/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180125.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 25, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 19 Headlines ALLERGAN INC: Allied Services Sues Over Sherman Act Breach AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kowalski" Suit Removed to Ill. Dist. Ct. AMERICAN AIRLINE: Worker's Claim Pre-empted by RLA APPLE INC: "Eich" Action Seeks Royalties for Online Albums APPLE INC: 2 Montreal Law Firms Seek to File Class Action Lawsuit APPLE INC: Faces "Holman" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues APPLE INC: Faces "Liebermann" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues APPLE INC: Faces "Solak" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues APPLE INC: Faces "Bartling" Suit Over IPhone Throttling Issues AQUA METALS: "Hampton" Sues Over Share Drop from Failed Process ARC MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit ASSURANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought BARRACUDA NETWORKS: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Thoma Merger Plan BEVERLY HEALTH: Feb. 5 Hearing on Proposed "Ahmed" Class Deal BMW AG: "Williams" Suit over Vehicle Defects Underway CACERES DRYWALL: March 20 Settlement Conference in "Blanco" Suit CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: "Lee" Action Disputes Collection Letter CERTIFIED EMS: "Fleming" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay CHEVRON CORP: Court Compels Arbitration in Site Managers' Suit CINEMARK USA: "Fledderman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages COMPASS BANK: Faces "Andrade" Suit Over Default Interest Rate CORRECTIONS CORP: Court Grants Move to Dismiss Securities Suit CROWN BUILDING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Jimenez" Suit Says DAVID M. BLASKOVICH: Approval of Class Action Settlement Granted DELTIC CORPORATION: Faces "Assad" Suit Over Potlatch Merger Plan DELTIC TIMBER: Amonte Files Suit Over Potlatch Merger Deal DENKA PERFORMANCE: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Certify Class DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: "Austin" Suit Alleges Stock Manipulation DONALD J. TRUMP: Suit vs. President Junked for Lack of Standing DONISI JAX: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Campbell" Suit Claims DYNAMIC LEDGER: Feb. 22 Deadline to Respond to "Gaviria" ICO Suit ECLINICALWORKS LLC: CA Suit Will 'Make It Right' for Customers EDDIE BAUER: Court Continues Deadline to Answer SAC EDGAR P. BENJAMIN: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Unlawful Termination EL REY DE LAS FRITAS: "Aguiar" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ENHANCED RECOVERY: Leavy Sues Over Vague Collection Letter ERKA INC: "Ferrera" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages EURO RENOVATION: Faces "Rosario" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT F&M TRUST: Tentative $10M Settlement in Class Action FREE FLOW CONSTRUCTION: "Abreu" Action Seeks Unpaid OT Wages GIGA WATT: Silver Miller Law Firm Files Class Action GRANITE TELECOM: "Hair" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Suit INFINITY AUTO: Central Palm Beach Physicians Files Amended Suit INTEL CORP: 3 Suits Related to Security Vulnerability Filed INTELEMEDIA COMM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johnson" Suit Says J.A. CAMBECE: "McGriff" Suit Disputes Collection Letter JAMES M. O'DEA: Common-Interest Exception Ruling Affirmed JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Providence's Remicade Suit Consolidated KEMPER SPORTS: Faces "Lall" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT KOBE STEEL: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action LIBERTY TAX: "Beland" Sues Over Share Price Drop LIBERTY TAX: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action LIDS STORE: Managers May Proceed With Pay Class-Action LOBLAW COS: Suit Filed in Manitoba Over Bread Price-Fixing LRR ENERGY: Court Approves Class Notice & Notice Procedures MAGNOLIA FLOORING: "Franklin" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MARKETRON BROADCAST: Class Cert. Deadline Extended to 180 Days MD TLC: Faces "Kaye" Class Suit Over Automated Fax Advertisements MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Inmate's Class Certification Bid MIDLAND CREDIT: Holmes Disputes Vague Collection Letters ML AUTOMOTIVE: "Bernard" Suit over Unpaid Wages Underway MONSANTO: Faces "Branum" Suit Over Soybeans & Cotton-Price Fixing MOTOR VEHICLE ASSURANCE: "Heaton" Hits Illegal Telemarketing NASSAU, NY: False Arrest Claim in "Bloch" Remains Dismissed NEW JERSEY: Residents Might Get Payback from E-ZPass Scam NEW ROCHELLE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees NEW YORK: Must Produce Unredacted Relevant ESI in "Bagley" NISEN SUSHI: "Zeng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages NO PRESSURE: "Armstrong" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay NYU LANGONE: Must Defend Against "Sacerdote" Pensions Suit OMNITRITION INT'L: Court Orders Response to Reconsideration Bid PARKRIDGE PRIVATE: School Lacks Accreditation, Santos et al Claim PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: To Pay $4BB to Settle US Class Action PIRATA TAPAS: "Escobar" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread of Hours Pay PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in "Pollak" POSTAL FLEET: "Brooks" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay PRAIRIE PIZZA: "Chenkus" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages PROPETRO SERVICES: Blanco Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay QUDIAN INC: Foat Sues Over Share Price Drop REHAB SYNERGIES: Faces "Loy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ROADRUNNER TRANS: Discovery in "Christian" Suit to End May 7 SAN DIEGO ACCOUNTS: Clark Sues Over Vague Collection Letter SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify ISR Class & Subclass SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Gov't Can Intervene in Shareholders' Suit SIGNET JEWELERS: Sued by "Aydin" Over Share Price Drop SMZ IMPEX: "Mathew" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages SOOTHE INC: Faces "Haris" Class Suit Over Automated Phone Calls SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Sued Over Thomas Fire SOUTHWEST AIRLINE: Pays $15-Mil. to Settle Class Action Lawsuit STARWORKS LLC: "Frost" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Underway STATE FARM FIRE: Faces "Carson" Suit in Medina County, Ohio TERRIBLE HERBST: Dismissal of Wage & Hour Class Suit Vacated THEDACARE INC: Court Decertifies Employees Class TOKYO STATESBORO: "Eigenberger" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ULTIMATE FITNESS: Cline Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads UNITED AUTO CREDIT: "Camayd" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls VITA-MIX CORP: Select Blender Owners to Get $70 Gift Card ZION HEALTH: "Shin" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes ********* ALLERGAN INC: Allied Services Sues Over Sherman Act Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00775, (E.D. Tex., December 15, 2017), seeks to recover threefold damages, interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from Allergan's anticompetitive foreclosure of cyclosporine sales in violation of the Sherman Act. Restasis or cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion is a prescription treatment for dry-eye disease. Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, is a health and welfare benefit fund and is involved in the business of providing health benefits for covered members. Allergan is the holder of approved New Drug Application No. 50- 790 for Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion, 0.05%, sold under the Restasis trademark. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lanson Bordelon, Esq. James R. Dugan, II, Esq. Douglas R. Plymale, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. Bonnie A. Kendrick, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com bonnie@dugan-lawfirm.com - and - Art Sadin, Esq. SADIN LAW FIRM, P.C. 121 Magnolia Street, Suite 1022 Friendswood, TX 77546 Phone: (281) 648-771 Fax: (281) 648-7799 AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kowalski" Suit Removed to Ill. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Edward Kowalski, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. American Airlines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-15328 (Ill. Cir., November 17, 2017), was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on December 18, 2017, under Case No. 17-cv-09080. Plaintiff, an employee of American who works at O'Hare International Airport, alleges that American actively captures, collects, stores, and uses, without obtaining informed written consent or publishing its data retention and deletion policies, the biometrics of its workers whose fingerprints are captured and stored for timekeeping purposes in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com American Airlines is represented by: Bert Ocariz, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-5171 Email: hocariz@shb.com - and - Patrick J. Castle, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 111 South Wacker Drive, 51st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 704-7700 Fax: (312) 558-1195 Email: pcastle@shb.com - and - Mark W. Robertson, Esq. Sloane Ackerman, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: mrobertson@omm.com sackerman@omm.com AMERICAN AIRLINE: Worker's Claim Pre-empted by RLA -------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned THOMAS BALLARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02534 (N.D. Ill.). Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff's claims are all pre-empted under the Railway Labor Act. Prior to his employment with American, Plaintiff worked as an aviation maintenance technician for 24 years and earned more than $30.00 an hour. After learning about American's Hiring Program, which offered years-of-service credit and top-of-scale pay rates for new hires, Plaintiff applied to work at American. In March of 2015, Plaintiff interviewed with American for an aviation maintenance technician position. American told Plaintiff during the interview that, if employed by American, he would have to join the Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, the labor union representing American employees; Plaintiff did not meet with a Union representative, and did not receive any Union documentation, at that time. Plaintiff alleges that American "pulled a fast one," and that its refusal to honor the benefits it agreed to under the Hiring Program constitutes a breach of contract. Plaintiff contends that American never had any intention of honoring its Hiring Program and that American knew or should have known when hiring Plaintiff and the Class that it intended to cancel, revoke, rescind, and/or breach their agreement with Plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff sued American in state court, claiming breach of contract, equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel, fraud and unjust enrichment. The RLA requires air carriers to negotiate rates of pay, rules, and working conditions with their employees' collective bargaining representatives. Accordingly, the entire collective bargaining process is governed by federal law through the RLA. The Supreme Court established, in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, that when an activity is governed by the National Labor Relations Act, state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board and all state and federal claims are pre-empted. 359 U.S. 236, 244-45 (1959). Under Garmon, any activity protected or prohibited under the RLA remains subject to the primary jurisdiction of the RLA Board, and this Court loses its subject matter jurisdiction-that is, this Court's federal subject matter jurisdiction is pre-empted. Espinal v. Northwest Airlines, 90 F.3d 1452 (9th Cir. 1996), is instructive. There, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant airline made misrepresentations that induced him to resign his current job and relocate to begin working for the defendant; a month after the move, defendant rescinded its offer of employment based upon a CBA provision that plaintiff had not seen until after he moved and started working for defendant. The Ninth Circuit ruled, under well-established precedent, that any individual contract that conflicts with a CBA must be superseded by that CBA. Here, in an attempt to avoid preemption, Plaintiff argues that he and American entered into an oral contract during his hiring interview, and that this breached contract existed independently of the CBA. As in Espinal, however, the CBA extinguished any such individual agreements when Plaintiff became a union- represented employee and received the collectively-bargained rights in the CBA. In short, preemption applies and any claim Plaintiff may have relating to the terms of his employment must be pursued within the procedures established in the CBA. The Court finds that Plaintiff's claims are pre-empted by the RLA. Accordingly, American's motion to dismiss is granted, and the case is dismissed. Civil case terminated. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycb8wwjl from Leagle.com. Thomas Ballard, Plaintiff, represented by Larry D. Drury, Larry D. Drury, Ltd., 205 West Randolph. Suite #1430. Chicago, IL 60606. Thomas Ballard, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas M. Rebholz, Larry D. Drury, Ltd., 205 West Randolph. Suite #1430. Chicago, IL 60606. American Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark W. Robertson -- mrobertson@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Larry S. Kaplan -- lkaplan@kmalawfirm.com -- Kaplan, Massamillo & Andrews, LLC, M. Tristan Morales -- tmorales@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew J. Obiala -- mobiala@kmalawfirm.com -- Kaplan Massamillo & Andrews. APPLE INC: "Eich" Action Seeks Royalties for Online Albums ----------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Eich, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated copyright holders, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-9857, (E.D. N.Y., December 17, 2017), seeks injunctive and/or declaratory relief, enjoining defendant from continued copyright infringement and violations of the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act, removal of all such unlicensed tracks from its services, restitution of illegally-obtained proceeds, compensatory and statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid royalties and such other and further relief resulting from copyright infringement. Eich owns the publishing rights to two copyrighted albums of music titled "Devil in Disguise" (U.S. Copyright Registration No. SRu 925-601) and "Sleeping by a Wire" (U.S. Copyright Registration No. SRu 661-491), covering eighteen musical recordings. Apple owns and operates a services called Apple Music which is a subscription interactive music streaming service. After making Eich's albums available on their service, Apple failed to pay his royalties. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Garbarini, Esq. GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C. 250 Park Avenue 7th Floor New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 300-5358 Facsimile: (347) 218-9478 APPLE INC: 2 Montreal Law Firms Seek to File Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Serebrin, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that two Quebec law firms are seeking authorization from Quebec Superior Court to file a class action lawsuit against Apple, claiming that its warranty policies violate Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. The application, filed on Dec. 29, comes after Apple admitted that it slows the performance of some iPhone models in certain situations. The company said that's done to prevent unexpected shutdowns that result from aging, which makes batteries less effective. Apple's statement, and an update to its support website, include an acknowledgement that all rechargeable batteries have a limited lifespan. That acknowledgment, along with the price of Apple products, is evidence that the company is violating Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, said Joey Zukran, Esq. -- jzukran@lpclex.com -- a lawyer at LPC Avocats, which filed the application for authorization along with Renno Vathilakis Avocats. "There's something wrong with this," he said. "The law is very clear on this point, especially on electronic devices, that the manufacturer of the product . . . has to guarantee the product for a reasonable amount of time." Currently, purchasers of Apple products receive a one-year limited warranty, they can also buy an AppleCare extended warranty. According to Zukran, that's not enough. Under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, goods "must be durable in normal use for a reasonable length of time, having regard to their price, the terms of the contract and the conditions of their use." "Considering the high prices paid by Class Members for Apple products, in normal use Apple products are not durable for a reasonable length of time," reads the application for authorization filed with the court. Additionally, by selling AppleCare, Zukran said, Apple has profited from failing to inform consumers of their rights under the province's Consumer Protection Act. If the class action lawsuit is authorized, a process called certification in the rest of Canada, it would include every Quebec resident who has purchased an Apple product with a rechargeable battery, a group that could include tens of thousands of people. The lawsuit would seek compensation for class members, though the amount is still to be determined. It would also seek punitive damages of $300 per class member and it would ask the court to declare that a reasonable amount of time for Apple products to last -- and therefore be covered by warranty -- is six years. In England and Wales, sellers are required to repair, replace or refund faulty goods for six years. In the European Union, that guarantee lasts two years. "If my product is the same product as guaranteed in Europe for two years and in the U.K. for six years, why is it different for Quebec consumers?" Zukran said. An authorization hearing could take place within a few months. Apple did not respond to a request for comment from the Montreal Gazette on January 4 afternoon, except to confirm that the request had been received. [GN] APPLE INC: Faces "Holman" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues ------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Holman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00125 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2018), seeks redress on a class-wide basis for Apple's unlawful and deceptive practice of intentionally slowing down or "throttling" the performance of certain iPhone models, including the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus models. Apple Inc. operates a technology company located at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com APPLE INC: Faces "Liebermann" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alain Liebermann and Romeo James Alba, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18- cv-00110 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2018), seeks redress on a class- wide basis for Apple's unlawful and deceptive practice of intentionally slowing down or "throttling" the performance of certain iPhone models, including the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus models. Apple Inc. operates a technology company located at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Quentin A. Roberts, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 291-2420 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com qroberts@zlk.com - and - Andrea Clisura, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 636-7171 E-mail: aclisura@zlk.com APPLE INC: Faces "Solak" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues ----------------------------------------------------------- John Solak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00123 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2018), seeks redress on a class-wide basis for Apple's unlawful and deceptive practice of intentionally slowing down or "throttling" the performance of certain iPhone models, including the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus models. Apple Inc. operates a technology company located at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Robert F. Lopez, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com robl@hbsslaw.com APPLE INC: Faces "Bartling" Suit Over IPhone Throttling Issues -------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Bartling and Jacqueline N. Olson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18- cv-00147 (N.D. Cal., January 8, 2018), seeks redress on a class- wide basis for Apple's unlawful and deceptive practice of intentionally slowing down or "throttling" the performance of certain iPhone models, including the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus models. Apple Inc. operates a technology company located at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Marisa C. Livesay, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: rickert@whafh.com livesay@whafh.com - and - Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Janine L. Pollack, Esq. Randall S. Newman, Esq. Kate M. McGuire, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4677 E-mail: gmn@whafh.com pollack@whafh.com newman@whafh.com mcguire@whafh.com AQUA METALS: "Hampton" Sues Over Share Drop from Failed Process --------------------------------------------------------------- Arlis Hampton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aqua Metals, Inc., Stephen R. Clarke, Thomas Murphy and Mark Weinswig, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv- 07142, (N.D. Cal., December 15, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aqua Metals is engaged in the business of recycling lead, focusing on its efforts on developing and testing their "AquaRefining" process. They failed to disclose that their breaking and separating process was not operating reliably or efficiently and were negatively impacting their output. On this news, its stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 2.1%, to close at $3.71 per share on November 10, 2017. The stock price continued to decline on the following trading days, falling $0.13 per share (3.5%) on November 13, 2017, and $0.58 per share (16.2%) on November 14, 2017, to close at $3.00 per share. Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com ARC MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned SANDRA K. WATSON, Plaintiff, v. ARC MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, No. 2:16-CV-300 (E.D. Tenn.). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. The plaintiff, Sandra K. Watson, brings this putative class action lawsuit asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by ARC. The plaintiff is alleged to have incurred a medical debt of $1,070 to Hamblen Emergency Group, LLC. The plaintiff claims that ARC violated the FDCPA by reporting the debt to Equifax. She further claims that ARC's reporting of the debt to Equifax before they were licensed by the Tennessee Collection Services Board constitutes a violation of the FDCPA. Congress enacted the FDCPA in order to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to ensure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collections practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses. In determining whether a debt collector's practice violates the FDCPA, the Court is required to use the objective least sophisticated consumer. Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on her claims only as to ARC's liability for violations of the FDCPA. The plaintiff argues that (1) ARC was not a licensed debt collector at the time it reported the debt to Equifax, and (2) ARC illegally reported the debt to Equifax in an attempt to collect the debt from the plaintiff. The plaintiff argues that ARC's report to Equifax violated specific provisions of the FDCPA. The Tennessee Collection Service Board (TCSB) licensing requirements allow for persons who are alleged to have conducted collection services without a valid license to cure the default at any time, even after collection may have started, by filing an application for a license with the collection services board and such persons may be subject to sanction by the collection service board, but may not be subject to other civil action or defense based on such alleged violation. The Court recognizes that the satisfaction of the licensing requirements found in the TCSA, as well as facts indicating the failure to adhere to these state licensing requirements, are all relevant factors in determining whether plaintiff has alleged action that has fallen within the broad range of conduct prohibited by the FDCPA. In other words, a violation of the Tennessee licensing requirements does not necessarily constitute a violation of the FDCPA; the conduct or communication at issue must also violate the relevant provision of the FDCPA. Indeed, there is no federal requirement that debt collectors be licensed; the State of Tennessee has afforded these extra protections for their citizens, but a license is not required to satisfy the provisions of the FDCPA, and, in turn, the claims before this Court. The next question presented to this Court is whether ARC's act of reporting the debt to a credit reporting agency qualifies as a debt collection practice under the FDCPA. The Court finds no indication that providing credit information or furnishing a debt to a consumer reporting agency is not a form of communication as defined in Section 1692a(2). In a footnote in an unreported opinion, the Sixth Circuit has assumed without deciding that the reporting of [a] debt to Equifax constitutes a collection activity. Purnell v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 303 Fed. App'x. 297, 304 n.5 (6th Cir. 2008). In the present case, there are no facts at all that indicate that the plaintiff communicated any dispute with the debt she owed to Hamblen County Emergency Group, LLC. Further, the parties have not argued that the report to Equifax should have been validated, nor has either party raised any issue with the limitations period for reporting the debt. Therefore, the Court of Appeals finding in Purnell has little bearing on the issues presently before this Court. One of the main purposes of the FDCPA is to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors. There may very well be situations where reporting or threatening to report a debt to a credit reporting agency would constitute an abusive debt collection practice. In the present case, however, as discussed below, the Court concludes that ARC's report of the plaintiff's valid debt to Equifax was not an abusive debt collection practice. Therefore, the question of whether reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency constitutes a collection activity for purposes of FDCPA is a question which this Court need not presently decide. The defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's claims. Counts I-V: 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), 1692e(9), 1692e(10) In the present case, it is undisputed that the debt incurred by the plaintiff was a valid debt and ARC reported this valid debt to Equifax. The plaintiff has provided no factual evidence that ARC reported a false amount, or misled Equifax by representing an invalid debt as valid. Further, there are no facts suggesting that any threats were made to the plaintiff by ARC, nor are there facts indicating ARC made any deceptive representations. In fact, the plaintiff admits that the debt was valid, thus the material facts are undisputed. This Court finds as a matter of law that ARC's reporting of a valid debt to Equifax was not a false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is appropriate for count one. Furthermore, counts two through five allege specific conduct which constitute false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt. Therefore, the Court's finding as to count one necessarily entails these counts as well, and summary judgment in favor of the defendant is also appropriate for counts two through five. Count VI: 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f This provision of the FDCPA states that a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. The plaintiff has not provided any facts whatsoever, nor any controlling case, to support a finding that reporting a valid debt to a consumer credit agency is in any way unfair or unconscionable. The Court concludes that ARC's reporting of plaintiff's valid debt to Equifax was not an unfair or unconscionable means to collect on the debt. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is appropriate for count six. Class Action Certification Because the defendant is entitled to summary judgment in its favor as to all counts, this Court need not consider the arguments raised in the defendant's motion against class certification. The Court, accordingly, ordered that the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is denied and the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9gwehye from Leagle.com. Sandra K Watson, Plaintiff, represented by Alan C. Lee, Alan C. Lee, Attorney, Po Box 1357, 518 W 3rd North St, Morristown Tn 37814 3943, Talbott, TN, 37877-1357 ARC Management Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas C. Jessee, Jessee & Jessee, 412 E. Unaka Avenue. O. Box 997Johnson City, TN 37605 ASSURANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Bart Deardorff And Phillip Ebbesen, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, as class representative under Illinois Law and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs v. Assurance Technologies, INC. and Kenneth J Losacco and Maria Losacco as individuals under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09263 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: a) certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective and allowing an opt-in period of 90 days; b) directing Defendants to produce the full names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and last date(s) of performance of all potential putative class members who worked for Defendants, the last known work and home physical and email addresses and phone numbers of all salaried employees who worked for Defendant three years from date of the Court's Order to the present, no later than two weeks after the date of the entry of the Order; c) approving a notice based on a form to be submitted by the parties; and d) approving transmittal of the Notice to members of the class via US Mail, email, and text message. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U0LGhvCW The Plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin ILL 60177 Telephone: (630) 464 9675 Facsimile: (630) 206 0889 E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com attorneyireland@gmail.com BARRACUDA NETWORKS: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Thoma Merger Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., William Jenkins, Jr., Jeffry R. Allen, Michael D. Perone, John H. Kispert, Chet Kapoor, and Stephen P. Mullaney, Case No. 5:18-cv-00191-BLF (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Barracuda Networks, Inc., to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Barracuda will be acquired by Thoma Bravo, LLC, through Project Deep Blue Holdings, LLC and Newco's wholly-owned subsidiary, Project Deep Blue Merger Corp for approximately $1.6 billion. According to the complaint, Barracuda filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with U.S Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Barracuda stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Barracuda's financial projections, relied upon by Barracuda's financial advisor Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by Morgan Stanley; (iii) the background process leading to the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) Morgan Stanley's and Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as Barracuda stockholders need such material information in order to cast a fully-informed vote or seek appraisal in connection with the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint. Barracuda Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which delivers powerful security and data protection to address security threats, improve network performance and protect and store data. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com BEVERLY HEALTH: Feb. 5 Hearing on Proposed "Ahmed" Class Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order Continuing Date for Hearing on Proposed Class Action Settlement and Vacating Pre-Trial and Trial Dates in the case captioned HENNA AHMED, an individual, Plaintiff, v. BEVERLY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.; GGNSC ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01747-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal.). The hearing set for January 22, 2018, is continued until February 5, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. The February 12, 2018 pre-trial conference and the March 13, 2018 trial dates are vacated. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaq9x58d from Leagle.com. Henna Ahmed, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adriana Cara -- adriana.cara@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Andrew B. Millar -- drew.millar@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, Charles Matthew Roesch -- chuck.roesch@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Grace Wilson -- jessica.wilson@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Susan Jackson -- susan.jackson@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro hac vice. GGNSC Administrative Services, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adriana Cara, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Andrew B. Millar, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, Charles Matthew Roesch, Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Grace Wilson, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Susan Jackson, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro hac vice. BMW AG: "Williams" Suit over Vehicle Defects Underway ----------------------------------------------------- The motion by BMW of North America LLC to consolidate certain class action lawsuits including the case titled, Chris Williams, Ashok Patel, Kenneth Gagnon, Michael Cerny, Erhan Arat, Andre Malske, Craig Lash and Nicole Guy, on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class, the Plaintiffs, v. BMW of North America LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11567-WHW-CLW, (D. N.J., November 13, 2017), remains pending. In his Dec. 18 Order, Judge William H. Walls set the Motion for hearing Jan. 16. "Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required," the judge had said. The case seeks actual damages and other equitable relief based on inherent design defects of BMW vehicles with the BMW N26 and BMW N20 engines. The lawsuit says Defendant omitted from Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class, and all others in the chain of distribution, the existence of the Defect and failed to remove the Class Vehicles from the marketplace or take appropriate remedial action. Had Plaintiffs and other members of the Class known of the Defect at the time of purchase or lease, they would not have bought or leased their vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for them. BMW of North America, LLC is the distributor and warrantor of the Vehicles in the United States.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com - and - Joseph Santoli, Esq. 340 Devon Court Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450 Telephone: (201) 926-9200 Email: josephsantoli@aol.com Counsel For Defendant(s): Argia J. Dimarco, Esq. Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. Rosemary Joan Bruno, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102 Tel: (973) 424-5603 (973) 273-9800 Fax: (973) 273-9430 E-mail: argia.dimarco@bipc.com E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com E-mail: rosemary.bruno@bipc.com - and - Daniel Zev Rivlin, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 1290 Avenue of the Americas, 30th Floor New York, NY 10104 Tel: (212) 440-4400 E-mail: daniel.rivlin@bipc.com CACERES DRYWALL: March 20 Settlement Conference in "Blanco" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on January 16, 2018, entered an order Setting Settlement Conference for March 20 at 9:00 a.m., in the case, Juan Carlos Flores Blanco, for himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Caceres Drywall Corp. and Jorge E. Caceres, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 24129-KMM, (S.D. Fla., November 9, 2017). Blanco on November 15, 2017, filed a First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a plaster finisher from November 15, 2016, through November 3, 2017, in which he worked an average of 54 hours a week. However, the Plaintiff was never paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Neil Tobak, Esq. Rivkah Fay Jaff, Esq. Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL P.A. 300 71st Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 E-mail: ntobak.zidellpa@gmail.com E-mail: Rivkah.Jaff@gmail.com E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM Counsel For Defendant(s): Adi Amit, Esq. Joshua Howard Sheskin, Esq. LUBELL & ROSEN, LLC 200 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 880-9500 Facsimile: (954) 755-2993 E-mail: adi@lubellrosen.com E-mail: jhs@lubellrosen.com CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: "Lee" Action Disputes Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Capital Management Services, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-13221, (D. N.J., December 18, 2017), seeks statutory and actual damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Prior to November 9, 2016, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation to Barclays Bank Delaware over purchases made on a credit card. Barclays transferred or assigned the obligation to Capital Management for collection. Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter who then requested for debt verification. Said collection letter failed to indicate that interest was still accruing on the debt, the complaint says. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Tel: (201) 507-6300 Fax: (201) 507-6311 Email: lh@hershlegal.com CERTIFIED EMS: "Fleming" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Fleming, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Certified EMS, Inc. (d/b/a CPNS Staffing), Godson Uchenna Kanu, Individually and CHG Cornerstone Hospital of Houston, L.P. and Cornerstone Hospital of Houstonbellaire, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03796 (S.D. Tex., December 18, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Certified EMS, Inc. is a medical staffing agency that provides registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, certified nursing associates and allied healthcare technicians in the healthcare industry. Fleming, a registered nurse, is a former employee of Defendants, who was staffed by CPNS to perform work for Cornerstone Hospital of Houston, among other hospitals and medical facilities. Plaintiff worked more than forty hours in a work week for Defendants, but was not paid the overtime rate of pay, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J. Moises Cedillos, Esq. CEDILLOS LAW FIRM, PLLC 3801 Kirby Drive, Suite 510 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (832) 900-9456 Facsimile: (832) 900-9456 Email: moises@cedilloslaw.com - and - John M. Padilla, Esq. PADILLA & RODRIGUEZ, L.L.P. 5433 Westheimer, Suite 825 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 574-4600 Facsimile: (713) 574-4601 Email: jpadilla@pandrlaw.com CHEVRON CORP: Court Compels Arbitration in Site Managers' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned CHRISTOPHER McQUEEN, JAMES O'NEAL, and DONNIE CUMMINGS, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, No. C 16-02089 JSW (N.D. Cal.). Now before the Court are four motions filed by Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss (1) Plaintiff Bobby Richardson's claims; (2) the claims of opt-in plaintiffs Charles Beaty, Kevin Caudill, Bennie Joe Gipson, Scott Mathis, Armando Medina, William Perry, Michael Roberts, and Bryan Wood; (3) Plaintiff Charles E. Coleman, Jr.'s claims; and (4) Plaintiff Ted Nunnery's claims. Plaintiffs sought and were granted preliminary certification of a collective action for their claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of well site/drill site managers (Site Managers) who were allegedly denied proper compensation as required by federal wage and hour laws. The Court granted preliminary certification of all persons who have worked for Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. as Site Managers who were classified as independent contractors or consultants and were paid a day rate at any time within three years of the filing of this action through the trial. Chevron moves to compel arbitration and to stay the various plaintiffs' claims in favor of arbitration on the grounds that these plaintiffs should be compelled by contract to submit their claims to arbitration. Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), arbitration agreements shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. Plaintiff Bobby Richardson's Claims Chevron contends that Bobby Richardson, a drill site manager who performed services for Chevron on behalf of ExPert E&P Consultants (EEP) should be compelled to arbitrate his wage and hour claims against them pursuant to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with EEP with whom he entered a consultancy agreement on January 1, 2008. In his opposition to the motion, Plaintiff Richardson contends that the arbitration agreements are unenforceable for various reasons. First, Richardson argues that his claims are statutory and have nothing to do with contractual obligations. Second, Richardson argues that the arbitration agreements should not be enforced because they are unconscionable. Although this failure obviates the need to address Richardson's contentions regarding substantive unconscionability, the Court similarly finds Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on this question as well. Richardson's substantive challenge to his consultancy agreements pertain to terms other than the arbitration clause. Richardson's attack is not on the arbitration provision, but rather is focused on the fee splitting related to the mediation provision of the contracts. However, no party has sought to enforce the mediation provision, thereby rendering it irrelevant here. Accordingly, Plaintiff Richardson has failed to sustain his burden to demonstrate that the applicable arbitration provisions are either procedurally or substantively unconscionable. Cenergy Opt-In Plaintiffs' Claims Chevron separately moves to compel arbitration of the Cenergy Opt-In Plaintiffs also on the basis that these plaintiffs are bound to arbitrate their unpaid overtime claims against Chevron pursuant to valid and enforceable arbitration agreements with Cenergy International Services, LLC (Cenergy). The Cenergy Opt-In Plaintiffs contend that the agreements are unconscionably one-sided in that other provisions in the agreements beside the arbitration clauses indicate an insidious pattern of one-sided benefits to the employer over the plaintiff workers. Plaintiffs also contend the agreements are unconscionable as a result of a provision requiring plaintiffs to provide notice to Cenergy and to mediate in the first instance in the event of a dispute with Cenergy or one of its customers. With regard to all of these arguments concerning clauses in the contract aside from the arbitration provision, the law is clear: unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the issue of the contract's validity is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance. Further, the indemnification clause is a matter being addressed in a pending declaratory action filed by Cummings who stipulated to dismissal of his claims and their submission to binding arbitration, the mediation provisions are not invoked here, and the carve-out exception provides only an interim provisional remedy in connection with an otherwise arbitrable controversy. The Court does not find that Cenergy Opt-In Plaintiffs have carried their burden to demonstrate the contracts are unconscionably one-sided and any provision meeting with the arbitrator's disapproval may be severed according to the provisions in the underlying contracts. Plaintiff Charles E. Coleman, Jr.'s Claims Chevron contends that Charles E. Coleman, Jr., a drill site manager who performed services for Chevron on behalf of Fircroft should be compelled to arbitrate his wage and hour claims against them pursuant to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with Fircroft with whom he entered contract for services on October 2, 2013. The Court finds Coleman must arbitrate his claims. The Court is similarly unconvinced by Coleman's contentions that his claims sound in statutory violation and therefore have nothing to do with his contractual obligations. Here, Coleman's unpaid overtime claim relates to and is in connection with his services agreement with Fircroft because it was pursuant to that agreement that he performed work for Chevron and the contract set the terms of his compensation for that work. Coleman's contention that he was required first to notify Fircroft's Human Resources department before submitting his claims to binding arbitration does not negate the requirement that the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes. Plaintiff Ted Nunnery's Claims Finally, Chevron moves to compel arbitration for the claims filed by Plaintiff Ted Nunnery, a well site manager who performed services for Chevron on behalf of New Tech Global Ventures, LLC (New Tech). Chevron argues Nunnery should be compelled to arbitrate his wage and hour claims against them pursuant to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with New Tech with whom he entered consultant contract for services on January 1, 2010. Again, Nunnery argues that the scope of his statutory employment claims does not sound in or relate to the contract. However, Nunnery's claims for unpaid overtime wages arises directly from the services he performed under the consultancy contract. It was pursuant to the agreement with New Tech that he performed the services for Chevron. The contract prescribed the compensation he was to be paid for providing professional consulting services and personnel for well site operations. Again, the Court finds Chevron is entitled to enforce the arbitration agreements under the doctrine of estoppel and by virtue of their standing as third-party beneficiaries. Accordingly, the motions to compel arbitration are granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ngod8a from Leagle.com. Christopher McQueen, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Brome -- dbrome@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP. Christopher McQueen, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. Helland -- helland@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP. James O'Neal, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Brome, Nichols Kaster, LLP & Matthew C. Helland, Nichols Kaster, LLP. Donnie Cummings, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Brome, Nichols Kaster, LLP & Matthew C. Helland, Nichols Kaster, LLP. Chevron Corporation, Defendant, represented by Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Catherine A. Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Justin Tyler Goodwin -- jgoodwin@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, Michele Leigh Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Sarah Zenewicz -- szenewicz@gibsondunn.com -Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine A. Conway, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Justin Tyler Goodwin, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, Michele Leigh Maryott, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Sarah Zenewicz, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher. CINEMARK USA: "Fledderman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Fledderman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00381 (S.D. Tex., December 18, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the provisions the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Cinemark USA, Inc. is movie theatre chain owned by Cinemark Holdings, Inc. and operates throughout the United States under several brands, including its flagship Cinemark, Century Theatres, Tinseltown USA, CinÇArts and Rave Cinemas. Fledderman worked for Cinemark at a Century 16 theater in Corpus Christi as an Assistant Manager. He claims that he did not receive overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com COMPASS BANK: Faces "Andrade" Suit Over Default Interest Rate ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Andrade, Sr. and Elizabeth M. Andrade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Compass Bank d/b/a BBVA Compass and Taherzadeh, PLLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00019 (W.D. Tex., January 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract and violations of the Truth in Lending Act, specifically by improperly charging an increased "default" interest rate of 18% on the subject home equity line of credit loan. Compass Bank is an Alabama banking corporation, with its principal place of business at 401 West Valley Avenue, Homewood, Alabama 35209. Taherzadeh, PLLC is a law firm that represents BBVA in foreclosure and other collection lawsuits. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com - and - Amy E. Clark, Esq. AMY CLARK LAW 11801 Domain Blvd., 3rd Floor Austin, TX 78758 Telephone: (512) 850-5290 Facsimile: (626) 737-6030 E-mail: amy@amyclarklaw.com CORRECTIONS CORP: Court Grants Move to Dismiss Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court of the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, issued a Memorandum granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned NIKKI BOLLINGER GRAE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, DAMON T. HININGER, DAVID M. GARFINKLE, TODD J. MULLENGER, and HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-2267 (M.D. Tenn.). Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America), Damon T. Hininger, David M. Garfinkle, Todd J. J. Mullenger, and Harley G. Lappin (Individual Defendants) (CoreCivic). CoreCivic is a publicly traded real estate investment trust (REIT) that owns and operates correctional, detention, and residential reentry facilities. Due to the nature of its business, CoreCivic relies on federal, state, and local governments as clients. In the period from CoreCivic's federal clients, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, accounted for between 43% and 51% of the company's annual revenue. In particular, CoreCivic's BOP contracts which covered five facilities collectively housing approximately 8,000 inmates were responsible for between 11% and 13%2 of CoreCivic's annual revenue. Nikki Bollinger Grae filed a Class Action Complaint in this case. Notice of the suit was published in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. Section78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), and Amalgamated filed a timely motion to be appointed lead plaintiff, Amalgamated claimed to have purchased or acquired almost 159,000 shares of CoreCivic stock and suffered over $1.2 million in losses as a result of the conduct covered by the suit. The court granted Amalgamated's motion, appointing it the lead plaintiff for the case. Amalgamated filed an Amended Complaint on March 13, 2017. The Amended Complaint pleads one claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, and one count for violation of Section 20(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a). CoreCivic argues that Amalgamated's Complaint fails to state a Section 10(b) claim in three regards: (1) it has failed to plead, with particularity, any actionable misstatements or omissions of material facts; (2) it has failed to plead loss causation; and (3) it has failed to plead facts sufficient to support a strong inference of scienter, as required by the heightened pleading standards imposed by Congress on securities fraud cases. Actionable Statements Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder prohibit fraudulent, material misstatements or omissions in connection with the sale or purchase of a security. To state a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b), a plaintiff must allege, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, the misstatement or omission of a material fact, made with scienter, upon which the plaintiff justifiably relied and which proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. Falsity By the time Hininger made his March 30, 2016 claim that CoreCivic's "record of operational excellence" had "earned it the confidence of its government partners," CoreCivic had already received numerous Notices of Concern documenting chronic deficiencies related to, among other things, inadequate health services and understaffing in its BOP facilities. Those deficiencies had been linked to a deadly riot at Adams and the mishandling of the health needs of a number of prisoners, including prisoners who died in CoreCivic's care. CoreCivic personnel had ample reason to believe that the BOP took these issues seriously, given that, among other things, the BOP had expressly threatened to terminate its Cibola contract early due to health services deficiencies the year before. Moreover, the BOP's long history of complaints to CoreCivic not only alerted CoreCivic to the specific deficiencies cited, but also gave CoreCivic numerous examples of the BOP's concrete expectations under its contracts. A reasonable juror could conclude that CoreCivic's statements, in context, were false or misleading because they ran directly counter to a wealth of available evidence establishing that its operations had pervasively failed to live up to the quality standards of the BOP. Materiality While the question of falsity requires the court to compare the facts on the ground to the substance of the defendants' statements, the materiality inquiry requires the court to place itself in the shoes of a reasonable investor deciding whether to buy, sell, or retain the company's stock. In so doing, the court must consider the effect of the relevant statements on a detached, probability-minded assessment of the company's future value. CoreCivic's statements about its history of meeting clients' quality expectations are similar to the statements found by the Sixth Circuit to meet the pleading requirements for materiality in In re Omnicare. In that case, the defendant healthcare corporation's annual reports stated, "We believe that our billing practices materially comply with applicable state and federal requirements," and "We believe that we are in compliance in all material respects with federal, state and local laws." The Sixth Circuit noted that "one might be skeptical of whether a reasonable investor would put much stock in Omnicare's statements regarding legal compliance. Moreover, the vague language that the defendant had used left it a great amount of wiggle room. Nevertheless, the court noted, context matters when analyzing materiality. The court concluded that a reasonable jury, looking at the full context of the defendant's statements including its recent history of legal problems surrounding non-compliance could conclude that the statements were material. Similarly, a reasonable jury could look at the history of controversy surrounding CoreCivic and the issue of prison privatization, as well as CoreCivic's admitted vulnerability to shifts in government policy, and conclude that CoreCivic's assurances of the quality of its services and its history of client satisfaction were material. It may be that CoreCivic can show that the numerous Notices of Concern and adverse review findings it received were so commonplace in contract prison administration that its executives truly were in the dark about the peril facing their relationship with the BOP. It may also be that CoreCivic can show that its own internal quality control systems had not alerted CoreCivic executives to the extent of its quality problems and what those problems meant for its client relationships. Both of those issues, though, go to scienter, not falsity or materiality. For the purposes of showing falsity and materiality, it is sufficient that Amalgamated has pled that CoreCivic and its executives repeatedly claimed or suggested that the company's history of quality services had gained it the faith and esteem of its government partners, when, in fact, the perceived low quality of its services was leading one of its most important client relationships to the brink of collapse. The court will not dismiss Amalgamated's claims for having insufficiently pled falsity or materiality. Loss Causation A Section 10(b) plaintiff must plead facts showing a causal link between the alleged misconduct and the economic harm ultimately suffered by the plaintiff. CoreCivic points out that Amalgamated has not specifically alleged any losses that occurred between the release of the OIG Review and the Yates Memorandum. CoreCivic argues that, by Amalgamated's own version of events, the OIG Review unveiled many of the deficiencies that CoreCivic had previously concealed, meaning that the market onto which the Yates Memorandum was released was one that had already accounted for CoreCivic's shortfalls. Determining the degree to which that is true, however, would require an in-depth analysis of both the OIG Review and the market assumptions underlying CoreCivic's interpretation of events. Such fact- and expertise-intensive questions are unnecessary and often impossible to resolve at the pleading stage. The court will not dismiss Amalgamated's claims for having insufficiently pled loss causation. Scienter The PSLRA imposes exacting requirements for pleading scienter. The plaintiff must, with respect to each act or omission alleged state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. To qualify as strong an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of non-fraudulent intent. As Amalgamated points out, CoreCivic's own public statements about its quality assurance practices go a long way toward overcoming that hurdle. CoreCivic's 2011 Annual Report boasts of the company's rigorous and comprehensive" monitoring of performance "across disciplines, divisions, business units and the Company as a whole. The resulting QA information, CoreCivic stressed, was not merely siloed away in the QAD, but provided to and relied upon by "senior management" as a major part of CoreCivic's continuous operational risk assessment and management process. At the very least, CoreCivic's own statements establish that (1) the company engaged in ongoing monitoring and analysis of the quality of its services and (2) key CoreCivic decision makers were made aware of the results thereof. The information provided by FE1 completes the picture by confirming that (3) the ongoing QAD tracking included the results of BOP audits and Notices of Concern and (4) Hininger, Mullenger, and Lappin were among the senior executives who routinely received QAD information.8 The PSLRA does not require a plaintiff to definitively rule out non-fraudulent explanations of a defendant's behavior or even to establish, at the complaint stage, that the scales tip decidedly in favor of a finding of scienter. Rather, the court must simply consider all possible inferences and determine whether the inference of scienter is at least as strong as any opposing inference. It is certainly possible that CoreCivic executives did not understand just how badly the deficiencies at its BOP facilities had damaged or threatened to damage the company's relationship with the DOJ. At least as likely, however, is the explanation offered by Amalgamated: that CoreCivic's executives were fully apprised of the company's history of falling short of BOP expectations and knowingly chose to conceal that history in the hope that the underlying risk of lost business would never come to fruition. The PSLRA sets a high bar for a plaintiff attempting to plead scienter. Construing that high bar as an insurmountable one, however, would transform that Act into a sub rosa repeal of Section 10(b). CoreCivic has identified no evidence that Congress intended such a result. Amalgamated has pled a clear, cogent, and plausible account of how CoreCivic misled the market about its history of performance relative to BOP expectations. Amalgamated has further provided a concrete, plausible explanation of how and why its executives would have been aware of facts contradicting their public statements. Finally, the specific practical realities of CoreCivic's underlying business model strongly suggest that any reasonable and competent executive would have paid attention to the very issues that CoreCivic has identified, because meeting the expectations of the federal government was absolutely central to CoreCivic's continued success, or at least its success on anything close to the scale it had achieved by the time of the Class Period. While the inference that CoreCivic and its executives acted knowingly may not be inexorable, it is certainly at least as strong as any inference that they did not. That is enough to satisfy Rule 12(b)(6), Rule 9(b), and the PSLRA. For the reasons stated, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/yce5rkoy from Leagle.com. Nikki Bollinger Grae, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Schall -- brian@goldberglawpc.com -- Goldberg Law PC. Nikki Bollinger Grae, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Marc Gorrie -- mgorrie@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Michael Goldberg -- michael@goldberglawpc.com -- Goldberg Law PC, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Paul Kent Bramlett -- pknashlaw@aol.com -- Bramlett Law Offices & Robert P. Bramlett -- robert@bramlettlawoffices.com -- Bramlett Law Offices. Luvell L. Glanton, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Cain, Scott & Cain, 550 Main Street, Suite 601. Bank of America Center. Knoxville, TN 37902 Corrections Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Anna E. Berces -- anna.berces@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, Brian T. Glennon -- brian.glennon@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, David J. Schindler -- daVid.schirzdler@lw. Com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Milton S. McGee, III -- tmcgee@rwjplc.com -- Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Morgan E. Whitworth -- morgan.whitworth@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins &Steven Allen Riley, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson. Damon T. Hiniger, Defendant, represented by Anna E. Berces, Latham & Watkins, Brian T. Glennon, Latham & Watkins LLP, David J. Schindler, Latham & Watkins LLP, Milton S. McGee, III, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Morgan E. Whitworth, Latham & Watkins & Steven Allen Riley -- sriley@rwjplc. -- Riley, Warnock & Jacobson. David M. Garfinkle, Defendant, represented by Anna E. Berces, Latham & Watkins, Brian T. Glennon, Latham & Watkins LLP, David J. Schindler, Latham & Watkins LLP, Milton S. McGee, III, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Morgan E. Whitworth, Latham & Watkins & Steven Allen Riley, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson. Todd J. Mullenger, Defendant, represented by Anna E. Berces, Latham & Watkins, Brian T. Glennon, Latham & Watkins LLP, David J. Schindler, Latham & Watkins LLP, Milton S. McGee, III, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Morgan E. Whitworth, Latham & Watkins & Steven Allen Riley, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson. Harley G. Lappin, Defendant, represented by Anna E. Berces, Latham & Watkins, Morgan E. Whitworth, Latham & Watkins & Steven Allen Riley, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson. CCA INVESTOR GROUP, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Paul Kent Bramlett, Bramlett Law Offices. CROWN BUILDING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Jimenez" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Elias Jimenez, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crown Building Maintenance, Co., Case No. 1:18-cv-00035-PAB (D. Col., January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Crown Building Maintenance, Co. offers general maintenance, janitorial, construction cleanup, parking lot, solid waste recycling, and pest control services, as well as provides engineering, and integrated facility services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE 1123 Spruce Street, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 Facsimile: (303) 957-5754 E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com DAVID M. BLASKOVICH: Approval of Class Action Settlement Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Derrick Garrett, the Plaintiff, v. David M. Blaskovich, P.C., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00087 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah entered an order granting the motion for final approval of class action settlement and petition for attorneys' fees and costs. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 18, 2018, the Plaintiff is directed to submit the appropriate proposed orders to proposed_order_shah@ilnd.uscourts.gov. A copy of the Notice of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uCeFoIV4 DELTIC CORPORATION: Faces "Assad" Suit Over Potlatch Merger Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goerge Assad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deltic Corporation, Robert C. Nolan, John D. Enlow, Sr., Deborah M. Cannon, Randolph C. Coley, Bert H. Jones, Christoph Keller, III, D. Mark Leland, R. Madison Murphy, R. Hunter Pierson, Jr., Lenore M. Sullivan, Robert Tudor III, Potlatch Corporation, and Portland Merger LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv- 01005-SOH (W.D. Ark., January 9, 2018), arises out of the proposed transaction on October 23, 2017, pursuant to which Deltic Timber Corporation will be acquired by Potlatch Corporation and Portland Merger LLC. Pursuant to the terms on the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Deltic will receive 1.80 shares of Potlatch common stock for each share of Deltic stock they own. According to the complaint, Deltic filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with U.S Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Deltic stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the 4 Registration Statement omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Deltic's financial projections, Potlach's financial projections, and the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Goldman & Sachs & Co. LLC; (ii) whether any non-disclosure agreements executed by the Company and the prospective bidders contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions that are preventing those counter parties from submitting superior offers to acquire the Company; and (iii) potential conflicts of interest of Goldman Sachs. Deltic Corporation is a natural resources company focused on the efficient and environmentally responsible management of its land holdings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Scott, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT, LLP 700 Rock Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT, LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 Facsimile: (281) 488-8867 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, PC 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.co DELTIC TIMBER: Amonte Files Suit Over Potlatch Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Amonte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Deltic Timber Corp., Robert C. Nolan, John D. Enlow Sr., Deborah M. Cannon, Randolph C. Coley, Bert H. Jones, Christoph Keller III, D. Mark Leland, R. Madison Murphy, R. Hunter Pierson Jr., Lenore M. Sullivan and Robert Tudor III, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01812, (D. Del., December 18, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed merger between Deltic and a subsidiary of Potlatch Corporation, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger. The Plaintiff further seeks costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Deltic's shareholders stand to receive 1.80 shares of Potlatch common stock for each share of Deltic stock they own, representing approximately $1.16 billion in equity value. Deltic Timber Corporation is a vertically integrated natural resources company engaged in the growing and harvesting of timber and the manufacturing and marketing of lumber and medium density fiberboard. The complaint says Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include financial projections and valuation analyses performed by its financial advisor, Goldman Sachs and Co. Amonte claims that the merger consideration appears inadequate in light of the Company's recent financial performance and prospects for future growth. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New Yor006B, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com DENKA PERFORMANCE: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROBERT TAYLOR, JR., et al., the Plaintiffs, v. DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC and E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07668-MLCF-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs -- Robert Taylor, Jr., Kershell Bailey, Shondrell P. Campbell, Gloria Dumas, Janell Emery, George Handy, Annette Houston, Rogers Jackson, Michael Perkins, Allen Schnyder, Jr., Larry Sorapuru, Sr., Kellie Tabb, and Robert Taylor, III move the Court for an order: 1. certifying case to proceed as a class action on behalf of: "all natural persons who have lived or been occupants of property within an area surrounding the Pontchartrain Works facility, that area bounded on the North by Interstate-10, on the West by the St. John the Baptist/St. James Parish boundary, on the South by Louisiana Highway 3127, on the East by the eastern boundary of the community of Killona on the West Bank of the Mississippi River and by the western boundary of the Bonnet Carre Spillway on the East Bank of the Mississippi River ("the defined area"), at any time from January 1, 2011, through the present"; 2. appointing class counsel; and 3. deferring hearing until such time as the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to obtain discovery on class certification issues, as stated in Rule 23 and applicable subparts. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VFwpg5pP Counsel for Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated: Gladstone N. Jones, III Eberhard D. Garrison Lynn E. Swanson H.S. Bartlett III Kevin E. Huddell Emma E. Antin Daschbach Lindsay E. Reeves JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 523 2500 Facsimile: (504) 523 2508 - and - Hugh P. Lambert, T.A., Esq. Cayce C. Peterson, Esq. Morgan Embleton, Esq. THE LAMBERT FIRM, PLC 701 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581 1750 Facsimile: (504) 529 2931 - and - Sylvia Elaine Taylor, Esq. 1126 W. Airline Highway LaPlace, LA 70068 - and - Randal L. Gaines, Esq. 7 Turnberry Drive, Esq. LaPlace, Louisiana 70068 - and - Darryl J. Tschirn, Esq. 7825 Fay Avenue, Suite 200 LaJolla, CA 92037 - and - John Cummings, Esq. CUMMINGS & CUMMINGS, LLC 416 Gravier Street New Orleans, LA 70118 Telephone: (504) 586 0000 Facsimile: (504) 522 8423 DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: "Austin" Suit Alleges Stock Manipulation -------------------------------------------------------------- Emmanuel S. Austin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Diana Containerships Inc., Symeon P. Palios, Andreas Michalopoulos and Anastasios Margaronis, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07329 (E.D. N.Y., December 15, 2017), seeks to recover damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief for violation of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Diana is a global provider of shipping transportation services through its ownership of container ships. It is traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "DCIX." According to the complaint, Diana engaged in manipulative share issuance/sales transactions with Kalani Investments Ltd, underwriter and distributor of Diana common stock, causing Diana to sell its common shares and securities convertible into common shares at a significant discount allowing Kalani to resell these shares into the market. Diana would reverse split the stock, causing a certain number of outstanding shares to be merged into a single share, and thereby raising the price of Diana stock. Then Diana would again sell securities to Kalani. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com DONALD J. TRUMP: Suit vs. President Junked for Lack of Standing --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing for lack of standing the complaint in the case captioned GEORGE KERSEY, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17- 11635-ADB (D. Mass.). Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. Plaintiff George A. Kersey filed a self-prepared, class action complaint naming Donald J. Trump, individually, as the sole defendant. With the complaint, Kersey also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Kersey alleges that he is a citizen of Rhode Island and that he receives mail at post office boxes in Framingham, Massachusetts, and Narragansett, Rhode Island. Kersey alleges that he participated in the Second World War against Nazism and now files the action "to defend the Constitution and to remove the Defendant from office." Kersey seeks to bring the suit as a class action on behalf of more than 100 proposed class members pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Upon review of Kersey's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court concludes that he is without income or assets to pay the $400.00 filing fee. Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will construe his complaint generously. The Court concludes that Kersey's attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court falls short of the constitutional requirements for standing. Kersey has failed to allege any direct personal injury, actual or imminent, that he has suffered as a result of Defendant's alleged actions. Despite Kersey's numerous allegations concerning President Trump's fitness for office and the damage allegedly caused, Kersey's challenge is essentially a statement of dissatisfaction with various political decisions and actions taken by President Trump. Although Kersey describes harm that has been done to others, including an allegation that the Defendant is partly responsible for injuries sustained during recent protests in Charlottsville, Virginia, as well as generalized harms, the complaint fails to show how President Trump specifically injured Kersey in a manner apart from the general population. For example, alleging that President Trump is opposed to climate change and was not elected by popular vote, is not enough to demonstrate that Kersey has standing to file this lawsuit. Thus, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of standing. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8qb9q6h from Leagle.com. George Kersey, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Pro Se. DONISI JAX: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Campbell" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Malcolm Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Donisi Jax, Inc. d/b/a Nationwide Health Advisors, Case No. 0:18-cv-60043-KMM (S.D. Fla., January 9, 2018), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's practice of placing prerecorded and autodialed telemarketing telephone calls to telephones without prior express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Donisi Jax, Inc. is an accident and health insurance agency with its headquarters in Pompano Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradford R. Sohn, Esq. THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM, PLLC 2600 South Douglas Road, Suite 1007 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 708-9750 Facsimile: (305) 397-0650 E-mail: brad@sohn.com - and - Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq. THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC 1704 Maxwell Drive Wall, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 455-9737 Facsimile: (732) 709-5150 E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com DYNAMIC LEDGER: Feb. 22 Deadline to Respond to "Gaviria" ICO Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Alejandro Gaviria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc.; Kathleen Breitman, Arthur Breitman and Tezos Foundation, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-01959-PGB-KRS, (M.D. Fla., November 13, 2017), Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding entered an order dated January 17, 2018, granting a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. The deadline for Defendant to respond to the complaint is extended up to and including February 22, 2018. The Plaintiff states that the class action is brought by him individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated investors who contributed more than $232 million worth of cryptocurrency to an Initial Coin Offering by Defendants. Defendants have purported that the funds they raised were donations and not investments in an attempt to evade federal securities laws and scrutiny from the investors. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Securities Act.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David Silver, Esq. Coral Springs, FL 33065 SILVER MILLER 11780 W Sample Rd Coral Springs, FL 33065 Tel: (954) 516-6000 Defendant is represented by: John Armando Boudet, Esq. Shayne Ashley Thomas, Esq. GRAYROBINSON, PA 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Post Office Box 3068 (32802-3068) Orlando, FL 32801 Tel: (407) 843-8880 Fax: (407) 244-5890 E-mail: john.boudet@gray-robinson.com ECLINICALWORKS LLC: CA Suit Will 'Make It Right' for Customers -------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Sullivan, writing for Healthcare IT News, reports that eClinicalWorks was charged in a class-action suit, the second since its $155 million dollar False Claims settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice on May 31, 2017. The complaint alleges that the EHR vendor engaged in deceptive practices that cost customers of Carrollton Family Clinic money and caused them not to switch to a rival electronic health record vendor. eClinicalWorks, for its part, said "the allegations are wholly without merit." Mark Chalos, Esq. managing partner at the law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP's, Nashville office, is named in the complaint among attorneys representing the plaintiffs in Carrollton Family Clinic v. eClinicalWorks. "A significant number of eClinicalWorks customers are dissatisfied and believe the software is not compliant with government regulations and does not function as promised," Chalos said. Chalos added that the suit is asking the court to require that eClinicalWorks both fix its software and put its hospital and practice customers back in the position they were in before encountering the problems with eClinicalWorks technology. Under the initial False Claims settlement in May of last year, the DOJ mandated that eClinicalWorks offer free upgrades of its software or transfer data to rival EHR vendors if customers elected to switch. The vendor announced version 11 of the EHR at its annual user group in October and CEO Girish Navani said in late November it would be finalized on Dec. 15 and existing customers would implement the cloud-based services in January and February of 2018. Navani said during a previous interview that the company is focusing on its internal compliance program to measure all the checks and balances in the meaningful use criteria. It will likely take until many, if not most, of the vendor's customers implement eClinicalWorks 11 and use it to understand whether the upgrade adequately fixed the known problems or not. The Carrollton complaint document, however, suggests that any eClinicalWorks customer who paid the vendor between Jan. 14, 2010 and May 30, 2017, could potentially be eligible under the class action suit. "Any company that puts out a product that doesn't perform as promised should make it right for the customers. If they refuse to make it right for the customers they are certainly at risk of being held accountable in the civil justice system," Chalos said. "I don't have any information at large that EHR vendors are specifically bad but any company that cheats its customers should make it right." While the first suit, filed in mid-November, is seeking $999 million, Chalos said the new complaint does not allege a specific dollar amount, other than to say "greater than $5 million," and, as allowable under Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law Chapter 93A, asking for treble (or triple) damages. "We don't know the full extent of the damages. We have not gotten into the discovery process yet so it's difficult to put an exact number on it at this point," Chalos said. "We expect to learn a lot more about the exact number of potential class numbers and the extent of the damages." [GN] EDDIE BAUER: Court Continues Deadline to Answer SAC --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Continue Deadline to Answer in the case captioned VERIDIAN CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER LLC, Defendant, No. 2:17-cv-00356-JLR (W.D. Wash.). A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y73okx98 from Leagle.com. Veridian Credit Union, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, represented by Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, pro hac vice. Veridian Credit Union, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA, pro hac vice, Chase Christian Alvord -- calvord@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Erin Green Comite -- ecomite@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT + SCOTT LLP, pro hac vice, Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP. pro hac vice, Karen H. Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kevin W. Tucker -- ktucker@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP, pro hac vice, Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS & Stephen J. Teti -- steti@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT + SCOTT LLP, pro hac vice. Eddie Bauer LLC, Defendant, represented by Dyanne Cho -- dyanne.cho@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BIGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Gordon Calhoun, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Jon P. Kardassakis -- jon.kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BIGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Kathleen A. Nelson -- kathleen.nelson@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Sarah E. Demaree -- sarah.demaree@lewisbrisbois.com - - LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP. EDGAR P. BENJAMIN: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Unlawful Termination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Goret Johnson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Edgar P. Benjamin Healthcare Center, Inc., Case No. 1884CV00033 (Mass. Super. Ct., January 8, 2018), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful retaliation practice of terminating the Plaintiff after reporting to the company's CEO that she believed fellow employees were not being paid for every hour worked. The Edgar P. Benjamin Healthcare Center, Inc. is a non-profit skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center with a staff of approximately 200 employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Walsh, Esq. Heather M. Nikolyszyn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL B WALSH 6 Beacon Street, Suite 1020 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 523-3200 EL REY DE LAS FRITAS: "Aguiar" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yamileysi Aguiar, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. El Rey De Las Fritas Corporation and Mercedes Gonzalez, individually, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-24552 (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2017), seeks to recover regular wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. El Rey De Las Fritas operates three Cuban restaurants within the Miami-Dade area. Aguiar worked as s cook helper from approximately May 10, 2016, through August 19, 2017, working regularly 6 days per week, from Monday to Saturday from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, or later with no lunch breaks, says the complaint. [BN] 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 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Leavy Sues Over Vague Collection Letter ---------------------------------------------------------- Ariel Leavy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01313, (W.D. N.Y., December 18, 2017), seeks statutory and actual damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, prejudgment interest and post- judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Enhanced Recovery is a debt collection agency who attempted to collect an obligation Leavy allegedly incurred to Capital One via a collection letter. Said letter failed to identify the Plaintiff's current creditor, instead it merely stated, "Creditor: Kohl's Department Stores, Inc." and failed to indicate whether the "Creditor" refers to the original, current or principal creditor, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kohn, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 ERKA INC: "Ferrera" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Iliana Tejada Ferrera, Carolina Mandujano and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Erka, Inc., Mirela Ercan, Ismail Ercan, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-24542 (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2017), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire employment period along with court costs, interest and any other relief. Plaintiffs worked as cashiers for Erka Inc., a gas station located in Hallandale Beach, Florida. They allegedly were never paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com EURO RENOVATION: Faces "Rosario" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Idenis Marte Rosario, Edgar Gonzalez Licona, Edgar Gonzalez Oliva, and Manuel Sanchez Vielma, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Euro Renovation, Inc. (d/b/a Euro Renovation), Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (d/b/a Structural), Structural Group, Inc. (d/b/a Structural), John Crigler, Garry Naughton, Peter H. Emmons, and Marek Wnorowski, Case No. 1:18-cv-00083 (S.D.N Y., January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own, operate, or control three construction companies, located at 39 Utter Ave, Hawthorne, New Jersey 07506 under the name "Structural". The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com F&M TRUST: Tentative $10M Settlement in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Joel Berg, writing for Central Penn Business Journal, reports that F&M Trust Co. could be absorbing a $10 million hit to its earnings to settle a class-action lawsuit stemming from a trust company it bought in 2008. The settlement, which requires court approval, would close out claims arising from allegedly improper oversight of funds first held by Community Trust Co., a Cumberland County firm purchased by F&M Trust in 2008. The cost will be reflected in F&M Trust's fourth-quarter earnings for 2017, said Tim Henry, the bank's president and CEO. Henry declined to forecast the bank's eventual results. But for the first nine months of 2017, the bank's parent, Franklin Financial Services Corp., earned net income of $9.4 million, up nearly 50 percent from $6.4 million for the same period in 2016, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The $10 million hit won't derail the Chambersburg based bank from its plans moving forward, said Henry, adding that the bank will remain well capitalized. "This doesn't keep us from looking at 2018 with great expectations." The bank has assets of about $1 billion and operates 22 branches throughout Central Pennsylvania. About the Suit The class-action suit, filed in 2015 in federal court, alleged that Community Trust and F&M Trust did not exercise proper oversight of funds they held between 2002 and 2010 on behalf of employee-benefit plans created by an independent lawyer. The settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing on the bank's part. The lawyer, John Koresko, Esq. created several employee-benefit plans for doctors' offices and other small employers around the country but spent plan money for his own personal benefit, according to the 2015 complaint. Koresko's spending included a $4.5 million purchase of seven condominiums on the Caribbean island of Nevis, the complaint said. The plans, which covered more than 500 participants, involved employer-owned life insurance policies for company principals and employees. Those participants are the class covered by the proposed settlement with F&M Trust. A Philadelphia-based attorney for the plaintiffs, Ira Silverstein, Esq. said he planned to file a preliminary motion for approval of the settlement. If and when preliminary approval is granted, class members will be notified and then the settlement will move toward final approval, Silverstein said. It would represent the fifth class-action settlement of claims arising from Koresko's actions, Silverstein said. The four others, totaling about $1.5 million, involved recouping fees Koresko paid to law firms using money from the employee-benefit plans. [GN] FREE FLOW CONSTRUCTION: "Abreu" Action Seeks Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jorge L. Abreu, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Free Flow Construction, Inc. and Felipe A. Rodriguez Jr., Individually, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-24575 (S.D. Fla., December 18, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Free Flow Construction is a general residential and commercial construction company specializing in the installation of water and sewer lines where Abreu worked as a full-time construction employee from approximately April 3, 2017 through July 28, 2017. [BN] 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 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com GIGA WATT: Silver Miller Law Firm Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- JD Alois, writing for Crouwdfund Insider, reports that any US based initial coin offering (ICO) that raised a fair amount of money and did not file for a securities exemption should be quite nervous now. Giga Watt, an ICO that raised $20 million last summer, was hit with a class action lawsuit by the law firm of Silver Miller as a Christmas present. The allegations have now become fairly standard as the plaintiff, StormsMedia, alleges that Giga Watt conducted an unregistered offering of securities. Something that is obviously against the law. But, like many other lawsuits filed against a successful ICO, the complaint goes further stating: Defendants appear to have already pocketed for themselves large sums of money It appears Plaintiff et al will not see any return on their investment Defendants used deceptive activity and intentional deprivation of investor rights and protection And Much More. . . StormsMedia may not be very happy that when it (and others) invested the price of Bitcoin etc. was rather low. In the ensuing months, the price of many cryptocurrencies rocketed. The complaint estimates the investment of $20 million is now worth over $100 million. For StormsMedia, their investment is now pegged at a valuation of $5.1 million. Perhaps it would have been better for the investors to have not invested at all? Yes, a rhetorical question. The Plaintiff apparently requested a recision of the deal back on November 22, 2017. The Defendants have "failed to provide a meaningful response" to the demand -- allegedly in violation of the terms of their own white paper including terms for an investor remedy. David Silver, from Silver Miller, told Crowdfund Insider that all pre-functional tokens promised in an ICO fit the definition of the sale of a security which means the seller has to comply with US securities law; "In this case, the defendant -- whether intentionally or not -- did neither and is therefore strictly liable for offering and selling unregistered securities," said Miller. "Just because utility tokens might one day have a consumptive use does not remove them from being a "security" prior to that use. Promoting the expectation of profit from pre-functional tokens, like Giga Watt did and continues to do, is by definition the sale of a security; and this case will hold Giga Watt accountable for its actions." Miller added they are pursuing a longer list of crypto companies that are allegedly in breach of US securities law; "We currently have pending cases against Coinbase, Kraken, Tezos, Monkey Capital and Giga Watt. I expect more to be filed as 2018 progresses," said Silver. Having $100 million in crypto & cash is a pretty fat target for disgruntled investors. Lawyers almost always win in a case like this. Everyone else, well that depends. Giga Watt is most certainly lawyering up -- just as every other US based ICO that raised big money, minus a Form D, should be doing now as suing ICO issuers is becoming a cottage industry of sorts. [GN] GRANITE TELECOM: "Hair" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ James Hair and Christopher Witkowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Granite Telecommunications, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-81361 (S.D. Fla., December 18, 2017), seeks overtime wages due, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hair and Witkowski worked as account managers whose primary job duty was selling Granite telecommunications services (telephone and data) to business and commercial enterprises by direct telephone and email solicitations, including its voice, data, mobile and network plans. Both claim to have been denied overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Williams, Esq. FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC 6940 W. Linebaugh Ave, #101 Tampa, FL 33626 Tele: (877) 946-8293 Fax: (813) 639-9376 Email: mitch@feldmanwilliams.com ben@feldmanwilliams.com casemail@feldmanwilliams.com HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit that alleges Holman Automotive Group, Inc., failed to provide their commissioned employees with meal and rest periods in accordance with the California Wage Order and Labor Code. The Holman Automotive Group, Inc., class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2017- 00049749-CU-OE-CTL is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court for the State of California. According to the lawsuit, Holman Automotive Group, Inc., allegedly failed to provide their employees the legally required off-duty meal breaks as required by the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code. The Complaint further claims that Holman Automotive Group, Inc., allegedly failed to accurately record missed meal and rest breaks and also allegedly failed to pay the proper minimum wages causing the wage statements being issued to the employees by Holman Automotive Group, Inc., to allegedly violate California law, and in particular, Labor Code Section 226(a). Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Holman Automotive Group, Inc., failed to reimburse and indemnify their employees for required business expenses incurred by the employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of the company. Cal. Lab. Code Sec 2802 expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful." If you would like to know more about the Holman Automotive Group, Inc., lawsuit, please contact attorney Nicholas De Blouw today by calling (858)-952-0354 Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a California employment law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. The firm has offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento and Chicago. [GN] INFINITY AUTO: Central Palm Beach Physicians Files Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Infinity Auto Insurance Company. The case is titled as Central Palm Beach Physicians & Urgent Care, Inc. doing business as Total MD, a/a/o Ferica Brown, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Infinity Auto Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-62201-WPD, (S.D. Fl., November 13, 2017). The case is assigned to Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. A first amended complaint was filed by Central Palm Beach Physicians & Urgent Care on Jan. 17, 2018. Judge Dimitrouleas on Dec. 12 entered an order granting the Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to a Complaint or Other Case Initiating Document. Infinity Auto's Answer was due Jan. 12.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Barbara Perez, Esq. Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. ARONOVITZ LAW 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 3700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-2772 Facsimile: (305) 397-1886 Email: bp@aronovitzlaw.com Email: ta@aronovitzlaw.com Counsel For Defendant(s): Peter David Weinstein, Esq. COLE SCOTT KISSANE PA 600 N Pine Island Road, Suite 500 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 343-3929 Facsimile: (954) 474-7979 E-mail: peter.weinstein@csklegal.com INTEL CORP: 3 Suits Related to Security Vulnerability Filed ----------------------------------------------------------- Alex Cranz, writing for Gizmodo, reports that it's been just two days since The Register first reported that all Intel x86-64x processors were subject to a severe security vulnerability, and already Intel has been hit with at least three separate class action lawsuits related to the vulnerability. The Register first reported the news on January 2nd, noting that the solution to fixing the vulnerability could result in slowdown of the affected computers. Intel has since claimed that any performance penalties would be negligible, and Google, which has implemented a fix on its affected servers (which host its cloud services, including Gmail) wrote that, "On most of our workloads, including our cloud infrastructure, we see negligible impact on performance." Plaintiffs in three different states disagree. As Law.com first noted, a class action complaint was filed January 3rd in United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Since then Gizmodo has found two additional class action complaints filed just eleven minutes apart -- one in the District of Oregon and another in the Southern District of Indiana. All three complaints cite the security vulnerability as well as Intel's failure to disclose it in a timely fashion. They also cite the supposed slowdown of purchased processors. However that is still up for debate. In a press release, Intel claimed it has "issued updates for the majority of processor products introduced within the past five years." Moreover, it says the performance penalty is not as significant as The Register initially claimed. Intel continues to believe that the performance impact of these updates is highly workload-dependent and, for the average computer user, should not be significant and will be mitigated over time. While on some discrete workloads the performance impact from the software updates may initially be higher, additional post-deployment identification, testing and improvement of the software updates should mitigate that impact. This claim -- of things not being as dire as they seemed -- was seconded by Google. In a post on its Security Blog, Google claimed "we have found that microbenchmarks can show an exaggerated impact," which seems to suggest that localized attempts to benchmark affected processors before and after the fix has been applied may not yield reliable results. Intel continues to claim it is not the only CPU maker affected and has posited that CPUs made by AMD, Qualcomm, and ARM (Apple uses ARM architecture in its iPhone and iPad devices) are all potentially affected. If you're not sure if your device has been affected, be sure to back it up and then perform all available updates. [GN] INTELEMEDIA COMM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johnson" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tara Johnson and Melvin Brown, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Intelemedia Communications, Inc. and Intelemedia Premier Leads, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02018 (W.D. Ten., January 5, 2018), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class Members on their cellular telephones via an "automatic telephone dialing system," or using "an artificial or prerecorded voice", without their prior express written consent. The Defendants offer telephone and database solutions to pharmaceutical, direct response and call center industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 Second Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com - and - Benjamin J. Miller, Esq. HIGGINS FIRM PLLC 524 Fourth Avenue South Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 353-0930 Facsimile: (888) 210-5883 E-mail: ben@higginsfirm.com J.A. CAMBECE: "McGriff" Suit Disputes Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------- Valerie McGriff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J.A. Cambece Law Office P.C. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02106, (D. Conn., December 18, 2017), seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. J.A. Cambece sent a collection letter to McGriff attempting to collect a consumer debt from Cach, LLC. Said letter failed to state that interest may be accruing on the debt when it was not currently accruing, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC Law Group, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 JAMES M. O'DEA: Common-Interest Exception Ruling Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, Fourth Division, affirmed the trial court's ruling that recognized the common-interest exception to the waiver rule in the case captioned FRANK SELBY, MARTIN YOUNG, ADRIANA LOPEZ, and KATHERINE SCHEIWE, n/k/a Katherine Polk, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAMES M. O'DEA, Individually and d/b/a James M. O'Dea & Associates, and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY Defendants, (State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee), No. 1-15-1572 (Ill. App.). Between 2006 and 2009, State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company filed a series of subrogation lawsuits through its counsel, James M. O'Dea, individually and doing business as James M. O'Dea & Associates, including suits against Frank Selby, Martin Young, Adriana Lopez, and Katherine Scheiwe, now known as Katherine Polk. In October 2010, these four individuals, as named plaintiffs, filed a purported class-action lawsuit in which they claim that their subrogation lawsuits were part of "a large scale scheme perpetrated by defendants in subrogation lawsuits" to obtain "fraudulent default judgments" against subrogation defendants "by circumventing the State of Illinois [r]ules governing service of process." Plaintiffs claimed that O'Dea, an attorney engaged by State Farm in its subrogation cases, was bypassing the office of the sheriff of Cook County for the purposes of service of summons, using unlicensed process servers, and obtaining default judgments without service of process, resulting in the suspension of their drivers' licenses based on these void judgments and requiring them to take steps to vacate their default judgments. The complaint further alleged an overall scheme involving State Farm and claimed that this scheme was financed by State Farm's payment of invoices from O'Dea for sheriff's fees -- fees that were never incurred, permitting O'Dea to retain these funds for his own use. Relevant to this appeal, plaintiffs sued State Farm for abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and malicious prosecution. The trial court dismissed the abuse-of-process claims for failure to state a claim. The court later entered summary judgment on the claims of civil conspiracy and malicious prosecution. The action is still pending in the trial court against O'Dea. This appeal only concerns the judgments as to State Farm. Plaintiffs appeal from several of the circuit court's orders, including the court's application of the "joint legal defense privilege," other discovery orders, the dismissal of plaintiffs' abuse-of-process action against State Farm for failure to state a claim, and grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims of civil conspiracy and malicious prosecution. The appeals case requires the Ill. App. to decide whether two co- defendants to a lawsuit waived these privileges when they met and shared information about that lawsuit as part of a joint defense agreement they executed. Within the discovery matters alone, there are sub-issues. One is the trial court's recognition of the "joint legal defense privilege." Another is the trial court's refusal to require a privilege log for information it deemed covered by that privilege. Third, plaintiffs complain of a protective order entered in this case to protect confidential and sensitive information disclosed in discovery. Finally, plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in sequencing discovery such that they were permitted to issue discovery requests only regarding the four named plaintiffs and not concerning other members of the purported class of subrogation defendants sued by State Farm and O'Dea during the relevant time period. The Ill. App. held, "Federal courts and many state courts have recognized an exception to the waiver rule in this context, protecting the confidentiality of these joint communications as to third parties. Other states have codified this exception to the waiver rule into statute. Surprisingly, no published decision in Illinois has ever decided whether parties with a common interest in defeating a litigation opponent may share and pool information without waiving their attorney-client and work- product privileges as to third parties." "After considering our supreme court's decisions on related issues and taking into account case law from other jurisdictions, we likewise recognize a common-interest exception to the waiver rule. As in virtually every other jurisdiction, we hold that co- parties in a case who agree to share information pursuant to their common interest in defeating their litigation opponent do not waive either the attorney-client or work-product privilege when they do so." "While we agree with the trial court's recognition of this common-interest exception to the waiver rule, we remand this matter to the trial court to conduct an in camera, communication- by-communication review of the challenged conversations involving the co-defendants and their attorneys." "We vacate the trial court's dispositive rulings the dismissal of one count, the grant of summary judgment on two others pending the outcome of the in camera review, given the possibility that additional facts may become discoverable after that review." A full-text copy of the Ill. App.'s December 7, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9d2s856 from Leagle.com. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Providence's Remicade Suit Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- The case titled, City of Providence, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-05058-JCJ, (E.D. Pa., November 9, 2017), has been consolidated, together with other individual cases comprising the Remicade Class Actions, under docket number 17-cv-04326 and captioned as "In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation." According to a Nov. 21 Stipulation, any additional class action complaints filed in this district containing substantially similar allegations as those in, and related to, In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation and accepted by the Court as such -- Subsequent Action -- shall also be consolidated under docket number 17-cv-04326. Plaintiffs in In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation shall serve written notice of such consolidation on the plaintiff(s) in the Subsequent Action and on any defendant in such Action who is not a party in In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation, and any party in the Subsequent Action shall have 10 days from the date that notice is served to file a motion with the Court objecting to such consolidation and setting forth the basis for objection. Providence's complaint states that J&J engaged in an anti- competitive scheme designed to prevent competition to its blockbuster biologic, Remicade -- infliximab -- thereby raising and maintaining infliximab prices above competitive levels. The Defendant also forced health insurance companies and healthcare providers to enter into exclusionary agreements that effectively blocked competition for Remicade, thus causing Plaintiff and Class members to overpay on their infliximab purchases.[BN] The City of Providence is represented by: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS, PC Two Commerce Sq., Ste 3900 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 735-8700 Fax: (215) 735-5170 E-mail: dgross@kcr-law.com - and - Stephen J. Teti, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: steti@blockesq.com - and - Whitney E. Street, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 610-16th Street Suite 214 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (415) 968-1852 E-mail: whitney@blockesq.com Johnson & Johnson is represented by: Leslie E. John, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP 1735 Market St., 51st Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 864-8212 Fax: (215) 864-9748 E-mail: john@ballardspahr.com - and - Matthew Vahey, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR 1735 Market St 51st Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 575-4252 E-mail: vaheym@ballardspahr.com KEMPER SPORTS: Faces "Lall" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Lall and Andrew Lall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kemper Sports Management, Inc., and The Village Club of Sands Point, Case No. 715118/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 10, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. Kemper Sports Management, Inc. owns and operates more than a dozen membership clubs across the country in different states which provide restaurant, lodging and recreational facilities to members and the public all year round. The Village Club of Sands Point is one of the membership clubs owned and operated by KSM, and which provided restaurant, lodging and recreational facilities to members and the public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 355-9668 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com KOBE STEEL: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that investors filed a class action complaint against Kobe Steel, Ltd. (Other OTC: KBSTY) on behalf of all purchasers of Kobe American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 29, 2013 and October 12, 2017, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Kobe's officers and directors. Kobe engages in materials, machinery, and electric power businesses in Japan, China, and internationally. According to the complaint, on May 29, 2013, Kobe launched a new business plan that was intended to make the company more efficient and profitable for sustained growth. Throughout the class period, Kobe maintained that the business plan was "making steady progress" and emphasized that the company fostered a culture of high ethical standards and was "highly sensitive to compliance issues." To the contrary, Kobe falsified data on its aluminum, copper, and steel products and sold products that failed quality control tests in violation of laws and regulations. On October 10, 2017, Reuters reported that several manufacturers had confirmed use of Kobe's affected products, and on October 13, 2017, several media outlets revealed that the number of impacted customers had more than doubled from the initial estimates of 200 customers. Since news of Kobe's troubles became public, the company's ADRs declined over 40% to close at $3.55 per ADR on October 13, 2017, and have yet to regain their value. If you would like more information about your rights and potential remedies contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350- 6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP, a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law, represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. Leonid Kandinov, Esq. Robbins Arroyo LLP Tel: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN] LIBERTY TAX: "Beland" Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ Patrick Beland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Liberty Tax, Inc., Edward L. Brunot, John T. Hewitt and Kathleen E. Donovan, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07327 (E.D. N.Y., December 15, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Liberty Tax provides tax preparation services and solutions in the United States and Canada with 212 tax offices in New York. Defendants failed to disclose that Liberty Tax's former CEO, John Hewitt created an inappropriate tone at the top that led to ineffective entity level controls over the organization, says the complaint. On this news, shares of Liberty Tax fell $0.80 per share or over 6% from its previous closing price to close at $11.15 per share on December 11, 2017, damaging investors. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com LIBERTY TAX: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Liberty Tax, Inc. (NASDAQ: TAX) who purchased shares between June 29, 2016 and December 11, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws. In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Liberty's former CEO, John T. Hewitt, created an inappropriate tone at the top; (2) the inappropriate tone at the top led to ineffective entity level controls over the organization; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Liberty's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On September 6, 2017, Liberty announced that founder and CEO Hewitt had been terminated. On November 7, 2017, Liberty announced the resignation of Kathleen Donovan, its Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. On December 11, 2017, Liberty report that KPMG LLP resigned as its independent registered public accounting firm and that Liberty would delay the filing of its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2017. Shareholders have until February 13, 2018 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be an absent class member. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sb/liberty-tax-inc?wire=2. Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. [GN] LIDS STORE: Managers May Proceed With Pay Class-Action ------------------------------------------------------ Dave Stafford, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that Indianapolis-based Lids store managers who claim they were denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act cleared the first hurdle January 2 in a proposed class-action lawsuit. Lids, which sells college and professional sports team branded hats and apparel at more than 1,000 stores and kiosks in malls nationwide, is accused of failing to pay managers for overtime under a fluctuating work week method of payment. Under this method, employees are paid a salary whether they work more or less than 40 hours a week. Hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week are compensated at a minimum of one-half the worker's normal hourly pay rate. But the suit alleges Lids store managers didn't receive that overtime compensation and instead were paid a bonus based on meeting sales quotas. Judge Richard Young in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Lids' motion to dismiss the case and granted the managers' motion for conditional certification of an opt-in class of current and former store managers. Young wrote that lead plaintiff Julia Shumate "has made a modest factual showing that she and the potential opt-in plaintiffs were victims of a common policy that violated the FLSA." At this stage, Young wrote, that showing is sufficient to establish a conditional opt-in class. The judge ordered Lids to provide an Excel spreadsheet within 30 days listing the names and last known addresses of non-exempt store managers who were entitled to overtime pay since Feb. 2, 2014. The case is Julia Shumate, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genesco, Inc., Hat World Inc., d/b/a Lids Sports Group, 1:17-cv-3574. [GN] LOBLAW COS: Suit Filed in Manitoba Over Bread Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------- CKOM News reports that a former grand chief from Manitoba is looking for a lot more than a $25 gift card when it comes to price-fixing on Canadian bread. Loblaw and parent company George Weston Ltd. admitted back in December to taking part in what was described as an industry-wide arrangement with other major grocery retailers and another bread wholesaler to co-ordinate price increases between 2001 and 2015. Loblaw has since offered to distribute $25 gift cards by way of an apology to Canadian consumers. However, The Winnipeg Free Press reported January 3 that the price-fixing is now the subject of a class action lawsuit filed in Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench. The Free Press reported that Derek Nepinak, who previously served as grand chief of Manitoba's Assembly of Chiefs, filed the suit on Dec. 29 on behalf of all Canadians who bought bread since 2001. Nepinak is represented by Norman Boudreau of Winnipeg's Boudreau Law firm. The lawsuit reportedly seeks a total of $1 billion in damages from Loblaw, Weston Foods Ltd, Weston Foods Canada Inc., Weston Bakeries Ltd., Canada Bread Company Ltd., Wal-Mart Canada Corp., Sobeys Inc., Metro Inc. and Giant Tiger Stores Ltd. Nepinak's would be at least the third class-action suit filed over the price-fixing scandal, which is also still under investigation by Canada's federal Competition Bureau. None of the claims made in Nepinak's lawsuit have been tested in court. [GN] LRR ENERGY: Court Approves Class Notice & Notice Procedures ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROBERT HURWITZ v. LRR ENERGY L.P., et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-00711-MAK (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order approving Class Notice, Notice Procedures and appointment of Notice Administrator. The Court said, "Each of these notices and protocol satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, due process, other applicable law, and constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constitutes due and sufficient notice to all person and entities entitled thereof with non-material changes to the forms of Notice made without further Order. Defendants, through their counsel, agreed to provide Class Counsel with an electronic copy of the most recent complete mailing list in Defendants' possession and control of all former LRR Energy, L.P. ("LRR")/Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC ("Vanguard") unit holders under the Class definition which list shall be expeditiously turned over to the Notice Administrator to facilitate prompt and efficient mailing of the Print Notice. This list will be submitted to the National Change of Address registry maintained by the United States Postal Service requesting updated address information. Any updated address information will be appended to the data file used to complete the mailing of the Notice. Providing the list shall not waive or otherwise limit the Defendants' right or ability to challenge or object to the inclusion of a specific individual or entity in the Class. Class Counsel is authorized to retain Garden City Group, LLC ("GCG") as the Notice Administrator responsible to create and maintain the website established for this action and supervise and administer the Notice procedure below: a. No later than March 30, 2018, Class Counsel, through the Notice Administrator, shall cause a copy of the Print Notice, substantially in the form submitted to the Court and conformed as needed to comport with this Order, to be mailed by first class mail to all Class members who can be identified with reasonable effort appearing on the mailing list. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EPwUGIfC MAGNOLIA FLOORING: "Franklin" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- McCoy Franklin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Magnolia Flooring Mill, LLC, and Watson Sawmill Incorporated, Case No. 17-cv-01073, (E.D. Ark., December 15, 2017), seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants jointly operate a hardwood flooring manufacturing and installation company where Franklin worked as a forklift operator. He claims overtime for hours rendered over 40 per work week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Joshua West, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com west@sanfordlawfirm.com MARKETRON BROADCAST: Class Cert. Deadline Extended to 180 Days -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RENEE REESE, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKETRON BROADCAST SOLUTIONS, MAG. JUDGE JANIS VAN MEERVELD LLC, STUDIO NETWORK- ORPHEUM, LLC, CITADEL BROADCASTING COMPANY, BREAD WINNERS' ASSOCIATION (BWA), LLC, and ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-09772-SSV-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Sarah S. Vance entered an order on January 18, 2018: 1. granting Ex-Parte/Consent Motion to Extend Deadline for Class Certification to 180 days after the Court rules on Defendant Marketron Broadcast Solutions, LLC's forthcoming Motion to Dismiss; and 2. withdrawing Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and reserving her right to bring it at a later time. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UPl3wUEg MD TLC: Faces "Kaye" Class Suit Over Automated Fax Advertisements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roger H. Kaye and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MD TLC, Inc., Flo Goshgarian and Dianne Quibell a/k/a Dianne Q. Frustaci, Case No. 3:18-cv- 00026-VAB (D. Conn., January 5, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending out over 5,000 unsolicited and solicited fax advertisements for goods and services without proper opt-out notices to persons throughout the United States. The Defendants own and operate a medical cosmetic center located at 25 Walnut Street, Suite 400, Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts 02481. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Inmate's Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned BRUCE PARKER, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN REDDIN et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-956 (W.D. Mich.) is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104- 134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Reddit, Klatt, Stevenson, Stephan, and Andersen have retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment and destroyed his legal property in violation of his right to access the courts. He alleges that all Defendants have subjected him to constant harassment and racial bias in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In addition, he claims that Defendant Washington has failed to protect Plaintiff and all other African-Americans from being targeted on the basis of race. Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Washington, Reddin, Stevenson, and Stephan have denied Plaintiff equal protection and due process solely on the basis of his race. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, together with compensatory and punitive damages. The United States District Court for Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. To the extent that Plaintiff purports to bring his action on behalf of others, his claims will be dismissed. Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of other prisoners. As a layman, Plaintiff may only represent himself with respect to his individual claims, and may not act on behalf of other prisoners. Because Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro se litigant, the Court finds that he is not an appropriate representative of a class. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for class certification. Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. The acts of one's subordinates are not enough, nor can supervisory liability be based upon the mere failure to act. Moreover, Section 1983 liability may not be imposed simply because a supervisor denied an administrative grievance or failed to act based upon information contained in a grievance or complaint from a prisoner. A plaintiff must plead that each Government official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution. Defendants Reddin, Klatt, Stevenson, and Stephan The Court concludes that Plaintiff's allegations against Defendants Reddin, Klatt, Stevenson, and Stephan are sufficient to warrant service of the complaint. The Court determines that Defendants Washington and Andersen will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court also will dismiss Plaintiff's claims on behalf of others and his request for class certification. The Court will serve the complaint against Defendants Reddin, Klatt, Stevenson, and Stephan. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycc864aj from Leagle.com Bruce Parker, named as Bruce-X Parker, plaintiff, Pro Se. MIDLAND CREDIT: Holmes Disputes Vague Collection Letters -------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Holmes, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., Allied Interstate LLC and Atlantic Credit and Finance Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-1752, (E.D. Wisc., December 15, 2017), requests statutory damages, actual damages and attorney's fees and costs of suit along with injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Prior to December 20, 2016, Holmes opened a "Walmart Mastercard" account with Synchrony. She claims that after her credit card defaulted, her account was transferred between the Defendant collection companies, thus resulting in a confusion as to whom to settle her debt with. Midland Funding is engaged in the business of taking title to charged-off consumer debts, including credit card, auto deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national financial institutions, major retail credit corporations, telecom companies and resellers of such portfolios. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. Atlantic is engaged in the business of collecting debts and is a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ML AUTOMOTIVE: "Bernard" Suit over Unpaid Wages Underway -------------------------------------------------------- The case, Jose Bernard and Jose Rojas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ML Automotive Group, LLC doing business as Palmetto57 Auto Group; NM1, LLC doing business as Palmetto57 Auto Group and Palmetto57 Nissan and VWI, LLC doing business as Palmetto57 Auto Group and Palmetto57 Volkswagen, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24131-FAM, (S.D. Fla., November 9, 2017), remains pending. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure of the defendant to pay minimum wages since on or about November 2017 through the present.[BN] The District Court on January 2 issued a series of orders: -- granting Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Initial Estimate of Wage Claims and Preliminary Calculations for good cause shown and for the time period requested. Defendants' response date was moved to January 8, 2018. -- denying as moot Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action. On December 29, 2017, Defendants timely filed their response to Plaintiffs' motion. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time is denied as moot. -- granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Reply in Support of their Motion for Conditional Class Certification for good cause shown and for the time period requested. Plaintiffs' Reply was moved to January 12, 2018. On January 8, the Defendant filed a Response to Notice of Court Practice, Set/Clear Flags Plaintiff's Statement of Claim. Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 665-9211 Facsimile: (305) 328-4842 Email: afs@laborlawfla.com Counsel for Defendant(s): Suhaill Machado Morales, Esq. Susan Potter Norton, Esq. ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. 121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-7801 Facsimile: (305) 442-1578 E-mail: smorales@anblaw.com E-mail: snorton@anblaw.com MONSANTO: Faces "Branum" Suit Over Soybeans & Cotton-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Branum, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-00032 (E.D. Miss., January 8, 2018), is brought on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of Monsanto's genetically modified trait in soybeans and cotton at prices artificially inflated because of an anticompetitive scheme by Monsanto and its conspirators. Monsanto Company is the leading supplier of agricultural products, including biotechnology traits, seeds, and crop protection products, with licenses to other companies and customer sales throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don M. Downing, Esq. Gretchen Garrison, Esq. Jason Sapp, Esq. Kaitlin Bridges, Esq. Jack Downing, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5620 Facsimile: (314) 241-4140 E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com ggarrison@grgpc.com jsapp@grgpc.com kbridges@grgpc.com jdowning@grgpc.com MOTOR VEHICLE ASSURANCE: "Heaton" Hits Illegal Telemarketing ------------------------------------------------------------ John Heaton and Christopher Horigan on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Motor Vehicle Assurance, National Auto Protection Corp. and Sunpath, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-40169, (D. Mass., December 18, 2017), seeks statutory damages for willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all telemarketing communications, and such further relief. Sunpath is a company that offers extended warranties on automobiles. Sunpath hired National Auto Protection Corp to generate new customers. National Auto Protection Corp initiated pre-recorded telemarketing calls to the Paintiffs for the purposes of advertising Sunpath goods and services, using an automated dialing system. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@broderick-law.com - and - Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. Jeremy Cohen, Esq. CW LAW GROUP, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701 Email: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South A venue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Tel: (508) 655-1415 Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net NASSAU, NY: False Arrest Claim in "Bloch" Remains Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration in false arrest and poor jail conditions claims in the case captioned MARILYN BLOCH, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU AND NASSAU COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendants, No. 16-CV-6082 (DRH)(GRB) (E.D.N.Y.). Bloch filed a timely motion for reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff Marilyn Bloch, a resident of Florida, commenced the pro se action against Nassau County and Nassau County Correctional Facility alleging false arrest, poor jail conditions and an unlawful strip search related to an arrest on January 19, 1999. By Order dated June 20, 2017, Judge Mauskopf dismissed the case for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support a Monell claim against Nassau County, the Nassau County Correctional Facility does not have a legal identity separate and apart from the county, and because the challenged actions occurred in 1999, well beyond the three-year statute of limitations applicable to actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec 1983. (See DE 21.) Thereafter, Bloch filed a timely motion for reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint. In her motion, she made clear for the first time that she was seeking "special damages for an illegal strip search on January 18, 1999" as a member of the class certified by this Court in In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 99-CV-2844. The case was therefore reassigned, with the consent of Judge Mauskopf, to the undersigned as presider over that class action to determine the motion for reconsideration and to amend. To the extent that she is seeking to recover for false arrest and poor jail conditions in 1999, these claims are clearly barred as this action was filed in 2016, well beyond the three-year statute of limitations applicable to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Therefore the Court adheres to the earlier determination. In other words, the claims for false arrest and poor jail conditions remain dismissed. The proposed amended complaint seeks damages for an illegal strip search, for holding on Jan. 18, 1999 and for 3 days after illegally done. To the extent the amended complaint seeks damages for the latter two incidents on behalf of Bloch, the motion to amend is futile given the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The motion for reconsideration and to amend the complaint is granted to the following extent: (1) Bloch may file an amended complaint limited to her claim for special damages arising from her strip search at the Nassau County Correctional Center on January 18, 1999; (2) to the extent that Bloch has been appointed administrator or executor for her father's estate, the amended complaint may include a claim solely for special damages arising from her father's strip search at the Nassau County Correctional Center during the class period. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycg2up7b from Leagle.com. Marilyn Bloch, Plaintiff, Pro Se. NEW JERSEY: Residents Might Get Payback from E-ZPass Scam --------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Bichao, writing for New Jersey 101.5, reports that New Jersey resident Jennifer Ahmad's E-ZPass transponder missed a 50- cent toll one day in February and a $1.50 toll on another day. She got hit with a $102 fine. Roman Wach, of Maryland, missed a 75-cent toll in March. His E- ZPass account was fined an extra 50 bucks. Yudelka Reynoso, of Pennsylvania, missed three tolls amounting to $9.65 over the course of two days in April. She ended up paying $159.65. Most people who use E-ZPass might not bother to check their monthly statements. But forget to update that credit card after it expires and you could be in for a shock. That's what happens to tens of thousands of E-ZPass users in New Jersey every year. Now these three customers want a federal court to refund hundreds of millions of dollars to countless drivers who've been hit with the $50 administrative fee since 2011, the year the New Jersey Turnpike Authority doubled it. Their lawsuit seeks class action status, which, If granted, would automatically include all affected E-ZPass users in any settlement. The allegations also could also result in lawmakers in Trenton investigating how the Authority is managing the 20-year-old E- ZPass system. The complaint, filed in December in U.S. District Court, says the $50 fee violates both the 8th Amendment's excessive fines clause and a state law that prohibits profiting off E-ZPass fines. The Authority, which oversees the E-ZPass system in the state and manages the Turnpike and Garden State Parkway, said in 2011 that it needed to double the fee in order to keep up with rising costs of process violations. But according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by New Jersey 101.5, officials may have used inflated and misleading numbers to justify an "exorbitant" fee that the lawsuit describes as an "extortionate money grab," a "massive theft and a most egregious breach of the public trust, which has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains." Does it add up? The lawsuit says the increased fee is being used to generate money that is funneled to the state. Budget documents show that the Authority had more than $200 million in excess revenue last year. The lawsuit points to a January 2011 financial analysis that officials generated to justify the increase. The analysis, using 2010 figures, said that it costs the Authority $51.36 to process each violation. The lawsuit, however, argues that the analysis used numbers based on the previous year's contract with a third-party company. The following year's contract, however, was $15.75 million cheaper. The analysis also assumed a $50 fee to calculate the third-party company's contingency fee instead of using the $25 fee in effect at the time. And the analysis divided the costs by the 664,203 violation payments that the Authority collected the previous year, leaving out the millions of violations that went unpaid. "In other words, NJTA committed itself to the draconian principle that a select few must pay for the sins of many -- 664,204 motorists must pick up the slack for the 8,085,796 motorists that pay nothing," the lawsuit argues. The lawsuit says that dividing the costs of the new contract by the number of collected violations would have generated a $18.37- per-violation cost. Dividing the costs by 10 million annual violations, including those never collected, would have brought the per-violation cost to just $3.41. In a separate financial analysis prepared in 2011, Finance Manager Lou Polise calculated that the $50 fee would generate a profit of more than $8 million, which the lawsuit says proves that that fee increase was unjustified. Tom Feeney, a spokesman for the Authority, declined to respond in detail to the lawsuit, saying only that "literally none of these claims is true." The proposed class action lawsuit is not the first time the administrative fee was challenged last year. In May, E-ZPass users James Long and Homer Walker petitioned the Authority in a challenge to the fee that raised the same points the federal lawsuit later did. In a response to the challenge, the Authority defended the fee as conservative. And unlike previous financial analyses used to justify the raise, the Authority said for the first time that the true costs of processing each violation is actually twice as much as the $50 fee. The Authority said its 2011 calculation did not take into account the hidden costs of processing violations, including the maintenance of the toll-collecting infrastructure such as radar, cameras and antennas to read transponders and plates, as well as computers, fiber optic networks, and the employees who do the work. The Authority also loses money because vast numbers of toll violators never pay. According to budget documents, the Authority lost $19.3 million in uncollected tolls on the Turnpike in 2016 and another $6.5 million on the Parkway. The Authority brought in $1.42 billion and $424.8 million in tolls on each of the highways, respectively. In its answer to the petition, the Authority said taking all those aspects into account would have brought the cost of processing violations in 2010 to $59.5 million, or $91 per violation. As a result of reduced collection costs and the number of collected violations increasing to 718,000 last year, the per- violation cost dropped to $80 -- still much higher than the $50 fee. The Authority argued that trying to calculate a fee on a case-by- case basis would be "impractical and unreasonable" because they would not be able to calculate the cost until they tracked down each violator and got them to pay. The Authority's decision on the petition is being appealed in Superior Court. Taking a Closer Look Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Middlesex, said the issues raised in the lawsuit should be investigated by lawmakers. "It's outrageous that the state of New Jersey would be preying on motorists to balance its budget," the Transportation Committee chairman said January 3 after learning about the lawsuit from New Jersey 101.5. "I think everybody would agree it was never envisioned or contemplated to be a system that would be a slush fund for state government. That's what it has become, and that has got to change." He said no one has an objection to the collection of tolls to fund the operation of those roadways, "but when that mechanism is used to create a windfall for the state to help plug its budget holes, it creates suspicion and animosity by the public that their hard-earned dollars are not being used for their intended purposes." Wisniewski said if the Authority is able to generate surplus money, it should consider eliminating the $1 monthly charge on users or lower its administrative fee. Cathleen Lewis, the director of public affairs and government relations for AAA Northeast, said that fines and fees need to be "fair and reasonable" and that the state should ensure that "monies that are collected for transportation infrastructure stay in transportation infrastructure." Lewis added that this underscores the importance of reviewing statements carefully. "Make sure you're checking your E-ZPass bills. Make sure to look and see if you have those excessive fees or fines on your bills." [GN] NEW ROCHELLE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees --------------------------------------------------------- John Huerta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Rochelle Hotel Associates LLC d/b/a Radisson Hotel New Rochelle and Colby Brock, Case No. 7:18-cv-00102 (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay non-management employees minimum wage for all hours worked and all earned tips and gratuities. The Defendants own and operate Radisson Hotel New Rochelle located at One Radisson Plaza, New Rochelle, New York 10801. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Alison L. Mangiatordi, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com mangiatordi@peltongraham.com NEW YORK: Must Produce Unredacted Relevant ESI in "Bagley" ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order directing the Defendants in the case captioned MICHELLE BAGLEY et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH et al., Defendants, No. 15 CV 4845(FB)(CLP)(E.D.N.Y.), to produce relevant electronically stored information (ESI) without redactions, but subject to a carefully-tailored protective order. Presently before the Court is the parties' dispute regarding whether and under what conditions relating to plaintiffs' claims should be produced. The plaintiffs challenge the design and administration of the Nursing Home Transition and Diversion (NHTD) waiver program, and allege that but for defendants' failure to design and administer New York's Medicaid Plan in accordance with federal law and regulations, plaintiffs would be able to maintain their dignity and independence by safely receiving the care that they need through home and community-based Medicaid services. After a review of the information sought, and based on its familiarity with the case gained through two years of pre-trial supervision, the Court is confident that the instant discovery is sought entirely for proper purposes and is indispensable to the issue of class certification. To the extent that the information sought also relates to the merits of the claims, this case presents circumstances in which it is appropriate to allow some merits discovery prior to certification. The Court therefore orders the defendants to produce relevant ESI without redactions, but subject to a carefully-tailored protective order in order to protect the privacy interests of putative class members and other non-parties. The protective order must provide that: (1) access to and dissemination of any information produced is limited to the parties' attorney only1, (2) the parties are prohibited from using or disclosing protected health information outside of this litigation or for a purpose other than that for which it was requested in this litigation; and (3) any information provided in response to or subject to the protective order must be returned to the provider or destroyed at the end of this litigation. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc826gtu from Leagle.com. Michelle Bagley, Plaintiff, represented by Jacqueline Lee Bonneau -- jbonneau@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. Michelle Bagley, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse A. Townsend -- jtownsend@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Daniel Adam Ross, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Kevin M. Cremin, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Orier Okumakpeyi, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., 100 William St, 6th Fl, New York, NY 10038- 5039 & Michael F. Buchanan -- mfbuchanan@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. Gary Milline, Plaintiff, represented by Jacqueline Lee Bonneau -- jbonneau@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Jesse A. Townsend, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Daniel Adam Ross, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Kevin M. Cremin, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Orier Okumakpeyi, Mobilization for Justice, Inc. & Michael F. Buchanan, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. Hamilton Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jacqueline Lee Bonneau, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Jesse A. Townsend, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Daniel Adam Ross, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Kevin M. Cremin, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Orier Okumakpeyi, Mobilization for Justice, Inc. & Michael F. Buchanan, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. Marcella Urban, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Jacqueline Lee Bonneau, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Jesse A. Townsend, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Daniel Adam Ross, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Kevin M. Cremin, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Orier Okumakpeyi, Mobilization for Justice, Inc. & Michael F. Buchanan, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. The New York State Department of Health, Defendant, represented by John Peter Gasior, Assistant Attorney General. Howard Zucker, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health in his official capacity, Defendant, represented by John Peter Gasior, Assistant Attorney General. Visiting Nurse Association Health Care Services, Inc., doing business as VNA of Staten Island, Defendant, represented by Laura Baldwin Juffa -- ljuffa@kbrlaw.com -- Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Daniel Evan Clarkson -- clarksond@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Francis J. Serbaroli -- serbarolif@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Lauren Beth Grassotti -- lgrassotti@msek.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Stephanie L. Fox - - sfox@kbrlaw.com -- Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP. NISEN SUSHI: "Zeng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sheng Zeng, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Nisen Sushi of Commack, LLC, Tom Lam, Robert Beer, John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 715573/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread of hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage statements, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for violations of the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own, operate, and control a restaurant located at 5032 Jericho Turnpike, Commack, New York 11725. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Ste 9E Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718)353-6288 E-mail: wbrown@hanglaw.com NO PRESSURE: "Armstrong" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Armstrong, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. No Pressure Roof Cleaning LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company and Paul Guitard, individually, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-81356, (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate a pressure cleaning business with operations serving customers throughout Palm Beach, Broward, St. Lucie and Martin Counties. Armstrong worked as a spray technician. He claims to have worked for approximately 55-60 hours per week without overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com NYU LANGONE: Must Defend Against "Sacerdote" Pensions Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Katherine B. Forrest on January 18, 2018, denied, as moot, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case titled, Dr. Alan Sacerdote, Dr. Herbert Samuels, Mark Crispin Miller, Marie E. Monaco, Dr. Shulamith Lala Straussner, and James B. Brown, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the New York University Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration and the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration, the Plaintiffs, v. NYU Langone Hospitals, f/k/a NYU Hospitals Center, NYU Langone Health System, a/k/a NYU School of Medicine, Retirement Plan Committee, Richard Bing, Michael Burke, Catherine Casey, Martin Dorph, Sabrina Ellis, Thomas Feuerstein, Andrew Gordon, Patricia Halley, Tim Hesler, Kathleen Jacobs, Marina Kartanos, Ann Kraus, Margaret Meagher, Cynthia Nascimento, Nancy Sanchez, Tina Surh, Linda Woodruff, Maurice Maertens, Joseph Monteleone, Ray Oquendo and Chris Tang, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08834-UA, (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2017). According to Judge Forrest, Plaintiffs have filed an Amended Complaint as of right. As such, Defendants' pending motion to dismiss is moot. Any new motion or pleading shall be filed according to the applicable rules, she said. The lawsuit seeks to declare that the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and seeks to remove the fiduciaries and enjoin them from future ERISA violations, after Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons lost tens of millions of dollars of their retirement savings.