay after their shift officially ends, failing to pay overtime or taking deductions that reduce total hourly pay to below the minimum wage. It's a big problem in low-wage industries like residential construction and warehousing, but the most visible offenders are retail and restaurant chains, which have high turnover and often employ undocumented immigrants who are more vulnerable to intimidation from an employer should they complain. In recent years, several progressive cities have passed ordinances allowing local law enforcement to police wage theft, and the Department of Labor under the Obama administration hired more investigators to go after problem employers. Still, EPI's compilation of state wage theft settlements shows that some states are much more aggressive than others. California recovered nearly $117 million for workers between 2015 and 2016 -- more than a third of the total amount recovered by the 39 states from which EPI received figures. That was followed by New York, which won back $84.6 million. When adjusted for the size of the workforce, Connecticut comes out in front, recovering $9.66 per capita over those two years. Compare that with last-ranking Indiana, which only got back 19 cents per worker on average. Although it's possible that the severity of wage theft varies across states, the EPI researchers found that the amount recovered has more to do with the resources devoted to enforcement and the legal tools available in each state. California, for example, requires employers to issue each worker a notice of their rights, including the pay rate and who they can call if it's not reflected in their paychecks. The state also hosts a wealth of labor union-aligned nonprofits with the capacity to educate workers about the law and how to file complaints. In states that don't have strong protections, workers can be very reluctant to report wage theft, especially if the payoff is small and the possibility of retaliation -- such as getting demoted or losing one's job -- is high. An earlier EPI study based on government survey data found that workers in the 10 most populous states alone likely lose about $8 billion a year in underpaid wages. Still, state attorneys general accounted for only $317 million out of the nearly $2 billion recovered for workers in 2015 and 2016. The rest of the money came from the federal Department of Labor's $513 million in wage and hour settlements, and $1.2 billion in payouts stemmed from lawsuits, many of them class actions. Payouts through litigation, in particular, jumped dramatically over the past two years. The value of just the top 10 wage and hour settlements, as compiled by the law firm Seyfarth Shaw, tripled between 2014 and 2016, to $695 million. Part of that total was driven by a few very large settlements in long-running lawsuits, including $466 million paid in two cases against FedEx for misclassifying drivers as independent contractors, and therefore not paying required overtime. In a statement, FedEx says it settled the case "to remain focused on meeting the needs of our customers." But according to Seyfarth, the high total was also due to the fact that while recent Supreme Court cases have made it difficult to mount a class action lawsuit in cases of employment discrimination, circuit courts of appeal -- especially those in New York and on the West Coast -- have continued to welcome the multi-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuits that are more lucrative for lawyers. "Prosecution of wage and hour lawsuits is a relatively low cost investment, without significant barriers to entry, and with the prospect of immediate returns as compared to other types of workplace class action litigation," Seyfarth's report reads. However, that may soon change. In October, the Supreme Court heard National Labor Relations Board vs. Murphy Oil USA, which could uphold employers' right to bar their workers from mounting class action lawsuits, forcing them instead into individual arbitration. Celine McNicholas, co-author of EPI's report, says that would make it even more difficult for workers to address underpayment of wages at a time when government enforcement isn't up to the task. "There is rampant wage theft out there, and you're seeing the private bar respond to that," Ms. McNicholas says. "If you take away the class mechanism, that private enforcement will be taken away from workers as well." [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sedgwick Withdraws as Atty for GE in "Johnson" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has entered an order granting Chris S. Marks, Esq., Erin P. Fraser, Esq., and Sedgwick LLP leave to withdraw as counsel for General Electric Company, CBS Corporation and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation in the case styled Thomas A. Johnson and Barbara C. Johnson, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to Buffalo Pumps; et al., Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-00834-TSZ (W.D. Wash.). A full-text copy of the Order dated January 4, 2018, is available at https://is.gd/gvZuR5 from Leagle.com. Thomas A. Johnson & Barbara C. Johnson, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, represented by: Kristin M. Houser, Esq. Lucas W.H. Garrett, Esq. Thomas J. Breen, Esq. Elizabeth Jean McLafferty, Esq. SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 810 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: (206) 622-8000 Email: houser@sgb-law.com garrett@sgb-law.com breen@sgb-law.com mclafferty@sgb-law.com Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as successor- in-interest to Buffalo Pumps, Defendant, represented by: Alice Coles Serko, Esq. Barry Neal Mesher, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP Phone: 816.423.227 Email: bnm@bnmesherlaw.com Asbestos Corp Ltd, Defendant, represented by: Kevin J. Craig, Esq. Mark B. Tuvim, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 695-5100 Fax: (206) 689-2822 Email: kcraig@grsm.com mtuvim@grsm.com CBS Corporation, successor by merger to CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation formerly known as Viacom Inc, Foster-Wheeler Energy Corporation & General Electric Company, Defendants, represented by: Erin P. Fraser, Esq. Christopher S. Marks, Esq. TANENBAUM KEALE LLP 601 Union Street Two Union Square, Suite 4253 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: efraser@tktrial.com cmarks@tktrial.com Crane Co, Defendant, represented by: Ryan J. Groshong, Esq. G. William Shaw, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, Washington 98104-1158 Voice: 206.370.7667 Fax: 206.623.7022 Email: ryan.groshong@klgates.com bill.shaw@klgates.com Goulds Pumps LLC, formerly known as Goulds Pumps, Inc, Defendant, represented by: Ronald C. Gardner, Esq. GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98121 Phone: (206) 256-6309 Fax: (206) 256-6318 Email: rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com IMO Industries, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to IMO Delaval successor in interest IMO DeLaval, Defendant, represented by: Michael Edward Ricketts, Esq. James Edward Horne, Esq. GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP One Union Square 600 University St, #2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206.676.7500 Fax: 206.676.7575 Email: mricketts@gth-law.com jhorne@gth-law.com Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by: Richard G. Gawlowski, Esq. WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98164-2050 Phone: 206-623-4100 Fax: 206-623-9273 Email: info@wscd.com Uniroyal Inc, Defendant, represented by: Chris Robert Youtz, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER Columbia Tower 701 5th Ave., Suite 2560 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: 206.223.0303 Fax: 206.223.0246 Email: info@sylaw.com Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by: Shaun Mary Morgan, Esq. Allen Eraut, Esq. RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC 1300 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 330 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 229-1819 Email: smorgan@rizzopc.com aeraut@rizzopc.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims vs. AO ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs-Appellants Essie Lemieux, Raymond J. Lemieux, Jr., and Dehon Lemieux Callier's claims against Defendant-Appellee American Optical Corporation. Plaintiffs are the widow and surviving children of Raymond J. Lemieux, Sr. From 1956 to 1970, Raymond Sr. worked for the Johns- Manville Corporation in Marrero, Louisiana. During his employment, Raymond Sr. wore a respirator designed by American Optical and was exposed to asbestos. As a result of this exposure, Raymond Sr. developed asbestos-related lung cancer, which eventually caused his death in 2015. Prior to his death, Raymond Sr. filed suit against American Optical stemming from his use of American Optical's respirator. Represented by his attorney, Raymond Sr. entered into settlement negotiations with American Optical. The Plaintiffs were unaware of these discussions, but as a condition of Raymond Sr.'s settlement with American Optical, they were eventually asked to sign a release of any potential future claims they might have. A settlement agreement containing the release of these claims was executed by Raymond Sr., Plaintiffs, and American Optical on February 10, 2011. Nearly one year after Raymond Sr.'s death and over five years after executing the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs filed suit against American Optical in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Plaintiffs alleged that the respirator used by Raymond Sr. was: (1) defectively designed and manufactured, and (2) deceptively marketed and sold in violation of Louisiana and federal law. In bringing their claims, the Plaintiffs raised the unenforceability of the Settlement Agreement asserting that it was null and void under Louisiana law and sought a declaration holding as much. American Optical filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on the basis that (1) the Settlement Agreement plainly barred the claims, (2) the Plaintiffs' claim that the Settlement Agreement is relatively null was time-barred because more than five years have passed since it was executed, and (3) even if the Plaintiffs could challenge the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs' complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to set forth any plausible claim of relative nullity. The district court agreed and granted American Optical's motion. The district court held that the Plaintiffs' claim that the Settlement Agreement is relatively null is barred by Louisiana's five-year prescription period for such claims. Even if the claim was not barred, the court alternatively held that Plaintiffs' consent to the Settlement Agreement was not vitiated by error, fraud, or duress. Thus, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against American Optical with prejudice. All three bases on which Plaintiffs assert nullity relate to the circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs' execution of the Settlement Agreement. Even accepting Plaintiffs' allegations as true, these bases were readily apparent or reasonably ascertainable at the time the agreement was signed or in the five years that followed. The Fifth Circuit points out that with reasonable diligence, the Plaintiffs could have recognized their misunderstanding of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, consulted an independent attorney, or questioned Raymond Sr.'s attorney or American Optical about the terms of their release. Thus, as the district court correctly noted, Plaintiffs' failure to discover the bases for their nullity claim can only be attributable to their own willfulness or neglect. While Plaintiffs seek to reset the prescriptive clock to the date of Raymond Sr.'s death, Plaintiffs fail to assert how, if at all, Raymond Sr.'s death changed Plaintiffs' understanding of the Settlement Agreement or their ability to assert a nullity cause of action within the five-year prescriptive period. In fact, it is difficult to see the relevance of Raymond Sr.'s death to Plaintiffs' alleged discovery of their nullity cause of action at all. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit determines that the prescriptive period commenced on the date Plaintiffs entered into the agreement because the bases upon which Plaintiffs' nullity claim is based were readily discoverable at the time Plaintiffs executed the Settlement Agreement. By November 11, 2016, when Plaintiffs filed suit seeking to nullify the Settlement Agreement, the five-year prescriptive period had run. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs' suit as time barred under Louisiana law. The appealed case is Essie Lemieux, widow of Raymond J. Lemieux, Sr.; Raymond J. Lemieux, Jr., surviving child of Raymond J. Lemieux, Sr.; Dehon Lemieux Callier, surviving child of Raymond J. Lemieux, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. American Optical Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 17-30346, (5th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Per Curiam dated January 4, 2018, is available at https://is.gd/xZRge4 from Leagle.com. Counsels for Plaintiff-Appellant: Meyer H. Gertler, Esq. Louis L. Gertler, Esq. The Gertler Law Firm 935 Gravier Street, Suite 1900 New Orleans, LA 70112 Local Phone: (504) 581-6411 Toll Free: (877) 581-6411 E-mail: mhgertler@gertlerfirm.com lgertler@gertlerfirm.com Counsels for Defendant-Appellee: Thomas R. Blum, Esq. Douglas Watson Redfearn, Esq. Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP 1100 Poydras Street, 30th Floor New Orleans, LA 70163 Direct: (504) 569-2916 Fax: (504) 569-2999 Email: thomasb@spsr-law.com douglasr@spsr-law.com -- and -- Sara L. Ochs, Esq. Akerman LLP 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2200 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel.: 504 586 1241 Fax: 504 584 9142 Email: sara.ochs@akerman.com -- and -- Chad M. Eggspuehler, Esq. Tucker Ellis LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH Direct: 216.696.5919 Fax: 216.592.5009 Email: chad.eggspuehler@tuckerellis.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Stay "Lineberger" Proceedings Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dennis L. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismisses the Consent Motion to Stay Proceedings because the Plaintiffs' counsel has not shown that consultation with the Defendants has occurred in the case styled Tommy William Lineberger, and Marcella Wilson Lineberger, Plaintiffs, v. CBS Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16 cv 390, (W.D.N.C.). The Plaintiffs' counsel, however, is directed to refile the motion -- stating if the parties have conferred and stating opposing counsel's position(s). Contemporaneously and separately from the motion, Plaintiffs' counsel is also required to file a brief. A full-text copy of the Order dated January 3, 2018, is available at https://is.gd/b66CZr from Leagle.com. Tommy William Lineberger, and spouse & Marcella Wilson Lineberger, Plaintiffs, represented by: Sabrina G. Stone, Esq. Dean Omar Branham, LLP 302 N Market Street, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: (214) 722-5990 Email: sstone@dobllp.com -- and -- William M. Graham, Esq. The Law Offices of Wallace & Graham 525 North Main Street Salisbury, North Carolina Phone: 704-754-8242 Fax: 704-633-9434 CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc. (sued as successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation) and also as successor-in-interest to BF Sturtevant & Gould Electronics, Inc., successor-in-interest to other ITE Circuit Breaker Co., Defendants, represented by: Jennifer M. Techman, Esq. Evert Weathersby Houff 3455 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1550 Atlanta, GA 30326 Direct: 678.651.1238 Phone: 678.651.1200 Fax: 678.651.1201 Email: jmtechman@ewhlaw.com CNA Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Celanese Corporation formerly known as Hoechst Celanese Corporation & Graybar Electric Co, Defendants, represented by: Stephen B. Williamson, Esq. Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A. 422 S Main St Hendersonville, NC 28792-5304 Phone: (828) 697-6196 Fax: (828) 693-3999 Cooper Industries, LLC, successor-in-interest to Cooper Industries, Inc. (successor-in-interest to Crouse-Hinds Company), Defendant, represented by: William P. Early, Esq. Pierce Herns Sloan & Wilson, LLC. Durez Corporation & Occidental Chemical Corporation, formerly known as Hookers Chemical Co. as successor to Durez Corporation, Defendants, represented by: John S. Slosson, Esq. Tracy Edward Tomlin, Esq. William M. Starr, Esq. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP One Wells Fargo Center 301 South College Street, 23rd Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: 704.417.3000 Facsimile: 704.377.4814 Email: jack.slosson@nelsonmullins.com tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by: Laura Erb Dean, Esq. Richard T. Boyette, Esq. Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P. General Cable Industries, Inc., successor-in-interest to other Carol Cable Co., Defendant, represented by: Stephanie G. Flynn, Esq. Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP 2 W. Washington Street, Suite 1100 Greenville SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 751-7600 Facsimile: (864) 751-7800 Email: stephanie.flynn@smithmoorelaw.com -- and -- Timothy Peck, Esq. Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP 300 N. Greene Street, Suite 1400 Greensboro NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 378-5200 Facsimile: (336) 378-5400 Email: tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com Georgia Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by: Kenneth Kyre, Jr., Esq. Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC 3203 Brassfield Road Greensboro, North Carolina 27410 Phone: (336) 282-8848 Fax: (336) 282-8409 Email: kkyre@pckb-law.com International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by: Mark Andrew Leach, Esq. Orbock Ruark & Dillard, PC 1590 Westbrook Plaza Dr., Suite 102 Winston-Salem, NC 27103 Tel: 336-760-8848 Fax: 336-760-5903 -- and -- Mary Clift Abdalla, Esq. Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP 210 East Capitol Street, Suite 2200 Jackson, Mississippi 39201-2375 Direct: 601-960-8600 Fax: 601-960-8613 Email: mary.abdalla@formanwatkins.com Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by: Keith E. Coltrain, Esq. Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA 1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 423 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Telephone: (919) 865-9500 Facsimile: (919) 865-9501 Email: Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by: Tracy Edward Tomlin, Esq. William M. Starr, Esq. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP One Wells Fargo Center 301 South College Street, 23rd Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: 704.417.3000 Facsimile: 704.377.4814 Email: tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com Plastics Engineering Company, doing business as PLENCO, Defendant, represented by: Amy C. Drayton, Esq. Dean and Gibson, Attorneys at Law, PLLC 301 S McDowell St # 900 Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: 704-372-2700 Email: adrayton@deanandgibson.com Rockwell Automation, Inc., successor-in-interest to other Allen- Bradley formerly known as Rockwell International Corp., Defendant, represented by: Sarena Monique Holder, Esq. Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216.696.5696 Email: sarena.holder@tuckerellis.com -- and -- Timothy Peck, Esq. Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP 300 N. Greene Street, Suite 1400 Greensboro NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 378-5200 Facsimile: (336) 378-5400 Email: tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com RSCC Wire & Cable, LLC, Defendant, represented by: Elizabeth D. Scott, Esq. Elizabeth C. Stone, Esq. Lynn Kanaga Brugh, IV, Esq. Williams Mullen 301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: 919.981.4000 Fax: 919.981.4300 Email: escott@williamsmullen.com ecstone@williamsmullen.com -- and -- Lynn Kanaga Brugh, IV, Esq. Williams Mullen, pro hac vice Williams Mullen Center 200 South 10th Street, Suite 1600 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: 804.420.6000 Fax: 804.420.6507 Email: lbrugh@williamsmullen.com -- and -- Sarena Monique Holder, Esq. Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216.696.5696 Email: sarena.holder@tuckerellis.com Schnieder Electric USA, Inc., formerly known as Square D Company, Defendant, represented by: Janice Holmes, Esq. Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A. Phone: 803-724-1821 Fax: 803-779-1767 Email: jholmes@gwblawfirm.com Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendant, represented by: Kelly B. Jones, Esq. Womble Bond Dickinson Phone: 919.755.2151 Email: kelly.jones@wbd-us.com Tarkett, Inc., Defendant, represented by: John T. Holden, Esq. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcoat P.C. 2115 Rexford Road, Suite 210 Charlotte, NC 28211-5453 Telephone: 800-634-8441 Facsimile: 888-811-7144 Email: jholden@dmclaw.com Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by: Moffatt G. McDonald, Esq. Scott E. Frick, Esq. W. David Conner, Esq. Christopher Barton Major, Esq. Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. 1 North Main Street, 2nd Floor Greenville, SC 29601-2772 P.O. Box 2048 (29602-2048) Telephone: 864.240.3200 Facsimile: 864.240.3300 Email: mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com sfrick@hsblawfirm.com dconner@hsblawfirm.com cmajor@hsblawfirm.com Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Individual & successor-in-interest to other International Talc Co. formerly known as RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by: David L. Levy, Esq. Gerald Anderson Stein, II, Esq. Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1000 Charlotte, NC 28210 Phone: (704) 366-1101 Email: dlevy@hedrickgardner.com astein@hedrickgardner.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dr. Burgher Can't be Admitted as Expert Witness ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kenneth G. Gale of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denies The Budd Company, Inc., leave to add Louis Burgher, M.D., as expert witness and to reopen Discovery in the case titled Nancy Little, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Robert L. Rabe, Plaintiff, v. The Budd Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 16-4170-DDC-KGG, (D. Kan.). Plaintiff, who is the daughter of decedent Robert Rabe, filed this action in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, alleging wrongful death and personal injuries allegedly resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products. The Budd Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in November 2016. The Scheduling Order currently in effect includes an expert disclosure deadline of September 30, 2017, and a discovery deadline of December 29, 2017. The Defendant served the expert report of Dr. Earl Gregory on September 25, 2017. The Defendant filed its Motion for Leave to Add an Expert Witness and to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose on November 15, 2017, contending that "in the course of developing its case and preparing for trial, [it] has come to the conclusion that this action will be furthered by retention of an expert, Louis Burgher, M.D. to discuss the medical state of the art applicable to this asbestos personal injury action." The question before the Court is whether the Defendant could have met the expert deadline set forth in the Scheduling Order with due diligence. The Court warns that the deadlines set forth in its Scheduling Orders are not merely aspirational. Rather, the orderly, timely and efficient management of litigation by the Court and counsel is important to the administration of justice. The Court maintains that tardy substantive changes to the Scheduling Order can be unfair, and can cause substantial delay and expense. Thus, actions beyond those deadlines are only allowed for good cause. The Court finds that there is no attempt to establish that the Defendant could not have met the deadline with due diligence. The argument the Defendant advances in favor of its motion does nothing to assist the Court's analysis of good cause or due diligence. The Court clarifies that "late realization that a party would benefit from another expert is not good cause" and "the lack of prejudice to the non-movant does not show good cause." A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated January 3, 2018, is available at https://is.gd/TtQVVY from Leagle.com. Nancy Little, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Robert L. Rabe, Plaintiff, represented by: E. Todd Hottman, Esq. Hottman Law Firm 130 N Cherry St, Suite 203 Olathe, KS 66061-3460 Phone: (913) 262-4444 -- and -- John D. Roven, Esq. Roven-Kaplan, LLP 2190 N Loop W Fwy Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 465-8522 Fax: (713) 465-3658 E-mail: info@rovenlaw.com -- and -- Kevin M. Camp, Esq. Jones Granger, pro hac vice 10000 Memorial Drive, Suite 888 P.O. Box 4340 Houston, TX 77210 Phone: 713.668.0230 Fax: 713.956.7139 Email: kcam@jonesgranger.com The Budd Company, Defendant, represented by: James E. Wynne, Esq. Joseph E. Richotte, Esq. Butzel Long, PC, pro hac vice 41000 Woodward Ave. Stoneridge West Bldg. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Email: wynne@butzel.com richotte@butzel.com -- and -- Vincent Edward Gunter, Esq. Rasmussen Dickey Moore, LLC 1001 E. 101st Terrace, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64131 Phone: 816-360-1727 Email: vgunter@rdm.law ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transportation Ins. Summary Ruling Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Mike McGrath of the Supreme Court of Montana affirms the Workers' Compensation Court's decision granting summary judgment to Transportation Insurance. The appealed case Christita Moreau, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Edwin Moreau, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Transportation Insurance Company, Respondent and Appellee, No. DA 17-0320, (Mont.) raised this issue: "Did the Workers' Compensation Court properly deny Moreau's motion for summary judgment and grant Transportation Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment?" Edwin Moreau contracted a fatal asbestos-related occupational disease that arose from his employment with W.R. Grace. In 2001 W.R. Grace created the Libby Medical Plan (LMP) to assist residents of Libby, Montana, in paying for medical costs arising from asbestos exposure from vermiculite mining. The LMP medical payments were made with "no strings attached" and LMP did not demand or expect any reimbursement from any source. W.R. Grace's establishment of the LMP was "voluntary with no conditions" and W.R. Grace disclaimed any intention to seek reimbursement for any payments made by the LMP. LMP paid $95,846 of Edwin's medical bills because they were "reasonable and necessary medical care related to Edwin's occupational disease." Transportation Insurance Company, as W.R. Grace's workers' compensation insurer, paid Edwin's out-of-pocket medical expenses and also reimbursed Medicaid and other insurers that had paid portions of the expenses. In 2012, Moreau petitioned the Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) for a determination of Transportation Insurance's liability for Edwin's medical expenses arising out of his occupational disease. Christita Moreau's petition to the WCC demanded that Transportation Insurance pay her the $95,846 that had been paid by the LMP. Moreau's attorneys also represented the LMP Trust "for purposes of recovering the disputed $95,846" for the LMP Trust. At the time of the WCC order, the LMP Trust was not a party to this action and had not advanced a claim in the WCC for reimbursement of the amount paid by its predecessor LMP. The WCC concluded that Transportation Insurance's obligation to the Estate of Edwin Moreau for medical expense payments was governed by Section 39-71-704, MCA, which requires an insurer to "furnish reasonable medical services" to an injured worker. The WCC determined that paying an injured worker for medical expenses that were already paid by an entity not seeking reimbursement "is not furnishing medical services" The Court finds that in the WCC proceedings, Moreau moved to add LMP Trust as a party but subsequently withdrew her motion. While the LMP Trust purportedly stated that it sought reimbursement for the amounts that its predecessor LMP paid on Edwin's behalf, there is no evidence that it took any steps to pursue that claim. There is no evidence that LMP Trust sought to enforce its purported claim through joinder or intervention in the present action or by a separate action. A matter can be decided in the courts only when there is a justiciable controversy. Moreau further argues that Edwin's Estate should receive the payment of approximately $95,000 from Transportation Insurance because he has not been made whole for all of the losses and damages caused by his occupational disease. She argues that until the Estate is made whole (fully compensated) for those losses, Transportation Insurance must pay to the Estate the disputed $95,000. The Court explains that the made-whole concept in the context of workers' compensation does not apply to the recovery of workers' compensation benefits by the injured worker or his estate. However, the made whole concept can be applicable when an injured worker recovers damages from a third-party tortfeasor on a tort claim for personal injury, outside of the workers' compensation system. In that situation, the workers' compensation insurer that has paid benefits to the injured worker arising out of the same incident may not subrogate against the tort damages recovered by the worker until the worker has been made whole as to his tort claim. The Court finds that the Moreau's case is not one of those subrogation cases since there has been no third-party tort recovery. Transportation Insurance is not seeking to recover any money from Edwin's Estate. The Court concludes that Edwin and his Estate were entitled only to the medical benefits provided by the workers' compensation statutes and there is no dispute that those benefits were already provided. As the WCC concluded, the Court affirms that Edwin was not entitled to recover the value of the medical benefits in addition to the medical services themselves. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated January 2, 2018, is available at https://is.gd/7PTH77 from Leagle.com. Counsel for Appellant: Allan M. McGarvey, Esq. Ethan Welder, Esq. McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & Lacey, PC 345 1st Ave E, Kalispell Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 752-5566 -- and -- Laurie Wallace, Esq. Bothe & Lauridsen, P.C. Columbia Falls, Montana P.O. Box 2020 5 Hwy 2 Columbia Falls, MT 59912 Phone: (406) 892-2193 Email: info@Bothe-Lauridsen.com Counsel for Appellee: Todd A. Hammer, Esq. Hammer, Quinn and Shaw, PLLC 00 Financial Dr, Ste 100 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 755-2225 Email: toddhammer@attorneysmontana.com Amicus Curiae W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn represented by: Bradley J. Luck, Esq. Jeffrey B. Smith, Esq. Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP 350 Ryman Street Missoula, MT 59802 Phone: 406-523-2500 Fax: 406-523-2595 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at Sep.30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Roper Technologies, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that it or its subsidiaries have been named defendants along with numerous industrial companies in asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states. The Company states, "No significant resources have been required by Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has valid defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend them vigorously. Given the state of these claims, it is not possible to determine the potential liability, if any." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Ykrw3R ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $9.7MM Cleanup Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- Regency Centers Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that together with its Investments in real estate partnerships, it had accrued liabilities of US$9.7 million for their pro-rata share of environmental remediation, which includes the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers. The Company states, "We are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and underground petroleum storage tanks. We believe that the tenants who currently operate dry cleaning plants or gas stations do so in accordance with current laws and regulations. Generally, we use all legal means to cause tenants to remove dry cleaning plants from our shopping centers or convert them to more environmentally friendly systems. Where available, we have applied and been accepted into state-sponsored environmental programs. We have a blanket environmental insurance policy for third-party liabilities and remediation costs on shopping centers that currently have no known environmental contamination. We have also placed environmental insurance, where possible, on specific properties with known contamination, in order to mitigate our environmental risk. We monitor the shopping centers containing environmental issues and in certain cases voluntarily remediate the sites. We also have legal obligations to remediate certain sites and we are in the process of doing so. "As of September 30, 2017, we and our Investments in real estate partnerships had accrued liabilities of US$9.7 million for our pro-rata share of environmental remediation. We believe that the ultimate disposition of currently known environmental matters will not have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations; however, we can give no assurance that existing environmental studies on our shopping centers have revealed all potential environmental contaminants and liabilities; that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did not create any material environmental condition not known to us; that the current environmental condition of the shopping centers will not be affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition of nearby properties, or by unrelated third parties; or that changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations or their interpretation will not result in additional environmental liability to us." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/xg6AqD ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metaldyne Defends Grede's EPA Case --------------------------------------------------- Metaldyne Performance Group Inc. is defending in a case related to an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency regarding its Wisconsin facility, according to American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc.'s Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 11, 2017. The Company states, "A subsidiary of MPG, Grede Wisconsin Subsidiaries LLC (Grede Wisconsin), had been under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency for alleged Clean Air Act violations and alleged obstruction of justice relating to the January 2012 removal of debris from the roof of a heat treat oven that was purported to contain asbestos at a now closed Grede facility in Berlin, Wisconsin. The United States Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin, indicted Grede LLC and Grede II LLC, the parent company of Grede Wisconsin, in connection with this matter. We are defending this matter." A copy of the Form 8-K and its attachments are available at https://is.gd/iCMlAP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had US$13.6-Mil. Loss at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., has US$13.6 million losses and loss adjustment expenses for asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2017 was the result of net unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years driven by US$13.6 million for our asbestos exposure due to increasing defense costs and increase in the time claims remain open and US$3.0 million in the other run-off lines, partially offset by net favorable loss reserve development on prior accident years of US$4.6 million for the run-off risk management lines. Loss and loss adjustment expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2016 included net unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years of US$5.7 million for our asbestos exposure due to greater than expected defense costs on our primary exposures, US$3.7 million development in our risk management lines and US$2.0 million in our other run-off lines. "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 was the result of net unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years driven by US$13.6 million for our asbestos exposure due to increasing defense costs and increase in the time claims remain open and US$5.2 million in other run-off lines, partially offset by net favorable loss reserve development on prior accident years of US$2.7 million for the run-off risk management lines." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/bD12qC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 55 Claims at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has 55 pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Liquidating Trust ("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in approximately 1,371 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of September 30, 2017. The claims were filed over a period beginning in 1994 through September 30, 2017. In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, approximately 1,316 were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of September 30, 2017. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was less than US$3,000. There remained 55 pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2017. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims. "BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate coverage limits of US$183,000,000, with US$1,543,000 at both September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 in estimated remaining self-insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to 1973, although there is no assurance that the insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. "BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of both September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349,000 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of the likely costs to defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub. "There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/RzmLUL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,500 PI Cases at Sept. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt public limited company is defending 11,500 asbestos- related cases as of September 29, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2017. The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of September 29, 2017, there were approximately 11,500 asbestos-related cases pending against the Company. "The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its liability for pending and future claims is based on claims experience over the past five years and covers claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years. The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolutions of all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/2ploq5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sep. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Manitowoc Company, Inc. still defends itself against lawsuits related to asbestos matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "The Company is involved in numerous lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of numerous defendants. After taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political environment with respect to asbestos-related claims and the liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. "The Company is also involved in various legal actions arising out of the normal course of business, which, taking into account the liabilities accrued and legal counsel's evaluation of such actions, in the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution, individually and in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. "It is reasonably possible that the estimates for warranty costs, product liability, environmental remediation, asbestos-related claims and other various legal matters may change based upon new information that may arise or matters that are beyond the scope of the Company's historical experience. Presently, there are no reliable methods to estimate the amount of any such potential changes." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/xr99KI ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 89 Cases at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself against 89 cases alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 89 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 143 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at US$3 million compensatory and US$1 million punitive damages; one count at US$1.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0 million compensatory damages for the fourth cause of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos- containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/sHAWhp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Pulls Out Children Makeup Over Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABC Eyewitness News reported that retailer Claire's is recalling certain brands of children's makeup due to cancer-causing substances. The company has pulled 17 products from shelves over asbestos concerns. The issue came up thanks to a Rhode Island woman who was worried about the ingredients in her 6-year-old daughter's glitter makeup kit. Kristi Warner mailed the makeup to an independent lab in North Carolina. Test results revealed tremolite asbestos. Exposure to asbestos has been linked to mesothelioma, which is fatal. "I physically sank," Warner said. "I ended up sitting on the ground, just trying to wrap my head around how something like that could end up in our home." Claire's pulled the makeup and released a statement, saying they'll be conducting an immediate investigation into the alleged issues. In July, Justice, another children's store, also pulled makeup off of their shelves over asbestos concerns. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whistleblower Wins Improper Removal Case --------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reported that a jury awarded approximately $174,00 to a whistleblower who was fired for reporting improper asbestos removal practices at asbestos abatement and demolition company Champagne Demolition, LLC. OSHA brought suit on his behalf under Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the jury awarded $103,000 in back wages, $20,000 in compensatory, and $50,000 in punitive damages. According to the complaint, the company fired the whistleblower one day after he raised concerns about improper asbestos removal at a high school in Alexandria Bay, NY, and entered the worksite when it was closed to take pictures of the asbestos. The whistleblower also removed a bag containing the improperly removed asbestos. A few weeks after Champagne Demolition terminated the whistleblowers' employment, they sued him for defamation. Champagne Demolition subsequently stipulated to the dismissal of the defamation claim. OSHA alleged that both the termination of the whistleblower's employment and the filing of a defamation action were retaliatory acts prohibited by Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Although for procedural reasons the court did not rule on whether the filing of the defamation action against the whistleblower was retaliatory, the Secretary's motion for summary judgment stakes out an important position on retaliatory lawsuits against whistleblowers: Lawsuits filed with the intent to punish or dissuade employees from exercising their statutory rights are a well- established form of adverse action. See BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516, 531 (2002) (Finding that a lawsuit that was both objectively baseless and subjectively motivated by an unlawful purpose could violate the National Labor Relations Act's prohibition on retaliation); Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 628 F. Supp. 2d 447, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Courts have held that baseless claims or lawsuits designed to deter claimants from seeking legal redress constitute impermissibly adverse retaliatory actions."); Spencer v. Int'l Shoppes, Inc., 902 F. Supp. 2d 287, 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (Under Title VII, the filing of a lawsuit with a retaliatory motive constitutes adverse action). OSHA should be commended for taking the case to trial and obtaining punitive damages. As approximately 4,379 workers in the U.S. are killed annually due to unsafe workplaces, it is critical for OSHA to vigorously enforce Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and counter retaliatory lawsuits against whistleblowers, an especially pernicious form of retaliation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tea Ban Lifted After Allowing Russian Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- EconomyNext reported that Russia will lift a ban on Ceylon Tea from December 30 imposed after claims of finding a beetle, officials said, after Sri Lanka lifted a ban on asbestos that was to have been taken effect from 2018. Plantations Minister Navin Dissanayake was quoted as saying by Sri Lanka's Daily Mirror newspaper that Russian authorities had wanted stricter phytosanitary measures imposed on Sri Lanka exports. Russia banned tea from Ceylon from December 18, after the state agricultural protection agency Rosselkhoznadzor claimed that a 'Khapra beetle was found in a shipment of tea. The tea ban was widely viewed as retaliation for an asbestos ban by Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka's cabinet of ministers reversed the ban. Sri Lanka's President Maithripala Sirisena had earlier banned imports of asbestos ostensibly on health grounds. Asbestos is believed to be a carcinogen for workers who may inhale dust. But the Sri Lanka Ceramics and Glass Council, a powerful protectionist lobby which had used political influence artificially make tiles and sanitaryware more expensive for Sri Lankans trying to build a house, had claimed credit for influencing the President. The Ceramics and Glass Council had wanted asbestos pushed out of the market to force the people of Sri Lanka to use clay tiles in a nationalist move. However the move backfired because Russia, itself an authoritarian-nationalist nation state headed by Vladimir Putin. Sri Lanka also has to get back to evidence-based policy making to avoid ad hoc decisions that lead to trade wars, analysts say. While it may be acceptable to grant freedoms to people overnight, when restrictions are brought wide consultation, careful consideration and time is needed to prevent ad hoc decision- making and push back. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post Office Abandoned After Asbestos Find ---------------------------------------------------------- Collin Anderson of Record News reported that the Panaca town board held its regular meeting. Since there was no public comment for the board to hear, the meeting moved on to the usual approval of agendas and the payment of bills. There was a notably empty seat among the board, indicative of the empty board member position that has yet to be filled, and since no one has applied, the board decided to hold off on that discussion until an applicant could be found. The big subject of the night was the possibility of finding a new home for the post office. The idea had been kicked around in previous meetings that the current post office/town board meeting area/storage could be shuffled around a bit to give the postal workers more room to work with. This would come with the added bonus of giving the people of Panaca more room for boxes. The downside of this option lies in the fact that a recent study of the building found asbestos in the walls, which would require a lot of work to remove before anyone could remove walls or cut doors to better accommodate the new post office area. Another idea that's gaining traction is the possibility of building a whole new post office somewhere in town. This would give the postal workers a more updated building; it wouldn't require cutting into walls containing asbestos; and there would be less environmental hazards overall. The issues facing this proposal are that finding land at an affordable price in Panaca is difficult, and that such a move would require the postal service's approval before any decisions could be made. In the end, the board decided to get more information and see what the postal service had to say on the matter before proceeding with any major decisions. Following this, the board heard the maintenance reports, including a small issue involving missing fuses and the availability thereof. Once these reports were finished, the board adjourned for another month. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Superfund Team Holds Second Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------- John Blodgett of The Western News reported that the Libby Asbestos Superfund Advisory Team, outlined in Senate Bill 315 and signed into law Montana by Gov. Steve Bullock on May 4, held its second meeting on Dec. 18 in Helena. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Chas Vincent (R-Libby), created the advisory team, a trust fund and an operation and maintenance account and a liaison, among other items related to the cleanup of the Libby Asbestos Superfund site. The team is required by law to meet quarterly and first met Sept. 21. "The team is off to a strong start, with engaged representatives of state government, local government and, most importantly, the community," Karen Ogden, spokesperson for Montana Department of Environmental Quality, said via email. The team is comprised of five people chosen according to parameters outline in SB315. Three people had been chosen going into the meeting: DEQ Director Tom Livers, who serves as the team chair; Lincoln County Commissioner Mark Peck; and Rep. Steve Gunderson (Montana District 1). A fourth member, George Jamison, was recently confirmed by Bullock as the team's citizen representative, Ogden wrote, while Sen. Chas Vincent is expected to be confirmed as a member of the Senate whose district includes at least a portion of Lincoln County. At the meeting, DEQ Project Manager Lisa Dewitt provided an overview of the Libby Superfund Site and the status of its operable units. The team also discussed recruiting for the Libby Liaison position, which, Ogden wrote, "is critical to the team's success." According to SB315, the liaison will be a DEQ employee who serves as staff to the advisory team. "The liaison shall represent the interests of Lincoln County and the state by assisting the department of environmental quality in dealing with federal agencies related to the Libby asbestos superfund site," the bill states. The bill also stipulates that the Lincoln County commission will nominate three candidates for the position and the governor will make the final decision. Ogden said the team will recruit online from throughout Montana and in the Spokane and Denver areas. "There is not a formal deadline to fill the position," she wrote. "However, the team decided to post the position in January and set a goal of filling the position by March." In addition to recruiting for the liaison position, Ogden said another primary task is to provide the team with updated budget information for fiscal year 2018. The team's next meeting will be held in Libby in February or March. "It will be an evening meeting to make it convenient for community members to attend," Ogden wrote. "We will announce and publicize the meeting date as soon as it is finalized." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landscaper Who Had Cancer Gets Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ The Mainichi reported that a landscape gardener has been awarded workers' compensation after it was recognized that he developed lung cancer as a result of inhaling asbestos in serpentine rock, it has emerged. The decision, made by the Kumagaya Labor Standards Inspection Office in Saitama Prefecture, is significant because health damage owing to asbestos in serpentine rock is rarely recognized as a work-related accident. Moreover, it is not widely known that serpentine rock contains asbestos, suggesting that there may be many other similar victims across the country. Serpentine rock can be found in numerous regions across Japan, from Hokkaido to Kyushu, and often contains asbestos. According to the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, there has been a decrease in the amount of mined serpentine rock in recent years. However, in 2007, 1.56 million metric tons were mined in Japan, and the rock is still in circulation as a stone material and as part of cement. Furthermore, use of serpentine rock is permitted, even though use of asbestos is banned under the Industrial Safety and Health Act. Asbestos is seen on a piece of serpentine rock under a microscope. Compensation for the 71-year-old gardener was officially recognized in April 2017. According to investigations by the inspection office, the man used to buy serpentine rock at a quarry on the border of Aichi and Shizuoka prefectures two to three times a week between about 1970 and 1982, and then sell it on as garden rock. The man also used to process the rock by chipping away at its surface using electric tools. Between 1992 and 2005, he would occasionally break up the stone as part of his landscape gardening job. He was unaware that the rock contains asbestos, and apparently did not take safety measures such as wearing a mask. In spring 2015, the gardener was diagnosed with lung cancer -- after which part of his lung was removed in an operation. Suspecting that the cause of the cancer might be work-related, he applied to the Kumagaya Labor Standards Inspection Office for compensation. The office examined some lung tissue removed in the operation, and discovered a level of asbestos several times higher than the level recognized as worthy of compensation. The inspection office judged that the asbestos in the serpentine rock, which he had been exposed to through his career, was the cause of the lung cancer and that he should be compensated. Professor Naomi Hisanaga, of Aichi Gakusen University, who researches asbestos-related health issues due to serpentine rock, says, "It is extremely significant that the inspection office has recognized a link between the serpentine rock and the lung cancer. The rock is abundant in Japan, so it is possible there are many other victims out there. The government must inform workers about the risks of working with serpentine rock." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alfa-Laval Sued for Late Husband's Lung Cancer --------------------------------------------------------------- Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a widow is seeking damages over allegations her late husband's lung cancer death was caused by asbestos exposure. Nancy Wood, individually and as special representative of the estate of Herbert Wood, deceased filed a complaint on Dec. 5 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Alfa Laval Inc., A. W. Chesterton Inc., Certain-Teed Corp., et al. alleging negligence. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various times during Herbert Wood's career, he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. The suit states that on or about April 4, 2016, he first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully caused. He died on March 29, the suit states. The plaintiff holds Alfa-Laval Inc., A. W. Chesterton Inc., Certain-Teed Corp., et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly included asbestos fibers in their products when they knew or should have known it was toxic and poisonous and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around products containing asbestos fibers. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory damages of more than $50,000. She is represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-726 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Complicates Apartment Cleanup ------------------------------------------------------------ Lynnsey Gardner, Investigative Reporter of NEWS4 JAX, reported that more apartment complexes tied to the Jacksonville Townhouse Apartments, which suffered a major fire, have a history of safety failures, the I-TEAM has learned. The 250 people evacuated when a fire broke out Dec. 18 on the ninth floor of the high-rise on Philips Highway near Emerson Street remain displaced as cleanup efforts grew more complicated when asbestos was found in the fire-damaged walls. Cambridge Management operates the Jacksonville Townhouse Apartments. The I-TEAM already learned that the company is under investigation for not complying with an order from the state fire marshal to get the complex's sprinklers working properly before the fire broke out. Five residents and one firefighter were injured in the fire, but fire officials said that flames never would have grown into a life-threatening, three-alarm fire if the sprinklers had worked properly. Cambridge Management operates six properties in Duval County that are subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The I-TEAM learned that half of their properties have been documented as having issues with fire safety. Federal HUD records show Jacksonville Townhouse Apartments passed inspection in 2014 with a score of 93 and no fire or asbestos issues were noted. HUD officials told the I-TEAM that positive report allowed for more time in between inspections, but in October, the state fire marshal found a broken fire pump that investigators said as still out of service when the fire started. You may remember that the I-TEAM investigation into Eureka Gardens exposed a faulty HUD inspection in 2015. Eureka Gardens passed with a score of 86, but after the I-TEAM exposed mold, mildew, crumbling stairs, exposed electrical wires and faulty fire alarms, the score was tossed. When reinspected, 70 percent of the units contained evidence of mold spores. Cambridge's Timuquana Park Apartments in Wesconnett scored 63 in a 2016 inspection, a near-failing score and fire safety issues were documented. The company's Hampton Villa Apartments in Northwest Jacksonville a score of 65, and fire-safety issues were noted. The Hilltop Village Apartments in Moncrief scored an 85, but once again, fire-safety issues were also found by HUD inspectors. We don't know what repairs have been made to any of these Cambridge Management i based in Tacoma Washington and has a regional office in Tampa. Its website shows it operates 126 properties nationally. The vast majority of them are in Washington state (49) and Florida (53). The Better Business Bureau grade for the company is a B- and there are six complaints on file. ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Says DENR Has Authority Over Asbestos Issue ----------------------------------------------------------------- KSFY reported that the City of Sioux Falls says the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has authority over an issue regarding a local construction company's removal of asbestos in 2016. The DENR issued a notice of violation to Hultgren Construction after it failed to properly dispose of asbestos in the Sioux Falls Regional Sanitary Landfill while working on the Copper Lounge. The City said it has not issued any citations to Hultgren Construction company because the DENR has jurisdiction over the matter. Landfill employees have identified the area where the asbestos was deposited. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Dept. Concerned About Asbestos in Hotel ------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Nicoll of The Southland Times reported that firefighters and two Kelvin Hotel staff were decontaminated following a fire at an Invercargill hotel because they might have been exposed to asbestos. Firefighters arrived at the hotel after 11am and found the boiler room in the basement of the hotel full of smoke and requested back up. Dry powder fire extinguishers were used to control the fire until the power to the hotel was isolated, a fire communications spokesman said. Fire and Emergency Southland area assistant commander Scott Lindsay said two hotel staff and the firefighters working in the hotel were decontaminated because there was a possibility they might have been exposed to asbestos. The room contained lagging, which was a type of heat insulation used on pipes on pipes and ducting, Lindsay said. Some types of lagging contained asbestos and while it was unknown if the insulation material the hotel used actually contained asbestos, firefighters took precautions just in case, he said. Because two staff had entered the room during the fire they were also decontaminated as a precaution. Staff from the Invercargill Licensing Trust, Environment Southland and a hazardous substance technical liaison were also present at the scene. The hotel was using decontamination experts to clean the room following the fire as a precaution. The cause of the fire is unknown but believed to have started in the coal hopper that feeds the boiler. Invercargill Licensing Trust operations manager Greg McElhinney said the hotel was 50 years old and there was some asbestos on some of the piping in the room. "My understanding is the area where there may have been asbestos burning was very small." The hotel had three boilers, one electric and one diesel and the coal one which was affected by the fire. The trust would investigate why the machine malfunctioned. The fire was contained in the boiler room and didn't go beyond it, McElhinney said. The staff who entered the room, the general manager and the duty manager, established where and how big the fire was, he said. The hotel was operating as per normal aside from a few issues with the computer system. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Effingham Firefighter Fighting Cancer Risks ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Milldrum of Effingham Daily News reported that the Number 1 killer of firefighters is cancer, something fire department officials in Effingham and across the country are seeking to reduce. Recognition of that has resulted in changes in the profession, said Effingham Assistant Fire Chief Matt Kulesza. "Back in my day, the dirtier your gear was, it was showing you doing your job," he said. Now there is an understanding that it is that dirt and smoke, which are carrying all sorts of potentially dangerous materials to the firefighters. Additionally, walking around with the typical dirty gear has been exposing family, friends and other people to whatever was in the smoke, Kulesza said. It also changes the dynamic of how firefighters clear a scene, Kulesza said. Before firefighters would simply give high fives, drink some water and then shed their gear. Now they have to add cleaning their faces, necks and hands with wipes as they remove their fire protection outer wear. And when they return to the station they have to wash the truck, themselves and their equipment used at the scene. Today, when the team gets back to the station they become involved with extensive cleaning. That includes washing the trucks and feeding the soot covered clothing into an extractor making it clean again. Kulesza describes the extractor as effectively an old-school industrial washing machine, one that removes carcinogens from the gear. "Twenty-two years ago, I wanted my gear dirty and black," he said, to provide evidence he was working. Now, he realizes that can expose his family to dangerous chemicals and shorten his own lifespan. "Firefighters have a 14 percent higher risk of dying from cancer than the general U.S. population," according to the Firefighter Cancer Support Network. They had been working on limiting firefighters' exposure to carcinogens, but the new research has led to altered procedures, Kulesza said. A major part of that is wiping down the neck, hands and face with sanitary wipes. This removes material and pulls out material that could have entered a firefighters' pores, said Kulesza. One of the most common examples related to firefighters' exposure is them being around asbestos, said Kulesza. The material was commonly used for decades as a fire-resistant material, which is still present in many buildings. During a fire, asbestos fibers can become airborne, settling on firefighters and their equipment. Although firefighters are protected during a fire, when they remove their gear harmful things can be inhaled or get on their bodies. "Burning asbestos materials can damage asbestos to a point where the fibers are easily released into the air," according to the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance. "Most protective equipment that firefighters use during this phase will eliminate the risk of inhalation, but what is important for firefighters to remember is that asbestos products can continue to release asbestos fibers into the air after the flames have been put out and as debris is cooling off slowly. It is imperative that firefighters wear a self-contained breathing apparatus, or SCBA, even after the actual fire has been extinguished to avoid inhaling asbestos." Asbestos exposure can lead to mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer that firefighters are diagnosed with twice as often as the general population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As the disease is only associated with asbestos exposure, the CDC concluded it was a particular risk for firefighters. The CDC study found that firefighters had increased rates cancer in areas like "significant excess risk was reported for brain, stomach, colon, rectum, prostate, testes, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma." The study covered 30,000 firefighters in Chicago, San Francisco and Philadelphia from 1950 to 2009. It continued in its report: "Compared with the US population, we found small to moderate increases in risk for several cancer sites and for all cancers combined, stemming mostly from excess malignancies of the respiratory, digestive and urinary systems in otherwise healthy individuals. Our findings are consistent with previous studies and strengthen evidence of a relation between firefighters' occupational exposure and cancer." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Doubles Asbestos Removal Spending ---------------------------------------------------------- Paul Fisher, Senior Reporter of Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald, reported that spending on asbestos removal in North Ayrshire Council has almost doubled in just a year. And the vast majority of the money being spent is on residential properties, tipping the scales at over GBP900,000. But North Ayrshire Council say the increase, which is up from around GBP500,000, is due to the identification of a certain house type and their pro-active work to tackle the issue for their residents. Over the last three years the spending on inspecting, treating and removing asbestos in North Ayrshire Council owned buildings was: 2014-15 - GBP492,371.55 2015-16 - GBP561,726.20 2016-17 - GBP969,265.40. The breakdown for the types of buildings that the works have been carried out in was: Residential 2014-15 - GBP431,068.55 2015-16 - GBP490,856.07 2016-17 - GBP922,124.98 Schools 2014-15 - GBP41,438.00 2015-16 - GBP49,493.82 2016-17 - GBP38,585.64 Commercial / Operational 2014-15 - GBP19,865.00 2015-16 - GBP21,376.31 2016-17 - GBP8,554.78 A North Ayrshire Council spokesperson said: "The increase in spending on asbestos inspection and removal during 2016 reflects our proactive approach to removing asbestos from a number of properties within our housing stock. "This project was approved by Cabinet in September 2016 following the identification of the presence of asbestos-containing material in a small number of our Council houses. "The material was found during routine sampling in the loft spaces of a particular type of property known to be of Weir construction, which account for around five per cent of the Council's housing stock. "The Council has been working closely with industry experts on this issue and they confirmed that the type of asbestos- containing material concerned presented an extremely low risk provided it is not disturbed." The Herald reported in 2017 how up to 600 homes were affected across North Ayrshire which would potentially cost around GBP1.7million. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boiler Operator Sued Asbestos Maker for Exposure ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a former boiler operator is suing numerous asbestos products manufacturers, citing alleged negligence. Michael Landis filed a complaint on Nov. 27 in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Trane US Inc., A.W. Chesterton Inc., and Baltimore Aircoil Co. Inc., alleging that they failed to exercise care and caution for the safety of others. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during his entire career from 1964 to 1992, he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the defendants. On Nov. 8, he allegedly was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-induced disease. He allegedly has suffered great physical pain, mental anguish, lost wages and a shortened life span. The plaintiff holds Trane US Inc., A.W. Chesterton Inc., and Baltimore Aircoil Co. Inc. responsible because the defendants allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products when adequate substitutes were available, and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around products containing asbestos fibers. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury; and seeks damages in excess of $25,000, costs of this action, and any further relief as the court deems just and proper. He is represented by Andrew A. O'Brien, Christopher J. Thoron, Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Gerald J. FitzGerald and Adam J. Reynolds of O'Brien Law Firm PC in St. Louis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Historic Crounse House --------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Floyd Mair of Guilderland News reported that several town residents including a restoration contractor are upset that the town and village, which jointly own the Crounse House on the outskirts of Altamont, plan to tear it down. The Crounse House is a Federal-style single-family home built in 1833 by Frederick Crounse, Altamont's first doctor, who practiced there on the village's main street, now Route 146. His patients included injured Civil War soldiers. The house is a rare site of Civil War history in the Northeast, according to Bob Keough of the Sons of the Union Veterans of the Civil War, who spoke in favor of the building's preservation at an Altamont village board meeting two years ago. While village and town officials have said the Crounse House has little left of historic value, experts disagree. The Crounse House is an example of vernacular architecture, said Cara Macri, the acting executive director of the Historic Albany Foundation, meaning that it was "not highbrow, not a mansion." It's a good example of general architecture of its time, she said, adding, "That doesn't mean it's lesser in the eyes of preservation or history." She recalled that, when she walked through the building in 2014, she noticed the flooring in the front hall had started to pull up, and underneath, it had been lined with newspapers written in German. That kind of detail, she said, creates a very interesting record about the building, the people who lived there, and the community. "Just because it is not high style does not mean a building does not have historic value or merit," Macri said. Offering historic buildings for sale with restrictive covenants saying they must be bought and renovated can take time, said Susan Herlands Holland, former executive director of Historic Albany, who is now with Historic Ithaca. "It was a lovely house when we went in very simple but it's a product of its time and it has its own story to tell, which is just as important as the high-style mansions and estates that are often considered more worth saving," Macri said. But, Herlands Holland said, "It's like dating. The right buyer will come along eventually." The historic value of a building of the Crounse House era, Herlands Holland said, is that it is of its time, that its time is evident in its construction. Herlands Holland noted that the town of Ulysses has bought a beautiful Greek Revival church that is 1830s-ish and sits in the middle of their four corners; they took the risk, and they're selling it through a real-estate agent, with a restrictive covenant. The church has remediation issues, she said, making it very similar to the Crounse House. Guilderland resident Thomas Capuano, a retired professor of languages and avocational builder, said that it seems as though the town and village should be able to save money by selling the building to someone who wants to restore it. He writes in a letter to the Enterprise editor how dismayed he was to read of the town board's vote, following the village board's lead, to demolish the building. Capuano offered the example of a building at the corner of Mill and Main that he said was a ruin when he was a child, where he and his friends often played, "that seemed like it was destined for nothing but being torn down." He said the current owners have brought it back to life and done a beautiful restoration. That, he said, is what gives Altamont its unique character: the way that the homeowners maintain their historic properties. The Crounse House, Capuano said, is such an integral part of the small settlement of Knowersville that he thinks it's a shame to tear it down. Capuano that he has rebuilt two barns before and, while he hasn't done historic renovation, no building project scares him. He said he could stabilize the roof himself, to buy some time for someone interested in doing a historic renovation. Bill Skowe, a restoration contractor, says that, when the town and village bought the foreclosed property for $40,000 a decade ago, no one else was allowed to bid on it. He wrote in a letter to the Enterprise editor, referring to the town and village, "They had first choice to buy it, eliminating others, me included, as a qualified restoration contractor from bidding it to save it." Because the town and village had right of first refusal, Skowe said, it was not a fair auction. Brad Maione, spokesman for Albany County, sent The Enterprise a copy of a 2005 resolution that provided for selling properties to municipalities in guarantee of taxes. He also sent a copy of the county resolution agreeing, in March 2006, to sell the vacant house and 2.8-acre property to the town and village for a total of $40,756 in guarantee of taxes, interest, and penalties owed. The resolution notes that the town and village were interested, at the time, in acquiring the property for use in community functions. The addition at the back of the Crounse House, Skowe said, may be unsafe. "But the main structure is certainly not unsafe," he said. "It stands plumb and square and straight, so the foundation hasn't slipped away at this point." The town and village should offer the building out to bid, he said, and should make the sale contingent upon the buyer owning the building, using it as a residence, and saving the main structure. Guilderland Supervisor Peter Barber said that the vote to demolish simply gives the town the option of demolition if building inspector Jacqueline Coons determines that there is an imminent danger of the building's collapse. "We're obviously willing to consider all options," Barber said, including seeing if any individual buyers might be interested in taking on the property in order to renovate and live in the historic house. The town, Barber said, got involved at the urging of the village, and he would defer to the village board of trustees and the mayor, since the property is part of the gateway to the village. If the village wanted to sell it to a not-for-profit organization or to a buyer interested in renovation, Barber said, he would "have no problem with that." Altamont's mayor, Kerry Dineen, said in an email, of the village trustees decision, "The board voted unanimously against restoring and stabilizing the house. The Guilderland Town Board echoed our decision at their December 2017 meeting." Dineen also wrote, in answer to Enterprise questions, that she had never heard of people interested in purchasing the Crounse House before the town and village bought it. "The property sat vacant for years," she said. Demolition debacle Skowe also took issue with the town's stated plan to have its highway department workers demolish the structure, despite the known presence of asbestos. He wrote, in a Dec. 21 letter to the editor of The Enterprise, "The town's highway department is not a New York State certified asbestos-removal company. Neither the town nor Altamont has a license to remove it. If I, as a contractor, applied for a permit to demolish, you would force me to pay for an asbestos and lead- removal licensed contractor to demolish it." Building inspector Jacqueline Coons told The Enterprise that her declaring the building condemned eases the regulations, somewhat, related to its demolition. "If a building is unsafe, certain things are not required, if it's demolished by the owner," she said. "Part of the regulations for surveying it could go away by me declaring it condemned." She said that knowing and complying with the regulations for demolishing a building that contains asbestos is the responsibility of the workers doing the demolition. "If they're caught doing the work and they don't have proper qualifications, they or the town could get fined. That's why I hope they know what they're doing," she said. Highway Superintendent Steve Oliver said that he had simply offered to demolish the building, and had not discussed it much with the town yet. He said he has never taken down a building containing asbestos before, and that, if he were asked to do it, he would "go to the authorities that deal with that" and then "follow whatever direction or guidelines that we have to." There are three state agencies that regulate work on buildings containing asbestos: the departments of health, labor, and environmental conservation. The Department of Health's regulations state that workers involved in asbestos abatement must first receive appropriate training from a safety-training provider accredited by the New York State Department of Health before being certified through the New York State Department of Labor Asbestos Licensing and Certification Unit. To become certified to work with asbestos in New York State, a worker must first attend training and then apply for a certificate, according to the website. In addition, the website says, "when engaged in asbestos work activities you must be working for a New York State Department of Labor licensed asbestos contractor." According to Rick Georgeson, a local spokesman for the Department of Environmental Conservation, waste from a building containing asbestos must be disposed of at a DEC-permitted facility that can legally accept asbestos waste. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dying Man Sues Employer for Asbestos Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- Aodhan O'Faolain and Ray Managh of the Irish News reported that "a dying man," who claims he contracted terminal cancer from being exposed to asbestos dust 45 years ago, has asked the High Court to speed up the hearing of a damages claim against a former Co Kildare employer. 77-year-old Patrick Hayes, who is terminally ill in a hospice in Monasterevin, is suing Tegral Building Products Limited and alleges he was not warned of the dangers of air-borne asbestos fibres or given protection when he worked at Tegral Building Products Limited factory in Athy for 42 weeks in 1972. Mr Justice Michael Twomey heard that the Co Kildre firm, which is yet to file a defence to the claim, stated in correspondence that it has no record confirming that Mr Hayes worked with it. Barrister Rachel Meagher, counsel for Mr Hayes, told the court that he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma --- a form of cancer most commonly associated with asbestos exposure. Ms Meagher, who appeared with solicitors Patrick V Boland and Sons, Newbridge, said Mr Hayes claimed the company had been negligent and in breach of duty by its failure to have any regard for his safety when he worked for them. Mr Hayes alleges he was required to work in an environment where he was likely to inhale asbestos dust and claims the company failed to provide him with a safe place of work while having to move asbestos sheets which are used for insulation and fire proofing. During the course of his employment he claims he was not given an adequate protection and had inhaled asbestos fibres, the exposure to which he alleged had resulted in his cancer. Barrister Neal Flynn, counsel for Tegral Building Products, told Judge Twomey that Mr Hayes, with an address at Kilcrow, Athy, Co Kildare, had worked for most of his life in the UK and had commenced proceedings against the company only on December 12th last after returning to Ireland in September. When the case came before the High Court Ms Meagher said her client was "a dying man" and was currently continuously on oxygen in Monasterevin Hospice. "It is not known how long he will live," she said. She said chemotherapy and radiotherapy had been deemed by his doctors as being only marginally beneficial and that treatment of his condition was largely palliative. Ms Meagher said Mr Hayes claimed that the only place he had been exposed to asbestos during his working career was when he was working for Tegral in Athy. She said it had been established through Social Welfare records that Mr Hayes had worked for the company for 42 weeks in 1972 and had paid social welfare contributions for those weeks. She told the court it was her opinion and that of his solicitors that the company had no bona fide defence to Mr Hayes' claim and she asked the court, due to his condition and unknown prognosis, for various orders expediting the hearing of his claim. Mr Hayes' legal team sought an order lawyers sought an order requiring the filing of a defence to his claim by January 3 and a further court order directing that his personal evidence be taken on commission by a lawyer at Monasterevin Hospice on January 8 next. Ms Meagher said Mr Hayes would not be able to come to court to give evidence. Tegral's barrister, Neal Flynn, said his client would "be putting forward a defence," and was agreeable to allowing Mr Hayes give evidence on commission but raised concerns about the speed in which the case was being forced on especially as there was a lack of clinical evidence before the court concerning Mr Hayes' condition. Mr Flynn said it was asking the court to take a huge leap in allowing Mr Hayes' application to be squeezed into such a short time space. Although Mr Hayes' medical records had been forwarded to the defendants Mr Hayes' legal team did not know what particular inquiries would be made by Tegral in order for it to meet the case. "Mr Hayes has spent a large portion of his life working on building sites throughout the UK and could have been exposed to asbestos on any building project," Mr Flynn said. "It is unreasonable for the plaintiff to force these proceedings on when whe are simply not ready to meet them." Mr Justice Twomen, in his ruling, commended both sets of lawyers for agreeing certain matters that would expedite the claim. He said there was a lack of detailed medical evidence before the court and he noted correspondence from the company that said it had no record of having employed Mr Hayes. "I think the balance of justice lies in allowing evidence to be taken on commission on January 8th next and the court so directs," Judge Twomey said. Adjourning the matter he said he would not make any order regarding legal costs of the application. ********* 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, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2018. 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. * * * End of Transmission * * *