[BN] * * * Robert Steyer, writing for Pensions & Investments' pionline.com, reported on Nov. 21 that participants in two New York University 403(b) plans have filed an amended complaint in federal District Court in New York, alleging that plan executives violated their fiduciary duties in the management of the plans. "A prudent process would have produced a different outcome," the complaint alleged. The complaint, filed Nov. 13 and seeking class-action status, was a follow-up to an original complaint for which U.S. District Court Judge Katherine B. Forrest dismissed most of the plaintiffs' allegations on Aug. 25, 2017. The plans offered more than 100 investment options, including "duplicative funds in numerous investment styles and higher-cost retail shares," said the complaint in Sacerdote et al. vs. NYU Langone Hospitals et al. Plaintiffs alleged that "identical lower-cost" versions of the same funds were available. The plaintiffs argued that the plans paid "excessive administrative fees" in part because the plans had an "inefficient multi-record keeper structure." The record keepers are Vanguard Group Inc. and TIAA-CREF for one of the plans; TIAA-CREF became the sole record keeper of the other plan in late 2012, the complaint said. Neither Vanguard nor TIAA-CREF was named as a defendant. "There is no reason why" one of the plans consolidated record keepers in late 2012 or why the other plan "has failed to do so" even though both have the same fiduciary committee and the same members on this committee overseeing both plans, the complaint said. Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 Email: aschlichter@uselaws.com Defendant NYU Langone Hospitals et al. are represented by: Evan David Parness, Esq. Brian S. Kaplan, Esq. DLA PIPER US LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1104 Tel: 212 335 4782 Fax: 917 778 8577 E-mail: evan.parness@dlapiper.com OMNITRITION INT'L: Court Orders Response to Reconsideration Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order to Respond to Motion for Reconsideration in the case captioned DEANA PATTISON, Plaintiff, v. OMNITRITION INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-1454JLR (W.D. Wash.). The court orders Plaintiff Deana Pattison to respond to Defendants Roger M. Daley and Barbara Daley's motion for reconsideration. Ms. Pattison must limit her response to no more than five pages and must address only the issue of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), raised by the Daleys in their motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd8kv8ad from Leagle.com. Deana Pattison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Tyler K. Firkins -- tfirkins@vansiclen.com -- VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS. Deana Pattison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Victor J. Torres -- vtorres@vansiclen.com -- VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS. Omnitrition International, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas W. Greene -- greened@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC, Heidi Brooks Bradley -- bradleyh@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC & Kristin Beneski -- beneskik@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC. Roger M. Daley, individually and their marital community comprised therewith, Defendant, represented by Douglas W. Greene, LANE POWELL PC, Heidi Brooks Bradley, LANE POWELL PC & Kristin Beneski, LANE POWELL PC. Barbara Daley, individually and their marital community comprised therewith, Defendant, represented by Douglas W. Greene, LANE POWELL PC, Heidi Brooks Bradley, LANE POWELL PC & Kristin Beneski, LANE POWELL PC. PARKRIDGE PRIVATE: School Lacks Accreditation, Santos et al Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Efrain Santos and Evelyn Lambert, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Parkridge Private School, Inc.; Joan Marie Horton; Stephanie Marie McDaniel; and Does 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No. BC683528, (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 13, 2017), seeks restitution, an order to cease and desist, and other relief based on violations of the Business and Professions Code and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the lawsuit, the United States Department of Education conducted an investigation into Parkridge and the institution was discovered to be unaccredited. Parkridge offers diplomas or certification for a fee but requires little or no education or coursework. Parkridge charged students such as the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons a flat fee for their diploma. The US DOE investigation revealed that officials from Parkridge devised a scheme in which students could get a high school diploma from the online Parkridge Private School. The Plaintiffs allege Fraud and Deceit, Negligent Misrepresentation, violations of the Business and Professions Code, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Conspiracy to Commit Common Law Fraud.[BN] On Dec. 12, 2017, Presiding Judge Ann I. Jones held an initial status conference and entered an Order determining that the case is complex. Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark J. Skapik, Esq. Geralyn L. Skapik, Esq. Blair J. Berkley, Esq. SKAPIK LAW GROUP 5861 Pine Avenue, Suite A-l Chino Hills, CA 91709-6540 Telephone: (909) 398-4404 Facsimile: (909) 398-1883 Email: mskapik@skapiklaw.com Email: gskapik@skapiklaw.com Email: bberkley@skapiklaw.com PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: To Pay $4BB to Settle US Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Straits' Times reports that Brazil's state-controlled oil company Petroleo Brasileiro on January 3, 2017 agreed to pay US$2.95 billion (S$3.95 billion) to settle a US class action corruption lawsuit, in what is said to be the biggest such payout in the United States by a foreign entity. Petrobras denied any wrongdoing in the deal, which was one of the largest securities class action settlements in US history. With the settlement, it will pay out more than six times what it has received so far under a Brazilian probe into bribery schemes that involved company executives and government officials. The settlement, smaller than many analysts anticipated, was an important milestone for the oil firm as it tries to emerge from the scandal that has entangled two former Brazilian presidents and dozens of the country's corporate executives. But the deal reduces chances that the world's most indebted oil company will pay a dividend for 2017, much anticipated by investors who have not seen such payments since 2014 when the scandal came to light, a source said. For the last four years, Brazil has been rocked by the so-called Car Wash investigation into kickbacks from contractors to executives of state-run companies and politicians in return for public projects. The settlement put an end to "extremely high uncertainty" about the company's potential liability, JPMorgan said in a client note, adding that it had expected a figure above US$5 billion. Analysts at Brazilian bank BTG Pactual said the market had expected a settlement of US$5 billion to US$10 billion. Moody's brushed off concerns about the impact of the settlement on the company's balance sheet, noting it was expected to generate some US$30 billion in cash this year and make capital investments of around US$15 billion. "Petrobras' liquidity position is adequate and the payment of the agreed class action settlement amount is not a material concern," it said. Mr Jeremy Lieberman, Esq. an attorney for the investors, called the deal an "excellent result" and said it was the largest involving a foreign securities issuer in the US. The deal came as the US Supreme Court is set to consider whether to hear Petrobras' appeal of a lower court decision certifying the case as a class action. Petrobras said it and the investors would ask the Supreme Court to put off considering the case while the settlement awaits approval. If the Supreme Court does take the case, it could delay its resolution for years. US District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan must still approve the accord. Investors had sued Petrobras after prosecutors in Brazil accused executives of accepting more than US$2 billion in bribes over a decade, mainly from construction and engineering companies. In a securities filing on January 3, Petrobras claimed it was a victim and denied wrongdoing, adding that it has recovered only 1.475 billion reais (S$607 million) for itself from the Car Wash investigation. But its market value has plunged as its central role in the scheme continues to be unwound by investigators. Petrobras said it hoped the settlement would resolve all investor claims in the US where 13 individual lawsuits remain open, following settlements in 20 other cases. Some claims involving non US-based Petrobras securities purchased outside the US also still remain open. The new settlement came days after Brazil's securities regulator CVM formally accused eight former Petrobras executives of corruption. The accusations relate to possible irregularities in the contracting process for three drilling ships, according to a legal filing by the regulator last January 5. Among the accused in CVM's filing are former Petrobras chief executives Maria das Gracas Foster and Jose Sergio Gabrielli. [GN] PIRATA TAPAS: "Escobar" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread of Hours Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Ricardo Bahena Escobar, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pirata Tapas, Inc., Freddy Tejada, Dewin Rafael Mateo and Elvis Martinez, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09850 (S.D. N.Y., December 15, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and New York Labor Law and "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located at 3950 Tenth Avenue, Store 1, New York, NY 10034 under the name "Viale" where Bahena was employed as a cook. She allegedly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in "Pollak" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BRACHA POLLAK and DAVID BENELI, the Plaintiffs, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-04025-BRM-DEA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti entered an order on January 17, 2018: 1. denying Plaintiffs' and PRA's Motions for Summary Judgment as to the issue of whether the LL1 Letter violated section 1692e(5) and section 1692e(10) by threatening imminent or immediate legal action; 2. denying Plaintiffs and PRA's Motions for Summary Judgment as to whether the LL1 Letter violates section 1692e(10) by setting a 30-day deadline to respond; 3. granting PRA's Motion and denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the issue of whether PRA violated section 1692e(3) and section 1692e(10) by referencing the "Litigation Department"; 4. granting PRA's Motion as to the issue of whether it violated section 1692e(10) by stating the Account was transferred to the Litigation Department; 5. grating Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class; and 6. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to submit an appropriate motion for approval of class notification for the Court's approval within 30 days of entry of the accompanying Order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tkbkARGz POSTAL FLEET: "Brooks" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Ernest Brooks, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Postal Fleet Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02120, (N.D. Ala., December 18, 2017), seeks to recover any and all unpaid compensation owed, liquidated damages, equitable and injunctive relief, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Postal Fleet Services, Inc. provides mail transportation for the United States Postal Services where Brooks was employed at its Chelsea, Alabama location as an assistant manager, regularly working eighty hours a week without overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: J. Allen Schreiber, Esq. Lauren E. Miles, Esq. SCHREIBER LAW FIRM, P.C. 6 Office Park Circle, Suite 209 Birmingham, AL 35223 Phone: (205) 971-9140 Tel: allen@schreiber.law lauren@schreiber.law PRAIRIE PIZZA: "Chenkus" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Heather Chenkus and Gene Michael Christiansen, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Prairie Pizza, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00723 (W.D. N.C., December 15, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Prairie Pizza operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores including in and around the Charlotte, North Carolina area where Plaintiffs worked as delivery driver. Delivery drivers use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to its customers. Plaintiff claims that vehicle reimbursement rates are unreasonably low that the unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. PHIL GIBBONS LAW, P.C. 15720 Brixham Hill Ave #331 Charlotte, NC 28227 Tel: (704) 612-0038 Fax: (704) 612-0038 Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com - and - J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER LAW PC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 288-8519 Fax: (214) 346-5909 fax PROPETRO SERVICES: Blanco Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Blanco and Jessie Bishop, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Propetro Services, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00253 (W.D. Tex., December 15, 2017), seeks overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. ProPetro Services, Inc. is an oilfield services company operating throughout North America, including in New Mexico. Blanco was employed by ProPetro as an equipment operator from August 2012 to March 2016 while Bishop was employed as a flowback operator and then a Coil Operator from March 2015 to April 2016. Both regularly worked 80 or more hours in a week without overtime, the complaint asserts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com mparmet@brucknerburch.com QUDIAN INC: Foat Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------- Bryan D. Foat, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Qudian Inc., Min Luo, Chao Zhu, Li Du, Shilei Li, Yi Cao, Lianzhu Lv, Carl Yeung, Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited, UBS Securities LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Needham & Company, LLC, and Nomura Securities International, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-09875, (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933. Qudian is an online provider of credit products in China. Plaintiff purchased Qudian American Depository Shares in the Company's October 17, 2017 initial public offering. Qudian was involved in security breaches and unauthorized access to its customers confidential information. Plaintiff lost substantially when the value of Qudian American Depository Shares declined subsequent to this incident. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 (fax) Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Tel: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Fax: (770) 392-0029 Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com REHAB SYNERGIES: Faces "Loy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Loy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rehab Synergies, LLC, Case No. 7:18-cv-000 (S.D. Tex., January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime pay for all hours worked 40 in a workweek. Rehab Synergies, LLC provides residential and transitional healthcare services in approximately 46 Skilled Nursing Facilities throughout the state of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles S. Siegel, Esq. WATERS KRAUS & PAUL 3141 Hood Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 357-6244 Facsimile: (214) 357-7252 E-mail siegel@waterskraus.com - and - WM. Paul Lawrence II, Esq. WATERS KRAUS & PAUL 3141 Hood Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 357-6244 Facsimile: (214) 357-7252 E-mail plawrence@waterskraus.com - and - Caitlyn E. Silhan, Esq. WATERS KRAUS & PAUL 3141 Hood Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 357-6244 Facsimile: (214) 357-7252 E-mail csilhan@waterskraus.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. David Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com ROADRUNNER TRANS: Discovery in "Christian" Suit to End May 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ The case titled, Darrow Christian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 04524-SCJ (N.D. Ga., November 9, 2017), remains pending. RoadRunner filed its answer to the complaint on Dec. 6, 2017. Discovery ends on May 7, 2018. The Plaintiff states that he was employed by the Defendant as a forklift operator and he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff one and one- half times his regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 hours in any given workweek. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees were non-exempt employees. The Defendant willfully failed to properly compensate them for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours during a given workweek.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dean R. Fuchs, Esq. SCHULTEN WARD TURNER & WEISS, LLP 260 Peachtree Street, N.W. Suite 2700 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 688-6800 Facsimile: (404) 688-6800 Email: d.fuchs@swtwlaw.com Counsel For Defendant(s): Andrew J. Butcher, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C. Suite 600 30 West Monroe St. Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 255-7200 - and - David Frank Root, Esq. CARLOCK COPELAND & STAIR, LLP Suite 3600 191 Peachtree St., NE Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 522-8220 Facsimile: (404) 523-2345 E-mail: droot@carlockcopeland.com - and - Paul D. Root, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C. Suite 1400 10 West Market St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 - and - Abby C. Grozine, Esq. CARLOCK COPELAND & STAIR, LLP Suite 3600 191 Peachtree St., NE Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 522-8220 Facsimile: (404) 523-2345 E-mail: agrozine@carlockcopeland.com SAN DIEGO ACCOUNTS: Clark Sues Over Vague Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Clark, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. San Diego Accounts Service, a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02529 (S.D. Cal., December 18, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Plaintiff received a collection letter dated April 27, 2017 from Defendant, attempting to collect a debt in the amount of $77.49 from Plaintiff. It did not state that the $77.49 debt is increasing due to accruing interest, late charges, or other fees. In fact, it is completely devoid of any language that would either confirm or deny the existence of acquiring interest, late charges, or other fees, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq. MASHIRI LAW FIRM 11251 Rancho Carmel Drive #500694 San Diego, CA 92150 Tel: (858) 348-4938 Fax: (858) 348-4939 Email: alexmashiri@yahoo.com - and - Tamim Jami, Esq. THE JAMI LAW FIRM P.C. 3525 Del Mar Heights Rd #941 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 284-0248 Fax: (858) 284-0977 Email: tamim@jamilaw.com SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify ISR Class & Subclass --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SCI Direct, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), Nicole Romano and Jon Bono will move the Court on March 19, 2018, for an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification concerning violations of the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law, on behalf of: ISR Class: "all persons who worked for Defendants in California, as an Independent Sales Representative, who were, at any time within four years of the filing of the Complaint, classified as an independent contractor"; and Terminated ISR Subclass: "all members of the ISR Class whose working relationship ended during the Class Period". The Plaintiffs will also move the Court for their appointment as Class Representatives, and for appointment of their attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h9y8ykAq Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com bacon@toddflaw.com SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SCI Direct, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), Nicole Romano and Jon Bono will move this Court on March 19, 2018, for an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of: "all persons who worked for Defendants in the United States, as an Independent Sales Representative, who were, at any time between April 6, 2014 and present, classified as an independent contractor, and worked overtime hours but were not paid overtime wages or minimum wages during all or part of their employment." A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jp9XFoxU Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Gov't Can Intervene in Shareholders' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting the United States' Motion to Intervene in the case captioned LOU BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14cv2129-MMA (AGS) (S.D. Cal.). The United States filed a second unopposed motion to intervene for the limited purpose of extending the partial stay of discovery in this case through April 2, 2018. Plaintiffs commenced the class action against Defendants, alleging violations of federal securities laws. Discovery is currently ongoing in this action, with a fact discovery cutoff date of January 22, 2018. The Court finds that permissive intervention is appropriate for the same reasons articulated in the Court's previous order. First, the United States' motion is timely because discovery is ongoing. Second, the United States does not assert a new claim based on state law; thus, the Court has independent grounds for jurisdiction. Third, the civil action and the criminal investigation clearly involve common questions of law and fact, as the Department of Justice is investigating the same disclosures and public statements made by SeaWorld and its executives which form the basis of the civil complaint. The Court concludes, in its discretion, that the United States may intervene to extend the partial stay of discovery. Accordingly, the Court grants the government's motion to intervene for the limited purpose of extending the partial stay of discovery in the civil action. The United States moves to extend the partial stay civil discovery in this action in light of the ongoing criminal investigation. The Court finds that the Keating factors weigh in favor of a extending the temporary and partial stay of discovery. First, the parties do not oppose extending the partial stay. Additionally, as noted above, the United States does not seek an indefinite stay; rather, the United States seeks to stay depositions for approximately four months. Further, the nature of the criminal investigation and the subject matter of the civil action are substantially similar. The Court grants the United States' motion to extend the partial stay of discovery through April 2, 2018. The Court grants the government's motion to intervene and to extend the partial stay of discovery. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya2gaag7 from Leagle.com. Lou Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ethan Thomas Boyer -- eboyer@noonanlance.com -- Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP. Lou Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory M. Castaldo -- gcastaldo@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona -- jdancona@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua A. Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Megan Koneski -- mkoneski@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice & Michael K. Yarnoff -- myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice. Pensionskassen for Borne-Og UngdomspAedagoger, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley E. Beckworth, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, 3600 N Capital of Texas Hwy Ste B350 Austin, TX 78746-3308, pro hac vice, David J. Noonan -- dnoonan@noonanlance.com -- Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Eli R. Greenstein -- egreenstein@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ethan Thomas Boyer, Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Megan Koneski, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice & Michael K. Yarnoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice. Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley E. Beckworth, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac vice, Cody L. Hill, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac vice, David J. Noonan, Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Eli R. Greenstein, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ethan Thomas Boyer, Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Lloyd Nolan Duck, III, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Megan Koneski, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Michael K. Yarnoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Whatley, Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP, pro hac vice. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chet A. Kronenberg -- ckronenberg@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee -- dean.mcgee@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman -- jgochman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp -- meredith.karp@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice. James M Heaney, Defendant, represented by Chet A. Kronenberg, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Youngwood, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice. Marc Swanson, Defendant, represented by Chet A. Kronenberg, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Youngwood, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice. The Blackstone Group L.P., Defendant, represented by Chet A. Kronenberg, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Youngwood, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice. James Atchison, Defendant, represented by Michael Joseph Diver -- michael.diver@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Lohnes -- michael.lohnes@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice, Richard H. Zelichov -- richard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Gil M. Soffer -- gil.soffer@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & Jason Yuegin Kelly -- jason.kelly@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. The Blackstone Group, L.P., Defendant, represented by Dean Michael McGee -- dean.mcgee@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice. The Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System, Third-Party Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Almeida -- jalmeida@gelaw.com - - Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice & Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP. Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Almeida, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP. United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Michael John Rinaldi, U.S. Department of Justice. SIGNET JEWELERS: Sued by "Aydin" Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ Nebil Aydin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Signet Jewelers Limited, Virginia C. Drosos and Michele L. Santana, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09853 (S.D. N.Y., December 15, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. Signet is a retailer of diamond jewelry with stores in North America and in the United Kingdom. On November 21, 2017, Signet issued a press release disclosing that its third quarter 2017 store sales were down five percent, in part due to systems and process disruptions associated with outsourcing of the credit portfolio. On this news, Signet's share price fell $23.05 per share, or 30.4%, to close at $52.79 per share on November 21, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume. Signet allegedly failed to timely disclose these material facts to its stockholders, thus Signet's securities were traded at artificially inflated prices during the said period, notes the complaint. Plaintiff owns common stock of Signet. BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 SMZ IMPEX: "Mathew" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Roy Mathew, Abdur Howlader and Jayson Yesudasan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SMZ Impex, Inc., Farm and Grocery, Inc., Kusum Shah, individually, Bharat Shah, individually, Jigar Shah, individually, Mangesh Shah, individually and Jagesh Shah, individually, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-9870 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2017), seeks damages and equitable relief based on violations of minimum wage, overtime provisions and tip credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, anti-retaliation and wage statements provisions of the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, spread of hours violations and meal breaks provisions pursuant to New York Labor Law. Defendants own and operate an East Village-based grocery store. Defendants worked for SMZ as delivery drivers, cashiers and night watchman, typically working between 9-12 hours per day without overtime premium, and claims to have never received a wage statement. Mathew was eventually terminated for complaining, while Howlader and Yesudasan resigned. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 227-5700 Email: chaya@norinsberglaw.com SOOTHE INC: Faces "Haris" Class Suit Over Automated Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Arezo Haris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Soothe, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00106-HSG (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of using an automatic telephone dialing system in order to deliver telemarketing messages without prior express written consent. Soothe, Inc. is a massage service provider located at 1800 North Highland Avenue, Suite 600, Los Angeles, California 90028. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.L. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 272-7014 Facsimile: (619) 330-1819 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Sued Over Thomas Fire ------------------------------------------------- Beth Farnsworth, writing for keyt.com, reports that a Westlake attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit blames Southern California Edison (SCE) for starting the Thomas Fire. Alex Robertson, Esq. the head of Robertson and Associates, LLP, told NewsChannel 3 that he has roughly 50 clients impacted by the devastating wildfire and expects to represent many more. "It's really a tragic story and just a catastrophic loss for the community," Robertson said January 4 by phone. Robertson said the lawsuit alleges SCE started the fire in a canyon near Anlauf Canyon Road, above Steckel Park, He said SCE crews were working in the canyon weeks before the flames broke out on December 4, he believes, replacing poles. "Our client said she saw this power pole with the blown transformer on it taken out," Robertson said. "There were two Cal Fire trucks in the lead and the Edison flatbed with the evidence of the pole and two Cal Fire investigator trucks behind and it was a whole procession that came down the canyon." Robertson said power lines/poles are the second leading cause of wildfires in California and by law, power companies must preserve evidence of "the ignition source of wildfires." Robertson said he is representing roughly 40 clients in Ventura, 10 in Upper Ojai and two in Santa Barbara County; one in the Toro Canyon area of Montecito and one in Carpinteria. The trial attorney also filed suit against the City of Ventura for failing to have backup generators to operate the pumps when the power went out. "We allege that's why so many neighborhoods were completely destroyed, every house is gone," Robertson said. "There was no water." Robertson says firefighters simply had no water pressure for the hillside hydrants when the fire came roaring over the hill into the city between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on December 5. Robertson anticipates representing even more residents impacted by the Thomas Fire. [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINE: Pays $15-Mil. to Settle Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS DFW reports that Southwest Airline will pay $15 million dollars to settle class-action lawsuits. The lawsuits accuse the four biggest U.S. airlines of conspiring to boost prices by holding down the supply of tickets for sale. Dallas-based Southwest Airline denies breaking the law, but says it settled to avoid the expense of more litigation. Officials with American Airline and United Airline say they will continue to defend themselves against the lawsuits. Representatives for Delta Airline did not immediately comment. Lawyers for consumers filed dozens of lawsuits against the airlines in mid-2015. The feds demanded documents from the airlines to see if they were colluding to limit capacity, and the number of seats to keep prices high. The U.S. Justice Department hasn't taken any further action. [GN] STARWORKS LLC: "Frost" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Colleen Frost, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Starworks LLC, d/b/a Starworks Group LLC and Vice Media LLC, the Defendants, Case No. BC682547, (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, November 13, 2017), seeks claims under the California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint alleges that Defendants staffed Plaintiff and other VIP Showroom Interns in Starworks's Fashion Showroom where it houses clothing, beauty products, and other luxury items. Defendants assigned manual labor and other tasks to Interns in Starworks' Fashion Showroom, also they determined the work schedules and were required to run errands which they were not reimbursed. The Defendants failed to pay them overtime and thus violated and continue to violate the overtime provisions of the state Labor Code. Also, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and class members with wage statements that clearly itemize their hours worked, an hourly wage, overtime, or other earnings.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Bien, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 Email: rmb@outtengolden.com STATE FARM FIRE: Faces "Carson" Suit in Medina County, Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company on January 11, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas Medina County. The case is styled as Tim Carson and Gabrielle Gillota, Plaintiffs v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, American Consulting Inc., American Structurepoint Inc., American Consulting Inc. and American Consulting Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18CIV0041. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: THOMAS CONNICK, Esq. 25550 CHAGRIN BLVD STE 101 CLEVELAND, OH 44122 TERRIBLE HERBST: Dismissal of Wage & Hour Class Suit Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------ The Supreme Court of Nevada issued an Opinion vacating the Judgment of the District Court granting in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JOHN W. NEVILLE, JR., ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ADRIANA ESCOBAR, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and TERRIBLE HERBST, INC., Real Party in Interest, No. 70696 (Nev.). Neville filed a class-action complaint against Terrible Herbst alleging (1) failure to pay wages in violation of the Nevada Constitution's Minimum Wage Amendment, Nev. Const. art. 15, Section 16; (2) failure to compensate for all hours worked in violation of NRS 608.016; (3) failure to pay overtime in violation of NRS 608.018; (4) failure to timely pay all wages due and owing in violation of NRS 608.020 through NRS 608.050; and (5) breach of contract. All of Neville's NRS Chapter 608 claims also referred to NRS 608.140. The district court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing Neville's NRS Chapter 608 claims on the basis that no private right of action exists. The district court also dismissed Neville's claim pursuant to the Nevada Constitution's Minimum Wage Amendment, concluding that there is no private right of action under the Nevada Constitution for minimum wage claims. The only cause of action that the district court did not dismiss was Neville's breach of contract claim. A writ petition followed. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. Where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, extraordinary relief may be available. Whether a writ of mandamus will be considered is within this court's sole discretion. In this case, the district court's dismissal of Neville's claim under the Nevada Constitution's Minimum Wage Amendment indisputedly was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion, the state Supreme Court held. The constitution expressly provides for a private cause of action to enforce the provisions of the Minimum Wage Amendment. Neville argues that the district court erred in dismissing his NRS Chapter 608 claims (payment for hours worked, overtime, and payment upon termination) on the basis that there is no private right of action to enforce those claims under that chapter. In particular, Neville contends that the relevant statutes, as well as precedent from this court, expressly allow employees to seek unpaid wages in court. Terrible Herbst maintains that there is no private right of action under NRS Chapter 608 to support Neville's claims. Because NRS 608.016, NRS 608.018, and NRS 608.020 through NRS 608.050 do not expressly state whether an employee could privately enforce their terms, Neville may only pursue his claims under the statutes if a private cause of action for unpaid wages is implied. The determinative factor is always whether the Legislature intended to create a private judicial remedy. The state Supreme Court concludes that the Legislature intended to create a private cause of action for unpaid wages pursuant to NRS 608.140. It would be absurd to think that the Legislature intended a private cause of action to obtain attorney fees for an unpaid wages suit but no private cause of action to bring the suit itself. The Legislature enacted NRS 608.140 to protect employees, and the legislative scheme is consistent with private causes of action for unpaid wages under NRS Chapter 608. Neville's NRS Chapter 608 claims involve allegations that wages were unpaid and due to him at the time he brought his suit before the district court. Moreover, in his complaint, Neville tied his NRS Chapter 608 claims with NRS 608.140. Thus, the state Supreme Court concluded that Neville has and properly stated a private cause of action for unpaid wages. As a result, granting Terrible Herbst's motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) was improper. Accordingly, the state Supreme Court grants Neville's petition for extraordinary writ relief and directs the clerk of the court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to vacate its order dismissing Neville's claims. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's December 7, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxkupsj from Leagle.com. Thierman Buck, LLP, and Joshua D. Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Leah L. Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com -- and Mark R. Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Reno, for Petitioner. Littler Mendelson, P.C., and Rick D. Roskelley -- rroskelley@littler.com -- Kathryn B. Blakey -- kblakey@littler.com -- Roger L. Grandgenett, II -- rgrandgenett@littler.com -- and Montgomery Y. Pack -- mpaek@littler.com -- Las Vegas, for Real Party in Interest. Sutton Hague Law Corporation, P.C., and S. Brett Sutton and Jared Hague, Reno, for Amicus Curiae Nevada Restaurant Association. THEDACARE INC: Court Decertifies Employees Class ------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled JUELAINE MILLER et al., the Plaintiffs, v. THEDACARE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00506-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for final certification and to certify a class of: "all persons who have been or are employed by ThedaCare at the Appleton Medical Center or Theda Clark Medical Center hospitals on an hourly basis as direct patient care providers, administrative associates, unit resource associates and employees of the Staffing Resources department at any time three years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit to the present whose scheduled hours included an automatic deduction for unpaid meal breaks and who were denied minimum wage or overtime wages for hours for compensable "oncall" time and/or hours performing work during unpaid meal periods." 2. granting Defendant's motion to decertify, decertifying collective action and dismissing claims of the opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice; 3. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to notify the opt-in plaintiffs of this order decertifying the class and informing them of their ability to bring individual claims and warning them that the statute of limitations on their ability to file suit has resumed running. 4. directing Clerk to set this matter on the court's calendar in not less than ten days for a telephone conference to address further scheduling. A copy of the Order available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SbOSWV6u TOKYO STATESBORO: "Eigenberger" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Kyra Eigenberger and Danielle Tuck, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tokyo Statesboro GA, LLC and Ling Lin, Case No. 17-cv-00160, (S.D. Ga., December 15, 2017), seeks compensation for all unpaid and underpaid wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates Tokyo Japanese Restaurant where Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as waitresses, earning compensation solely from tips despite rendering over 40 hours per work week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq. THE KASPER FIRM LLC 152 New Street, Suite 109B Macon GA 31201 Tel: (404) 994-3128 Email: tyler@kaspersfirm.com ULTIMATE FITNESS: Cline Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads ----------------------------------------------------- Christopher Cline, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-81364 (S.D. Fla., December 18, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. Defendant operates an Orangetheory franchise fitness studio located at 6000 Broken Sound Parkway, NW, Suite 201, in Boca Raton FL. Cline was a member in 2016 and received unsolicited text messages even after his membership lapsed. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Steven G. Wenzel, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Tel: (813) 223-6545 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: swenzel@wfclaw.com - and - Shanon Carson, Esq. Arthur Stock, Esq. Lane L. Vines, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-875-5704 Fax: 215-875-4604 Email: scarson@bm.net astock@bm.net lvines@bm.net - and - James A. Hunter, Esq. HUNTER AND KMIEC 255 West 94th St., No. 10M New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (646) 666-0122 Facsimile: (646) 462-3356 Email: hunter@hunterkmiec.com UNITED AUTO CREDIT: "Camayd" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeannette Camayd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Auto Credit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-24538, (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2017), seeks statutory damages of up to $1,500 dollars per call for each willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all telemarketing communications and such further relief. United Auto Credit Corporation, is a California based non-prime automotive lender conducting business across the country. Camayd received automated calls from Defendant in an attempt to collect an alleged debt that she did not incur. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Max Story, Esq. Austin Griffin, Esq. MAX STORY PA 328 2nd Avenue North Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 Tel: (904) 372-4109 Fax: (904) 758-5333 Email: max@storylawgroup.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Amy L. Wells, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 726-1092 Fax: (312) 726-1093 Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com AWells@KeoghLaw.com VITA-MIX CORP: Select Blender Owners to Get $70 Gift Card --------------------------------------------------------- Lindsey Murray, writing for Good Housekeeping, reports that if you own a Vitamix blender, you could be entitled to a compensation thanks to a class-action lawsuit settlement. Vita-Mix Corporation agreed to a preliminary settlement last fall for a class-action lawsuit that developed after owners claimed that tiny pieces of a black nonstick coating on the blender chipped off into food and drinks. Based on the settlement, owners of select models are eligible to receive a $70 Vitamix gift card or a new blade assembly. Affected models included in the settlement have a blade assembly date between January 1, 2007 and October 1, 2016. The blade assembly date can be found on the top side on one of the blades. You may also be eligible if you purchased your appliance through a third party and not directly from Vitamix on or after September 15, 2015 but before August 9, 2016. The proposed settlement notice claims nearly 6 million Vitamix blenders are affected, however Vitamix denies that this number is accurate. "Vitamix does not know the number of blenders affected because not all blenders experienced flecking, but we anticipate that the number of claimants will be small," Scott Tennant, director of communications for the company, explained to Consumer Reports. Owners who are entitled to the settlement have started being notified by email or mail as of January 2, and will need to file a claim by September 28, 2018. If you believe your Vitamix was affected, you can fill out a claim form at blendersettlement.com. If you are unsure if you are included in this settlement or have other questions, you can visit the settlements Frequently Asked Questions page or contact the Settlement Administration toll-free at 1-855-233-4747. Vitamix provided GoodHousekeeping.com with the following statement: "We have been involved in class action litigation relating to seals in the bottom of older containers. We began replacing those seals in 2015, and all containers coming off our production line now have the new seal. We have agreed to a preliminary settlement in the interest of putting this matter behind us so we can continue moving forward with our purpose and mission -- to create relationships for life by designing, developing and producing the world's best performing and most reliable blending solutions. We deny any liability in the case and disagree with many of the characterizations made by the plaintiffs, including any attempt to put a value on the settlement, which won't be known until all claims have been made. Typically, in such litigation the actual number of people who participate in a class settlement is very small." [GN] ZION HEALTH: "Shin" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JONG ICK SHIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DIANA LEE, ZION HEALTH TECH, INC., and ION CO. LTD., and DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01225-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), Jong Ick Shin will move the Court on February 26, 2018, for an order certifying following classes defined as: (a) all persons who purchased the Zion Health Tech, Inc.' Ionizers, which includes SMART3000, SMART 5000, SMART7000, and SMART 9000, throughout the United States, on or after June 1, 2012. Excluded from the Class are Defendants Zion, Ion, and Lee, their affiliates, employees, officers and directors, persons or entities that distribute or sell the Ionizer, the Judge(s) assigned to this case, and the attorneys of record in this case.; (b) all persons who purchased the Zion Health Tech, Inc.' Ionizers, which includes SMART3000, SMART 5000, SMART7000, and SMART 9000, in California, on or after June 1, 2012. Excluded from the Class are Defendants Zion, Ion, and Lee, their affiliates, employees, officers and directors, persons or entities that distribute or sell the Ionizer, the Judge(s) assigned to this case, and the attorneys of record in this case. The Plaintiff also asks Court to appoint himself as Class Representative, and appoint Law Office of Juan Hong as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OsBXDs5S Attorney for Plaintiff: Juan Hong, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUAN HONG, A LAW CORP. 4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 509 6505 Facsimile: (949) 335 6647 E-mail: jhong48@gmail.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *